Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
Jimenez vs Francisco Francisco (2014) (2014) Facts: ari ario o Cres Cres!o !o (a" (a"a ar" ar" #ime #imene ne$) $) %le& %le& a com! com!la lain intt 'or 'or esta esta'a 'a agai agains nstt Caro Caroli line ne Castane&a #imene$ (com!lainant in the &isbarment case) an& seeral others ith the *+ce o' the Cit Prosec-tor o' a"ati Cit. Cit. #imene$ claime& to be the tr-e an& bene%cial oner o' the shares o' stoc" in Clarion realt an& Deelo!ment Cor!oration (Clarion) hich as incor!orate& 'or the !-r!ose o' !-rchasing a resi&ential ho-se locate& in Forbes Par". he Forbes ho-se as !-rchase& 'or P11/,000,000 b-t it as -n&eral-e& to ma"e it a!!ear that it as sol& 'or onl P/,000,000. Later on, #imene$ as in'orme& b his laer, Att. E&gar Francisco, that Caroline 'ra-&-lentl sol& the Forbes !ro!ert to Philmetro o-thest Enter!rise 'or P11 million. his sale as again -n&eral-e& at P/ million. herea'ter, #imene$, ith the assistance o' Att. Francisco, s-e& them 'or esta'a. Caroline as shoc"e& an& 'elt betrae& es!eciall b Att. Francisco as he as the one ho assiste& her ith the transactions. Att. Francisco also ha!!ene& to be the legal co-nsel o' Clarion. ence, she %le& a com!laint against him ith the 34P5C4D, see"ing his &isbarment, on the basis o' the a+&ait eec-te& b Att. Francisco in the esta'a case. *n his !art, Att. Francisco arg-e& that he &i& not iolate the r-le on &isclos-res o' !riilege& comm-nication nor the !roscri!tion against re!resenting con7icting interests, on the gro-n& that he as the !ersonal co-nsel o' #imene$ an& not o' Caroline. he 34P5C4D 'o-n& that Att. Att. Francisco iolate& the r-les on !riilege& comm-nication an& an& con7 con7ic ictt o' inte interrest, est, an& an& that that he !art !artic ici! i!at ate& e& in -nla -nla' '-l -l tran transac sacti tion ons. s. 3t as as recommen&e& that he be s-s!en&e& 'or one ear 'rom the !ractice o' la. he 34P54*8 a+rme&. 3ss-e: 9hether or not Att. Att. Francisco iolate& the r-les on !riilege& comm-nication an& con7ict o' interest. el&: o. hose r-les !res-!!ose a laer5client relationshi!. Also, the r-le on laer5 client !riilege re;-ires the 'olloing 'actors: (1) Attorne5client relationshi!< (2) he client ma&e the comm-nication in con%&ence< an& (=) he legal a&ice m-st be so-ght 'rom the attorne in his !ro'essional ca!acit. 3n this case, Caroline 'aile& to establish the !ro'essional relationshi! beteen her an& Att. Francisco. eer eerthe theles less, s, Att Att.. Francis rancisco co as s-s s-s!en !en&e& &e& 'rom 'rom the !racti !ractice ce 'or si months months 'or haing !artici!ate& in the -nla'-l transactions concerning the !-rchase o' the Forbes !ro!ert in iolation o' Canons 1 an& 10 an& >-le 1.0 o' the CP>.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
Foster vs Agtang (2014) Facts: A3LA ? Erlin&a Foster ha& a legal !roblem concerning a &ee& o' absol-te sale, hich Att. #aime Agtang notari$e&, she entere& into ith ierra >ealt. Foster then agree& to engage Att. Agtang@s legal serice 'or the %ling o' the a!!ro!riate case in co-rt. Att. Agtang receie& P20,000 as acce!tance 'ee an& P,000 'or inci&ental e!enses. 3n the co-rse o' the attorne5client relationshi!, Att. Agtang committe& the 'olloing acts: (1) e as"e& a loan 'rom Foster in the amo-nt o' P100,000 'or the re!air o' his car< (2) As"ing 'or an -nnecessaril high %ling 'ee o' P10,000. e B-sti%e& the amo-nt, citing the high al-e o' the lan& inole& an& the sheri@s trael e!enses an& accommo&ations in anila. (=) e again as"e& 'or P/0,000 or P0,000 'or a s-!!ose& emergenc b-t receie& onl P22,000< () e as"e& P0,000 to bribe a B-&ge in connection ith the re'ormation case< () Failing to noti' Foster that the case as alrea& &ismisse&< an& (6) e &i& not &isclose to Foster that he as ac;-ainte& ith ierra >ealt. 9ith res!ect to the loan, Att. Agtang claime& that it as Foster@s h-sban& ho insiste& on the loan to rear& his !atience o' isiting their home. e &enie& the other acc-sations. he 34P recommen&e& Att. Agtang@s s-s!ension 'or one ear, hich as shortene& to three months. 3ss-e: 9hether or not Att. Agtang iolate& the CP>. el&: es. e iolate& the 'olloing !roisions o' the CP>: •
•
•
>-le 1.0 ? For oer!ricing the amo-nt o' the %ling 'ee. e as"e& 'or P10,000 hen it sho-l& hae onl been P22,10. >-le 16.0 ? For borroing consi&erable amo-nts o' mone 'rom Foster. >-le 1.0= ? For re!resenting con7icting interest. e 'aile& to &isclose to Foster that he re!resente& iera >ealt in the !ast.
