You are on page 1of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION

CAYETANO V MONSOD PARAS; September 3, 1991 NATURE Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments FACTS - April 25, 1991 – Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino as Chairman of COMELEC - Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years - June 18, 1991 – Monsod took his oath of office - Monsod‘s credentials > member of Philippine Bar since 1960 > after bar, worked in law office of his father > 1963-1970 – in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of membercountries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work > 1970 – in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank > since 1986 – rendered service to various companiesas legal and economic consultant or CEO > 1986-1987 – secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election law) > co-chairman of Bishop‘s Businessmen‘s Conference for Human Development > 1990 - Davide Commission – quasi-judicial body > 1986-1987 – member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of Public Officers - AIX-C Sec1(1) - … Commission on Elections chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years - no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law ISSUE WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years HELD YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyerentrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years - Black’s Law Dictionary > Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent > not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to clients - Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken > one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising clients as to their rights under law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court - UP Law Center > advocacy, counseling, public service - Alexander SyCip > appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer > more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms > business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial lawyer, surgeon - article on Business Star > emerging trends in corporate law SEPARATE OPINION NARVASA [concur] - concur only in the result PADILLA [dissent] - Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in the practice of law - People v Villanueva > Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind - Commission on Appointments memorandum > practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationship CRUZ [dissent] - sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification practically toothless - there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or government regulation the businessman must know about and observe - ―performance of any acts… in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of law‖ which tells us absolutely nothing GUTIERREZ [dissent] - practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous - nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation - difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law - Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in realestate transaction; he answered very seldom - Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the denominations of practice of law SANTUYO V HIDALGO CORONA; January 17, 2005 NATURE Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty FACTS

Page 1 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyer‘s oath and notarial law - In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale - It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register - Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership of said land; German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying authenticity of his signature on deed of sale Petitioners' Claim - Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly notarized document (including impression of his notarial dry seal) - Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in technicalities surrounding notarial act - They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they could not have made any imprint of his seal or signature. Respondents' Comments - He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property. - He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that he notarized several documents in that office. - As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only with their approval could notarization be done. - In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of junior associates on documents relating to cases handled by the law firm. - He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to personally acknowledge documents before him as notary public. - He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to personally acknowledge another document) - His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady) - At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation. ISSUES 1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged 2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence HELD 1. Yes. Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo‘s signatures in other documents submitted during the investigation. Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the document; only that his signature appeared on it. They had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed the signature. 2. Yes. Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the document for notarization to the office secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and making entries in notarial register. Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and respondent should have been more discreet and cautious. Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary public for two (2) years for negligence in the performance of duties as notary public. SICAT V ARIOLA, JR. PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005 NATURE Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility FACTS - In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty. Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special Power of Attorney(SPA) purportedly executed by one Juanito C. Benitez According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25, 2000. - He alleged that prior to notarization, the Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management, represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost houses(project worth=11M). For the services of the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check was received and cashed by the the latter by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola. Respondents' Comments - Respondent explained that as early as May 12, 2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA. He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000. Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day he notarized it. - Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for forum shopping since similar charges had been filed with the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Which complaints were dismissed because the assailed act referred to violation of the IRR of the Commission on Audit. - The Court, in its resolution dated March 12, 2003, referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP recommended that respondent's notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year. ISSUES WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD Ratio The act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.. Reasoning The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on October 25, 2000. The notarial acknowledgment of respondent declared that Benitez ―appeared before him and acknowledged that the instrument was his clear and voluntary act.‖ Clearly respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an untruthful statement. - Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in question was superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one, exonerate him of

Page 2 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. Disposition WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to the immediate attention of the Ombudsman. UI V BONIFACIO DE LEON; June 8, 2000 NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Disbarment. FACTS Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State Department of Health, they were married in 1987. She claims that she entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him. ISSUE WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law HELD - No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. - A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, which has been defined as the 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. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their affairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was with what she believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be ―grossly immoral,‖ that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. - A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself so as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Atty. Bonifacio‘s act of immediately distancing herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. On the matter of the falsified certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable that she did not know the year of her marriage or that she failed to check that the information in the document which she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts of malpractice. FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR. ROMERO; July 31, 1997 FACTS - In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams on the fourth attempt. - Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her. - Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since 1953. Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco promised to marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave only P10 for the child on Rafael‘s birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned Barranco married another woman. - From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss and comments were filed. - On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer‘s oath. - Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa‘s opposition, resolved to cancel Barranco‘s scheduled oath-taking. - June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath ISSUE WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession HELD No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. - Barranco‘s engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. - Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual.

Page 3 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is already 62. Disposition Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of proper fees. BARRIOS V MARTINEZ PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004 FACTS - Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22 - Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13, 1996, and the Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an action for disbarment against Martinez - July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to comment on said petition within 10 days from notice - February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued requiring respondent to show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution and to submit Comment - July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for respondent‘s failure to comply with previous resolution within 10 days - April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an additional P2000 and required him to comply with the resolution under pain of imprisonment and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his compliance - February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid resolution - April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but was subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997 and April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and submitting his overdue Comment: 1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated February 17, 1997 as he was at that time undergoing medical treatment at Camp Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte 2. Complainant passed away sometime in June 1997 3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in respondent‘s favor. Respondent avers that as a result of his moving for the execution of judgment in his favor and the eviction of the family of complainant, the latter filed the present administrative case - September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case involving the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of Basey, Samar rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the CA. - June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation - The report of IBP stated: 1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the complainant died and that dismissal is warranted because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death. The IBP disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires disciplinary sanctions. 2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as shown by respondent, is an utter lack of good moral character 3. Respondent‘s conviction of a crime of moral turpitude clearly shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him 4. It is recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately - September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner - December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation - January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant to file a comment within 10 days - February 16, 2004 – complainant‘s daughter sent a Manifestation and Motion alleging they have not been furnished with a copy of respondent‘s Motion ISSUE WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral turpitude HELD Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. - The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. - Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them. - The court is also disinclined to take respondent‘s old age and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all, the respondent was held to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and his conduct should be above reproach. - The Court based the determination of the penalty from previously decided cases, holding that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral turpitude. Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. PIMENTEL, HR V LLORENTE MENDOZA; August 29, 2000 (edel cruz)

Page 4 of 203

oversight and /or fatigue. . 1995 elections. This merits a suspension but since this is their first transgression. sec 12(c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration. . 1989 (giulia pineda) NATURE Administrative case in the SC for Immorality of a member of the Bar FACTS . which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in ―unlawful. . 2.SC: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of erroneous figures in or two statements of votes but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns. section 12 C (within 15 day period) since the petition was filed late 2. and generally has no interest. Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation.Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare.By certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question.IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.000 Php for each for misconduct. the delay may be overlooked. .Senator Aquilino Pimentel filed this disbarment case against Attys. .01 of the Code. a fine is sufficient. they likewise violated their oath of office as to ―do no falsehood. . respondents were under greater obligation to observe the basic tenet of the profession (to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor) because a public office is a public trust. dishonest. directed the COMELEC to file appropriate charges against respondents. In addition. . the respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.Despite the fact that these discrepancies were apparent on the face of these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of votes. Disbarment FACTS . respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct.Pimentel alleges that respondents:  Respondents tampered with the votes he received  Statement of votes show that other candidates were credited with votes which were above the number of votes they actually received and his votes were reduced (dagdag-bawas =p)  In 101 precints. This constitutes misconduct. 1988 a Page 5 of 203 .RESPONDENTS: The errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake.PIMENTEL: The respondents committed a serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers‘ oath by signing the statements of votes (SoVs) despite their knowledge that some of the entries were false. YES Reasoning . Enrile‘s votes were in excess of the total number of voters who actually voted therein  The votes from 22 precints were twice recorded in 18 statements of votes. Laurence Cordova with immorality and acts unbecoming of a member of the Bar. WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct HELD 1.A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharged of his duties as a government official. .The SC.The Commission required the complainant to submit a verified complain to which she complied and submitted on Sept 27. . ISSUE 1. However. The sole question for determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not. laws dealing with double jeopardy or prescription or with procedure like verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions have no application to disbarment proceedings. .The complainant or the person who called the attention of the Court to the attorney‘s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party. in the outcome except as all citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Villanueva: Although Rule 139-B.LEGAL PROFESSION NATURE Administrative Matter.In Halimao v. . . upon Pimentel‘s petition for certiorari. For this reason. nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. immoral or deceitful conduct.It appears that the petition was filed on time because a copy of the resolution personally served on the Office of the Bar Confidant of the SC was received.chairman) for gross misconduct. only clearly preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. NO Reasoning . Fine of 10.Savacion Delizo Cordova sent an unsworn letter-complaint to then CJ Teehankee charging her husband Atty. report and investigation. The complaint was forwarded to the IBP. if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer‘s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part.‖ . . Disposition Respondents‘ participation in the irregularities reflects on the legal profession.In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar. this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. CORDOVA V CORDOVA PER CURIAM. . WON a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 139 –B. such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.As lawyers in the government service. Antonio Llorente (election officer of COMELEC and chairman of the Board) and Ligaya Salayon (ex officio vice. . It is the burden of the respondent to show that the complainant filed the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for filing it. November 29.Even if Pimentel received the IBP resolution in question was filed 2 days late. . serious breach of trust and violation of the lawyer’s oath in connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8.Pimentel also filed criminal charges against the two before the COMELEC which dismissed said charges for insufficiency of evidence.‖ By lawyers express provision of Canon 6.Only the respondents had access to the SoVs and the CoC and thus had the opportunity to compare them and detect the discrepancies therein so it is irrelevant that the canvassing was open to the public and observed by numerous individuals.

SORIANO V DIZON PER CURIAM. .Fely G. two (2) children were born. . Respondent Cordova and Fely G. .Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this marriage. does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent earn carried out in public. The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to. The Commssion recommended the disbarment of the defendant for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for exhibiting an obvious lack of good moral character. He applied and was granted probation by the said court based on several conditions which included among others the satisfaction of the civil liabilities imposed in favor of the offended party. Bislig. . Atty. the taxi driver who was rendered paralyzed on the left side of the body as a result of his being shot by the defendant.In a telegraphic message dated Apr 6. it further appears that the taxi driver was merely defending himself and that defendant was the aggressor during said incident. that respondent Cordova was living with another mistress.In 1985. Quirino Province. The hearings never took place as she failed to appear. and went to Mangagoy. . 1989.On 6 April 1986.On Dec 16.An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he possessed of good moral character. the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines rendered its report and recommendation which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets. it appears that defendant was drunk at the time of the incident and that the case arose out of the apparent resentment of the defendant from having been overtaken by the victim who was then driving a taxi. and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family. HELD The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent. compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by habeas corpus. Luisita Magallanes. . Disposition WHEREFORE.Upon the complaint for the disbarment filed by Soriano against Dizon.The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. he continued to live with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.The respondent never moved to set aside the order of default. and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. Manuel Dizon. WON Dizon‘s crime of frustrated murder involves moral turpitude and that his guilt warrants disbarment HELD Ratio . January 25.In February 1987. . and had taken his younger daughter along with him .Notwithstanding respondent's promise to reform.Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig. Holgado. the complainant informed the commission that she and her husband have already reconciled. respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent reconciliation. the Commission required the parties to appear before it for the confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic message and to file formal motion to dismiss the complaint. using the name Fely Cordova. . the Page 6 of 203 . ISSUES 1.The totality of the facts of the case unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. .The defendant despite the condition that he pay the civil liabilities imposed on him as a condition for the probation. with respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife. ISSUE WON the recent reconciliation of the Cordovas and the failure of the complainant to pursue the case have dismissed the case. respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of RTC of Cabarroguis.Respondent and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complainants. From the testimony of a witness. while failing to support his legitimate family. .From the records of the trial court. Roberto Soriano. . appealed said civil liability to the Court of Appeals. complainant found. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and children to stay with respondent. even though notices were sent to him. . The findings of the IBP Board of Governors: . The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community. She requested for the rescheduling several times. upon returning from a trip to Manila that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her children in their conjugal home.LEGAL PROFESSION revised and verified version of her long and detailed complaint against her husband. assuming the same to be real. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife. gave her custody of their children. 2006 (romy ramirez) NATURE Administrative case for disbarment FACTS . Respondent promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig . . Neither responded and nothing was heard from either party since then. however.In an order dated Apr 17. the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court. Surigao del Sur with one Fely G.Respondent would. was convicted by final judgment by the RTC of Baguio City for frustrated murder. drunk. Given that membership in the legal profession demands a high degree of good moral character not only as a condition to admission but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The RTC of Bislig. Ratio .Respondent. . she was required to submit before the Commission her evidence ex parte. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.

