ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON v. ATTY. MARICHU C.
LAMBINO there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioner for violation
of P.D. No. 1829. x x x,
ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO v. ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON
(Consolidated) held that the objection of the said UP officials to the arrest of the
students ―cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829,
A.C. No. 6968, 9 August 2006
Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it unconstitutional,‖ they having ―a
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of right to prevent the arrest [of the students] at the time because
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. their attempted arrest was illegal.‖
Dennis Venturina (Venturina), Francis Carlo Taparan (Taparan) By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students
and Raymundo Narag (Narag) were taken as suspects in the without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of
killing of a UP student. They were taken into the custody of Col. the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides, among
Eduardo Bentain, head of the UP Security Force. Atty. Orlando others that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations Group, requested at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
that Taparan and Narag be taken into his custody. Atty. Marichu system.
Lambino (Lambino), Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, opposed Atty.
Dizon’s move, he not being armed with a warrant for their arrest.
After what appeared to be a heated discussion between Atty.
Dizon and the UP officials, the students were allowed to go back
to their dormitories. Atty. Villamor committed to accompany them
to the NBI the following morning. Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Canon 1.
Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty. He A.C. No. 7136
also earlier filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Lambino before
the Ombudsman for violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it August 1, 2007
unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution
of criminal offenses. Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Atty Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with
Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Upon Atty.
for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
Lambino’s motion, the administrative cases were consolidated.
lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the
ISSUES: respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Whether or not Atty. Lambino or Atty. Dizon acted within their
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
official duties
HELD: After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
By Report and Recommendation submitted to the Board of receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages
Governors of the IBP on June 20, 2005, CBD Investigating some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at
Commissioner Siegfrid B. Mison recommended the dismissal of Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very
the complaint against Atty. Lambino in light of a finding that she late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and
―acted within her official duties as she safeguarded the rights of sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her
the students in accordance with the school’s substitute parental whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in
authority‖ and ―within the bounds of the law as the NBI agents Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
had no warrants of arrest.‖
With respect to the complaint against Atty. Dizon, the In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and
Commissioner recommended to reprimand him for violating the Respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion,
Code of Professional Responsibility in ―recklessly trying to he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal
arrest‖ the suspects without warrant. house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s
birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution of October 22, 2005, celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment,
adopted and approved the Commissioner’s Report. The IBP anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following
thereupon transferred to this Court its Notice of Resolution, that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all
together with the records of the cases which this Court noted by her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten
Resolution of February 1, 2006. letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene,
Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene
When the complaint of Atty. Dizon before the Ombudsman
constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he
against Chancellor Posadas, Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and Atty.
was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already
Lambino was elevated on Certiorari and Prohibition, this Court
residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene
addressing in the negative the two issues raised therein, to wit:
on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a
(1) Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the concert, she was pregnant.
NBI could be validly made without a warrant; and (2) Whether
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the disbarment.
reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala. Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no
way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered
Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock common
conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the
the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law.
ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license
keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual to practice law is required to show good moral character, or what
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the
is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is
be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium held by the public in the place where he is known.
period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at
inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and the time he applied for admission to the bar. He lived an
shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a knew him sqemed to have acuuiesced to his utatus, did noq
lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly
violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 not fit to remain a member of the bar.
and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Alfonso v Juanson AM No. RTJ-92-904 December
LEGAL PROFESSION CASE 23
7, 1993
ROYONG VS. OBLENA
AC No. 376 April 30, 1963 FACTS:
En Banc, Barrera
The case involves a complaint filed by a doctor of medicine, Dr.
FACTS: Norbert L. Alfonso, charging Judge Juanson with immorality and
• Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston violation of the Code of Judicial ethics, alleging that Juanson and
Oblena, a member of the bar and bench, with rape. The Solicitor his wife Sol were having an affair. The complainant has in his
General immediately conducted an investigation and found out possession love letters written by Sol to prove his claim, provided
that there was no rape, the carnal knowledge between by Judge Juanson's wife. Sol, however, denied this claim several
complainant and respondent seems to be consensual sex. times. Other evidence for the prosecution includes files of a
• In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that private investigator hired by Dr. Alfonso's father showing that Sol
even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape, nevertheless, had met with Judge Juanson on 17 July 1992 in a condominium
unit in Mandaluyong and that they stayed there for approximately
he was guilty of other misconduct. The Solicitor General made
three hours. Dr. Alfonso confronted Sol about the evidence that
another complaint charging the respondent of falsely and
was gathered by his father. At first she denied the affair but later
deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar in the evening she admitted having an illicit affair with Judge
that he is a person of good moral character, of living adulterously Juanson. Sol also admitted to the Complainant that when she
with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations went to Hongkong on December 26, 1989 up to December 29,
with the 18 year old Josefina Royong. Thus rendering him unfit to 1989 she was with Respondent Judge, and records of the
practice law, praying that this Court render judgment ordering the Commission on Immigration for said dates show that both Sol
permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge. Alfonso and Respondent Judge Modesto Juanson departed for
Hongkong via Cathay Pacific plane on December 26, 1989 and
ISSUE: returned to Manila on December 29, 1989 The Alfonso spouses
Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina decided to live in separate house.