For these, Att. Agtang as &isbarre&.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
Navarro vs Solidum (2014) Facts: Att. 3an oli&-m as retaine& as il&a Presbitero@s co-nsel 'or the !-r!ose o' 'olloing -! the release o' the !ament 'or the latter@s 2./5hectare !ro!ert in 4acolo& hich as the s-bBect o' a ol-ntar *er to ell (*) to the De!artment o' Agrarian >e'orm (DA>). DA> as s-!!ose& to !a P/00,000 'or the !ro!ert b-t it as mortgage& b il&a to P4 'or P1,200,000. il&a claime& that P4@s claim ha& alrea& !rescribe&, so she engage& the serices o' Att. oli&-m to re!resent her in this matter. e !ro!ose& the %ling o' a case 'or ;-ieting o' title against P4. e receie& P0,000 'rom il&a 'or the e!enses o' the case, b-t nothing came o-t o' it. il&a@s &a-ghter, a. heresa -lo, also engage& Att. oli&-m@s serices to han&le the registration o' her 1. hectare lot in egros. heresa conince& her sister, atii&a& aarro, to %nance the e!enses. Att. oli&-m th-s receie& P200,000 'rom atii&a&. atii&a& later on that the !ro!ert as alrea& in the name o' eo&oro -lo an& sai& that she o-l& not hae s!ent so m-ch i' Att. oli&-m onl a!!rise& her o' the real sit-ation o' the !ro!ert. o %nance his s-gar tra&ing b-siness, Att. oli&-m obtaine& to loans 'rom atii&a&, both in the amo-nt o' P1 million. e !romise& a 10G monthl interest.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
e also obtaine& a loan 'rom il&a in the amo-nt o' P1 million coere& b a real estate mortgage oer a 26=5s;-are5meter !ro!ert in 4acolo&. Att. oli&-m sent il&a !ost&ate& chec"s &ran against an acco-nt in etroban". il&a as &issatis%e& ith the mortgage& lan&, so oli&-m !romise& a bigger lan&, b-t &i& not &elier on s-ch !romise. oli&-m as able to !a ati an& il&a a total o' PH00,000. Later on, ati an& il&a co-l& no longer encash the chec"s oli&-m as giing, beca-se the acco-nts ere alrea& close&. 9hen the to trie& to 'oreclose the mortgages, oli&-m co-ntere& that the 10G monthl interests ere illegal. ati an& il&a %le& a com!laint against oli&-m ith the 34P5C4D hich 'o-n& oli&-m g-ilt o' iolation o' seeral !roisions o' the CP> an& recommen&e& his &isbarment. 4-t the 34P54*8 re&-ce& the !enalt to a to5ear s-s!ension. 3ss-e: 9hether or not Att. oli&-m iolate& the !roisions o' the CP>. el&: es. e iolate& the 'olloing !roisions: •
•
>-le 1.01 ? 9ith res!ect to his client, Presbitero, it as establishe& that res!on&ent agree& to !a a high interest rate on the loan he obtaine& 'rom her. e &ra'te& the *A. et, hen he co-l& no longer !a his loan, he so-ght to n-lli' the same *A he &ra'te& on the gro-n& that the interest rate as -nconscionable. 3t as also establishe& that res!on&ent mortgage& a 26=5s;-are5meter !ro!ert to Presbitero 'or P1,000,000 b-t he later sol& the !ro!ert 'or onl P10,000, shoing that he &eceie& his client as to the real al-e o' the mortgage& !ro!ert. >es!on&ent@s allegation that the sale as eent-all rescin&e& &i& not &istract 'rom the 'act that he &i& not a!!rise Presbitero as to the real al-e o' the !ro!ert. >es!on&ent 'aile& to re'-te that the chec"s he iss-e& to his client Presbitero an& to aarro belonge& to his son, 3an 8arcia oli&-m 333 hose name is similar to his name. e onl claime& that com!lainants "ne that he co-l& no longer o!en a c-rrent ban" acco-nt, an& that the een s-ggeste& that his i'e or son iss-e the chec"s 'or him. oeer, e are incline& to agree ith the 34P5C4D@s %n&ing that he ma&e com!lainants beliee that the acco-nt belonge& to him. 3n 'act, res!on&ent signe& in the !resence o' aarro the %rst batch o' chec"s he iss-e& to aarro. >es!on&ent sent the secon& batch o' chec"s to aarro an& the thir& batch o' chec"s to Presbitero thro-gh a messenger, an& com!lainants beliee& that the chec"s belonge& to acco-nts in res!on&ent@s name. >-le 16.01 ? aarro, ho %nance& the registration o' -lo@s 1.5hectare lot, claime& that res!on&ent receie& P26,000 'rom her. >es!on&ent co-ntere& that P10,000 as !ai& 'or real estate taes b-t he co-l& not !resent an recei!t to !roe his claim. >es!on&ent also claime& that he !ai& P/0,000 to the s-reor b-t the recei!t as onl 'orP1,000. >es!on&ent claime& that he !ai& P0,000 'or %ling 'ee, !-blication 'ee, an& other e!enses b-t again, he co-l& not s-bstantiate his claims ith an recei!t. As !ointe& o-t b the 34P5C4D, res!on&ent ha& been
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
less than &iligent in acco-nting 'or the '-n&s he receie& 'rom aarro 'or the registration o' -lo@s !ro!ert. •
>-le 16.0 ? 9hile res!on&ent@s loan 'rom Presbitero as sec-re& b a *A, !ost&ate& chec"s an& real estate mortgage, it t-rne& o-t that res!on&ent misre!resente& the al-e o' the !ro!ert he mortgage& an& that the chec"s he iss-e& ere not &ran 'rom his acco-nt b-t 'rom that o' his son. >es!on&ent eent-all ;-estione& the terms o' the *A that he himsel' !re!are& on the gro-n& that the interest rate im!ose& on his loan as -nconscionable. Finall, the chec"s iss-e& b res!on&ent to Presbitero ere &ishonore& beca-se the acco-nts ere alrea& close&. he interest o' his client, Presbitero, as len&er in this case, as not '-ll !rotecte&. >es!on&ent iolate& >-le 16.0 o' the Co&e o' Pro'essional >es!onsibilit, hich !res-mes that the client is &isa&antage& b the laer@s abilit to -se all the legal mane-erings to renege on his obligation.6 3n his &ealings ith his client Presbitero, res!on&ent too" a&antage o' his "nole&ge o' the la as ell as the tr-st an& con%&ence re!ose& in him b his client.
Att. oli&-m as &isbarre&.
