LAWYER’S OATH:

I do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; I
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clientd; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.

RULE 138. Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause,
from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the
guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

RULE 138. Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
IN RE: AL CAPAROS ALGOSINO [Bar Matter No. 712 . March 19, 1997.]
Padilla, J.:
Facts: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to
his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.

The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites
sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The
eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.

On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C.
Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.

In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed by among others
two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a
scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family
and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

Issue/s: Whether or not Al Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and Sign the Roll of Attorneys despite his previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide

Ruling: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of
lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed
out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from
taking the lawyer' s oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less
than irreproachable.

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the
Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer' s oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On
the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. PREMISES
CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the Court, to
sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to practice the legal profession.

SPOUSES OLBES V DECIEMBRE [A.C. No. 5365. April 27, 2005.]
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Facts: Before us is a verified Petition for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes
with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. Petitioners charged respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty,
falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her application for
a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five
Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241- 45), which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as any
other loans that might be obtained in the future. Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up four (of the five)
blank PNB Checks (Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243 and 0046244) for the amount of P50,000 each.

On October 19, 1999, respondent filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal an Affidavit-Complaint against petitioners for
estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. respondent denied petitioners' claims, which he called baseless and devoid of any
truth and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring their commitment. He claimed that the
checks had already been fully filled up when petitioners signed them in his presence.

Issue/s: Whether or not Atty. DEciembre should be disbarred for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsifying
checks issued upon him by Spouses Olbes by writing on the checks the amound not agreed upon and thereafter filing a criminal
complaint for violation of B.P 22.

Ruling: "Complainants' version that they issued blank checks to respondent as security for the payment of a loan of P10,000.00 plus
interest, and that respondent filled up the checks in amounts not agreed upon appears to be more credible. That respondent who is a
lawyer would not even bother to ask from complainants a receipt for the money he has given, nor bother to verify and ask them what
businesses they would use the money for contributes further to the lack of credibility of respondent's version.

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the
duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The oath is a sacred trust that
must be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.
Atty. Deciembre thus committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their high
regard for him as a member of the bar that made them trust him with their blank checks. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of
Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that
had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondent's full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had
already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain. WHEREFORE,
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the practice of law effective immediately.

DE GUZMAN V DE DIOS [A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001.] PARDO, J.:

Facts: The case before the Court is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios on the ground of violation of Canon
15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for representing conflicting interests, and of Article 1491 Civil Code, for
acquiring property in litigation.

In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a corporation, which would engage in hotel and
restaurant business in Olongapo City. On January 29, 1998, complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent
shares and a copy of a board resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale. Complainant soon learned that her shares had
been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the corporation completely.
While respondent rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her life's savings invested therein. Complainant alleged
that she relied on the advice of Atty. de Dios and believed that as the majority stockholder, Atty. de Dios would help her with the
management of the corporation. Complainant pointed out that respondent appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings in a case
where complainant was one of the parties. Respondent, however, explained that she only appeared because the property involved
belonged to SBHI.

Issue/s:Whether or not respondent Atty. Lourdes De dios should be disbarred for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for representing conflicting interests.

Ruling: There are certain facts presented before us that created doubt on the propriety of the declaration of delinquent shares and
subsequent sale of complainant's entire subscription. Complainant subscribed to 29,800 shares equivalent to two million nine hundred
and eighty thousand pesos (P2,980,000.00). She was the majority stockholder. Out of the subscribed shares, she paid up seven
hundred forty-five thousand pesos (P745,000.00) during the stage of incorporation. How complainant got ousted from the corporation
considering the amount she had invested in it is beyond us. Granting that the sale of her delinquent shares was valid, what happened to
her original shares? This, at least, should have been explained. Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship
between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She
appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant. There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed,
the board of directors now included respondent as the president

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer
according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath
as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate. WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios remiss in her sworn
duty to her client, and to the bar. The Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6) months.

MELEGRITO V BARBA [58 PHIL. 513, 2 OCTOBER 1933]VICKERS, J.:

Facts: These charges of malpractice filed by Felix Melegrito on behalf of himself and 230 other persons against Attorney Eusebio C.
Barba were referred in due course to the Solicitor-General for investigation and report. As the complainants were residents of the
Province of Tarlac, the Solicitor-General entrusted the investigation to the fiscal of that province. At the instance of the respondent the
investigation, after being transferred several times, was set for April 4, 1933, but the respondent did not appear on that date. The
complainants, accompanied by an attorney, appeared and presented their evidence, consisting of the testimony of Felix Melegrito and
various exhibits. The provincial fiscal found the respondent attorney guilty of serious malpractice committed by defrauding the
complainants of P8,226, and recommended that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to return said amount
to the complainants.

It appears from an examination of the record that Francisco Gonzales, the owner of the greater part of the "Hacienda Esperanza",
transferred certain portions of it to his daughters and daughters filed separate applications in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
for the registration of their respective portions of the hacienda. The registration was opposed by Felix Melegrito and more than 230
other persons.

It does not appear that the respondent made any attempt, either in Manila or in Washington, to take the cases of the complainants to
the Supreme Court of the United States, because, as the respondent states, the decision of this court had become 􏰀nal and
unappealable, and the records had been returned to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.

