1. Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38, June 8, 2000 2. In re Cunanan et. al, !" #$il %3" 3. &oreta vs. Atty. Si'(liciano, ""3 SCRA 1, )ove'*er 18, 200"
". +uin-a vs. #uno, 1! SCRA "3! %. Royon vs. *lena, / SCRA 8%! . A*aiar vs. #a, !3 SCRA !1 /. A1 inancial Services vs. 4alerio, 22 SCRA 1 8. Bon vs. &ia, A5'. Case )o. %"3, 6ay 2/, 200", "2! SCRA 1// !. Castane5a vs. Ao, % SCRA %12 10. 7irector vs. Bayot, /" #$il. %/!
1.
L e s l i e U i v s . A t t y. I r i s AC#3319 June 8, 2000
Bonifacio
AC!" Leslie Ui and Carlos Ui were married on January 1971. On June 1988, Leslie confronted the respondent Atty. ris !onifacio for the illicit a"air. #espondent admitted the relationship and said that she will cut o" the said relationship. On $ecem%er 1988 Carlos and ris had a second child. On &arch 1989 complainant pleaded to respondent to stop their illicit relationship. On Atty. ris' side, she asserts that she had no (nowled)e of Carlos' pre*ious marria)e. Carlos Ui was the one who represented himself as sin)le durin) their courtship. +he su%mitted her Certicate of marria)e dated Oct. 198- to court. Upon the court's in*esti)ation it was found out that the marria)e was in fact on Oct 1987.n the case at %ar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. !onifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she (new and %elie*ed him to %e sin)le. #espondent fell in lo*e with him and they )ot married and as a result of such marria)e, she )a*e %irth to two /0children. Upon her (nowled)e of the true ci*il status of Carlos Ui, she left him I""U$ hether or not Atty. ris !onifacio is )uilty of )ross immoral conduct as a)round for dis%arment %ULI&' #2+OL32$ to A$O45 and A44#O32, as it is here%y A$O452$ and A44#O32$, the #eport and #ecommendation of the n*esti)atin) Commissioner in the a%o*e6entitled case, herein made part of this #esolution$ecision as Anne A, and, ndin) the recommendation fully supported %y the e*idence on record and the applica%le laws and rules, the complaint for :ross mmorality a)ainst #espondent is $+&++2$ for lac( of merit. Atty. ris !onifacio is #24#&A;$2$ for (nowin)ly and willfully attachin) to her Answer a falsied Certicate of &arria)e with a stern warnin) that a repetition of the same will merit a more se*ere penalty. 2. I& %$ CU&A&A& (9) *+il 3)- %esolution- 18 ar 19)/ acts Con)ress passed #epu%lic Act ;um%er 97/, commonly (nown as the .? n accordance with the said law, the +upreme Court then passed and admitted to the %ar those candidates who had o%tained an a*era)e of 7/ per cent %y raisin) it to 7- percent. After its appro*al, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates led petitions for admission to the %ar in*o(in) its pro*isions, while other motions for the re*ision of their eamination papers were still pendin) also in*o(ed
the aforesaid law as an additional )round for admission. 5here are also others who ha*e sou)ht simply the reconsideration of their )rades without, howe*er, in*o(in) the law in @uestion. 5o a*oid inustice to indi*idual petitioners, the court rst re*iewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespecti*e of whether or not they had in*o(ed #epu%lic Act ;o. 97/.
Issue hether or ;ot #A ;o. 97/ is constitutional and *alid. el #A ;o. 97/ has for its o%ect, accordin) to its author, to admit to the !ar, those candidates who su"ered from insuBciency of readin) materials and inade@uate preparation. n the udicial system from which ours has %een e*ol*ed, the admission, suspension, dis%arment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their super*ision ha*e %een indisputa%ly a udicial function and responsi%ility. e ha*e said that in the udicial system from which ours has %een deri*ed, the admission, suspension, dis%arment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly udicial. On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction %etween the functions of the udicial and le)islati*e departments of the )o*ernment. t is o%*ious, therefore, that the ultimate power to )rant license for the practice of law %elon)s eclusi*ely to this Court, and the law passed %y Con)ress on the matter is of permissi*e character, or as other authorities may say, merely to the minimum conditions for the license. #epu%lic Act ;um%er 97/ is held to %e unconstitutional.