Royong and the adulterous cohabitation of respondent with In defense, Judge Juanson claims that he first knew Sol
Briccia Angeles warrants disbarment. in 1987 when she engaged his professional services in
connection with the criminal cases filed by her office. In June
1992 (while the Alfonso spouses were in the US) he received an
HELD: overseas call from Sol asking him for advice concerning her
Ariston Oblena was disbarred. problem with her employer. They met up after the return of Sol in
the Philippines to discuss her problem. He added that it was
RATIO: impossible for him to have sexual intercourse with Sol because
The continued possession of a fair private and professional he has been suffering from two debilitating diseases – diabetes
character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for mellitus and prostatitis (which have seriously affected his sexual
the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has potency).
been admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment
even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Juanson's alleged sexual sentenced to pay a FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS
impropriety is a ground for him to be dismissed from the Judiciary (P2,000.00) and, further, sternly warned that a repetition of the
HELD: same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
No. There is no doubt in our minds that a very special DE YSASI v NLRC
relationship existed between the respondent and the G.R. No. 104599. March 11, 1994
complainant's wife as evidenced by cards or notes (love letters). REGALADO, J.
It is clear that their affair began before Sol and Dr. Alfonso were
married on 10 December 1988 and might have blossomed from FACTS:
the attorney-client relationship between respondent and Sol.
However, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that Atty. De Ysasi and De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively.
he and Sol continued their extramarital affair after Judge Juanson The father owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. Son is
was appointed to the judiciary. Sol's admission to her husband employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. Son III
that she had carnal knowledge with the judge made no reference underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and
to specific dates and the side of Dr. Alfonso exerted no further while he’s nursing from his infections he was terminated, without
effort to obtain clarifications as to the dates. It cannot be safely due process, by his father. Son filed against his father for illegal
presumed that Juanson committed any sexual indiscretion after dismissal before the NLRC. His father invoked that his son
he became a judge. He is not charged for immorality committed actually abandoned his work.
before his appointment. Accordingly, proof of prior immoral
conduct cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this ISSUE:
case. Judge Juanson may have undergone moral reformation Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
after his appointment, or his appointment could have completely Whether they failed to settle without resorting to the courts.
transformed him upon the solemn realization that a public office is
a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a.)
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
and justice, and lead modest lives. However, considering their reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
prior special relationship, the respondent and Sol's meetings relationship, with the second element as the more determinative
could reasonably incite suspicion of either its continuance or factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such intent
revival and the concomitant intimacies expressive of such was proven in this case.
relationship. Such indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct
an appearance of impropriety. He thus violated: Yes. Once again, we reiterate that the useful function of a lawyer
Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible
mandates that “a judge's official conduct should be free from the by advising settlement or withholding suit. Their relationship
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only allows them to settle the case even without resorting to the court.
upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also
in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach," and · Canon 2
of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that "a judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all PAJARES v ABAD SANTOS
activities." G.R. NO. L-29543. November 29, 1969
It is to be noted that 17 July 1992 fell on a Friday. On TEEHANKEE, J.
that date, the respondent left his office at the City Hall of Manila
at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning and arrived at Unit 412-A FACTS:
Citihomes thirty minutes later. It is, therefore, clear that on 17 July Udharam Bazar & Co. sued Gloria Pajares for recovery of a
1992 the respondent had left his office during office hours and, certain sum of money. The lawsuit was eventually assigned to the
considering the distance between Mandaluyong and his office at sala of the respondent Judge Abad Santos.
the City Hall of Manila and the usual traffic condition, it was In its complaint the Udharam Bazar & Co. averred, that pajares
impossible for him to have reached his office — if at all he did received the ordered good but never paid.
proceed to it — in time for the commencement of the official Instead of answering the complaint against her, Pajares, moved
session hours in the afternoon, i.e., 2:00 p.m. Thus, for purely for a bill of particulars to require Udharam Bazar & Co. to itemize
personal sessions, he violated the rule regarding the official the kinds of goods which she supposedly purchased from the
sentence. Such violation amounted to neglect of duty. said company. Pajares alleged that the judge acted in grave
abuse of discretion and sent petition in CFI up to SC.
It has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself
at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise,
can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to ISSUE:
him as the epitome of integrity and justice. The ethical principles Whether counsel for petitioner failed in his duty to encourage
and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation amicable settlement or a confession of judgment to accord
of the faith of the people in the judiciary. It is settled that respect to the other party’s claim, saving his client additional
immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes expenses and help prevent the clogging of court dockets.
conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption,
indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or RULING:
shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of Yes. The appeal is frivolous and a plain trick to delay payment
respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate and prolong litigation unnecessarily. Such attitude deserves
attitude toward good order and public welfare. condemnation, wasting as it does, the time that the courts could
well devote to meritorious cases.
WHEREFORE, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the This simple collection case has needlessly clogged the court
Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the rule on official time, dockets for over seven years. Had appellant been but prudently
respondent JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON is hereby advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her
creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her lawful
indebtedness, the expenses of litigation that she has incurred by