Tabang vs Gacott (2004) Facts:
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
Lilia abang so-ght legal a&ice 'rom a B-&ge name& Esta;-io 8acott ('ather o' res!on&ent herein) regar&ing her &esire to b- a =05hectare agric-lt-ral lan& in Palaan. he B-&ge tol& her that she is !rohibite& 'rom ac;-iring ast trac"s o' lan&, beca-se she alrea& ons other !arcels o' lan&, so he a&ise& her to !-t the title o' the lan&s in the names o' %ctitio-s !ersons an& to "ee! the titles ith her 'or eas &is!osition. Lilia eent-all s-ccee&e& in ac;-iring the lan&s. 4-t, later on she ha& to sell the same. he then as"e& the assistance o' Att. 8lenn 8acott (res!on&ent). *n the !retet that he is going to hel! them sell the s-bBect !ro!ert to !ros!ectie b-ers, res!on&ent borroe& the seen lan& titles 'rom com!lainants. oeer, &es!ite the la!se o' one ear 'rom the time he borroe& the titles, res!on&ent still 'aile& to negotiate the sale o' the !ro!ert. e in'orme& herein com!lainants that he lost all the seen lan& titles an& a&ise& them to %le a !etition 'or the reiss-ance o' title. oeer, in the co-rse o' the !rocee&ings, the !-blic !rosec-tor notice& that the signat-res o' the allege& oners in the seen in&ii&-al !ecial Poer o' Attorne eec-te& in 'aor o' Lilia abang a!!ear to hae been signe& b the same !erson beca-se o' the similarities in their stro"es. he !-blic !rosec-tor in'orme& the trial co-rt o' this 'act !rom!ting the latter to s-mmon the allege& !rinci!als. o aoi& embarrassment an& !ossible sanctions 'rom the co-rt beca-se the allege& !rinci!als are in 'act %ctitio-s, Lilia ith&re the case itho-t !reB-&ice to the re5%ling o' the same. -bse;-entl, Lilia %le& a ne set o' cases 'or re5 iss-ance o' title, changing the signat-res o' the %ctitio-s oners. I!on "nole&ge that a ne set o' cases as %le&, res!on&ent eec-te& or ca-se& to be eec-te& seeral &oc-ments, among hich ere >eocation o' !ecial Poer o' Attorne an& A+&aits o' >ecoer !-r!orte&l signe& b the !rinci!als o' Lilia abang. >es!on&ent ca-se& the annotation o' these &oc-ments in the lan& titles coering the s-bBect !ro!erties. herea'ter, res!on&ent ca-se& the !-blication o' a notice re!resenting himsel' as the oner o' the s-bBect !arcels o' lan& an& in&icating therein his &esire to sell the sai& !ro!erties. Eent-all, res!on&ent as able to sell the seen !arcels o' lan& to seen in&ii&-als. oeer, onl three o' these b-ers ere legitimate, hile the remaining 'o-r are &-mmies o' res!on&ent. As a res-lt o' selling the three !arcels o' lan&, res!on&ent as able to receie P=,//=,6/.00. one o' the !rocee&s o' the sale as remitte& to com!lainants. he com!lainants th-s %le& a com!laint against res!on&ent ith the 34P, claiming that in eec-ting the ario-s >eocation o' !ecial Poer o' Attorne an& A+&ait o' >ecoer, a+ing thereon the signat-res o' the %ctitio-s registere& oners o' the &is!-te& !arcels o' lan&, an& in arrogating the onershi! oer the sai& lan&s -!on himsel', res!on&ent committe& gross miscon&-ct, &ishonest an& &eceit. >es!on&ent &enie& that com!lainant Lilia abang is the real oner an& that she merel acte& as a bro"er ho as tring to !romote the sale o' the !ro!erties< that hen she came to "no that the !ro!erties ere sol& b their registere& oners, she calle& -! the la o+ce o' res!on&ent an& &eman&e& that she be gien her share or balato in the sale o' the !ro!erties e;-ialent to 20G o' the gross sales beca-se o' her allege& eorts eerte& in !romoting the sale o' the s-bBect !arcels o' lan&< that hen res!on&ent t-rne& her &on, Lilia threatene& to !-t him in ba& light an& see" his &isbarment.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
>es!on&ent '-rther &enies com!lainants allegation that he sol& real !ro!erties o' some o' his clients to thir& !ersons claiming that in all these cases his role as merel to notari$e the &oc-ments o' sale eec-te& ol-ntaril b his clients an& the b-ers o' their !ro!erties. he 3nestigating Commissioner con&-cte& a man&ator con'erence an& therea'ter re;-ire& the !arties to s-bmit !osition !a!ers. An& then she recommen&e& that res!on&ent be s-s!en&e& 'rom the !ractice o' la 'or si months. he 34P54*8 mo&i%e& the !enalt to &isbarment. 3ss-e: 9hether or not Att. 8acott sho-l& be &isbarre&. el&: o. he case sho-l& be reman&e& 'or '-rther !rocee&ings, beca-se the !roce&-re obsere& as not !ro!er. he !oer to &isbar m-st be eercise& ith great ca-tion. 3n com!laints 'or &isbarment, a 'ormal inestigation is a man&ator re;-irement hich ma not be &is!ense& ith ece!t 'or ali& an& com!elling reasons. ec. o' >-le 1=H54 !roi&es: JI!on Boin&er o' iss-es or -!on 'ail-re o' the res!on&ent to anser, the 3nestigator shall, ith &eliberate s!ee&, !rocee& ith the inestigation o' the case. e shall hae the !oer to iss-e s-b!oenas an& a&minister oaths. he res!on&ent shall be gien '-ll o!!ort-nit to &e'en& himsel', to !resent itnesses on his behal', an& be hear& b himsel' an& co-nsel. oeer, i' -!on reasonable notice, the res!on&ent 'ails to a!!ear, the inestigation shall !rocee& e !arte. he 3nestigator shall terminate the inestigation ithin three (=) months 'rom the &ate o' its commencement, -nless eten&e& 'or goo& ca-se b the 4oar& o' 8oernors -!on !rior a!!lication. 9ill'-l 'ail-re or re'-sal to obe a s-b!oena or an other la'-l or&er iss-e& b the 3nestigator shall be &ealt ith as 'or in&irect contem!t o' co-rt. he corres!on&ing charge shall be %le& b the 3nestigator be'ore the 34P 4oar& o' 8oernors hich shall re;-ire the allege& contemnor to sho ca-se ithin ten (10) &as 'rom notice. he 34P 4oar& o' 8oernors ma therea'ter con&-ct hearings, i' necessar, in accor&ance ith the !roce&-re set 'orth in this >-le 'or hearings be'ore the 3nestigator. -ch hearing shall as 'ar as !racticable be terminate& ithin %'teen (1) &as 'rom its commencement. herea'ter, the 34P 4oar& o' 8oernors shall ithin a li"e !erio& o' %'teen (1) &as iss-e a resol-tion setting 'orth its %n&ings an& recommen&ations, hich shall 'orthith be transmitte& to the -!reme Co-rt 'or %nal action an& i' arrante&, the im!osition o' !enalt.K 3n the !resent case, the 3nestigating Commissioner initiate& the 'ormal inestigation b con&-cting a man&ator con'erence beteen the com!lainants an& the res!on&ent a'ter both !arties hae %le& their com!laint an& anser, res!ectiel. he man&ator con'erence as s-!!ose&l hel& 'or the !-r!ose o' &e%ning the iss-es an& enabling the !arties to sti!-late 'acts. oeer, no &e%nitie res-lt as reache& &-ring the con'erence as res!on&ent contin-e& to &en all the allegations o' the com!lainants. A'ter the man&ator con'erence as hel&, no '-rther hearings ere con&-cte&. 3nstea&, the 3nestigating Commissioner merel re;-ire& the !arties to s-bmit their res!ectie !osition !a!ers, incl-&ing all the necessar &oc-ments an& &-l eri%e& a+&aits o' itnesses, i' an. *n the sole basis o' the !lea&ings %le& b both !arties an& o' the
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
&oc-ments attache& thereto, the 3nestigating Commissioner s-bmitte& her >e!ort an& >ecommen&ation to the 34P 4oar& o' 8oernors.
