• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
LEGAL ETHICSDIGESTSA
TENEO
C
ENTRAL
B
AR
O
PERATIONS
2002
T 
OLOSA
& A
SSOCIATES 
A. Lawyers
1. Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct 
Ui v. Atty. BonifacioA.C. No. 3319. July 8, 2000. 333 SCRA 35
PONENTE: De LeonFACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on the ground of immorality for having illicit relations with a married man which resulted in the birth of two children. Her defense: She married complainant's husband without knowledge, in good faith, of his truemarriage status; that she parted ways upon knowledge of such fact. She is also charged for disrespect toward the IBP for willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of the marriagecertificate.HELD While a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct," there is no fixed standardfor such conduct. Although circumstances existed which should have irked Bonifacio'ssuspicion, her act cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that showsindifference to moral norms of society. Moreover, "a member of the bar must so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moralstandards." Bonifacio's act of immediately distancing herself from complainant's husband uponknowledge of his true civil status avoids the alleged moral indifference--that she had no intentionof flouting the law and the high standards of the legal profession. The complaint is dismissed butshe is reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of her marriage certificate.2
. Malpractice
Daroy v. AbeciaA.C. No. 3046, Oct. 26, 1998. 298 SCRA 239
PONENTE: MendozaFACTS: Case of malpractice. Abecia was counsel of Daroy in a case for forcible entry.Judgment was for Daroy. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff sold at public auction a parcel of land belonging to one of the defendants to complainant Daroy as highest bidder. Daroy allegedthat he entrusted the title to the land (TCT No. T-315) to Abecia as his counsel and allowed himto take possession of the land upon the latter's request. Daroy, then, accused Abecia of having,forged his signature in a deed of absolute sale by means of which the latter was able to transfer a parcel of land first to Jose Gangay and eventually to his wife Nena Abecia. Abecia claimedthat the land was conveyed to him as payment of his legal services to Daroy.HELD: Abecia is not guilty. The parties were mistaken in thinking that Abecia could not validlyacquire the land. In
Guevara v. Calalang 
, on facts similar to those in this case, the SC held thatthe prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land, acquired by a client tosatisfy a judgment in his favor, to his attorney as long as the property was not the subject of thelitigation. However, the parties thought that the transfer of the land to Abecia was prohibited andso they contrived a way whereby the land would be sold to Jose Gangay, whose wife Anita isthe sister of Mrs. Nena Abecia, and then Gangay would sell the land to Mrs. Abecia. The sale of the land to Gangay may be fictitious and, therefore, void, but it is evident that Daroy intended toconvey the land ultimately to Abecia.
3. Res judicata
Reynaldo Halimao vs. Daniel Villanueva et. alA.C. No. 3825. Feb. 1, 1996. 253 SCRA 1
PONENTE: Mendoza1
 
LEGAL ETHICSDIGESTSA
TENEO
C
ENTRAL
B
AR
O
PERATIONS
2002
T 
OLOSA
& A
SSOCIATES 
FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment against Attorneys Villanueva and Ferrer, Jr., for serious misconduct. Halimao alleged that respondents, without lawful authority and armed witharmalites and handguns, forcibly entered the Oo Xian Tiok Compound of which complainantwas caretaker, on April 4, 1992 at 11:00 A..M. On August 14, 1992, respondents filed acomment in which they claimed that the complaint is a mere duplication of the complaint filed byDanilo Hernandez in Administrative Case No. 3835, which this Court had already dismissed onAugust 5, 1992 for lack of merit thus amounting to res judicata.HELD:The Investigating Commissioner properly dismissed the complaint in this case on theground of res judicata, it appearing that it involves the same incident and the same cause of action as that Administrative Case No. 3825. The resolution of this Court in Administrative CaseNo. 3835 is conclusive, it appearing that the complaint in this case is nothing but a duplication of the complaint of Danilo Hernandez in the prior case. In dismissing the complaint brought byDanilo Hernandez in the prior case, this Court categorically found "want of a prima facieshowing of professional misconduct on the part of the respondents [Attorneys Daniel Villanuevaand Inocencio Ferrer, Jr.]"4
. Misrepresentation and Non-payment of bar membership dues
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. LlamasA.C. No. 4749. Jan. 20, 2000. 322 SCRA 529