>. $LA&I L. %$!A vs. A!!4. $$%"& AL&% '. "I*LICIA& (A.C. &o. 5)92. &ove67er 18, 200)/
AC!" 5his is a complaint for dis%arment led a)ainst Atty. eherson Alnor :. +impliciano for alle)edly notariDin) se*eral documents durin) the year /EE/ after his commission as notary pu%lic had epired. t is e*ident from the fore)oin) that when respondent notariDed the aforementioned documents, he was not commissioned as notary pu%lic, which was in *iolation of the ;otarial LawF for ha*in) notariDed the -9E documents after the epiration of his commission as notary pu%lic without
ha*in) renewed said commission amountin) to )ross misconduct as a mem%er of the le)al profession. A)ainst the e*idence presented %y complainant, respondent did not e*en attempt to present any e*idence. is counsel led an ex-parte motion for etension to le answer, which was )ranted, %ut no answer was forthcomin). +till, earin) Commissioner Lydia A. ;a*arro )a*e respondent a last chance to le his answerF which was a)ain unheeded. 5hus, respondent was una%le to re%ut complainant's e*idence that he was not so commissioned for the year in @uestion. is lac( of interest and indi"erence in presentin) his defense to the char)e and the e*idence a)ainst him can only mean he has no stron) and *alid defense to o"er. Conclusi*ely, respondent Atty. +impliciano is not a duly commissioned ;otary 4u%lic for and in GueDon City for the year /EE/.
I""U$ hat is the si)nicance of the commissionH %ULI&' 5he re@uirements for the issuance of a commission as notary pu%lic must not %e treated as a mere casual formality. 5he Court has characteriDed a lawyer's act of notariDin) documents without the re@uisite commission therefore as
). uin:a vs. *uno, 19 "C%A )39 AC!" =lora Guin)wa led a *eried complaint char)in) Armando 4uno, a mem%er of the !ar, with )ross immorality and misconduct. Complainant is an educated woman, ha*in) %een a pu%lic school teacher for a num%er of years. 5he respondent too( her to the +il*er &oon otel on June 1, 19-8, si)nin) the hotel re)ister as &r. and &rs. A. 4uno, and succeeded in ha*in) seual intercourse with her on the promise of marria)e. Complainant su%mitted to respondents plea for seual intercourse %ecause of respondents promise of marria)e and not %ecause of a desire for seual )ratication or of *oluntariness and mutual passion. Complainant )a*e %irth to a %a%y %oy supported %y a certied true copy of a %irth certicate and to show how intimate the relationship %etween the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testied that she )a*e money to the respondent whene*er he as(ed from her. 5he respondent denied all the material alle)ations of the complaint, and as a special defense a*erred that the alle)ations therein do not constitute )rounds for dis%arment or suspension under section /-, #ule 1/7 of the former #ules of Court.