e Jesus vs Sanc!ez"#alit Facts: erce&ita De #es-s %le& a &isbarment case against laer an& notar !-blic Att. #- ell anche$5alit (res!on&ent) 'or allege&l committing the 'olloing acts: (1) Dra'ting an& notari$ing a real estate mortgage oer a !-blic mar"et stall hich 'alsel name& erce&ita as its absol-te an& registere& oner 'or hich erce&ita as s-e& 'or !erB-r< (2) otari$ing a lease agreement itho-t the signat-re o' the lessees< (=) otari$ing a sale agreement oer a !ro!ert coere& b a Certi%cate o' Lan& *nershi! Aar& (CL*A) itho-t a&ising erce&ita that the !ro!ert as still coere& b the !erio& ithin hich it co-l& not be alienate&< an& () otari$ing PAs itho-t the signat-re o' the !rinci!als. 9ith regar& to the mortgage, res!on&ent claime& that the &ee& as !re!are& in haste, hence she 'aile& to &elete the !hrase Jabsol-te an& registere& oner.K 9ith regar& to the lease, res!on&ent co-ntere& that res!on&ent co-ntere& that the &oc-ment attache& to the A+&ait5Com!laint as act-all ne. he gae the co-rt@s co! o' the agreement to com!lainant to accommo&ate the latter@s re;-est 'or an etra co!. h-s, res!on&ent !re!are& an& notari$e& a ne one, reling on com!lainant@s ass-rance that the lessees o-l& sign it an& that it o-l& be ret-rne& in lie- o' the original co! 'or the co-rt. Com!lainant, hoeer, renege& on her !romise. As regar&s the !-rchase agreement o' a !ro!ert coere& b a CL*A, res!on&ent claime& that com!lainant as an e!erience& realt bro"er an&, there'ore, nee&e& no a&ice on the re!erc-ssions o' that transaction. Act-all, hen the !-rchase agreement as notari$e&, com!lainant &i&
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
not !resent the CL*A, an& so the agreement mentione& nothing abo-t it. >ather, the agreement e!ressl state& that the !ro!ert as the s-bBect o' a case !en&ing be'ore the De!artment o' Agrarian >e'orm A&B-&ication 4oar& (DA>A4)< com!lainant as th-s noti%e& o' the stat-s o' the s-bBect !ro!ert. Finall, res!on&ent maintaine& that the PAs s-bmitte& b com!lainant as a&&itional ei&ence ere!ro!erl notari$e&. 3t can be easil gleane& 'rom the &oc-ments that the attorne5in5'act !ersonall a!!eare& be'ore res!on&ent< hence,the notari$ation as limite& to the 'ormer@s !artici!ation in the eec-tion o'the &oc-ment. oreoer, the ac"nole&gment clearl state& that the &oc-ment m-st be notari$e& in the !rinci!al@s !lace o' resi&ence. An echange o' !lea&ings ens-e&a'ter res!on&ent s-bmitte& her Comment. A'ter her reBoin&er, com!lainant %le& an Irgent E5Parteotion 'or -bmission o' A&&itional Ei&ence. Attache& thereto ere co!ies o' &oc-ments notari$e& b res!on&ent, incl-&ing the 'olloing: (1) an Etra #-&icial Dee& o' Partition hich re'erre& to the PAs naming Lim!ioso as attorne5in5'act< (2) %e PAs that lac"e& the signat-res o' either the !rinci!al or the attorne5in5'act< (=) to &ee&s o' sale ith incom!lete signat-res o' the !arties thereto< () an -nsigne& orn tatement< () a lease contract that lac"e& the signat-re o' the lessor< (6) %e -nsigne& A+&aits< (/) an -nsigne& ins-rance claim 'orm (Ann-al Declaration b the eirs)< () an -nsigne& 3nitation Letter toa !otential inestor in #a!an< (H) an -nsigne& 4an" Certi%cation< an& (10) an -nsigne& Consent to A&o!tion. he 34P 3nestigating Commissioner recommen&e& that she be &is;-ali%e& as notar !-blic 'or to ears an& s-s!ension 'rom the !ractice o' la 'or si months. his as a+rme& b the 34P54*8. 3n her motion 'or reconsi&eration, res!on&ent arg-e& that the a&&itional ei&ence sho-l& hae been e!-nge& 'or being ina&missible, beca-se the !roce&-ral re;-isites -n&er the 200 >-les on otarial Practice as not obsere&. 3ss-e: 9hether or not res!on&ent sho-l& be !enali$e&. el&: es. he 200 >-les on otarial La contain no !roision &eclaring the ina&missibilit o' &oc-ments obtaine& in iolation thereo'. h-s, the 34P correctl consi&ere& in ei&ence the other notari$e& &oc-ments s-bmitte& b com!lainant as a&&itional ei&ence. he im!ortant role a notar !-blic !er'orms cannot be oerem!hasi$e&. he Co-rt has re!eate&l stresse& that notari$ation is not an em!t, meaningless ro-tinar act, b-t one ineste& ith s-bstantie !-blic interest. otari$ation conerts a !riate &oc-ment into a !-blic &oc-ment, ma"ing it a&missible in ei&ence itho-t '-rther !roo' o' its a-thenticit. h-s, a notari$e& &oc-ment is, b la, entitle& to '-ll 'aith an& cre&it -!on its 'ace. 3t is 'or this reason that a notar !-blic m-st obsere ith -tmost care the basic re;-irements in the !er'ormance o' his notarial &-ties< otherise, the !-blics con%&ence in the integrit o' a notari$e& &oc-ment o-l& be -n&ermine&.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
9here the notar !-blic a&mitte&l has !ersonal "nole&ge o' a 'alse statement or in'ormation containe& in the instr-ment to be notari$e&, et !rocee&s to a+ the notarial seal on it, the Co-rt m-st not hesitate to &isci!line the notar !-blic accor&ingl as the circ-mstances o' the case ma &ictate. *therise, the integrit an& sanctit o' the notari$ation !rocess ma be -n&ermine&, an& !-blic con%&ence in notarial &oc-ments &iminishe&. 3n this case, res!on&ent '-ll "ne that com!lainant as not the oner o' the mortgage& mar"et stall. hat com!lainant com!rehen&e& the !roisions o' the real estate mortgage contract&oes not ma"e res!on&ent an less g-ilt. 3' at all, it onl heightens the latter@s liabilit 'or tolerating a rong'-l act. Clearl, res!on&ent@s con&-ct amo-nte& to a breach o' Canon 1 an& >-les 1.01 an& 1.02 o' the Co&e o' Pro'essional >es!onsibilit. he -!reme Co-rt &i& not beliee res!on&ent@s e!lanation 'or her la!ses.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