PONENTE: MendozaFACTS: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appearsthat Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBPOR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he hasbeen using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age,averred that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is thepayment of membership dues.HELD: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annualdues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’sname from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engagedin “limited” practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not includeexemption from payment of membership or association dues.In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and therebymisprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the RizalChapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility that provides:Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Hisact is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by anyartifice.5
. Diligence
Elsie Aromin vs. Valentin BoncavilA. C. No. 5135. Sept. 22, 1999. 315 SCRA 1
PONENTE: MendozaFACTS: Ballesteros engaged services of respondent Atty. Boncavil in two cadastral cases.Upon receipt of the adverse decision in the 2 cases, Boncavil did not inform the claimants of thedecision, did not file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal, did not file a written offer of evidence despite the directive of the trial court and only filed a motion to substitute 4 yearsafter the complainant’s father died.2
 
LEGAL ETHICSDIGESTSA
TENEO
C
ENTRAL
B
AR
O
PERATIONS
2002
T 
OLOSA
& A
SSOCIATES 
HELD: Atty. Boncavil was suspended for 6 months from notice with a warning that repetition of asimilar offense will be dealt with more severely. Boncavil violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that “a lawyer should serve his client with competence anddiligence” and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “a lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewithshall render him liable.”
6. Conflicting Interests - Full Disclosure
Hector Teodisio vs. Mercedes NavaA. C. No. 4673. Apr. 27, 2001.
PONENTE: MendozaFACTS: Respondent Mercedes Nava alleged that petitioner acted as counsel for MelanieBatislaong in several cases as counsel for Espinosa and Palma in cases 2 filed by them againstBatislaong and Nava. Respondent explained that Nava was the former manager of Batislaongwho was fired because of mismanagement. Thereafter, Nava sued Batislaong, Palma andEspinosa for estafa. Because of alleged false receipts issued by Nava, Palma and Espinosahired petitioner Teodisio in a civil case because they wanted to settle their debts to Batislaongthrough Nava and were unsure how to go about it. Hence, petitioner impleaded both Batislaongand Nava so there could be interpleader between the two. This was done with full disclosure toall parties concerned.HELD: - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of allconcerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Under Canon 6 of the previous Canons of Professional Ethics, a lawyer is deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of oneclient, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. Therule is designed to remove from attorneys the opportunity to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained during the existence of the client-attorney relation. Even granting that theinterests of Espinosa, Palma, and Batislaong are conflicting, petitioner cannot be held liable for acting as their common counsel in view of the fact that, as stated in their affidavits, petitioner explained to them the consequences of his representation and that they gave their consent tothe same.
7. Disbarment of lawyer requires clear and preponderant evidence
Danilo Conception vs. Daniel FandinoA. C. No. June 21, 2000. 334 SCAR 136
PONENTE: MendozaFACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Fandiño for gross misconduct, deceitand malpractice for having notarized several documents without having been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. The complaint was dismissed by the IBP because thedocuments submitted by complainant were mere photocopies.HELDAlthough disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil or criminal nature, butrather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers, the rules on evidence cannotbe disregarded considering that the exercise of one’s profession is at stake. Under the BestEvidence Rule, mere photocopies of the alleged notarized documents is inadmissible inevidence, in the absence of evidence to prove that the original copies of the same were lost or destroyed or cannot be otherwise produced. Considering the serious consequence of thedisbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear and preponderant evidence isnecessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty, with the burden of proof restingupon the complainant.
8. Withdrawal of Services without Just cause
Felicisimo Montano vs. IBP
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...