THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CASE DIGESTS ON VIOLATION OF CANON 7

Canon 7

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar

Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact, in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education or other relevant attribute.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Case Digest # 1 A.C. No. 7022 June 18, 2008 Marjorie F. Samaniego Complainant VS Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer Respondent

Facts:

Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate and subsequently cohabited with each other as husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and had a daughter born.

The affair ended in 2000 and since then respondent failed to support his daughter. Ms. Samaniego filed a complaint against the respondent before the IBP Commission on bar discipline. Complainant testified that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think he was already married with 10 children.

On November 12, 2005, the IBP imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law for his refusal to support his daughter with Ms. Samaniego. The IBP also admonished him to be a more responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his duties as a father.

Atty. Ferrer filed a MR and begs the compassion of the Honorable Court and states that the gravity of the penalty imposed and meted out, depriving herein respondent to earn a modest living for a period of six (6) months, will further cause extreme hardship to his family of ten (10) children.

Problem Area:
Whether the act of the respondent constitutes lacked of degree of morality as required of a member of the bar?

Ruling: Yes, the Court finds the Respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary actions on Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Conduct as well as the Canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredits of the legal profession, thus the Court sustains the recommendation of the bar confidante that Respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law.

Case Digest # 2 A.C. No. 6148, Feb. 27, 2004 Florence Macarrubo vs. Atty. Edmundo Macarrubo

Facts: Florence Teves Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her two children, filed on June 6, 2000 a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo with the IBP, alleging that respondent deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen Esparza.

Complainant averred that they contracted marriage although respondent admitted that he was married to Helen Esparza, however he succeeded in convincing her, her family and friends that his previous marriage was void.

Complainant further alleged that respondent entered into a third marriage with one Josephine T. Constantino and that he abandoned her and their children without providing them any regular support.

Respondent in his defense denied employing deception in his marriage to complainant, insisting instead that complainant was fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage to Helen Esparza, but that she dragged him against his will to a "sham wedding" to protect her and her family's reputation since she was then three-months pregnant.

Respondent submitted in evidence the final and executory decision of Branch IV of the RTC of Tuguegarao City in Civil Case No. 5617, "Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Florence J. Teves, declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio as well as the existing annulment process of the third marriage. He further proved his constant support of their children in terms of education and leisure.

After due hearing the IBP subsequently passed Resolution No. XV-2003-351 which adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo be SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS for gross misconduct reflecting unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession.

Problem Area: Whether the act of the Respondent in contracting several marriages constitute immorality despite the fact that those marriages were later declared annulled?

RULING:
Yes, The Court finds that the respondent is indeed guilty of gross misconduct in his private affairs which warrant disciplinary action by this Court as the guardian of the purity and integrity of the legal profession. The annulment of his marriages with final judgment did not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety.

In sum, Respondent breached the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the same code. The penalty recommended by the IBP which is 3 months suspension did not commensurate to the gravity of his conduct and the Court modified it to DISBARMENT.

Case Digest # 3 A.C. No. 7494, June 27, 2008 Wilson Cham

vs.
Atty. Eva Paita-Moya

This is a case charged against the respondent due to the failure of the latter is settling her rental dues against the defendant for the contract of lease she had entered on the Realty and Development Corp. Represented by the complainant as president the alleged default in rental payments was done in a deceitful manner as the respondent surreptitiously abandoned the rented apartment bringing along the door key and leaving an unpaid electric bills.

This prompted the leasor to send demand to the leasee for the payment of said [Link] respondent argued that she did not vacated the place surreptitiously but instead give way to the owners demand of vacating for the renovation of the building, she further reasoned out that she was able to pay his rental dues and even allowed to extend its rentals even in the expiration of their contract.

Problem Area:
Is the act of the Respondent in not paying his rental dues deceitfully constitutes a violation of her code of professional responsibility?

Ruling Yes, the court finds the conduct of the respondent violative of the code of professional responsibility, it also emphasized the moral duty and legal responsibility of the respondent to settle just debts when due. The court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and hereby suspending her from practicing law for one month.

Case Digest # 4 A.C. No. 5161 April 14, 2004

Isdra Ting-Dumali
VS Atty. Rolando Torres

Facts:
The complainant was among the heirs Julita ands Vicente Ting. The respondent was the brother in law of the complainant and the case stemmed from the execution of the deed of extra judicial settlement and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery.

The wife of the respondent as well as another sister executed stating that they are the only heirs of the Ting spouses and falsify the signature of the complainant. The defense of the respondent was anchored on a clear oversight of not including the name of the complainant as heirs.

Problem Area Whether the act of the respondent is violative of his oath of profession as well as the canons of professional ethics?

Ruling:

The court resolve the issue as violations of the lawyers oath and the code of professional responsibility. Respondents acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession.

They found the respondent guilty of the lawyers path and code of professional responsibility thereby rendering the latter unworthy to remain as member of the legal profession. He is thus ordered barred from practice of law and his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.

Case Digest # 5 A.C. No. 4585 November 12, 2004

Michael Barrios
VS Atty. Francisco Martinez

Facts: Atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime of BP 22. He was also involved in another Estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered on the victim of Dona Paz tragedy. The victim he represented filed a complaint because of the compensation that the victim had received from Sulpicio Lines which was later deducted by Atty. Martinez.

On September 27, 2003 the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution approving the report and the recommendation of its investigating commission. On December 3,2003, Respondent filed an MR and reinvestigation.

Problem Area Is the crime of issuing a worthless check constitutes moral turpitude ? Is the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for disbarment?

Ruling: Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of BP 22 which imports deceit and violation of his attorneys oath and code of professional responsibility in this case. The court also finds disbarment as the appropriate penalty and ordered the name of the respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys.

A.C. No. 7269

November 23, 2011

ATTY. EDITA NOELACSAMANA, Complainant, vs.

FACTS: Atty. Noe-Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in a Civil Case before the RTC of Pasig, Branch 167 while Atty. Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. Atty.

Atty. Lacsamana alleged that Ulasos deed of sale over the property subject of said Civil Case was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284, and another case for falsification was filed against his client Ulaso.

In her complaint, Atty. Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times from November 2003 to February 2005.

That court orders and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmentes collaborating counsel. However, upon verification, Atty. Lacsamana discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente claimed that Dela Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there was no proof of her separation from employment. The IBP-CBD found that notices from the MTC San Juan, as well as the pleadings of the case, were all sent to Busmentes designated office address.

Busmentes only excuse that Dela Rosa connived with his former secretary Macasieb so that the notices and pleadings would not reach him is lack of merit. On 26 May 2006 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, with modification by reducing the period of Busmentes suspension from 2 years to six months. Respondent filed a MR but subsequently denied.

Issue/Problem area: Whether Atty. Busmente can be held liable for directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her unauthorized practice of law in projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel?

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that the term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services.

That holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.

Canon 9 states that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate.

And, the law makes it misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. Records clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso.

Wherefore, the court agrees with the findings of the IBP that the respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that the decision of the IBP is hereby AFFIRMED.