$craela vs %angalangan (201&) FA'TS Com!lainant an& res!on&ent ere best 'rien&s an& both gra&-ate& 'rom the Iniersit o' the Phili!!ines (IP) College o' La in 1HH0, here the ere !art o' a !eer gro-! or bar"a&a ith seeral o' their classmates. A'ter !assing the bar eaminations an& being a&mitte& as members o' the 4ar in 1HH1, the ere both registere& ith the 34P M-e$on Cit. >es!on&ent as 'ormerl marrie& to heila P. #ar&iolin (#ar&iolin) ith hom he has three (=) chil&ren. Com!lainant aers that hile marrie& to #ar&iolin, res!on&ent ha& a series o' a&-ltero-s an& illicit relations ith marrie& an& -nmarrie& omen beteen the ears 1HH0 to 200/. hese allege& illicit relations inole&: a. AAA, ho is the s!o-se o' a colleag-e in the IP College o' La, 'rom 1HH0 to 1HH2, hich com!lainant ha& !ersonal "nole&ge o' s-ch illicit relations< b. 444, sometime &-ring the !erio& 'rom 1HH2 to 1HH or 'rom 1HH to 1HH6, &es!ite being alrea& marrie& to #ar&iolin< c. CCC, &es!ite being marrie& to #ar&iolin an& hile also being romanticall inole& ith DDD< &. DDD, sometime &-ring the !erio& 'rom 2000 to 2002, &es!ite still being marrie& to #ar&iolin an& hile still being romanticall .inole& ith CCC< e. EEE, ho is relate& to com!lainant, sometime &-ring the !erio& 'rom a 200 -ntil the %ling o' the Petition, hile still being romanticall inole& ith CCC. Com!lainant claims that res!on&ent, ith malice an& itho-t remorse, &eceie& CCC an& DDD b re!resenting himsel' to be a bachelor, thereb conincing the to omen to start a loe aair ith him, hen in. tr-th, he as then still marrie& to #ar&iolin. Asi&e 'rom these illicit aairs, com!lainant aers that sometime &-ring the !erio& o' 1HH to 2000, res!on&ent, as a laer o' the *+ce o' the 8oernment Cor!orate Co-nsel (*8CC), re!resente& the interest o' anila 3nternational Air!ort A-thorit (3AA) in cancellation !rocee&ings %le& b 3AA against Nen&ric" Deelo!ment Cor!oration (N*C). oeer, &es!ite being a !-blic o+cer an& a goernment co-nsel, res!on&ent
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
cons!ire& ith Att. Abraham Es!eBo, legal co-nsel o' NDC, an& assiste& NDC in its case, thereb sabotaging 3AAs case, an&, m eect, that o' the Phili!!ine 8oernment. Com!lainant '-rther claims that res!on&ent een attem!te& to bribe then olicitor >olan&o artin o' the *+ce o' the olicitor 8eneral (*8) in echange 'or the latters coo!eration in the &ismissal o' the cancellation !rocee&ings in 'aor o' NDC. 3n ret-rn 'or his Oearnest eortsO in assisting NDC in its case, res!on&ent as allege&l rear&e& ith a oota Corolla L ith !late n-mber IL5= b Att. Es!eBo. he ehicle as seen seeral times b res!on&ents classmates an& o+cemates being &rien an& !ar"e& b res!on&ent in his on home an& in the *8CC !remises itsel'. Com!lainant also claims that res!on&ent ab-se& his a-thorit as an e&-cator in an-el L. M-e$on Iniersit, an ebastian College, College o' t. 4enil&e, an& ar"noll College, here res!on&ent in&-ce& his male st-&ents to engage in Onoct-rnal !reocc-!ationsO an& entertaine& the romantic gest-res o' his 'emale st-&ents in echange 'or !assing gra&es.
SS$ 9hether or not the res!on&ent committe& gross immoral con&-ct, hich o-l& arrant his &isbarmentQ
*+NG A'ter a thoro-gh eamination o' the recor&s, the Co-rt agrees ith the 4oar& o' 8oernors resol-tion %n&ing that Att. Pangalangans grossl immoral con&-ct as '-ll s-!!orte& b the ei&ences oere&. CA* 1 5 A LA9E> ALL IP*LD E C*3I3*, *4E E L A9 *F E LAD AD P>**E >EPEC F*> LA9 AD LE8AL P>*CEE. >-le 1.01 5 A laer shall not engage in -nla'-l, &ishonest, immoral or &eceit'-l con&-ct. CA* / 5 A LA9E> ALL A ALL 3E IP*LD E 3E8>3 AD D383 *F E LE8AL P>*FE3* AD IPP*> E AC333E *F E 3E8>AED 4A>. >-le /.0= 5 A laer shall not engage in con&-ct that a&ersel re7ects on his %tness to !ractice la, nor shall he, hether in !-blic or !riate li'e. behae in a scan&alo-s manner to the &iscre&it o' the legal !ro'ession. he !ractice o' la is a !riilege gien to those ho !ossess an& contin-e to !ossess the legal ;-ali%cations 'or the !ro'ession. 8oo& moral character is not onl re;-ire& 'or a&mission to the 4ar, b-t m-st also be retaine& in or&er to maintain ones goo& stan&ing in this ecl-sie an& honore& 'raternit. 9e are not -nmin&'-l o' the serio-s conse;-ences o' &isbarment or s-s!ension !rocee&ings against a member o' the 4ar. h-s, the Co-rt has consistentl hel& that clearl !re!on&erant ei&ence is necessar to B-sti' the im!osition o' a&ministratie !enalties on a member o' the 4ar.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