I""U$ hether or not Atty. 4uno should %e dis%arredsuspended. $L; K2+. One of the re@uirements for all applicants for admission to the !ar is that the applicant must produce %efore the +upreme Court satisfactory e*idence of )ood moral character +ection /, #ule 1>8 of the #ules of Court0. t is essential durin) the continuance of the practice and the eercise of the pri*ile)e to maintain )ood moral character. hen his inte)rity is challen)ed %y e*idence, it is not enou)h that he denies the char)es a)ainst himF he must meet the issue and o*ercome the e*idence for the relator and show proofs that he still maintains the hi)hest de)ree of morality and inte)rity, which at all times is epected of him. ith respect to the special defense raised %y the respondent in his answer to the char)es of the complainant that the alle)ations in the complaint do not fall under any of the )rounds for dis%arment or suspension of a mem%er of the !ar as enumerated in section /- of #ule 1/7 of the old0 #ules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the )rounds for dis%arment or suspension is not to %e ta(en as a limitation on the )eneral power of courts to suspend or dis%ar a lawyer. 5he inherent powers of the court o*er its oBcers cannot %e restricted. 5imes without num%er, our +upreme Court held that an attorney will %e remo*ed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, %ut also for )ross misconduct, which shows him to %e unt for the oBce and unworthy of the pri*ile)es which his license and the law confer upon him. +ection /7, #ule 1>8 of the #ules of court states thatI
A mem%er of the %ar may %e remo*ed or suspended from his oBce as attorney %y the +upreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other )ross misconduct in such oBce, )rossly immoral conduct, or %y reason of his con*iction of a crime in*ol*in) moral turpitude, or for any *iolation of the oath which he is re@uired to ta(e %efore admission to practice, or for a wilfull diso%edience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearin) as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. 5he practice of solicitin) cases at law for the purpose of )ain, either personally or throu)h paid a)ents or %ro(ers, constitutes malpractice. 5he respondent has committed a )rossly immoral act and has, thus disre)arded and *iolated the fundamental ethics of his profession. ndeed, it is important that mem%ers of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themsel*es in accordance with the hi)hest standards of morality. As stated in para)raph /9 of the Canons of Judicial 2thicsI 5he lawyer should aid in )uardin) the %ar a)ainst the admission to the profession of candidates unt or un@ualied %ecause decient in either moral character or education. e should stri*e at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the di)nity of the profession and to impro*e not only the law %ut the administration of ustice. herefore, respondent Armando 4uno is here%y dis%arred and, as a conse@uence, his name is ordered stric(en o" from the #oll of Attorneys.
. %4&' <". BL$&A AC &o. 3=5 A>ril 30, 1953
AC!" Complainant Josena #oyon) char)e the respondent Ariston O%lena, a mem%er of the %ar and %ench, with rape. 5he +olicitor :eneral immediately conducted an in*esti)ation and found out that there was no rape, the carnal (nowled)e %etween complainant and respondent seems to %e consensual se. n *iew of his own ndin)s as a result of his in*esti)ation, that e*en if respondent did not commit the alle)ed rape, ne*ertheless, he was )uilty of other misconduct. 5he +olicitor :eneral made another complaint char)in) the respondent of falsely and deli%erately alle)in) in his application for admission to the %ar that he is a person of )ood moral character, of li*in)
adulterously with !riccia An)eles at the same time maintainin) illicit relations with the 18 year old Josena #oyon). 5hus renderin) him unt to practice law, prayin) that this Court render ud)ment orderin) the permanent remo*al of the respondent as lawyer and ud)e.
I""U$ hether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josena #oyon) and the adulterous coha%itation of respondent with !riccia An)eles warrants dis%arment. $L; Ariston O%lena was dis%arred. %A!I 5he continued possession of a fair pri*ate and professional character or a )ood moral character is a re@uisite condition for the ri)htful continuance in the practice of law for one who has %een admitted, and its loss re@uires suspension or dis%arment e*en thou)h the statutes do not specify that as )round for dis%arment. #espondents conduct thou)h unrelated to his oBce and in no way directly %earin) on his profession, has ne*ertheless rendered him unt and unworthy of the pri*ile)es of a lawyer. =ornication, if committed under such scandalous or re*oltin) circumstances as ha*e pro*en in this case, as to shoc( common sense of decency, certainly may ustify positi*e action %y the Court in protectin) the presti)e of the no%le profession of the law. As former Chief Justice &oran o%ser*edI An applicant for license to practice law is re@uired to show )ood moral character, or what he really is, as distin)uished from )ood reputation, or from the opinion )enerally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held %y the pu%lic in the place where he is (nown. #espondent, therefore, did not possess a )ood moral character at the time he applied for admission to the %ar. e li*ed an adulterous life with !riccia An)eles, and the fact that people who (new him seemed to ha*e ac@uiesced to his status, did not render him a person of )ood moral character. t is of no moment that his immoral state was disco*ered then or now as he is clearly not t to remain a mem%er of the %ar. 5. A7aiar vs. *a?, 93 "C%A 91 =. A@1 inancial "ervices vs.