The actuations of the victim in this case can be considered as reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off the attack of Dizon. when complainant discovered that the respondent falsified his marriage contract (Exh C. the respondent fetched the complainant from her house in QC to stay in the respondent‘s condo unit. his first marriage with Librada Peña was subsisting and unannulled." With that. presumptively dead (Exh.LEGAL PROFESSION defendant has shown in all his actuations that he lacks the fitness to remain in the law profession. 1997 (cha mendoza) NATURE Petition for the disbarment on the grounds of grossly immoral and grave misconduct FACTS -Complainant is the presiding judge of Branch 108 of the RTC of Pasay City while respondent is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime Commission. The complainant confronted the respondent about the caller and the confrontation ended up in a heated exchange of words. June 19. 1995. "D" and "D1"). thereafter. -The respondent gave his voluntary consent to the marriage.In the case at bar. upon a decree of presumption of death after 16-year absence -Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1977when respondent was the presiding judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig for the murder case involving the death of the complainant‘s son. "B"). This story was belied by the physical evidence as testified to by no less than three doctors. the complainant left the respondent and after that. "A"). by the principle of estoppel. to the point where the respondent said to the complainant. -the respondent stated under oath that his marriage with Librada Peña had been annulled by a decree of annulment. the respondent became a close family friend. with all the essential and formal requisites present. Disposition Manuel Dizon is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys. The complainant also presented the Marriage Contract between her and respondent (Exh. Page 7 of 203 . on June 6. The question as to what may be a crime involving moral turpitude would depend on the individual facts surrounding the case and the surrounding circumstances. he is precluded. SO ORDERED. After hearing that. when he (respondent) took Lydia Geraldez as his wife by third marriage. 1994. his first marriage with Librada Peña was still subsisting because the decision declaring its annulment had not yet become final and executory (required publication not yet done). -Several months after. Get that marriage contract and have it burned. as certified by Mrs. A former Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court. -On the afternoon of their wedding day. a member of the bible group. Nelia B. they never contacted each other again. Villaluz. in a bible study session. "E"). DE MIJARES V VILLALUZ REGALADO. Primitivo Mijares. he claims that when he got married to the complainant. "F" and "F-1"). . former Justice Onofre A. ―Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang gusto ko sa babae. if granted that he was just helping the complainant in the administrative case filed against her.The defendant‘s use of an unlicensed firearm and his ref usal to satisfy his civil liability to the victim is a serious transgression of Canon 1 of the code of Professional Responsibility. .) dated May 10. 'yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko'. the complainant learned from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar. 1994 by stating that he is ―single‖. and with all the legal requisites for the marriage present. ISSUE WON the respondent is guilty of gross immorality and grave misconduct? HELD YES. There was a phone call and when the complainant answered. and therefore. from claiming that when he took herein complainant as his wife by second marriage. GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof. Disposition WHEREFORE. -On January 7.Not all cases involving homicide involves moral turpitude. a woman was on the other end of the line offending the complainant with insulting remarks. and. He also lied to the court by claiming that he incident was the result of the mauling he got at the hands of the victim and two other persons. 1995 the complainant filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against him (Exh.Defendant has continuously display his dishonest and duplicitous behavior by first seeking to arrive at an out of court settlement with the family and when the same failed. Acting Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Exh. the Order declaring her first husband. CASTILLO VDA. Reasoning . This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law. who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and respondent (Exhs. . a Justice of the Court of Appeals is surely conversant with the legal maxim that a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong. -On August 7. Him and the complainant in an effort to help the complainant in the administrative case for immorality filed against her by her legal researcher in 1993 and that their marriage was just a ―sham marriage‖ -Also. making it appear that it was the family would sought a conference with him. the complainant and the respondent got married in a civil wedding. "4"). its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law Reasoning The respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. the complainant executed against respondent her "Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for Falsification" (Exhs. he should have known that his marriage with the complainant was valid. with the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter. that he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized the marriage between the respondent and a certain Lydia Geraldez. Respondent’s claim The respondent claimed that he only voluntarily signed the Marriage Contract bet. and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim Verano. Since then. it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor as he pursued and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. Ratio The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. Rosario. respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. finding herein respondent. and a retired justice of the Court of Appeals -Complainant was widowed by the presumption of death of her 1st husband.

Zaldivar had a pending case for graft and corruption in the Sandiganbayan initiated by Tanodbayan Gonzalez. can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court. and prayed that these 4 inhibit themselves in the deliberation. Paguia. 26558.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity which proscription. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. he has chosen not to at all take heed. 1988 (joey capones) NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan FACTS Enrique A. -Atty Paguia. The SC issued a temporary restraining order. He was disturbed that the order can aggravate the thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial. Disposition Atty Paguia indefinitely suspended from the practice of law ZALDIVAR V GONZALES PER CURIAM. and hence the information filed in his criminal cases were all null and void.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party. October 7. it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for. statements: (1) while the rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the SC. and that the Sc dismisses judges without rhyme or reason and disbars lawyers without due process. a patent mockery of justice and due process. -The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion) and the SC warned Atty Paguia of his conduct -. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Court‘s well-meant admonition. Arroyo is. and continued to make public statements about Estrada‘s case. were in his possession. He said that he doubts whether the judges will remain impartial to him. Zaldivar filed a petition in the SC alleging that Gonzalez. -Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and. ISSUES WON Atty Paguia should be suspended from the practice of law HELD YES. which prayed – ―1.That Criminal Cases No. Gonzales claimed that 3 handwritten notes. it‘s difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.On 10 October 2003. integrity. Gonzalez made the ff. that the SC deliberately rendered an erroneous decision. In a news art in the Phil Daily Globe. by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines. Apparently. Zaldivar then filed a petition to cite in contempt Special Prosecutor Gonzalez for filing new information before the Sandiganbayan and for making contemptuous statements to the media.LEGAL PROFESSION ESTRADA V SANDIGANBAYAN PER CURIAM. 2003 (boots tirol) NATURE RESOLUTION of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court FACTS -Joseph Estrada. repeated his earlier claim of political partisanship against the members of the Court (for discussion on political partisanship please see original case). 26565 and No. and 3. Petitioner contended that the justices have thereby prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. the SC had been restraining him. Petitioner later filed another petition because Gonzalez filed additional criminal charges against petitioner and five other individuals.his attacks on the Court and making public statements on the case (violating Rule 13. Aquino had been prodding him to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the high and mighty. let alone. (3) while he doesn‘t wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the SC. -The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility. 2. asserted that the inhibition of the members of the SC from hearing the petition is called for under Rule 5. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding the petition. filed a Petition for Certiorari under the Rules of Court against Sandiganbayan. Four days later. should insist on similar conduct by others. speaking for Estrada. according to petitioner. according to him. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede. in effect. the SC issued another TRO. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and set aside. on pain of disciplinary sanction. through Atty Alan Paguia. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality. but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the people‘s faith in the judicial system. Atty. In a three-page pleading. indeed.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13. Atty. he filed a motion to transfer administrative proceedings to the IBP. The Court has already warned Atty. He also released statements to the press saying. Paguia. He was given 10 days SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court. Gonzalez instituted another criminal case in the Sandiganbayan. Gonzalez didn‘t deny Page 8 of 203 . sent by some members of the SC interceding for cases pending before his office. that members of the SC have improperly pressured him to render decisions favorable to their friends and colleagues. The SC ordered the nullification of the criminal cases and for Gonzalez to cease and desist from further acting on Zaldivar‘s case In the motion for reconsideration. was no longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption against public officials and employees. Paguia submitted his compliance with the show-cause order. -The attention of Atty. (2) while Pres. 26905 pending before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. November 25. . Atty. the justices have violated by attending the ‗EDSA 2 Rally‘ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. if well-founded. in an obstinate display of defiance. Atty. When this was denied. there being at least 4 members who definitely won‘t. to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. and authority of the members of the Court. Regrettably. No. as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Ago‘s motion denied. Ago moved to stop the auction. they‘re narrow-minded. if this is done by a lawyer. lawyer doesn‘t need to be in contempt of court to be punished under this. Hernandez – Atty Francisco: the Court‘s resolution is erroneous and is a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls. SC affirmed dismissal . He was convicted of contempt of court. Salcedo v. He was held in contempt of Court.Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution. CFI issued writ of possession to the properties . Reasoning The SC cited several cases wherein the Court held that the statements were contemptuous and warranting the exercise of the court‘s authority.may be committed by both lawyers and non-lawyers. -1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson . July 30. HELD 1. [Discussion on the SC’s power to discipline its lawyers] The SC.LEGAL PROFESSION he said/wrote those statements. These are: (1).1961 – SC affirmed the judgment. is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself. like all constitutional freedoms. Almacen was suspended from the practice of law because he exceeded the boundaries of fair criticism. Any act which tends to obstruct the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him and conduct warranting application of the contempt power. Disposition Atty. The lawyer‘s duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. he‘ll argue the cause of his client in the people‘s forum (published in Manilla Times). 6. he‘d bring the case to the World Court and invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment requiring the cutting off of all aid to the Philippines. which was a ground for impeachment. is not absolute and that the freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. 1975 (glaisa po) NATURE . and degrade the SC and the entire system of justice are clearly contemptuous.1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made. CA dismissed the petition. Cruz – counsel alleged that the SC violated the Constitution. Monteciollo v. It also has inherent power to punish for contempt.1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. SC dismissed it.Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS . (2) Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. He was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely. has plenary disciplinary auth over attorneys. Atty. Raul M. He said the court knowingly rendered an unjust judgment thru negotiations. YES Ratio Statements which constitute gross disrespect of the Court. 4. in and out of court. to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. Sotto published in a newspaper that the SC erroneously interpreted the law. This is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. NO Ratio A lawyer‘s right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman. His defense is that he was just ISSUES 1. levy was made on Ago‘s house and lots. Paragas v. sheriff advertised the sale. but also deaf and dumb. The SC should exercise its disciplinary authority over the source. Ago failed to redeem . There are two related powers here: (1) Court‘s inherent power to discipline attorneys – broader than contempt power. and that the members of the SC should be changed. CASTANEDA V AGO CASTRO. In re Sotto – a newspaper reporter refused to divulge his source and was sent to jail. 3. as the regulator and guardian of the legal profession. his motions were denied . Gica – Atty del Mar moved to reconsider a decision of the CA with a veiled threat that he should interpose his next appeal to the President. the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued . One of the fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. WON the SC should punish Gonzalez for contempt of court and give administrative sanctions 2. 2. it‘s usually accompanied with professional misconduct.1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson. Reasoning The freedom of speech and of expression. trial court issued writ of execution. He even threatened that if he didn‘t get a favorable decision. Gonzales was found guilty of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. This is necessary for its own protection against improper interference with the due administration of justice and not dependent upon the complaint of the litigant. exercising his freedom of speech. justice administered by the SC wasn‘t only blind. This stems from the Court‘s Constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law. In re Almacen – the SC committed a great unjust to his client. WON Gonzales is not liable because he was just using his constitutional right of freedom of speech. A lawyer is not just a professional but also an officer of the court and as such. hoped that an incident wherein 2 SC employees were killed wouldn‘t happen again (covert threat upon the members of the Court) 5.1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale. CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale. Agos filed a Page 9 of 203 . (2) contempt power . Cloribel – counsel asked CJ Concepcion and J Castro to inhibit themselves from judging the case since the brother of Castro was the VP of favored party and CJ‘s son was the Secretary of the Board of Investments.1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession.

