FACTS:
Felipe G. Calderon, a member of the Philippine bar, was suspended by the Court of First Instance of Manila on 29 January 1904 pursuant to §§ 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Attorney‑General thereafter instituted disbarment proceedings. Three charges were asserted. First, Calderon was accused of willfully ignoring a 25 July 1903 order in the estate of the late Francisca Hilario, which authorized administrator José Mas to deposit estate funds in a bank if he deemed it appropriate. The Supreme Court found that the order merely permitted, not mandated, deposit; thus non‑deposit could not be labeled disobedient. Second, Calderon allegedly refused to turn over to the clerk of the court monies claimed to be in his possession, pursuant to two orders dated 27 August 1904 and 26 September 1904 directing the administrator to deposit ₱ 4,607.89 and ₱ 10,514.14 respectively. The lower court had deemed Calderon’s fees excessive and ordered any amount above ₱ 5,000 to be turned over. Calderon contended the sums were lawful fees approved by the heirs and had appealed the orders; the Supreme Court held that failure to comply pending appeal did not rise to the level of a disqualifying offense.

The third charge concerned Calderon’s participation in the public sale of a pottery factory belonging to the Hilario estate. He allegedly induced buyer Enrique Ayllón to purchase the property, thereafter partitioning it with him, an act that the Attorney‑General said violated the attorney’s oath and Article 1459 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation in which they are interested. Testimony and Calderon’s own admissions indicated he benefitted from the transaction, confirming the existence of malpractice and a conflict of interest.

ISSUE:
Whether Calderon’s alleged conduct—(1) non‑deposit of estate funds, (2) refusal to turn over money ordered to be deposited, and (3) participation in the purchase of estate property—constitutes grave misconduct sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment under the applicable code of professional ethics and statutes.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that the first two allegations, while improper, did not constitute a ground for suspension or disbarment, especially given Calderon’s pending appeal and the permissive nature of the initial court order. However, the third allegation was deemed a grave breach of the lawyer’s oath and a clear violation of Article 1459, amounting to serious illegal conduct and malpractice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the suspension already imposed on 29 December 1904 and ordered the publication of the judgment, thereby terminating the suspension. No disbarment was decreed, but the sanction imposed underscored the seriousness of the ethical breach.