Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: FACTS:
The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and application of PD No. 1508
case against respondent, Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave which mandates that all disputes, except those specifically cited (the dispute
misconduct. The respondent was found to have issued 2 orders awarding between Lothar Schulz and Wilson Ong not included), between and among
custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission, ordered a bank to residents of the same city or municipality should be brought first under the
reinstate the bank account of the said complainant, engaging in private system of barangay conciliation before recourse to the court can be allowed.
practice, notarizing public documents, and attending court hearings while Because of respondents transgressions, his client was haled to court as part-
filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time. The case defendant. Respondent also refused to return petitioners money in spite of
was referred to the IBP and the investigating commissioner recommended his meager service.
suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6 months.
HELD:
ISSUE: GUILTY of negligence and incompetence. SUSPENDED for (6) months.
WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the RETURN the money of complainant with interest. STERNLY WARNED
following alleged acts: that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a more severely.
government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records; The breach of respondents sworn duty as a lawyer and of the ethical
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and standards he was strictly to honor and observe has been sufficiently
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case established. Respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence
against him for engaging in private practice. required of every member of the Bar.
HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that
Flora Narido vs Atty. Jaime Linsangan he shall collect 15% from whatever amount they shall collect from De Dios
as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the
58 SCRA 85 Legal Ethics Mutual Bickering Between Opposing Counsels Workmens Compensation Act, hes only allowed to collect a maximum of
10%. Hes advised to keep abreast of said law.
FACTS:
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma represented
Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer Vergel De Dios, the
client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the proceedings in the trial court,
Atty. Risma vehemently opposed the submission of a certain affidavit
executed by De Dios because, in the belief of Risma, said affidavit is
perjured. He threatened Atty. Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in
court, they shall file a disbarment case against him. The affidavit was filed
and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative case against Linsangan.
FACTS:
Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris
Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is
having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom
they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted tohim
about the relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui
to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail.
According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When
respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with
children to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China.
Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their
relationship. When respondent knew of the realstatus of Carlos Ui, she
stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos
Uinever lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to
gradually accept thesituation. Respondent however presented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.
HELD:
The practice of law is a privilege.A bar candidate does not have the right to
enjoy thepractice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can berevoked, subject to the mandate of
due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal
ethics.one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possessgood moral character.More importantly, possession of good
moral character must be continuous asa requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is aground for the
revocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly
immoral conduct,or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude". A member of the bar shouldhave moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was notproven to have
conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case is dismissed.
But sheis reprimanded and given a stern warning with regards to the of her
marriage contract with aninculcated date.