he 34P5C4D >e!ort s-+cientl shoe& b !re!on&erant ei&ence the gro-n&s b hich res!on&ent has been 'o-n& committing gross immoralit in the con&-ct o' his !ersonal aairs. 3n the !resent case, com!lainant allege& that res!on&ent carrie& on seeral a&-ltero-s an& illicit relations ith both marrie& an& -nmarrie& omen beteen the ears 1HH0 to 200/, incl-&ing com!lainants on i'e. hro-gh &oc-mentar ei&ences in the 'orm o' email messages, as ell as the corroborating testimonies o' the itnesses !resente&, com!lainant as able to establish res!on&ents illicit relations ith D*D an& CCC b !re!on&erant ei&ence. >es!on&ents main &e'ense against the allege& illicit relations as that the same ere not s-+cientl establishe&. 3n his anser, res!on&ent sim!l arg-e& that com!lainants !etition contains sel'5sering aerments not s-!!orte& b ei&ence. >es!on&ent &i& not s!eci%call &en com!lainants allegations an&, instea&, ;-estione& the a&missibilit o' theR s-!!oting &oc-ments. D-e to res!on&ents on 'ail-re to atten& the hearings an& een s-bmit his on !osition !a!er, the eistence o' res!on&ents illicit relations ith DDD an& CCC remain -ncontroerte&. he 34P5C4D >e!ort as correct hen it 'o-n& that res!on&ent iolate& Article , ection 2 o' the 1H/ Constit-tion, to it: 3n engaging in s-ch illicit relationshi!s, >es!on&ent &isregar&e& the sanctit o' marriage an& the marital os !rotecte& b the Constit-tion an& a+rme& b o-r las, hich as a laer he sore -n&er oath to !rotect. he 1H/ Constit-tion, s!eci%call Article , ection 2 thereo' clearl !roi&es that marriage, an iniolable social instit-tion, is the 'o-n&ation o' the 'amil an& shall be !rotecte& b the tate. Asi&e 'rom res!on&ents illicit relations, 9e agree ith Commissioner illa&oli& s %n&ings that res!on&ent iolate& Canon 1 0 o' the Co&e o' Pro'essional >es!onsibilit, as ell as >-le 10.01 an& >-le 10.0= thereo'. CA* 10 5 A LA9E> *9E CAD*>, FA3>E AD 8**D FA3 * E C*I>. >-le 10.01 5 A laer shall not &o an 'alsehoo&, nor consent to the &oing o' an in Co-rt< nor shall he mislea&, or allo the Co-rt to be misle& b an arti%ce. >-le 10.0= 5 A laer shall obsere the r-les o' !roce&-re an& shall not mis-se them to &e'eat the en&s o' B-stice. 3n the Petition, com!lainant allege& that res!on&ent as the s-bBect o' a enate 3n;-ir an& ha& a !en&ing case 'or gra't an& corr-!tion against him ith the an&iganbaan.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
%erez vs 'atindig (201&) Facts: 3n her com!laint, Dr. Pere$ allege& that she an& Att. Catin&ig ha& been 'rien&s since the mi&51H60@s hen the ere both st-&ents at the Iniersit o' the Phili!!ines, b-t the lost to-ch a'ter their gra&-ation. ometime in 1H=, the !aths o' Att. Catin&ig an& Dr. Pere$ again crosse&. 3t as at that time that Att. Catin&ig starte& to co-rt Dr. Pere$. Att. Catin&ig a&mitte& to Dr. Pere$ that he as alrea& e& to Lil Cora$on 8ome$ (8ome$), haing marrie& the latter on a 1, 1H6 at the Central etho&ist Ch-rch in Ermita, anila, hich as 'olloe& b a Catholic e&&ing at the hrine o' *-r La& o' Lo-r&es in M-e$on Cit. Att. Catin&ig hoeer claime& that he onl marrie& 8ome$ beca-se he got her !regnant< that he as a'rai& that 8ome$ o-l& ma"e a scan&al o-t o' her !regnanc sho-l& he re'-se to marr her, hich co-l& hae Beo!ar&i$e& his scholarshi! in the arar& La chool. Att. Catin&ig tol& Dr. Pere$ that he as in the !rocess o' obtaining a &iorce in a 'oreign co-ntr to &issole his marriage to 8ome$, an& that he o-l& eent-all marr her once the &iorce ha& been &ecree&. Conse;-entl, sometime in 1H, Att. Catin&ig an& 8ome$ obtaine& a &iorce &ecree 'rom the Dominican >e!-blic. Dr. Pere$ claime& that Att. Catin&ig ass-re& her that the sai& &iorce &ecree as la'-l an& ali& an& that there as no longer an im!e&iment to their marriage. h-s, on #-l 1, 1H, Att. Catin&ig marrie& Dr. Pere$ in the tate o' irginia in the Inite& tates o' America (IA). heir -nion as blesse& ith a chil& hom the name& ristan #egar #ose' Fre&eric. ears later, Dr. Pere$ came to "no that her marriage to Att. Catin&ig is a n-llit since the &iorce &ecree that as obtaine& 'rom the Dominican >e!-blic b the latter an& 8ome$ is not recogni$e& b Phili!!ine las. 9hen she con'ronte& Att. Catin&ig abo-t it, the latter allege&l ass-re& Dr. Pere$ that he o-l& legali$e their -nion once he obtains a &eclaration o' n-llit o' his marriage to 8ome$ -n&er the las o' the Phili!!ines. e also !romise& to legall a&o!t their son. ometime in 1HH/, Dr. Pere$ remin&e& Att. Catin&ig o' his !romise to legali$e their -nion b %ling a !etition to n-lli' his marriage to 8ome$. Att. Catin&ig tol& her that he o-l& still hae to get the consent o' 8ome$ to the sai& !etition. ometime in 2001, Dr. Pere$ allege& that she receie& an anonmo-s letter H in the mail in'orming her o' Att. Catin&ig@s scan&alo-s aair ith Att. 4a&o, an& that sometime later, she came -!on a loe letter ritten an& signe& b Att. Catin&ig 'or Att. 4a&o &ate& A!ril 2, 2001. 3n the sai& letter, Att. Catin&ig !ro'esse& his loe to Att. 4a&o, !romising to marr her once his Jim!e&iment is remoe&.K A!!arentl, %e months into their relationshi!, Att. 4a&o re;-este& Att. Catin&ig to !-t a halt to their aair -ntil s-ch time that he is able to obtain the ann-lment o' his marriage. *n A-g-st 1=, 2001, Att. Catin&ig %le& a !etition to &eclare the n-llit o' his marriage to 8ome$.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