A counsel‘s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client‘s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise. encourage his clients to avoid controversy HELD . the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. because the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. and his task as an election registrar. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment. if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a member of the profession in good standing. He also admits that he wrote a letter to a lieutenant of his barrio asking him to inform the people in any town meetings that despite his election as member of the Board. or through paid agents or brokers. On October 13. The right to be assisted by counsel is so important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise the accused of his right to an atty. if not with zeal. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. and is not a mere trade. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding. must now enjoy them. a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice. Sec 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2828) states that "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. 1. Luison. 2. but is essential that the court assign on de oficio for him if he desires/ is poor. 1964. and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte.. The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio because: the case has been postponed at least 8 times at the defense's instance. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service. a practicing lawyer and a member of the Provincial Board of Isabela admits that the previous election he used a card which states what he can do for the people as a lawyer and a notary public (he can execute deed of sales. what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer‘s insistence despite the patent futility of his client‘s position. Judge denied the motion. Atty. either personally. for." ---manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in the defense of an accused. long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit. 1974 (mini bernardo) NATURE Original action in the SC. Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz. If he finds his client‘s cause as defenseless. ISSUE WON the Agos‘ lawyer. ISSUE WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election Registrar HELD No. YES. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants." Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide: Page 10 of 203 . "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible.No. 3. etc). Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently. constitutes malpractice. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice. On November 6. LEDESMA V CLIMACO FERNANDO. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. he will still exercise his profession as a lawyer and notary public. even adding that he will only charge three pesos for registration of their land titles. He commenced discharging his duties. ISSUES 1. Disposition Petition for certiorari dismissed.. Certiorari FACTS Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. and temper his client‘s propensity to litigate. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client. WON Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting employment 2.Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction. .Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court. . June 28. Negros Occidental. Thus.LEGAL PROFESSION similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition. The Constitution provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. IN RE: TAGORDA MALCOLM. justice demands that the petitioners. March 23. Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. 1929 (boots tirol) FACTS Luis Tagorda. to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriff‘s sale. WON Tagorda should be disbarred HELD 1. there was no incompatibility between duty of petitioner to defend the accused. Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition .

preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman 3. etc Petitioner‟s Claim: -Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Adoption. Visa ext. The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law Respondent‘s description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law: Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech . his youth and inexperience at the bar. -As a member of the legal profession. or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients… A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred. 5217232.what its ads represent and what it will be paid for Page 11 of 203 . Immigration Probs. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements. bus registrations. *even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like installing computer system for law offices. 28 -It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit. the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v.Annex B GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON An Atty in Guam. training and expertise . But as mitigating circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are: first. etc. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC.. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct. knowledge. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations 2. divorce and adoption – have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action . INC. this doesn‘t make it an exception to the general rule . and third. VISA. . legal procedures.To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Declaration of Absence. his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. the magnitude of the interests involved.Not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree‘s Visa. second. foreign laws on marriage. Annulment of Marriage. or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations. to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill . the importance of the lawyer's position. his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. marriage. and sometimes of convenience. Investment in the Phil. fact finding investigations. 5222041 8:30am-6pm 7F Victoria Bldg. in or out of the court.The law is a profession and not a business. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring suit. UN Ave.Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law .The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards. locating parties/witnesses to a case. except in rare cases where ties of blood. 2. document search. relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. NO. Pls call: 5210767.LEGAL PROFESSION 27. June 17. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law? 2. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional. Yes. . the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons. prop.gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and nondiagnostic ex.computerized legal research. and are intolerable. ABSENCE. Mla . defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling. but it is indictable at common law. he is ashamed and offended by the ads Respondent‟s Comment: -They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines . being a matter of personal taste or local custom. which requires the application of law. 1993 (dahls salamat) FACTS . includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON they‘re pending in court 3 types of legal profession activity: 1. and all other like self-laudation. is unprofessional.. The Practice of law involves any activity.With the admitted facts. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional. liberty and property according to law. ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC REGALADO. evidence gathering. State bar of Arizona ISSUES 1.Annex A SECRET MARRIAGE? P560 for a valid marriage Info on DIVORCE. assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth. THE LEGAL CLINIC. WON their services can be advertised? HELD 1. ANNULMENT. is not per se improper.Even if they are leg services. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil.

names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented . The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer. Page 12 of 203 . V SIMBILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO.backed up by paralegals. deceptive. legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities. for the convenience of the profession . adds.LEGAL PROFESSION .never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession . who like drs. law firm. client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court 2.publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership. honest. The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention.A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. professional assoc. counselors and attys . no and special branch of law practiced .can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment -The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesn‘t matter. listings in other reputable law lists. are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation. public offices. nos. legal teaching positions. schools attended w/ dates of grad. dignified and objective info/statement of facts . court. JR. to allow the publication of like advertisements would aggravate what‘s already a deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose integrity‘s been under attack by media and the community in general .caters to clients who can‘t afford big firms . fam law) . Certiorari. magazine. int by proprietor Atty Nogales: . major stockholder and proprietor of the Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning that a repetition will be dealt w/ more severely for misbehavior in advertising his servIces and aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law KHAN.have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law 2. Simbillo. add.Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit . necessarily implied from the restrictions Bates v. litigation. a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec servicess as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers .all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the leg profession Atty Nograles (prime incorporator. which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who‘s in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law . publishing his pictures with causes the lawyer‘s been engaged in. date and place of birth and admission to the bar.000. 2003 (apple maramba) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court and SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.‖ . expressly allowed – publication in reputable law lists of informative data that‘s not misleading and may include only: name. upon request. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give. August 19. firm name or office add. undignified. crim law.No. trade journal or periodical that‘s published for other purposes . shall use only true. and that the fee was P48.It doesn‘t matter that they don‘t represent clients in court since practice of law isn‘t limited to ct appearances but also leg research. branches of law practiced. 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read: ―Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.lawyers.ordinary simple professional card allowed – name.none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility *survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials – pub opinion dropped significantly: Trustworthy – 71-14% Professional – 71-14% Honest – 65-14% Dignified – 45-14% With the present situation of our legal and judicial system. membership and offices in bar association. leg advice and drafting contracts Phil Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs.not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal business Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldn‘t resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing newspaper comments. She spoke to Mrs.public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the public. who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months. legal authorships. in making known his legal services. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5. what‘s important is that it‘s engaged in the practice of law ‗cause of the nature of the services it renders. fraudulent. FACTS . this shouldn‘t be done thru propaganda EXCEPTIONS: 1. importance of his position and other selflaudation Stands of legal profession condemn lawyer‘s advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a profession. posts of honor. fair. assoc. medico-leg probs. degrees .not supposed to use any false.can‘t be mere supplemental feature of paper.Atty. labor. self-laudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal services . misleading.

LEGAL PROFESSION
- Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. - Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. - The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. - IBP found respondent guilty - Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied - Hence, this petition for certiorari ISSUE WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court HELD Yes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration. Reasoning - Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. - Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. - Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.—A member of the bar may be disbarred 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 willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. - The following elements distinguish legal profession from business: 1. A duty of public service 2. A relation as an ―officer of the court‖ to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. - Respondent advertised himself as an ―Annulment Specialist,‖ and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage—encouraging people who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. - Solicitation of legal business sis not altogether proscribed, however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE AQUINO; May 10, 1985 (ice baguilat) NATURE Administrative Case FACTS Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and 9 other lawyers from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie (a law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie Clurman that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay Products Int‘l. Inc. to HE Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman and asked whether she is being represented by Baker & McKenzie as counsel as well as the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from Clurman thus this Administrative Case. ISSUE WON the lawyers should be enjoined from practicing law under Baker & McKenzie HELD Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie is an alien law firm and cannot practice law in the country. Using the name constitutes representation of being associated with the firm which is deemed to be unethical. Respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. SAMONTE V GATDULA GONZAGA-REYES; February 26, 1999 (athe odi) NATURE Administrative matter. Grave Misconduct. FACTS - The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R. Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. - The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they instead received a temporary restraining order. Santos contends that the order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application for preliminary injunction. - Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision, blamed Santos‘ lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the same time giving his calling card with the name ―Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.‖ - The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte, which cause her to file administrative complaint against Gatdula. ISSUE WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction

Page 13 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
HELD Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par. (b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official or employees to, among others: ―(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with official functions.‖ Disposition Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law. CRUZ V SALVA MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959 (chris capul) NATURE Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. FACTS - A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty. - Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than those convicted. - Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants. - Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz‘ counsel questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition. - Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz‘ oral and personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation. - SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim investigation. ISSUES 1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation 2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva 3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property HELD 1. Yes. - SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear at the investigation. - Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in COLLANTES V RENOMERON PER CURIAM; August 16, 1991 (aida villanueva) FACTS - A complaint of disbarment is filed with a related administrative case against Renomeron of the Registrar of Deeds in Tacloban. - Collantes was the house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision and filed the case with regard to the application of V & G for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision in Jan 1987. - Feb 16, 1987 – no action was made by Renomeron despite follow-ups made by Collantes. Renomeron requested Collantes to submit additional requirements which Collantes complied with. - Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents pending compliance of V&G with certain special agreement between then that V&G would provide Renomeron with a weekly Tacloban-Manil round trip ticket with P2,000 pocket money. He said he would act favorably on their application if that agreement would be fulfilled. - Collantes sent plane fare (P800) to Renomeron through his niece. But pocket money was not given. - Renomeron then imposed additional requirements which angered Collantes, leading the latter to challenge Renomeron to act on the 163 pending applications by V&G within 24 hours. - May 22, 1987 – Renomeron denied the application for ambiguity of the subject matter. - Collantes appealed for a reconsideration and elevated the matter to the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration. - The NLTDRA ruled that the documents were registrable. - The NLTDRA recommended Renomeron‘s case to the DOJ and the Secretary of Justice found him guilty. The president then dismissed Renomeron from public service. - A disbarment case was then filed by Collantes against Renomeron. ISSUE the trial. - The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to protect the innocent. - Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue. - Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part. 2. No - Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be present. His presence is more of a right than a legal obligation. 3. No - Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and media people were present. He should also not have made the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such publicity. - Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.

Page 14 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
WON the disbarment case against Renomeron would prosper given the administrative case HELD - Yes, the administrative complaint has to do with his position in public service. The disbarment case has to do with his status as member of the Integrated Bar. - Renomeron violated the lawyer‘s oath. - The Code of Professional Responsibility 1.01 forbids a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. PEOPLE V PINEDA SANCHEZ; July 21, 1967 (jojo mendoza) FACTS - On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home of the spouses Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza in Pugaan City of Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod (homemade gun) were fired in rapid succession from outside the house. Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots killing Neceforo Mendoza, — all minor children of the couple — and wounding Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza. - Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres were indicted before the CFI of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5) separate cases for murder. The five informations were based on facts gathered by the prosecuting attorney from his investigation. - Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases (Tomas Narbasa and Tambak Alindo) moved for a consolidation thereof into one (1) criminal case. Their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse. The respondent Judge approved the motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and to file one single information and drop the other four cases. The City Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The respondent Judge denied the motion to reconsider. He took the position that the acts complained of stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should therefore be treated as one crime though the series of shots killed more than one victim; and that only one information for multiple murder should be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying five cases instead of one. Hence, this appeal to the Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and for other reliefs. ISSUE WON the City Fiscal shall file only one information HELD - YES, ruling Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed: first, where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and, second, when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other ( delito complejo). It is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 48, there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law. The respondent Judge reasons out that consolidation of the five cases into one would have the salutary effect of obviating the necessity of trying five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. Nonetheless, the statute confers upon the trial judge the power to try these cases jointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent Judge could easily be remedied. Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City correctly presented the five separate informations — four for murder and one for frustrated murder. A rule of presumption long familiar is that official duty has been regularly performed. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process — the sporting idea of fair play — may be transgressed. So it is, that in People vs. Sope, the Court made the pronouncement that "it is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the off ended party." - The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his judgment is to be substituted for that of the prosecutor's on the matter of what crime is to be filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. The information he lodges in court must have to be supported by facts brought about by an inquiry made by him. It stands to reason then to say that in a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he cannot ordinarily be subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as saying that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in exceptional cases. A relief in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of justice; (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid." Nothing in the record would as much as intimate that the present case fits into any of the situations just recited. Disposition The writ of certiorari is granted. MISAMIN V SAN JUAN FERNANDO; August 31, 1976 (bry san juan) FACTS - It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain. in the Metro Manila Police force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin to agree to drop the charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office

Page 15 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
of the Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the nonappearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings. The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things were thus set at naught. - Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice. Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being dismissed. This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice. Respondent, as noted in the Report of the SolicitorGeneral, "admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar's Bakery in the proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. However, he contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his appearance as counsel, while holding a government position, is not among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys. The respondent also denies having conspired with the complainant Misamin's attorney in the NLRC proceeding in order to trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had been paid his separation pay. Likewise, the respondent denies giving illegal protection to members of the Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila." ISSUE WON a lawyer-public officer may represent a private client during his tenure HELD NO, but since evidence is lacking to discipline Atty. Miguel San Juan, the case is dismissed. The Court noted that the Report of the SolicitorGeneral did not take into account respondent's practice of his profession notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney. - The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint cannot prosper is in accordance with the settled law. As far back as in re Tionko, decided in 1922, the authoritative doctrine was set forth by Justice Malcolm in this wise: "The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath." The Tionko doctrine has been subsequently adhered to. - This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever violations there might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of respondent practicing his profession while holding his position of Captain in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar. should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even take care that his honor remains unsullied VITRIOLO V DASIG PER CURIAM; April 1, 2003 (lora alamin) NATURE Administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). FACTS - Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - During her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests before her office - Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed. - Complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts owing to ―Borela Tire Supply‖ and ―Nova‘s Lining Brake & Clutch‖ as evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent. - Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, was lodged - Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their reappointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for herself. - The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education. It was recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent. - The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002393, adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of

