Santuyo vs.

Hidalgo (2005) Case of a lawyer who was negligent of his notarial duty by making his secretary use his seal. Ponente: Corona Facts: - Complainants Benjamin and Editha Santuyo retrieved notarization for a deed of sale from respondent lawyer (Atty. Edwin Hidalgo). - A Danilo German contests the ownership of the land. He had an affidavit from respondent lawyer denying the authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale. It was alleged that the Santuyo spouses forged respondents signature. - The deed of sale had all the legal formalities of a deed of sale, including respondents dry seal. - Respondent denies notarizing the deed of sale. He was then a junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; he did notary public duties. He avers that sometimes, the secretaries by themselves affix the dry seals of the junior associates on documents by the firm. - Respondents says he was on vacation when the deed in question was notarized, and that he did not know the Santuyos until 6 years after the said notarization. He says the secretaries must have affixed the dry seal when he was not in the office (with the concurrence of the senior partners). - Case referred to IBP. - IBP said the signatures were indeed questionable BUT respondent lawyer was negligent, allowing secretaries to execute his notarial functions, including keeping his dry seal and notarial register. Issue: -1. WON the signature was forged. YES. 2. WON respondent was negligent in his notarial duty. YES. Ratio: - 1. Santuyos had no personal knowledge of respondent lawyers act of notarizing the said deed. They just to the office and the firm gave them a deed with respondents notarization. -Santuyos did not contest the fact that they met respondent lawyer 6 years after the notarization of questioned deed. (So they really did not appear before the respondent) - 2. The responsibility attached to a notary public is SENSITIVE. Respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties. He should not have entrusted everything to secretaries.

- Entrusting everything to secretaries open up many possibilities of misusage. - Negligence of respondent lawyer is not only found in the questioned notarization of deed, but in the act of entrusting to secretaries the act of making necessary entries in his notarial registry. Held: -Respondent is GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE, and is suspended from his commission as a notary public for 2 years.

Barrios v. Martinez (2004) Case of a lawyer who was disbarred for having committed estafa (which is a crime involving moral turpitude) Per Curiam. Facts: - this is a petition for disbarment of Atty. Francisco Martinez who was convicted of estafa (BP 22) for a check worth P8,000. - Respondent also has a problem with responding to resolutions. He was ordered to be arrested for contempt after three years. He was arrested two months later, but was released. - Apparently, Martinez was again involed in estafa cases involving the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy. He promised to represent the victims for free, but when his clients were able to get money from the case, he demanded exorbitant charges (60,000 with interest of the 90,000 received by client). - It was noted that in the said Dona Paz case, Martinez again used dilatory tactics (14 instances). - Case referred to IBP. - IBP said the death of the complainant against Martinez does not bar proceedings against him. IBP may motu propio initiate proceedings when there are purported sanctioable acts by lawyers. Respondent lacked good moral characterhe was fined twice, arrested, imprisoned, convicted of estafa. - IBP recommended disbarment. Issue: -1. WON violation of BP 22 involved moral turpitude. 2. WON Martinezs disbarment is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. 3. WON Martinez should be disbarred. Ratio: -1. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. In People v Tuanda it was held that violations of BP 22 involves moral turpitudeit certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense issuing a check when at the time of issuance it is known that there is no sufficient funds is a manifestation of moral turpitudeimports deceit which is against the interests of the community at large. -2. the purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable. Disbarment is not just a civil action. They do not involve just private interests; they are prosecuted for the PUBLICS WELFARE and for the

purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them -3. Respondent is guilty of a number of delays (e.g. filing his Comments, etc.). Court has disciplined lawyers for willful disregard of its orders to file comments or briefs, as a penalty for disobedience thereof. Nor does the argument of respondents age prospers. His age and his status as a judge (before) demand from him a higher standard of behavior. He was also found guilty of estafa in a criminal case, and penalty for such according to precedent is disbarment. Held: Respondent is DISBARRED.

Castillo de vda. De Mijares v. Villaluz (1997) Case of an ex-Justice who made a sham out of marriage. Niloko ba naman fellow Judge din. Ponente: Regalado Facts: -this is a complaint for disbarment against respondent Onofre Villaluz (retired Justice of CA) by Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares on the basis of gross immorality and grave misconduct. -There was a bigamy case filed already, but the CA decided on it nonetheless. Villaluz was found guilty of gross misconduct and according to Rule 138 ROC, he should be suspended for two years. -Apparently, complainant and respondent got married (they met in the murder case of the killers of complainants son, and respondent was still a Justice in the CA). They had a fight during their honeymoon because of some female crankcaller (but was she really just a crankcaller, or was she a mistress of respondentwe may never know). Respondent: Ang gusto ko sa babae yung sumusunod sa gusto ko. Get that marriage contract and have it burned. (Uh-oh, lagot siya kay Latifah) They lived separately afterwards. - Several months later, complainant learned that respondent got married again from a fellow judge (Makasiar) in a Bible Study Group (wow, more like chikahan and bible study group). Apparently, Villaluz represented himself as SINGLE. -Defense of Villaluz: 1. his marriage with complainant was a SHAM marriage. He just wanted to save complainant from an immorality case against her existing before their marriage. 2. his marriage with his first wife was still subsisting during his marriage with complainant because the decree of annulment was not published yet. Issue: -WON complainant should be disbarred. NO. Supended for two years only. Ratio: -Villaluz is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. -The sham marriage defense does not speak well of respondents sense of social propriety and moral values, even if the said marriage was technically sham. This is aggravated by the fact that he is not just a layman, nor an ordinary lawyer, but a CA Justice who is supposed to know the consequences of marriage. -The marriage entered into with complainant had all the requisites (essential and formal).

-Even if the marriage did help complainant in her immorality case does not justify respondents entering into a sham marriage. He had other possible recourses, like giving positive testimony for complainant. -Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: a lawyer shall not engage unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. -Commision of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment. But mitigatorsold age and commendable years of service in the Judiciary. -obiter: We are the only Christian country in the Far East, so we should not tolerate mockeries of marriage.