*n *ctober =1, 2001, Att. Catin&ig aban&one& Dr. Pere$ an& their son< he moe& to an -!scale con&omini-m in alce&o illage, a"ati Cit here Att. 4a&o as 're;-entl seen. Att. Catin&ig, in his Comment, a&mitte& that he marrie& 8ome$ on a 1, 1H6. e claime&, hoeer, that imme&iatel a'ter the e&&ing, 8ome$ shoe& signs that she as inca!able o' com!ling ith her marital obligations, as she ha& serio-s intimac !roblems< an& that hile their -nion as blesse& ith 'o-r chil&ren, their relationshi! sim!l &eteriorate&. Eent-all, their irreconcilable &ierences le& to their de facto se!aration in 1H. he then cons-lte& Att. 9ilhelmina #oen (Att. #oen), a m-t-al 'rien&, on ho the agreement to se!arate an& lie a!art co-l& be im!lemente&. Att. #oen s-ggeste& that the co-!le a&o!t a !ro!ert regime o' com!lete se!aration o' !ro!ert. he li"eise a&ise& the co-!le to obtain a &iorce &ecree 'rom the Dominican >e!-blic 'or hateer al-e it ma hae an& com'ort it ma !roi&e them. h-s, on A!ril 2/, 1H, Att. Catin&ig an& 8ome$ each eec-te& a !ecial Poer o' Attorne a&&resse& to a #-&ge o' the First Ciil Co-rt o' an Cristobal, Dominican >e!-blic, a!!ointing an attorne5in5'act to instit-te a &iorce action -n&er its las. Att. Catin&ig li"eise a&mitte& that a &iorce b m-t-al consent as rati%e& b the Dominican >e!-blic co-rt on #-ne 12, 1H. F-rther, Att. Catin&ig an& 8ome$ %le& a #oint Petition 'or Dissol-tion o' ConB-gal Partnershi! be'ore the >egional rial Co-rt o' a"ati Cit, 4ranch 1==, hich as grante& on #-ne 2=, 1H. Att. Catin&ig claime& that Dr. Pere$ "ne o' the 'oregoing, incl-&ing the 'act that the &iorce &ecree& b the Dominican >e!-blic co-rt &oes not hae an eect in the Phili!!ines. otithstan&ing that she "ne that the marriage o' Att. Catin&ig an& 8ome$ still s-bsiste&, Dr. Pere$ &eman&e& that Att. Catin&ig marr her. h-s, Att. Catin&ig marrie& Dr. Pere$ in #-l 1H in the IA. Att. Catin&ig claime& that Dr. Pere$ "ne that their marriage as not ali& since his !reio-s marriage to 8ome$ as still s-bsisting, an& that he onl marrie& Dr. Pere$ beca-se he loe& her an& that he as a'rai& o' losing her i' he &i& not. e merel &esire& to len& a mo&ic-m o' legitimac to their relationshi!. Att. Catin&ig claime& that his relationshi! ith Dr. Pere$ t-rne& so-r. Eent-all, he le't their home in *ctober 2001 to !reent an acrimon 'rom &eelo!ing. e &enie& that Att. 4a&o as the reason that he le't Dr. Pere$, claiming that his relationshi! ith Dr. Pere$ starte& to 'all a!art as earl as 1HH/. e asserte& that Att. 4a&o Boine& his la %rm onl in e!tember 1HHH< an& that hile he as attracte& to her, Att. 4a&o &i& not reci!rocate an& in 'act reBecte& him. e li"eise !ointe& o-t that Att. 4a&o resigne& 'rom his %rm in #an-ar 2001. For her !art, Att. 4a&o &enie& that she ha& an aair ith Att. Catin&ig. he claime& that Att. Catin&ig began co-rting her hile she as em!loe& in his %rm. he hoeer reBecte& Att. Catin&ig@s romantic oert-res< she tol& him that she co-l& not reci!rocate his 'eelings since he as marrie& an& that he as too ol& 'or her. he sai& that &es!ite being t-rne& &on, Att. Catin&ig still !-rs-e& her, hich as the reason h she resigne& 'rom his la %rm.
SS$
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
9hether or not the res!on&ents committe& gross immoralit, hich o-l& arrant their &isbarmentQ
*+NG A'ter a thoro-gh !er-sal o' the res!ectie allegations o' the !arties an& the circ-mstances o' this case, the Co-rt agrees ith the %n&ings an& recommen&ations o' the 3nestigating Commissioner an& the 34P 4oar& o' 8oernors. he Co&e o' Pro'essional >es!onsibilit !roi&es: >-le 1.01 ? A laer shall not engage in -nla'-l, &ishonest, immoral or &eceit'-l con&-ct. Canon / ? A laer shall at all times -!hol& the integrit an& &ignit o' the legal !ro'ession an& s-!!ort the actiities o' the 3ntegrate& 4ar. >-le /.0= ? A laer shall not engage in con&-ct that a&ersel re7ects on his %tness to !ractice la, nor sho-l& he, hether in !-blic or !riate li'e, behae in a scan&alo-s manner to the &iscre&it o' the legal !ro'ession. 3n Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit , the Co-rt hel&: SThe re;-irement o' goo& moral character is o' m-ch greater im!ort, as 'ar as the general !-blic is concerne&, than the !ossession o' legal learning. 8oo& moral character is not onl a con&ition !rece&ent 'or a&mission to the legal !ro'ession, b-t it m-st also remain intact in or&er to maintain one@s goo& stan&ing in that ecl-sie an& honore& 'raternit. 8oo& moral character is more than B-st the absence o' ba& character. -ch character e!resses itsel' in the ill to &o the -n!leasant thing i' it is right an& the resole not to &o the !leasant thing i' it is rong. his m-st be so beca-se Jast interests are committe& to his care< he is the reci!ient o' -nbo-n&e& tr-st an& con%&ence< he &eals ith his client@s !ro!ert, re!-tation, his li'e, his all.K JA laer ma be s-s!en&e& or &isbarre& 'or an miscon&-ct shoing an 'a-lt or &e%cienc in his moral character, honest, !robit or goo& &emeanor.K 3mmoral con&-ct inoles acts that are ill'-l, 7agrant, or shameless, an& that sho a moral in&ierence to the o!inion o' the -!right an& res!ectable members o' the comm-nit. 3mmoral con&-ct is gross hen it is so corr-!t as to constit-te a criminal act, or so -n!rinci!le& as to be re!rehensible to a high &egree, or hen committe& -n&er s-ch scan&alo-s or reolting circ-mstances as to shoc" the comm-nit@s sense o' &ecenc. he Co-rt ma"es these &istinctions, as the s-!reme !enalt o' &isbarment arising 'rom con&-ct re;-ires grossl immoral, not sim!l immoral, con&-ct.