Page 16 of 203

A public bidding of Genbank‘s assets was held. for as a lawyer. which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful. said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he advised the Central Bank‘s officials on the procedure to bring about Genbank‘s liquidation& appeared as counsel for the central Bank in connection with its petition for assistance in the liquidation. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her office. Lucio Tan Group submitted the winning bid. restitution. The Attorney‘s Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone. Despite this. Pres. or other disciplinary action. may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1. prohibition. . Respondent‘s conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers. invoking Rule 6. -Former Solicitor General Estelito P. as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services. Reasoning Respondent‘s misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar. at the time of filing of the complaint. 0005 for PCGG‘s failure to prove the existence of an inconsistency between Mendoza‘s former function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. former SolGen Estelito Mendoza who has then resumed private practice. she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. or deceitful acts.Respondent‘s attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1. after leaving government service. Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. Rule 6. CHED. Mendoza ―intervened‖ in the acquisition of Genbank by the Lucio Tan Group when. PCGG‘s MFR was denied. The motions allege that Atty. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1. (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Mendoza as counsel for respondents in Civil Case Nos. 0005 of the 2nd division of the Sandiganbayan (SB). PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on the properties of the Lucio Tan Group. In connection with this. April 12. suspension. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Hence. dishonest. PCGG filed a complaint for reversion. considering that her position. KEY ISSUE WON Rule 6. CHED. . it also ruled that Mendoza‘s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan. and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. was PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO. Hence this petition. the Code of Professional Responsibility. . Mendoza. Ratio Generally speaking. Office of Programs and Standards. and injunction with the SC. This was docketed as Civil Case No.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. prompting the Central Bank to extend to it emergency loans reaching a total of P310 million. 0005 & 0096-0099. In these cases docketed as Civil Case Nos.03 of the CPR applies to Atty.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). reconveyance. PCGG did not file a MFR. the latter also denied the motion to disqualify.LEGAL PROFESSION the Investigating Commissioner and Respondent SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years. specially from one occupying a high public office. filed motions to disqualify Atty. Genbank failed to recover and the following year Central Bank had to issue a resolution declaring Genbank insolvent and ordering its liquidation. ISSUE WON respondent attorney-at-law. -Lucio Tan Group questioned the writs through petitions for certiorari. Disposition Respondent was found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney‘s Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility. However. Mendoza field a petition with CFI praying for the court‘s assistance and supervision in the liquidation as mandated by RA 265. section 29.A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. FACTS -1976: General Bank and Trust Co. accounting. Certiorari and prohibition.Respondent‘s demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her office violates such duty.03: A lawyer shall not. and damages against respondents Lucio Tan Group and the Marcos family. Mendoza in Civil Case No. Standards Development Division. -05 Feb 1991: PCGG. The Attorney‘s Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment. The latter referred the cases to the SB for proper disposition. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. -After EDSA I. in his capacity as then SolGen. his family and his cronies. 2005 (marge alias) NATURE Special civil action in the SC. but of all lawyers including those in government service. Moreover. 0096-0099 Lucio Tan Group was represented by their counsel. Pursuant to this mandate. then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. et al. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government. a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. accept Page 17 of 203 . -22 April 1991: SB denied the motion to disqualify Atty.‖ HELD YES. -When Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the SB‘s 2nd Division to the 5th Division. and was ordered DISBARRED. was ―Chief Education Program Specialist.

Canon 9 was supplemented by Disciplinary Rule 9-101(b): ―A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee. To deal with problems peculiar to former government lawyers. where they can exploit information.‖ (a) Adverse-interest conflicts . citing the hopeless dependence of the concept of impropriety on the subjective views of anxious clients as well as the norm‘s indefinite nature. The Code was drafted to reflect the local customs. Among their concerns was the ―revolving door‖ or ―the process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter government service from private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice.the 1st state with a comprehensive bar association code of ethics.LEGAL PROFESSION engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. Ratio American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342‘s definition of ―matter‖ : any discrete. and it was the foundation for the American Bar Association's (ABA) 1908 Canons of Ethics. doing away with Canon 9. the ―matter‖ or the act of Atty. properly applicable to both ―adverseinterest conflicts‖ and ―congruent-interest conflicts.‖ introduced a new set of uniform standards of conduct for lawyers. 1887 Alabama Code of Ethics was the model for several states‘ codes. -mid 19th century: American legal reformers were filling the void in two ways: (1) David Dudley Field. The bar codes were detailed ethical standards formulated by lawyers for lawyers. 2 primary sources of ethical guidance: academic discourses & the bar association codes -1887: Alabama .‖ Page 18 of 203 . and many other lawyers were working to flesh out the broad outline of a lawyer's duties. -1980: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted a proposed Code of Professional Responsibility which it submitted to SC for approval. a new form of ethical standards began to guide lawyers in their practice — the bar association code of legal ethics. accept employment in connection with any matter he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ. Reasoning Based on PCGG‘s case for disqualification. Only three of the traditional core duties can be fairly characterized as pervasive in the formal. and not merely an act of drafting. WON this case involves the ―adverse interest‖ aspect of Rule 6. -1924: some ABA members start to question the form and function of the canons. therefore. -mid 20th century: growing consensus that the ABA Canons needed more meaningful revision. traditions. enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures. Canon 9 states: ―A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. -colonial and early post-revolutionary America: The forms of lawyer regulation did not differ markedly from those in England. Obiter The History of Rule 6. such as David Hoffman and George Sharswood. and practices of the bar and to conform with new realities. after his retirement. Canons 1 to 32 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. Mendoza‘s act of advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate Genbank is included within the concept of ―matter‖ under Rule 6.03 which deals particularly with former government lawyers retained the general structure of paragraph 2. competency and reasonable fees. A lawyer. Canon 36 was minted to disqualify such lawyers both for ―adverse-interest conflicts‖ and ―congruent-interest representation conflicts. individual amendments and interpretative opinions. these standards were isolated and did not provide a comprehensive statement of a lawyer's duties. legal practitioners remained unsatisfied with the results and indefinite standards.exist where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse. -ABA attempted to correct and update the canons through new canons. CPR Rule 6. WON there exists a ―congruent-interest conflict‖ sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing the Lucio Tan Group. WON the intervention of Atty. WON Atty.‖ SUB-ISSUES 1. Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics but replaced the expansive phrase ―investigated and passed upon‖ with the word “intervened. contacts. Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is significant and substantial HELD 2a. or briefing abstract principles of law. having once held public office or having been in the public employ should not. positive law of the colonial and post-revolutionary period: the duties of litigation fairness. -Despite these amendments. The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace it with Canon 9 in the 1969 ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. -end of 19th century. 1964: ABA President-elect Lewis Powell asked for the creation of a committee to study the ―adequacy and effectiveness‖ of the ABA Canons. Mendoza as Solicitor General involved here is ―advising the Central Bank. (b) Congruent-interest representation conflicts are unique to government lawyers and apply primarily to former government lawyers. -1946: the Philippine Bar Association again adopted as its own Canons 33 to 47 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics.03 2b. the drafter of the highly influential New York ―Field Code. and influence garnered in government service. -1917: Philippine Bar Association adopted as its own.” It is.03 2. (2) legal educators. isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party.‖ -The drafting committee reformulated the canons into the Model Code of Professional Responsibility which was approved by the ABA House of Delegates in August 1969. -19th century: the ―dark ages‖ of legal ethics in the United States. regulations or laws. Retirement from judicial position or public employment A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. -As in the colonial and early post-revolutionary periods. -August 1983: ABA adopted new Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. NO. the principal thrust of the standards was directed towards the litigation conduct of lawyers. -21 June 1988: SC promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility. on how to proceed with the said bank‘s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila. 2a.‖ Canon 36.03 -17th and 18th centuries: ethical standards for lawyers were pervasive in England and other parts of Europe. It underscored the central duty of truth and fairness in litigation as superior to any obligation to the client.

R. the present petition for certiorari is dismissible. -Also. 265. The role of the court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. Mendoza to represent private respondents in Civil Case Nos. Nos. (Arts. Reasoning 2 interpretations of the ―intervene‖ (basis: Webster): (a) ―intervene‖ includes participation in a proceeding even if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence. It should not be interpreted to cause a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent. In such a proceeding. a Resolution issued by the same court resolving the very same issue on the ―disqualification‖ of Atty. -As well observed. The issue of whether or not Atty. on the ground that they are ill-gotten). -The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a truncated reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers in the government service. Unless a law makes an action imprescriptible or lays down no other period. perpetual and permanent. 0096-0099. an attorney‘s interest in representing a client. the successor of Genbank. the financial burden on a client of replacing disqualified counsel. But it cannot be inferred that the prohibition is absolute. Obiter Balancing Policy Considerations -CPR Rule 6. Mendoza in a case involving the same parties and the same subject matter has already become final and immutable. No costs. the Court in interpreting Rule 6. and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification proceeding. appealable. It can no longer be altered or changed. -There is no need to delve into the question of whether Rule 6. 0005 constitutes a bar to similar motions to disqualify Atty. All civil actions have a prescriptive period. 1991 in Civil Case No. -The Resolution dated April 22.03 does not expressly specify the period of its applicability or enforceability. The PCGG may not relitigate such issue of disqualification as it was actually litigated and finally decided in G. independent of and collateral to the main issues in Civil Cases Nos. No. Given the current state of our law. and (2) prescription. NO. specifically. Mendoza is indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating Genbank and selling it later to Allied Bank. -No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession. 0096-0099. the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government. the action is subject to a bar by prescription five years after the right of action accrued. Their interests coincide instead of colliding. 0096 (sequestration of the stocks in Allied Bank. Atty. Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. -Similarly. conclusiveness of judgment. Tolentino v CA) SANDOVAL-GUTTIERREZ [dismiss] -In evaluating motions to disqualify a lawyer. our minds are not bound by stringent rules. and (2) the passage of a sufficient period of time from the date he ceased to be solicitor general to the date when the supposed disqualification (for violation of the CPR) was raised. -An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is final and. The record is arid as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings. There is room for consideration of the combined effect of a party‘s right to counsel of his own choice. -The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading. it is separable from the merits. the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of competent legal representation. it has to be signed by Atty. The danger that the rule will be misused to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork. There are no inconsistent ―sides‖ to be bothered about in the case at bar. Mendoza under the doctrine of res judicata. the appearance of impropriety theory has been rejected in the 1983 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. SEPARATE OPINION PANGANIBAN [dismiss] -The petition should be dismissed on two grounds: (1) res judicata. Proc. It is true that the only card that the government may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer present income in return for the experience and contacts that can later be exchanged for higher income in private practice.03 has been transgressed. Civil Code. sec. Mendoza should be disqualified from representing Tan et al. -CPR Rule 6. -The material issue in the present controversy is whether Atty. In lawyering for the Lucio Tan Group. -Also the ―switching sides‖ concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. but probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence.‖ The intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. CPR Rule 6. if not inexistent. Notably. hence. is separable from. It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice. therefore.03 represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP to upgrade the ethics of lawyers in the government service. 107812 (liquidation of Genbank) is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.03 was not unconcerned with the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its misapplication.03. Clearly. the 2nd meaning is more appropriate to give to the word ―intervention. the disqualification of a former government lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm. Ratio in light of the history of CPR Rule 6. there is no need to discuss the merits of the questioned Sandiganbayan Resolutions allowing Atty. 1140-1149. ―To make government service more difficult to exit can only make it less appealing to enter.LEGAL PROFESSION -The procedure of liquidation is given in black and white in Republic Act No. Disposition Petition denied.‖ -In interpreting Rule 6. it is already difficult for government to match compensation offered by the private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able to reverse that situation. (b) ―intervene‖ only includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings.03 cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a SolGen in Sp. -The principal role of the court in this proceeding for dissolution is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the Genbank.03. The danger that confidential official information might be divulged is nil. Mendoza may still be barred from representing these respondents despite (1) a final Order in another case resolving the very same ground for disqualification involving the same parties and the same subject matter as the present case. In short. 112707-09. 2b. After all. Page 19 of 203 . -At present. the accuracy of gauging public perceptions is a highly speculative exercise at best which can lead to untoward results. Said legal provision provides for the role of the SolGen in proceedings upon insolvency. 29.