8. Alfreo Bon vs. Atty.
acts Accordin) to the complainant, the !ons si)ned the Waiver and Quitclaim %ecause of Atty. Mi)a's representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a pre*iously eecuted +pecial 4ower of Attorney. As it turned out, howe*er, the document was a wai*er in fa*or of Mi)a of all the properties which the !ons inherited from their parents and predecessors6in6 interest. Atty. Arcan)el's part, he eplained that assumin) that he notariDed the Waiver and Quitclaim in the a%sence of the si)natories, his act is merely a *iolation of the ;otarial Law %ut not a )round for dis%arment. e further a*ers that he was a%le to tal( to &aria !on and #afael !on6Canafe, %oth co6 si)natories to the document, o*er the phone. &aria !on and #afael !on6 Canafe alle)edly declared that they si)ned the Waiver and Quitclaim. 5he two, in fact, personally deli*ered the document for notariDation in his oBce. 5hus, he posits that there was su%stantial compliance with the ;otarial Law since a notary pu%lic's primordial underta(in) is merely to ensure that the si)natures on a document are )enuine. As lon) as they are so, the notary pu%lic can alle)edly ta(e the ris( of notariDin) the document althou)h the si)natories are not present.
Issue hether or not #espondents fraudulently eecuted the ai*er and Guitclaim.
el Atty. Mi)a, on his part, is not culpa%le. 5he fact that Amalia and An)elina !on are %oth hi)h school )raduates, while 5eresa !on is a colle)e )raduate ma(es it diBcult to %elie*e that they were decei*ed into thin(in) that the contents of the Waiver and Quitclaim, which is plainly worded, were other than what they themsel*es could ha*e easily ascertained from a readin) of the document. 5he complainta)ainst him is thus, dismissed for lac( of merit.
Atty. Arcan)el, howe*er, in notariDin) the Waiver and Quitclaim without re@uirin) all the persons who eecuted the document to personally appear %efore him and ac(nowled)e that the same is their free act and deed, manifestly %reached his duty as a notary pu%lic. ;otariDation is not an empty, meanin)less, routinary act. t is in*ested with su%stanti*e pu%lic interest, such that only those who are @ualied or authoriDed may act as notaries pu%lic. ;otariDation con*erts a pri*ate document into a pu%lic document thus ma(in) that document admissi%le in e*idence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is %y law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrati*e a)encies and the pu%lic at lar)e must %e a%le to rely upon the ac(nowled)ement eecuted %y a notary pu%lic and appended to a pri*ate instrument. =or this reason, notaries pu%lic must o%ser*e with utmost care the %asic re@uirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the condence of the pu%lic in the inte)rity of this form of con*eyance would %e undermined.
9. Castanea vs. Ao, 5 "C%A 12 10. ;irector vs. Bayot, =) *+il. =9 AC!" n June 19N>, !ayot ad*ertised in a newspaper that he helps people in securin) marria)e licensesF that he does so a*oidin) delays and pu%licityF that he also ma(es marria)e arran)ementsF that le)al consultations are free for the poorF and that e*erythin) is condential. 5he $irector of #eli)ious A"airs too( notice of the ad and so he sued !ayot for &alpractice. !ayot initially denied ha*in) pu%lished the ad*ertisement. !ut later, he admitted the same and as(ed for the court's mercy as he promised to ne*er repeat the act a)ain.
I""U$ hether or not !ayot is )uilty of &alpractice. $L; Kes. +ection /- of #ule 1/7 epressly pro*ides amon) other thin)s that
well6merited reputation for professional capacity and delity to trust. !ut %ecause of !ayot's plea for leniency and his promise and the fact that he did not earn any case %y reason of the ad, the +upreme Court merely reprimanded him.