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct. he 'acts gathere& 'rom the ei&ence a&&-ce& b the !arties an&, ironicall, 'rom Att. Catin&ig@s on a&mission, in&ee& establish a !attern o' con&-ct that is grossl immoral< it is not onl corr-!t an& -n!rinci!le&, b-t re!rehensible to a high &egree. Att. Catin&ig as ali&l marrie& to 8ome$ tice ? a e&&ing in the Central etho&ist Ch-rch in 1H6, hich as then 'olloe& b a Catholic e&&ing. 3n 1H=, Att. Catin&ig starte& !-rs-ing Dr. Pere$ hen their !aths crosse& again. C-rio-sl, 1 ears into his
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
%rst marriage an& 'o-r chil&ren a'ter, Att. Catin&ig claime& that his %rst marriage as then alrea& 'alling a!art &-e to 8ome$@ serio-s intimac !roblems. A ear a'ter !-rs-ing Dr. Pere$, Att. Catin&ig ha& a de facto se!aration 'rom 8ome$, &issole& their conB-gal !artnershi! o' gains, obtaine& a &iorce &ecree 'rom a co-rt in the Dominican >e!-blic, an& marrie& Dr. Pere$ in the IA all in the same ear. Att. Catin&ig as so enchante& ith Dr. Pere$ at that time that he moe& heaen an& earth B-st so he co-l& marr her right aa ? a marriage that has at least a semblance o' legalit. From his on a&mission, Att. Catin&ig "ne that the &iorce &ecree he obtaine& 'rom the co-rt in the Dominican >e!-blic as not recogni$e& in o-r B-ris&iction as he an& 8ome$ ere both Fili!ino citi$ens at that time. e "ne that he as still ali&l marrie& to 8ome$< that he cannot marr ane -nless his !reio-s marriage be !ro!erl &eclare& a n-llit. *therise, his s-bse;-ent marriage o-l& be oi&. his notithstan&ing, he still marrie& Dr. Pere$. he 'oregoing circ-mstances serio-sl taint Att. Catin&ig@s sense o' social !ro!riet an& moral al-es. 3t is a blatant an& !-r!ose'-l &isregar& o' o-r las on marriage. 3t has also not esca!e& the attention o' the Co-rt that Att. Catin&ig marrie& Dr. Pere$ in the IA. Consi&ering that Att. Catin&ig "ne that his !reio-s marriage remaine& ali&, the logical concl-sion is that he ante& to marr Dr. Pere$ in the IA 'or the a&&e& sec-rit o' aoi&ing an charge o' bigam b entering into the s-bse;-ent marriage o-tsi&e Phili!!ine B-ris&iction. oreoer, ass-ming arguendo that Att. Catin&ig@s claim is tr-e, it matters not that Dr. Pere$ "ne that their marriage is a n-llit. he 'act still remains that he resorte& to ario-s legal strategies in or&er to ren&er a 'aUa&e o' ali&it to his otherise inali& marriage to Dr. Pere$. -ch act is, at the er least, so -n!rinci!le& that it is re!rehensible to the highest &egree. F-rther, a'ter 1/ ears o' cohabiting ith Dr. Pere$, an& &es!ite the ario-s legal actions he resorte& to in or&er to gie their -nion a semblance o' ali&it, Att. Catin&ig le't her an& their son. 3t as onl at that time that he %nall &eci&e& to !ro!erl see" the n-llit o' his %rst marriage to 8ome$. A!!arentl, he as then alrea& entrance& ith the m-ch o-nger Att. 4a&o, an associate laer em!loe& b his %rm. 9hile the 'act that Att. Catin&ig &eci&e& to se!arate 'rom Dr. Pere$ to !-rs-e Att. 4a&o, in itsel', cannot be consi&ere& a grossl immoral con&-ct, s-ch 'act 'orms !art o' the !attern shoing his !ro!ensit toar&s immoral con&-ct. Lest it be mis-n&erstoo&, the Co-rt@s %n&ing o' gross immoral con&-ct is hinge& not on Att. Catin&ig@s &esertion o' Dr. Pere$, b-t on his contracting o' a s-bse;-ent marriage &-ring the s-bsistence o' his !reio-s marriage to 8ome$. Jhe moral &elin;-enc that aects the %tness o' a member o' the bar to contin-e as s-ch incl-&es con&-ct that o-trages the generall acce!te& moral stan&ar&s o' the comm-nit, con&-ct 'or instance, hich ma"es Va moc"er o' the iniolable social instit-tion o' marriage.@K 3n ario-s cases, the Co-rt has hel& that &isbarment is arrante& hen a laer aban&ons his la'-l i'e an& maintains an illicit relationshi! ith another oman ho has borne him a chil&.
Problem Area in Legal Ethics Case Digests (Feb. 2, 2016)
Att. Catin&ig@s s-bse;-ent marriage &-ring the s-bsistence o' his !reio-s one &e%nitel mani'ests a &eliberate &isregar& o' the sanctit o' marriage an& the marital os !rotecte& b the Constit-tion an& a+rme& b o-r las. 4 his on a&mission, Att. Catin&ig ma&e a moc"er o-t o' the instit-tion o' marriage, ta"ing a&antage o' his legal s"ills in the !rocess. e ehibite& a &e!lorable lac" o' that &egree o' moralit re;-ire& o' him as a member o' the bar, hich th-s arrant the !enalt o' &isbarment. he Co-rt is not -nmin&'-l o' the r-le that the !oer to &isbar m-st be eercise& ith great ca-tion, an& onl in a clear case o' miscon&-ct that serio-sl aects the stan&ing an& character o' the laer as an o+cer o' the Co-rt an& as a member o' the bar. 9here a lesser !enalt, s-ch as tem!orar s-s!ension, co-l& accom!lish the en& &esire&, &isbarment sho-l& neer be &ecree&. eertheless, in this case, the serio-sness o' the oense com!els the Co-rt to iel& its !oer to &isbar, as it a!!ears to be the most a!!ro!riate !enalt. Att. Catin&ig@s claim that Dr. Pere$@s allegations against him are not cre&ible since the are -ncorroborate& an& not s-!!orte& b a+&aits contrar to ection 1, >-le 1=H54 o' the >-les o' Co-rt, &eseres scant consi&eration. eril, Att. Catin&ig himsel' a&mitte& in his !lea&ings that he in&ee& marrie& Dr. Pere$ in 1H hile his !reio-s marriage ith 8ome$ still s-bsiste&. 3n&-bitabl, s-ch a&mission !roi&es am!le basis 'or the Co-rt to ren&er &isci!linar sanction against him.
There is insucient evidence to prove the aair between the respondents. he Co-rt li"eise agrees ith the 3nestigating Commissioner that there is a &earth o' ei&ence to !roe the claime& amoro-s relationshi! beteen the res!on&ents. As it is, the ei&ence that as !resente& b Dr. Pere$ to !roe her claim as mere allegation, an anonmo-s letter in'orming her that the res!on&ents ere in&ee& haing an aair an& the !-r!orte& loe letter to Att. 4a&o that as signe& b Att. Catin&ig. he Co-rt has consistentl hel& that in s-s!ension or &isbarment !rocee&ings against laers, the laer enBos the !res-m!tion o' innocence, an& the b-r&en o' !roo' rests -!on the com!lainant to !roe the allegations in his com!laint. he ei&ence re;-ire& in s-s!ension or &isbarment !rocee&ings is !re!on&erance o' ei&ence. he !resentation o' the anonmo-s letter that as receie& b Dr. Pere$ onl !roes that the latter in&ee& receie& a letter in'orming her o' the allege& relations beteen the res!on&ents< it &oes not !roe the eracit o' the allegations therein. imilarl, the s-!!ose& loe letter, i' at all, onl !roes that Att. Catin&ig rote Att. 4a&o a letter !ro'essing his loe 'or her. 3t &oes not !roe that Att. 4a&o is in&ee& in a relationshi! ith Att. Catin&ig.