without running into trouble with the law. 0096 is connected with or related to a ―matter.03 purposely does not contain an explicit temporal limitation since cases have to be resolved based on their peculiar circumstances. Rather. the liquidation of Genbank. Mendoza in the other cases.03 applies even if Atty. But the prohibition under Canon 36 was not prescribed by this Court or by statute as a norm until the enactment of the Code of Professional Responsibility in 21 June 1988. -The subject matter in Civil Case No.e. LIM-SANTIAGO V SAGUCIO CARPIO. Mendoza synthesized facts. as the asst. at one point in our legal careers. -Atty. CPR Rule 6. -While it is desirable to recruit competent lawyers into government service. -The Resolution denying PCGG‘s similar motion to disqualify Mendoza was an interlocutory order as it did not terminate or finally dispose of the said case. -Atty. But in the end. CARPIO-MORALES [grant] -The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment does not apply since in the case at bar. CALLEJO. And I would like to believe that each and everyone of us has made a difference. a violation of Rule 15.03 applies even if no conflict of interest exists between Atty. Mendoza had intervened as the Solicitor General -Rule 6. As then Solicitor General. Mendoza did not just mechanically point to section 29 of Republic 265. they are not the sole factor affecting recruitment of lawyers to the government sector.03 cannot be made applicable in the present case to Atty. Atty. which by reason of his position he was privy to. Mendoza did not ―switch sides‖ or did not take inconsistent sides. Also.‖ i. Mendoza‘s present engagement as counsel for Lucio Tan Group in Civil Case No. All of us have. In advising the Central Bank. Mendoza. March 31. Prosecutor.LEGAL PROFESSION -Atty. until he was appointed Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao. The canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility must be strictly construed. was assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation.03 cannot apply to Atty. It is only interlocutory since it does not finally dispose of the case. in which Atty. we decided to take the road less traveled and serve in government. as to do so would be violative of his right to due process. Mendoza as a final order. Sagucio. .Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter and administratrix of the property of Alfonso Lim. -While financial considerations are important. it is drawn for the “good man” as a beacon to assist him in navigating an ethical course through the sometimes murky waters of professional conduct. this is the first time that the issue to disqualify Atty. What is material is his role in facilitating the liquidation of GENBANK through his legal expertise. which some authorities deemed as a source of legal ethics prior to the Code of Professional Responsibility. He recommended the filing of 651 Informations for violation of Art288 of the labor code of the Philippines. The Court must not tolerate any departure from the ―straight and narrow‖ path demanded by the ethics of the legal profession. v City of New York) -CPR establishes the norms of conduct and ethical standards in the legal profession and the Court must not shirk from its duty to ensure that all lawyers live up to its provisions. Respondent Carlos Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries. SR. 107812 is an intervention in a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.03 of the Code of Professional Page 20 of 203 . Mendoza‘s lack of participation in the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK is immaterial. been tempted by the promise of financial success that private practice usually brings. Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Special Proceedings No. this does not justify the disturbance of our mores. 0096. Atty. when Atty. 2006 (maia reiza) NATURE Disbarment case FACTS . Mendoza may have violated Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. there was no definitive binding rule proscribing him from such engagement or penalizing him for such representation. the question of whether the motion to disqualify Atty. Lim-Santiago took over the management of the company.03. -Atty. Mendoza‘s former government client (Central Bank) and his present private practice clients (respondents Tan. It does not prescribe in 5 yrs. the Code of Professional Responsibility had not yet been promulgated. . 0096 violates the ethical precept embodied in Rule 6. Mendoza has been elevated before the SC. Whether it be at the time then Solicitor General Mendoza participated in the process of the dissolution of General Bank in 1977. -The Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated by the Supreme Court on 21 June 1988. TINGA [partially grant] -Section 6. [partially grant] -The Code of Professional Responsibility is not designed for Holmes‟ proverbial “bad man” who wants to know just how many corners he may cut. and as a lawyer known for his keen legal acumen. There is more to this mortal coil than the pursuit of material wealth.Some employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint against LimSantiago for withholding payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause for 1 year and 3 months (1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997).Lim-Santiago alleges that Sagucio is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Mendoza‘s participation in the liquidation of GENBANK does not constitute intervention. Mendoza agreed to represent the respondents. -We cannot characterize the denial of PCGG‘s motion to disqualify Atty.03 is perpetual. It merely settled an incidental or collateral matter arising therein. how close to the line he may play. Prov.) -Rule 6. As such. Prior to its official adoption. Mendoza should be granted is undoubtedly a legal question. Accordingly. Rule 6. and law with a view to successfully liquidate the bank. or at sometime in 1987 when he agreed to represent the respondents. the former president of Taggat Industries. The peculiar circumstances of this case justify the strict application of said rule. et al. Cagayan in 1992. After his death. it cannot operate to bar the filing of another motion to disqualify Atty. -the prohibition in Rule 6. (General Motors Corp. there was no similar official body of rules or guidelines enacted by the Supreme Court other than the provisions on Legal Ethics in the Rules of Court. I would like to think that serving in government is its own reward. One needs only to look at all of us members of this Court to know that money is not everything.

ISSUES 1. he contends that 5 years have passed since he was connected with the company. WON there are conflicting interests in this case 2. prosecutory office in Gov‘t. without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member xxx‖ . and Violeta C. October 6. Sagucio is not guilty of representing conflicting interests as prohibited in Rule 15. and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes xxx which ranged from P15K to P20K. any article of value.June 3. inappropriate use of government resources. and on election day. making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made. Non-political Bar. Although a lawyer owes a former client to maintain inviolate of the client‘s confidence. money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates. thus there was no conflict of interest. and of engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.The payment for consultancy services conducted by Sagucio falls under the ―private practice of law‖ which is specifically prohibited by RA6713 (the court applies the liberal definition of the practice of law as given in Cayetano v Monson). or combinations of candidates. o For purpose of influencing a member. Drilon. . Drilon‘s campaign rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin). WON disbarment is the appropriate penalty HELD . He left Taggat in 1992.Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes the sanctions: o ―Violation of the by-laws of the IBP shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected. 1989. (―poured heart. and that government positions were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary. for such violations are not subject to disciplinary action under the CPR. before the Supreme Court.the elections were led by the main candidates for the office of IBP President. which is expressly prohibited in RA6713. In a charge for representing conflicting interests. transpo.Among the allegations were the use of government planes. RE: 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES PER CURIAM. single slates.LEGAL PROFESSION Responsibility (CPR).Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant votebuying by some members of the U. this responsibility does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer‘s employment with the client. entertainment. whle holding an elective. . . .03 of CPR.There are no conflicting interests. womened. drink. quasi-judicial. this violation is also a violation of Rule 1. Atty . years after the relation to Taggat has been terminated. The penalty is a suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year (basis is the Civil Service Law and Rules). as well as the advertisement thereof. 1989. giving of food. On the other hand. not including previous expenses for his campaign. The Supreme Court. soul.01 of Canon 1 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful … conduct). 4. and the non-payment of wages occurred in 1996-1997. by payment of dues or other indebtedness of the member. Also. Section 14 of By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections: o Distribution of election campaign material. Nisce‘s hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216K ++. en banc. thus he can be punished for violating canon 1.Article I. 1989 (anton arcilla) NATURE An inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines.In a resolution calling for investigations. Sigma Rho Fraternity as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA. However. No lawyer holding an elective. Atty. the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was held at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). . evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against the former client any CONFIDENTIAL information acquired through his previous employment. That he was a former personnel manager and the case is labor-related is not sufficient basis to charge Sagucio of representing conflicting interests. because of widespread reports about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates. to as much as P50K.‖) . o Campaigning for or against any candidate. or prosecutory office in the government xxx shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the IBP or any chapter thereof. and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting. WON the ―private practice of law‖ includes consultancy services 3. the Court ―called to mind that a basic postulate of the IBP xxx is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates and of the IBP officers. ISSUE WON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering. all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws.P. Sagucio defends himself by saying that he accepted payment from Taggat even after his appointment as government prosecutor but said that such payments were not for representation but for consultancy services. FACTS . Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three weeks of campaigning. the Supreme Court resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect to investigate. o Formation of tickets. and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly.The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4. namely Attorneys Nereo Paculdo. judicial. However. o Distribution of campaign material other that a statement of the biodata of candidate not more than one page of legal paper. quasi-judicial. Ramon Nisce. . resolvd to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers=elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports. . – the IBP is strictly non-political. exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar. judicial. HELD Page 21 of 203 . and vote-buying during the IBP national elections. Section 4 of IBP By-Laws emphasizes the ―strictly nonpolitical‖ character of the IBP: SEC.There was also the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly ―wined and dined continuously.Atty. Sagucio cannot be punished for this violation under the CPR.

Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. CANON 10 – A Lawyer owes candor.LEGAL PROFESSION Ratio .nor consent to the doing of an court. Alternative proposals were submitted to the Court.WON respondent is guilty of misleading the court of his standing with the IBP for using the same IBP OR number for at least six years HELD 1. Bar Scandal. Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee.The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for direct election by the House Delegates of officers. . VP be repealed. February 4. The incoming board of governors shall elect an EVP from among themselves.A lawyer shall not do any falsehood.At the end of President‘s 2-year term. Reasoning .01. and he was in fact promoted as RTC Judge. and was convicted of estafa. 2000 (dahls salamat) FACTS Petitioner’s Claim: -Llamas has not indicated proper PTR and IBP OR No and data in his pleadings. 2. He can only engage in the practice of law by paying his dues and it doesn‘t matter if his practice is limited.Former sstem of IBP President and Exec.The decision is meant to impress upon participant the seriousness of their misconduct. . The Court moved to nullify and to spread out the weight of the Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar subjects. he is guilty of misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he has paid his dues to IBP Rizal Chapter and of violating Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1. Respondent’s Comment: -SC has already dismissed the case for his dismissal as well as the criminal case. as a corollary of their obligation to: Obey and uphold the constitutionand the laws. 2003.Section 10 which provides that ―default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the integrated bar. the Court adopted the recommendation of Justice Vitug and resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile Law and to hold another exam on the said subject against which petitions were filed. and to the other members of the Court.The Court resolved also to create a Committee composed of three retired members of the Court that would conduct a thorough Page 22 of 203 . CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. . Justice Jose C. . the EVP shall automatically succeed to the office of the president. VP elected by Board of Governors from among themselves should be restored. Since he openly admitted that he was still engaged in the practice of law eventhough his practice is already limited he is still subject to the payment of IBP dues and failure to do so would warrant his suspension under Sec 10 of Rule 139-A. . 2004 (chris lao) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Jr. Vitug. He then reported to Chief Justice Hilario Davide. recommending that the examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith. FACTS . was in 1991 --in the context of Rule 138 section 1 that only a duly admitted member of the bar ―who is in good and regular stnding is entitled to practice law‖ and Rule 139-A.nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. the day following the bar examination in Mercantile Law.01-A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. -Llamas‘ last payment of IBP dues. he merely indicates IBP Rizal 259060 as his PTS and IBP OR No for 3 years as shown in various court pleadings. was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination on the subject. . VIII Sec. and to restore the non-political character of the IBP.his principal occupation being a farmer -Being a senior citizen he is exempt from payment of taxes. physical and financial burdens it will cause the barristers. -Respondent is engaged only in a limited practice of law. Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. .The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers.and he honestly believes that his dues with the IBP is covered by such exemption -in fact he does not exercise his rights to vote as an IBP member -he is willing to pay his dues should he be in fact not exempt from payment thereof ISSUES 1. The petitions voiced out the support to nullifying the exam on the said subject and not to take another exam due to the emotional.and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys -respondent‘s track record shows that he was once dismissed as Pasay City Judge.IBP elections should be as they are annulled.By Indicationg IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings.immoral or deceitful conduct. SANTOS V LLAMAS MENDOZA. .WON RA 7432 (Senior Citizen) exempts respondent from payment of his dues with the IBP 2. 4. 14 of the IBP By-laws and made a travesty of the idea of a ―strictly non-political‖ IBP shrined in Sec. as certified by IBP pres.On September 2003. Rule 10.fairness nd goodfaith to the court. January 20.dishonest.It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 8 may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers.RA 7432 exempts him only from payment of taxes but not from payment of his association dues such as IBP dues. Disposition Because of his old age. and exec.and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. IBP President.On September 22.It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as provided in Art. respondent was only suspended from practice of law for one year or until he pays his dues. RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS PER CURIAM.