Issue/s: Whether or not respondent Atty. Barba should be disbarred for deceiving the petitioners and making them believe that their
case could have an adverse decision but in truth has already been decided.
Ruling: we are satisfied that he never so informed them, but on the contrary led them to believe that the cases could be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States, and that to prosecute the appeal to the best advantage it was necessary for him to go to
Washington. the receipts, Exhibits B, B-1 to B-6, show that the respondent collected at least P3,530 before he sailed for the United
States; that in September, 1930, the respondent wrote a letter to Felix Melegrito, Exhibit F, inquiring whether the voyage was to be
made or not, and urging Melegrito to advance P1,000 for the account of the respondent's compadre in order to make up the agreed
amount.

The respondent attorney is guilty of malpractice. He collected several thousand pesos from the complainants for the purpose of taking
their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, but he never removed said cases to that court or attempted to do so, because the
decision of this court had already become final and unappealable, and he was guilty of deceit in concealing that fact from the
complainants while collecting fees from them for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent
is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years from this date and until he shall have repaid to the complainants the
sum of P4,228, payment thereof to be evidenced by receipts in due form, which shall be attached to the record of this case.

CHUA V MESINA [A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004.] PER CURIAM:

Facts: By a verified complaint received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on May 5, 1998, Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia
administratively charged Atty. Simeon M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.

Respondent was, for years, Ana Alvaran Chua and her now deceased husband Chua Yap An's legal counsel and adviser upon whom
they reposed trust and con􏰀dence. They were in fact lessees of a building situated at Burgos Street, Cabanatuan City (Burgos
property) owned by respondent's family, and another property containing an area of 854 sq. m., situated at Melencio Street,
Cabanatuan City (Melencio property), also owned by respondent's family whereon they (spouses Chua) constructed their house. These
two properties were mortgaged by the registered owner, respondent's mother Felicisima Melencio vda. de Mesina (Mrs. Mesina), in
favor of the Planters Development Bank to secure a loan she obtained.

As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, respondent convinced complainant Ana Chua and her husband to help Mrs.
Mesina by way of settling her obligation in consideration for which the Melencio property would be sold to them at P850.00/sq.m.

one Juanito Tecson (Tecson) filed an Affidavit dated February 20, 1986 before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutor's Office charging
respondent's mother, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the said Deed of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of
Public Document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code. In his complaint a􏰀davit, Tecson alleged that he was also a lessee of the
Melencio property and was, along with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that contrary to their agreement, the property
was sold only to complainant and her co-complainant, to his exclusion. Tecson went on to relate that the February 9, 1979 Deed of
Absolute Sale did not re􏰀ect the true value of the Melencio property and was antedated "to evade payment of capital gains tax."

Some years later or on May 2, 1990, respondent approached complainants and told them that he would borrow the owner's copy of
Mrs. Mesina's title with the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of sale over the Melencio
property in complainants' favor. Despite respondent's repeated promises "to effect" the transfer of title in complainants' name, he
failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio property was being offered for sale to the public.

Issue/s: Whether or not Atty. Mesina should be disbarred for falsification of documents and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, 7, 15, and 17 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, and 15.07.

Ruling: This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes,
he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That
respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government is aggravating.Second, when respondent convinced
complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants
reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed dishonesty. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own
clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the owner's copy of his mother's title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in
four months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty. That the
signature of "Felicisima M. Melencio" in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly different is in fact is a badge
of falsification

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty
and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher
standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at "arms length." WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. SIMEON
M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.

TOLEDO V ABALOS [A.C. No. 5141. September 29, 1999.] MELO, J.:
Facts: On July 9, 1981, Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from
date, plus interest of 5% per month. To guarantee the payment of said obligation, respondent executed a Promissory Note (Exhibit
"B"). After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation.

Issue/s: Whether or not disciplinary sanctions should be given to Atty. Erlinda Abalos for non-payment of her debts in her private
capacity.

Ruling: The Commission, however, declined to discipline her for failing to meet her financial obligation, the same having been
incurred in her private capacity.

We agree with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the IBP or by this Court for failing to pay her
obligation to complainant. Complainant's remedy is to 􏰀le a collection case before a regular court of justice against respondent. The
general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him,
for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity.

It was, however, still necessary for respondent to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its authority over her as a
member of the IBP. Her wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary sanction. Thus, her suspension from the
practice of law for one month is warranted.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE MONTH.

COJUANCGCO V PALMA [A.C. No. 2474. September 15, 2004.]


PER CURIAM:

Facts: Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as
grounds "deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct." Complainant
and respondent met sometime in the 70's. Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and
respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire
respondent as his personal counsel. Consequently, respondent's relationship with complainant's family became intimate. He traveled
and dined with them abroad. He frequented their house and even tutored complainant's 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco
(Lisa), then a student of Assumption Convent. On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainant's family, respondent married
Lisa in Hongkong. It was only the next day that respondent informed complainant and assured him that "everything is legal."
Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and has three children. respondent misrepresented
himself as "bachelor" before the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa and respondent was married to Elizabeth
Hermosisima and has three children

Issue/s: Whether or not respondent Atty. Leo Palma should be disbarred for conducting a bigamous marriage with complainant’s
daughter.

Ruling: Undoubtedly, respondent's act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court . He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In
particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. we have somehow come up
with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, i.e., "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community .

In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the
extreme penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let respondent's name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys immediately.