Disposition Wherefore. May 9. ISSUE WON Danilo De Guzman should be disbarred HELD YES. It was theft of intellectual property. Atty. failure to do so will merit suspension from the practice of law. Balgos and Atienza knew of the password. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants. in some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in other cases exactly as Atty. 2003. There must have been an ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the shroud of secrecy that. Atty. the source of the leaked test questions was Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION investigation of the incident subject of the September 23.Atty De Guzman‘s act of downloading Balgos‘ test questions in mercantile law from the latter‘s computer. which provide: Rule 1. Also. REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES CHICO-NAZARIO. 71 years old.The circumstances that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of test questions prepared by Atty. MARCH 6. . and promote respect for law and legal processes. was a criminal act of larceny. LETTER OF ATTY. not from the Office of Justice Vitug. entitles him to exemption from payment of IBP dues. Balgos‘ computer without the latter‘s knowledge and consent. AREVALO. Request for Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues. . the US from 1986 to his retirement in 2003. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. the Investigating committee does not believe that he acted alone. he very well knows. . Sunday. was Atty. ISSUES WON Petitioner‘s inactivity in the practice of law that is. Ronald Collado who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQU‘s 30 bar candidates. His questions constituted 82% of the questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21. Danilo De Guzman.He could have just used the typewriter considering his lack of adeptness with the computer. He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers‘ Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution. FACTS Page 23 of 203 .De Guzman also violated rule 1.01 of Canon 1. when he was in the Civil Service and when working abroad. ZAGUIRRE V CASTILLO PER CURIAM. . 2003 resolution. Arevalo.The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire law population. as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar.. De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of Balgos‘ right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers and effects against unauthorized search and seizure—rights zealously protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Balgos‘ legal assistant. Reasoning . and worked in.. one of which is the payment of membership dues. Palma. . Jr. petitioner‘s request for exemption from payment of IBP dues for the years 1977-2005 is Denied within 10 days from receipt of this decision.Petitioner. and who faxed them to other persons. Balgos‘ computer. FACTS .Atty. Balgos is also negligent. . . dishonest. Without any doubt. He is not entitled to receive any honorarium as examiner for that subject. Balgos proves conclusively that the leakage originated from his office.Further examination of the others should be held to show accountability and also to find out how De Guzman was able to secure a copy of the Supreme Court‘s CALR database without the court‘s permission. covers the bar examinations.After admittance to the Philippine Bar in 1961. The culprit who stole or downloaded them from Atty. This is toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they themselves belong. Balgos should be reprimanded by the Court and make a written apology as a result of his negligence. The Investigating Committee found that the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law were the questions which the examinee.Atty. Atty. immoral or deceitful conduct. Certain brods should also be investigated. secretary of Atty. He should be disbarred plus he ought to make a public apology and pay damages to the Supreme Court . 2003 (sarah Cabrera) NATURE Petition for Disbarment on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct (Adulterous Relationship). De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions. In turn. 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.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. . Balgos had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose Vitug. who voluntarily confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee. and Erwin Tan. namely. 2005 (keefe dela cruz) NATURE Bar Matter in the Supreme Court.Besides theft. The committee does not believe De Guzman did this out of love for the fraternity. HELD Ratio No. with the help of his secretary Villasis to his frat brods in Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity.Membership in the bar is a privilege (as opposed to a property right) burdened with conditions.035 in IBP dues for the years 1977-2005 . is being assessed P12. Arlan. Cecilio Y. proposed. he became part of the Phil Civil Service from 1962 to 1986. Iñigo passed a copy or copies to other Betan Guiapal who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta Sigma‘s Most Illustrious Brother. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by him on his computer. Balgos. JR. Garvida faxed the test questions to Iñigo and Bugain. obey the laws of the land. Atty. without his knowledge and permission. Garvida. CECILIO Y.He is guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. then migrated to.

amoral attitude of the respondent. it is appalled at the reprehensible.The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant.LEGAL PROFESSION .‖ The Court is not convinced.01 . but grossly immoral. honesty.‖ *The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar examinations. tantamount to self-stultification.A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Thus. . During their affair. Furthermore. the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent‘s effort to mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of law. the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable.The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant. Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. . ―CANON 7 . Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997. WON respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct 2. it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character. 1997. Aletha Jessa. probity or good Page 24 of 203 .This Court has repeatedly held: ―as officers of the court.‖ *Complainant he seeks understanding from the Court. disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given . He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10.03 . that he had instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the profession. to the full satisfaction of the Court. It is not dependent whether or not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him. because the complainant was seeing other men at the time they were having an affair. respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly. .On December 09. Nevertheless. to protect the public and the courts. but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. The Code of Professional Responsibility: ―Rule 1. whether in public or private life. admitting his relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his. Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.Complainant and respondent met while working in the NBI. *As consistently held by this Court. NO *That complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing full well his marital status does not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in question in a case like this is respondent‘s fitness to be a member of the legal profession. That is. lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.‖ Immoral conduct has been defined as: ―xxx that conduct which is so willful.‖ *Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer. 1997.It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his wife went to her office and confronted her about her relationship with respondent. he was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar. On May 10.A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. what transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire. Moreover. the Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment.. a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Also. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. 1997. In Mortel vs. he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in Mindoro. YES . WON the respondent should be disbarred HELD 1. flagrant. he did not know at the time that complainant was seeing other men. executed an affidavit. . This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession. a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. The suspension shall last until such time that respondent is able to show. As of now. complainant gave birth to a baby girl. 3. respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support. it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. NO Clearly therefore. even if it pertains to his private activities. and that what happened between them was ―nothing but mutual lust and desire. unbecoming a member of a noble profession. and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. More specifically.On September 10. such conduct must not only be immoral. 2. In fact. he never represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children. dishonest. as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character. Soon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997. but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members. complainant is almost 10 years older than him and knew beforehand that he is already married. immoral or deceitful conduct. . respondent was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed. pointing out that ―men by nature are polygamous. the child borne by complainant is not his. Aspiras: ―In a disbarment proceeding. or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. ISSUES 1. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct. 1997 but explains that he only did so to save complainant from embarrassment. By this time however. nor should he.‖ ―Rule 7.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. . WON it is relevant to this case if the complainant knew he was married 3.

Sabandal reiterated his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath in a motion dated June 8.‖ It has also been held that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor. they were confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case instituted by the Government against him. 1989 – Court finally allowed Sabandal to take the lawyer‘s oath after consideration of his plea for mercy and forgiveness. 29. 1991. ―the amicable settlement may amount to a confession by the defendant.The Court then deferred setting the date of the oath-taking of respondent Sabandal and required Judge Lachica to inform the Court of the outcome of the case Republic v. 1991 resolution.As it turned out.The Executive Judge of ZBN RTC. without authorization from its Board of Officers. Bar and to sign the roll of attorneys. . informed the Court on Dec. dated Dec. 10. . 1990. certifying that he has no pending case with his Court and that he has no cause to object to his admission to the Bar. The Solicitor General did not object to the approval of the settlement and even stated that. Judge Pelagio Lachica. . Nuevas. Sabandal reiterated his plea to be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath. therefore. willingness to reform and several testimonies attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness. Although the term ―good moral character‖ admits of broad dimensions. v. allowing Sabandal to take the oath 10 years after passing the Bar. therefore finding no reason to disqualify him from admission to the Bar.Sabandal filed motions for reconsideration all of which either denied or noted without action. before a date could be set for Sabandal‘s oath taking. 29.Complainants Boquia and Dagpin submitted their own comments vehemently contesting the Court‘s Resolution setting the date for respondent‘s oath-taking and filed a separate comment as regards complainant Tan‘s personal disposition. was prior to the Court receiving the objections by complainants. The IBP ZBN chapter also submitted a certification that Sabandal has not been convicted of any crime and that there is no pending criminal case against him.From 1984-1988 . Sabandal had already been filing motions for reconsideration alleging his good moral character without mentioning the pendency of the civil case against him. in a Manifestation. it has been defined as ―including at least common honesty. questioning whether personal forgiveness is enough basis to exculpate and obliterate their cases . which he used as security for mortgage in order to obtain a loan. . Page 25 of 203 .‖ The Court found it manipulative on his part to take advantage of his employment to facilitate such an act and a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service. . 1991.Finally. Attached to her motion was a certification signed by the current IBP ZDN Chapter President Atty. Judge Pacifico Garcia. Those testimonials can not. where complainants Tan.Complainant Tan contests the testimonial of IBP Zamboanga Del Norte Chapter (ZDN) certifying that respondent was acting with morality and has been careful in his actuations in the community.‖ as he had asked her forgiveness and that she finds no necessity in pursuing her case against him. that Sabandal‘s case was already considered closed and terminated. 29. 1991. 20. who succeeded Judge Lachica.Only complainant Tan complied. . Judge Garcia‘s letter was noted in the Resolution of Jan. 1983 . and before it had become aware of the gravity of the civil case against him. Tan claims that said testimonial was signed only by the then President of that IBP chapter.Feb. . The Court again deferred action on the motion pending the complainants‘ compliance with the Jan.Nov. The Case was eventually settled when respondent surrendered the bogus certificate of title to the government and paid-off the mortgagor. 1989. which cannot be cannot be erased by termination of his case where no determination of his guilt or innocence was made because the suit had been compromised.The Court also noted that at the time the case was instituted. that the termination of Sabandal‘s civil case is proof of his sincere reformation. 1989. The Resolution of Feb. 10. and that the principal parties have reached an amicable settlement approved by the trial court. a certification was sent by Exec. . . . Rep. and stated in a comment dated Aug. TAN V SABANDAL MELENCIO-HERRERA. ISSUE WON Respondent Sabandal should be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath HELD Ratio The practice of law is not a matter of right. Tan later on desisted and informed the Court that her relationship with Sabandal ―has already been restored. 6. 1992 (jat tabamo) FACTS . even recommending his admission to the legal profession. Sabandal was brought about when Sabandal. Sabandal. 1990. Said Judge also mentioned that there is a Civil Case. stating that the present Board of Officers had not issued any testimonial attesting to the good moral character and civic consciousness of Sabandal. 12.LEGAL PROFESSION demeanor. Boquia and Dagpin were required to comment on said Judge‘s letter. Sabandal which was pending in the Supreme Court. and repentance. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. February 24.Court sustained charge of unauthorized practice of law filed against respondent Sabandal and denied the latter‘s petition to be allowed to take oath as member of the Phil. 1991. 29. Tan and Boquia each filed motions for reconsideration of the Resolution of Feb. Judge Jesus Angeles of RTC of ZDN upon request of Sabandal. However.As to the testimonials attesting to his good moral character. No. Disposition Court finds respondent GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law. complainants Dagpin. of the Phil. . in a separate comment stated that he is not well acquainted personally with the respondent and unaware of any acts committed by him so as to disqualify him from admission to the Bar. .Meanwhile. the case of Republic v. by way of his employment as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands procured a certificate of free patent over a parcel of land belonging to public domain (which he could not but have known to be public land). His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several motions for reconsideration reveals his lack of candor and truthfulness. outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and lack of good moral character.On Dec. 10.

Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders. where they got married despite the subsistence of a previous marriage . ATTY. the trial court issued an order on February 27.. 1996. we know that but we want to be specific because we will be [filing] a case against this receiving clerk who did not [inform] him your Honor please. he still persisted in his illicit relations and arrogant even. and dismissed from being a CFI judge .Prior to complaint. BUGARING: This Court should not presume that. 2001 (ricky cantre) NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March 6. Lauro Tapucar.His lawyer-daughter filed the disbarment proceedings. Cavite. petitioner. Español of the RTC of Cavite. All of these are violative of the lawyer‘s oath and in great disregard of the law BUGARING V ESPANOL DE LEON. Disposition Respondent Sabandal found to be unfit to become a member of the BAR.As such. the defendant Spouses Alvaran on April 15. Inc. Page 26 of 203 . On August 16. namely. 1996. BUGARING: Yes your Honor please. lawyers are invested with public trust.03 is clear – that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. especially Tapucar as he was once a member of the bench who must be free from impropriety. that faith and confidence by the public to the law is ensured .The suspension and dismissal on immorality did not stop him from continue living with Elena and leaving Remedios and her 11 children. Bugaring guilty in direct contempt of court. the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court. Inc. He and Elena even moved back to Antipolo from GenSan.During the hearing of the motion for contempt of court held on December 5.LEGAL PROFESSION . On July 19. Inc. is of no moment. in the face of charges against him. your Honor please. my Assistant. Cavite. I did not instruct him to take some video tape.The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on December 5. your Honor please. with this manifestation of the Deputy of the Register of Deeds that is irregularity in the performance of the official duty of the clerk not to inform the parties concerned. whether in public of private life behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession . January 19. filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. 1996. Boquia and Dagpin have not submitted any opposition to his motion to take the oath. COURT: Why would he be bringing camera if you did not give him the go signal that shots should be done. the basis of her complaint treating as it does of another subject matter. ATTY. July 30. 1998 (terry ridon) FACTS . he has already been charged four times for conduct unbecoming of an officer. 1996. and has already been suspended. the court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or personal capacity. Branch 90.Complainant Remedios Tapucar seeks the disbarment of husband. There is no permission from this Court that such proceedings should be taken. petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve. .. COURT: Right. TAPUCAR V TAPUCAR PER CURIAM. on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with Elena Pena under scandalous circumstances.In case at bar. 1989 is recalled and his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath is denied. like judges. I could prove your Honor please. Imus. declaring petitioner Rexie Efren A. Atty. 1996. filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens.Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency and morality. 1998 of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. FACTS . for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title. BUGARING: Actually. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and a Motion for Contempt of Court. On November 5. Before the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order. They have already expressed their objections in their earlier comments. the following incident transpired (pls see case for full stenographic record of incident): [discussing Deputy Reg of Deed‘s manifestation that the receiving clerk did not inform him of the court order] ATTY. 1996. but the video recording is prepared process and you should secure the permission of this Court. ATTY. we just came from an occasion last night and I am not yet come home. et al. Specific Performance and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order in the sala of respondent judge Dolores S. nor should he. represented her mother. the Court would like to find out who this fellow who is taking the video recording at this proceedings. BUGARING: Your Honor. and on November 6. 10. . Imus. which was opposed by the defendants. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran. I did not advise him to take a video he just accompanied me this morning.The recommendation by the IBP is sufficient to justify his disbarment as a good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession but must remain intact in order to maintain good standing in the profession. It is essential that we have a high-toned sense of morality . Court‘s Resolution of Feb. COURT: Counsel. 1996 directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. despite the previous sanctions. 1996 of Royal Becthel Builders. vs. the newly appointed counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders. That complainant Tan has withdrawn her objection to his taking the oath can neither tilt the balance in his favor. .CPR Rule 7. but this is only exercised if there is a clear case of misconduct .That complainants.. Branch 90. from which the IBP recommended his disbarment ISSUE WON the recommendation for disbarment is justified HELD .

BUGARING: My point here your Honor please. he has not prayed for anything. it is not yet the defense. BUGARING: Well. ATTY. COURT: You have presented a witness and it was an adverse witness that was presented. This is a criminal proceedings. I‘ve been challenged by this Court that I know better than this Court. COURT: If you are going to mark your evidence and they do not have their comment yet what are we going to receive as evidence. BUGARING: We are ready to present our witness and we are deprive to present our witness. (Banging the gavel) ATTY. that the issues appear to be a little bit complicated… [continued manifestation… Judge Español making intermittent comments] ATTY. BUGARING: I am listening. we are ready to mark our evidence and present to this Court. COURT: Do that right away. that is our prerogative your Honor. COURT: What has the Register of Deeds got to say with this matter? ATTY. BUGARING: Well your Honor please. ATTY.. your Honor please. COURT: If this is going to proceed. we need the presence of a Fiscal or a counsel for the Register of Deeds. ATTY. ATTY. ATTY. your Honor. BUGARING: Yes. because we could feel the antagonistic approach of the Court to this representation ever since I appeared your Honor please and I put on record that I will be filing an inhibition to this Hon. your Honor. COURT: Okay. Well actually your Honor. the procedure of the Court is for the respondent to file his comment. Court. your Honor please.. ATTY. ATTY. COURT: After the court have noticed that he is taking a video tape. we know all the rules. BUGARING: Anyway your Honor please. in fact that is not my personal problem your Honor please.. COURT: That is very shallow. Atty. don‘t give that alibi. . BUGARING: No your Honor.. (Banging the gavel) You call the police and I Page 27 of 203 . COURT: (Banging the gavel) Will you listen! ATTY. BUGARING: Because we could not find any sort of justice in town. your Honor. after reviewing the record of the case your Honor. your Honor. ATTY. ATTY. BUGARING: At any rate. With a copy of the motion they should have filed it in due time in accordance with the rules and because it is scheduled for trial. ATTY. COURT: And this Court declares that you are out of order. please. Atty. Barzaga? ATTY. I am going to cite you for contempt of Court. CONCEPCION: As a matter of fact I have a lawyer here. your Honor.. your Honor. CONCEPCION (Deputy Reg of Deeds): Well as I have said before..LEGAL PROFESSION that the contents of that tape is other matters your Honor please.. BUGARING: Yes.. So let us wait until he is finished and then wait for the direction of this Court what to do to have an orderly proceedings in this case. if that is the contention of the Court your Honor please. I have not received any motion regarding this contempt you are talking. ATTY.. it is the position of this representation your Honor please. BARZAGA: Yes.. may I ask for the assistance from the Fiscal. do that. ATTY. BUGARING: Your Honor please. that we will be marking first our documentary evidence because this is set for hearing for today. I will not yet present my witness but I will just mark our documentary exhibits which are part of the record of the case and thereafter your Honor please…. okay. is that the respondent had been long time furnished of this contempt proceedings. do that. BUGARING: Yes. ATTY. Modestly (sic) aside your Honor please. you know your rules that‘s why you are putting the cart ahead of the horse. at this point in time I don‘t want to comment on anything but I reserve my right to inhibit this Honorable Court before trying this case. BUGARING: If your Honor please… COURT: Will you listen to the Court and just do whatever you have to do after the submission of the comment... The counsel has just made manifestation. COURT: You wait for a minute counsel because there is a preparation being done by newly appointed counsel of the respondent. your Honor. BUGARING: In fact I instructed him to go out. COURT: With respect to this. contempt proceedings is a criminal..and we know also our procedure. COURT: As far as this Court is concerned it is going to follow the rules. I will just review the records. How much time do you need to go over the record of this case so that we can call the other case in the meanwhile. BARZAGA: Yes. COURT: Yes. we have also ---. BUGARING: Your Honor please. may we proceed your Honor. will first mark our documentary evidence. ATTY. CONCEPCION: Your Honor please. I‘ve been winning in many certiorari cases. I noticed… [quite a long manifestation followed but irrelevant to this case] ATTY. BARZAGA: Considering your Honor. but the record will show that the motion for contempt was copy furnished with the Register of Deeds and Diosdado Concepcion. This should be an orderly proceedings and considering that this is a Court of record the comment has to be in first then in your reply you can submit your evidence to rebut the argument that is going to be put up by the respondent and so we will be able to hear the case smoothly. Barzaga is considered as the privately hired counsel of the register of deeds and the respondent of this contempt proceedings. COURT: If you know your procedure then you follow the procedure of the Court first and then do whatever you want. your Honor.. I am willing now to testify. BUGARING: Your Honor I am still of the prosecution stage. COURT: You can do whatever you want. your Honor please. BARZAGA: Second call. Barzaga if he is willing ATTY. ATTY. we are going to mark our documentary evidence as part of our motion for contempt. COURT: You wait until the Court allows you to do what you want to do. I was just surprised why he took video tape your Honor please... your Honor. if you are listening then you will get what the Court would want to do. COURT: It is not offending because this is a public proceedings but the necessary authority or permission should be secured. your Honor. ATTY. your Honor... your Honor please. okay. ATTY. that we ask the apology of this Court if that offend this Court your Honor please. that is personal to that guy your Honor please if this representation is being …. COURT: Precisely. ATTY.. BUGARING: I did not. COURT: Do that right away. BUGARING: I am listening. we are all officers of the Court. ATTY. -----------------COURT: Are you ready Atty. BUGARING: Yes. your Honor. ATTY. your Honor please.

annoying and sarcastic towards the court. Canon 10 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. Rexie Efren A. The records show that petitioner was cited in contempt of court during the hearing in the sala of respondent judge. A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client‘s cause.000 prescribed by the ROC and ordered the excess of P1. to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12.LEGAL PROFESSION am going to send this lawyer in jail.000. The CA found that it was obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant. ATTY. AMACC Page 28 of 203 .03. (Turning to the Sheriff) ―Will you see to it that this guy is put in jail. 2. COURT: You have been given enough time and you have been abusing the discretion of this Court. Disposition Decision of the CA affirmed. Canon 12 of the same Canons.000 returned to petitioner. COURT: That is not the way to protect your client that is an abuse of the discretion of this Court. allegedly published certain objectionable features . The refusal of the petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite. if proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during court proceedings. misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10. Surely this behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should not be countenanced. Any conduct which tends to delay.the 9 students appealed but were denied by the AMACC President giving rise to a civil case calling for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Camacho as their counsel and Pangulayan and associates representing the defendant. and consequently.04. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge and can be punished summarily without hearing. in accordance with Rule 12. and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to ―observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others‖.04. and 5.the Student Disciplinary Tribunal found them guilty and the students were expelled . ISSUE WON the contempt order by Judge Español had factual basis HELD Yes Ratio The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments. after using said phrase he manifested utter disrespect to the court in his subsequent utterances. Violation of the Code of Professional Ethics FACTS .‖ For. if that is the appreciation of the Court but this is one way I am protecting my client. Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Bugaring. orders. the petitioner served his three (3) day sentence and paid the fine of P3. (Turning to the Sheriff) ATTY. bound to exert every effort and placed under duty. Reasoning Petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the actuation of respondent judge in issuing the contempt order inside her chamber without giving the petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or make an immediate reconsideration. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that ―a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which mandates a lawyer to always treat an adverse witness ―with fairness and due consideration.Pursuant to said Order. Canons of Professional Responsibility. all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE. and mandates of the court. March 22. He should not forget that he is an officer of the court. It affirmed the order of the respondent judge.‖ . to the due administration of justice. your Honor.000 out of the original fine of P3. 4. BUGARING: I am just manifesting and arguing in favor of my client your Honor please. or unduly delay a case. He should not. therefore. 2000 (kiyo miura) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. through counsel. impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyer‘s duty. 1997 Constitution on the right to due process of law. to exercise his right to be heard is against Section 1 of Article III. Behaving without due regard to the trial court‘s order to maintain order in the proceedings is in utter disregard to Canon 1 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which makes it a lawyer‘s duty to ―maintain towards the courts (1) respectful attitude‖ in order to maintain its importance in the administration of justice. 3. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts‖. impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. Petitioner‘s alleged deference to the trial court in consistently addressing the respondent judge as ―your Honor please‖ throughout the proceedings is belied by his behavior therein: 1.9 students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC). fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues. and he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day.000 exceeded the limit of P2. the sum of P1. at times impertinent too argumentative to the extent of being disrespectful.‖ and Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility which insists on a lawyer to ―exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court is contrary to Rule 11. The hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent judge was partial in favor of the other party is against Rule 11. CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN VITUG. BUGARING: I am very sorry your Honor.03.000. was rudely interrupted by the petitioner and was not allowed to further put a word in edgewise is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which obliges a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy.‖ The Court cannot therefore help but notice the sarcasm in the petitioner‘s use of the phrase ―your honor please. Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time he was making representations in behalf of the other party. but found that the fine of P3. RTC ordered to return to the petitioner. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers from attributing to a judge ―motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case‖.

grave misconduct. He further claims that the complaint is politically charged since the complainant is the daughter of the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon.‖ He also admitted signing the pleading.” .On the charge of violation of law.apparently. letters of apology and re-admission agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of the students by their parents ..the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution suspending Pangulayan for 6 months and dismissed the case against the other respondents since they took no part in it . He is also the same ―Filemon A. much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him. he has continued to misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law and has appeared as counsel for petitioners in this case. who is in reality Andres Culanag. Taft Ave. Br. Manangan. . . but should only deal with his counsel. September 29. AGUIRRE V RANA CARPIO.In the complainant‘s reply to the respondent‘s comments. CFI Nueva Vizcaya. but did not allow him to sign the Roll of Attorneys. The OBC also believes that respondent‘s unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law. as seen in the minutes of the MBEC proceedings. complainant claims that the respondent is a municipal government employee and as such. The OBC found that the respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan. until further orders of this Court. Masbate. She also claims that he signed the pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor as counsel for the said candidate.28. violation of law and grave misrepresentation FACTS . . ISSUE WON the respondent should be denied admission to the Philippine Bar Page 29 of 203 . Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. the Pangulayan Law Offices filed a Manifestation stating. grave misconduct.following this.On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation.Respondent claims though George Bunan sought his specific assistance. among other things. but not as a lawyer. 2003 (monch bacani) NATURE Administrative matter on unauthorized practice of law. Filemon A.On July 17. ―he decided to assist and advice Bunan.The complainant charges him with unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct since she claims that he already appeared as counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate of Mandaon. Atty. Manangan admitted that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in the Philippines. and grave misrepresentation. she further alleges that on May 19. 2001.while the case was pending.the court concurred with IBP‘s findings but reduced the suspension to 3 months SUAREZ V SALAZAR RESOLUTION. . Atty. Despite the facts as found by the Court.In reply to the charge of violation of law. Manangan‖ who was found by the Court in Filemon Manangan v. complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent‘s services. . not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. ISSUE WON Filemon Manangan / Andres Culanag should be held in indirect contempt of the Court HELD Yes. that 4 of the students had acknowledged their guilt and agreed to terminate all proceedings . Wherefore. violation of law. June 10. 1999. he claims that he already resigned from the said government post May 11. he is hereby sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be served at the Headquarters of the National Bureau of Investigation. Manangan with Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court or to Dismiss Petion FACTS At the hearing on the same date. 2001. Pangulayan procured and effected the re-admission agreements through negotiations with said students and their parents without communicating with Camacho ISSUE WON Pangulayan is guilty of disregarding professional ethics HELD YES. . complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar on the ground of unauthorized practice of law. is hereby declared in indirect contempt of this Court. George Bunan before the Municipal Board of Canvassers.respondent violated professional ethics and disregarded a duty owing to his colleague . to be in reality Andres Culanag who is not a member of the Philippine Bar.The Court allowed respondent to take the oath. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law. he is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body. Manila. Emily Estipona-Hao filed a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor wherein the respondent signed as counsel for her. one day before respondent Edwin Rana participated the oath-taking of successful bar examinees as member of the Philippine bar. . the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confident (OBC).LEGAL PROFESSION . Filemon A. . Filemon A. 1999 (rean balisi) NATURE Motion to Expunge All Pleading Filed by Atty. Masbate. this action violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which states: “A lawyer should not in anyway communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel.On May 21. decided on August 30.

the transfer of title and the cash release and quitclaim Halili Enterprises. Because of their close relationship. had apprehensions regarding the authority of the Union to sell. He never took advantage of his position as branch clerk of court since the questioned appearances were made in the MTC of Quezon City and not in Makati where he is holding office. and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate. 1985 (eva sison) FACTS . Ladaga. So. Ms. ISSUES 1. Manila Memorial Park Cemetery. left the conjugal home to cohabit with Ms. He also signed the pleading as his lawyer. Halili Transit. which were approved.prospective buyer. .m. the Union. 2001 (jonas azura) NATURE This is an administrative matter in the Supreme Court. respondent explained that he and Ms. In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the “(U)ndersigned Counsel for. in San Bartolome. Ladaga‘s plea to be her counsel as she could not pay for the services of a lawyer and he was the only lawyer in the family. specifically the law profession. 1982. Ladaga. through Atty. Edwin L. Respondent also stressed that during his court appearances. He explains that the discord between his cousin and Ms.Emily Estipona-Hao also wrote to the MBEC that the respondent will be the legal counsel for her party. Fortunato Halili. Ladaga had supported and guided respondent from childhood until he finished his law degree.As for the charge of violation of law. Andres started when the latter‘s husband. it is clear that the respondent has already resigned from the said position before appearing as counsel. filed an urgent motion with the Ministry of Labor and Employment requesting for authority to sell and dispose of the property—motion was granted .initial cases involve disputes regarding claims for overtime of more than 500 bus drivers and conductors of Halili Transit. 1974 . Ladaga begot 3 children. The birth certificate of their eldest child is the subject of the falsification charge against Ms. Respondent is charged under Sec.under the agreement: the Administratrix would transfer to the employees title to the tract of land containing an area of 33.It is also irrelevant the respondent has already passed the bar and taken his oath. Caloocan and pay in addition the cash amount of P25. Records show that he indeed appeared as lawyer for Bunan. Atty. he was on leave as shown by his approved leave applications. WON respondent violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees by appearing as counsel 2. Respondent claims that Ms. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the practice of their profession. The isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin does not constitute the ―private practice‖ of the law profession as contemplated by law.on Aug.‖ Bunan himself also wrote to the MBEC that he had ―authorized Atty. No. GEORGE T. Respondent also pointed out that in 7 years of government service he had performed his duties with honesty and integrity and it was only in this particular case that he had been administratively charged for helping a close relative by giving free legal assistance for a ―humanitarian purpose‖. The Court denied respondent‘s request for authorization to appear as counsel and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal charges against him for appearing in court without the required authorization.a Deed of Conveyance of Real Property was executed . Respondent stated that he felt it was his duty to accept Ms. 1982 Page 30 of 203 . Ladaga sought respondent‘s help and advice when she was charged in a criminal case by Lisa Payoyo Andres. HALILI V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS MAKASIAR. Ladaga are ―close blood cousins‖ who belong to a ―powerless family‖ from an impoverished town in Surigao del Norte. WON respondent obtained written permission from the head of the department as required by Sec. the union shall withdraw and dismiss the case.LEGAL PROFESSION HELD Yes. his estate. Pineda. April 30. Disposition Respondent is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely. It contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one‘s self to the public as a lawyer.952 sq. . January 26.On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation. ―Private practice‖ of a profession. evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. does not refer to an isolated court appearance. however. represented his cousin Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga as pro bono counsel in a criminal case for falsification of public document. respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law. BUNAN. In his Comment. . the presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. . 12. It is clear that he engaged in the practice of law. 2. FACTS Respondent Atty. It is true that respondent filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court. Pineda filed a motion with the SC on Dec. litigation initially commenced with the filing of a complaint for the overtime with the defunct CIR on August 1958. However. During the course of their illicit affair. Misael M. No. The respondent also signed the pleading as their lawyer. Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati. his heirs and successors . . Ladaga. Rana as his counsel to represent him‖ before the MBEC and similar bodies. Ms. Ladaga. SPO4 Andres and Ms. Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules HELD 1. Disposition Respondent is denied admission to the Philippine Bar OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V LADAGA KAPUNAN. Andres‘ only purpose in filing the case was to ―seek vengeance‖ on Ms.All these happened before he took his lawyer‘s oath. SPO4 Pedro Andres. disputes were eventually settled when the contending parties reached an agreement on Dec. for it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys which makes one a full-fledged lawyer. While there was no misrepresentation.000 in full and final satisfaction of all the claims and causes of action of all of the employees against the estate of Fortunato Halili.

BC Pineda and Associates under the same address as the Espinas firm > when Pineda appeared for the Union. require the Halili Drivers and Conductors Union through Domingo Cabading or any of his reps to deposit with the NLRC the 6% union expenses paid to them.crucial facts which have surfaced: > then Union President Amado Lopez informed JC Espinas and Associates that the general membership of the said Union had authorized a 20% contingent fee for the law firm > Espinas.000 in his account with Manila Bank .the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts Page 31 of 203 . that the order of Valenzuela be nullified insofar as it allows Pineda 35% attorney‘s fees.Oct. 1982 and Feb.Espinas filed a manifestation and motion to require Atty. orders and mandates of the court.the pleadings show a deceitful pattern on the part of Pineda . it was located for him by Director Pascual Reyes of the NLRC .contempt of court is a defiance of the authority. Pineda claims that as of Oct.resolution of court dated Oct.but. established the award of 897 workers‘ claim—notice of judgment in 1968 was served on JC Espinas & Associates. or degrade the administration of justice shall be punished as indirect contempts in order to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to enforce judgments.Dec.LEGAL PROFESSION . Pineda and the union to comply with the temporary mandatory restraining order .242 of the Labor Code. however. the original counsel. the principal counsel. such conduct as tends to bring the authority and admin of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation . and any improper conduct tending to impede.11 rule VIII of Book III. The Court may suspend or debar a lawyer whose acts show his unfitness to continue as a member of the Bar. He was told. contract was not notarized > the decision of Manila Memorial Park cemetery to stop questioning the Union‘s authority to sell and the expeditious manner by which Valenzuela granted motion for such authority make the entire transaction dubious and irregular ISSUE WON Atty. 1983. and a notice of judgment in 1970 was sent to Atty. Ricardo Capuno and Manila Bank-Cubao should be cited in contempt for the alleged failure to comply with the temporary mandatory order and the resolution issued by the SC HELD Ratio a. The Union and its officers are dropped from the within contempt charge. Pineda should be cited for indirect contempt. Pineda to deposit with NLRC the amount paid to him representing 35% attorney‘s fees. When there is a sufficient compliance with the court‘s order. c.When Atty.992). Espinas filed the urgent motion with prayer for a temporary mandatory restraining order on August 1983—questions the legality of the orders dated Sept. he did not divulge. ordered NLRC and Manila Bank not to allow withdrawals -Union. b. and remanded cases to NLRC . that the case must be remanded to the NLRC. Atty.1983 be maintained pending final resolution by NLRC . –the court already nullified the orders of the labor arbiter as violative of the due process clause . attorney‘s fees should not exceed 10% of the amount awarded) . his appearance carried the firm name ―BC Pineda and Associates‖. in an order dated Feb. implead the Manila Bank-Cubao to require it to prevent further withdrawals of amount deposited in the name of Pineda and the Union.Movants Union and Espinas prayed for the court to: require Atty. through Pineda said that the subject matter sought to be enjoined or mandated by the restraining order is moot and academic . giving the impression that he was the principal lawyer in the cases > Pineda did not reveal to his partners that he had a retainer‘s contract entered into on Jan. 1967. Pineda should likewise be subject to disbarment proceedings. 1983 motion was filed to cite Pineda. that the records were missing. any abuse of or any interference with the proceedings of a court. 1983 he had a balance of P2. the court set aside as null and void the orders of Valenzuela. Pineda and the Union to comply with the temporary mandatory restraining order issued on Sept. Union and Bank in contempt . 1983 Labor Arbiter Raymundo Valenzuela granted the motion.rejoinder reiterating plea to declare Pineda and Capuno of the union in contempt of court and to mere out the proper penalty . NLRC to equitably dispose 20% as fees to all lawyers who participated and any excess amounts to be distributed to the workers . 1983.Solicitor General filed his comment with the recommendations that the orders of Valenzuela be nullified. 1983 issued by Labor Arbiter Valenzuela which authorized the sale of the awarded property and the distribution of the proceeds .Aug. a party can no longer be liable for contempt of court. still an associate of the law firm. Pineda: Atty. he requested Labor Arbiter Valenzuela to allow him to look into the records.the act of Pineda of filing a motion in the SC for authority to sell property in question was by itself an admission on his part that he did not possess the authority to sell the property and that the SC was the proper body which had the power to grant such authority .Atty.the court issued a temporary mandatory restraining order: enjoined Pineda to deposit with NLRC the amount representing 35% attorney‘s fees (P712. Manila Banking Corporation: Manila Banking Corporation is not liable for contempt. Reasoning a. contingent fees worked to the prejudice of those who were no longer working (Pineda knew that all the workers would be out of work because Halili Transit had already stopped operations in Metro Manila). only the Union officers knew of the contract > the retainer‘s contract between Pineda and the Union appears anomalous and even illegal: only 14% of the total membership was represented which is a violation of Art. Atty.the 45% attorney‘s lien on award of those union members who were no longer working and the 30% lien on the benefits of those who were still working as provided for in the retainer‘s contract are very exorbitant and unconscionable (under sec. Jose Espinas. 1983. and that the TRO issued by the court on Sept. justice or dignity of the court. so the sale was consummated on June 1983 and the purchase price was deposited with the Manila Bank-Cubao . learned of the sale and apportionment of the proceeds. directed the Union to deposit with the NLRC 6% union expenses. Benjamin Pineda. 1983 Espinas filed a supplement to urgent motion praying for the nullification of Valenzuela‘s order .he did not wait for such valid authority but instead previously obtained the same from the labor arbiter whom he knew was not empowered to so authorize . directed the Manila Bank. obstruct.on the mandatory restraining order. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court.

and may be reviewed only on appeal from the final decree . consent to. malpractice. and failure to adduce against. leaving 3 parcels of land Complainant’s Claim . and to compel his performance of some act or duty required of him by the court which he refuses to perform---> due to this twofold aspect.1 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Page 32 of 203 . denying the existence of a toka Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP . report. Capuno clarified that with regard to attorney‘s fees.made gross and false misrepresentations for the purpose of profiting therefrom when he requested the buyer of the last parcel of land to release the full payment under the pretense that the order of reconstitution would be released within a month when he knew that it would be impossible because he presented evidence in the reconstitution case only on August 1997 (he said this to buyer on Nov.Felicisima and Miriam executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate where they made it appear that they were the sole heirs. April 14. Mr.on Jan 2003.LEGAL PROFESSION .on june 2000. Investigating Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the Commission on Bar Discipline found the actuations of the respondent to be violative of Rules 1.27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court: attorneys may be removed or suspended for any deceit. . He is also directed to show cause why he should not be disbarred. if ever complainant‘s signature was affixed on that document. He is sentenced to imprisonment until the orders of the court are complied with. the forgery of complainant‘s signature. or in doing a duly forbidden act . when she died four siblings were still minors.complainant is one of six children of late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. as in lawfully assailing or discrediting the authority or dignity of a court or of a judge. FACTS .parents died intestate. and gross misrepresentation. either by fine or by imprisonment or both. to Antel Holdings. 1999 where complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty.regarding gross and false misrepresentation that the reconstitution order would be released within a month. contempts are classified as civil or criminal . 22.if made before final decree. the false testimony of Marcelina could not be faulted on him because it was a clear oversight . participation in. respondent participated in.they knew of the original contract for 20% attorney‘s fees Disposition Atty. and under the Anti-Graft Act for knowingly inducing a public official to commit an offense b. contempt judgment will be treated as in the nature of an interlocutory order. Pineda made the Union officers believe that he would be the one to pay the fees of Espinas and Lopez for which reason the 35% increased fees was approved by the Union‘s board in good faith . participation in.respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony to the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are the only children and legal heirs of deceased spouses in the petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Original Copy of a title covering the last parcel of land (lot 1605) . for a willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court.On Disbarment sec.lot 1586: his wife and Miriam were not motivated by any desire to solely profit the sale. thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics. Inc).Union was aware that Espinas was the principal counsel .respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them . assurance was made by the Clerk of Court -believes the complainant intends to harass him Complainant’s Reply -denies the presence of toka or verbal will allegedly made by her mother because her mom met a sudden death. it was done in good faith .civil: failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party -criminal: conduct directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of a judge.whether civil or criminal does not affect the power of a court to punish it . .complainant‘s signature was forged in another Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement involving a different lot to enable Felicisima and Miriam to transfer the title in their names. it is deemed a judgment in a criminal case . and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from it. he presented said document to the Register of Deeds for the transfer of the title in the names of his wife and Miriam (involving lot 1586) . – the bank had transmitted to the NLRC the remaining balance which was a sufficient compliance c. consented to and failed to advise against this act. consent to. 1996) Respondent’s Comment . and on Feb 2000 Eliseo wrote his siblings. he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had already agreed on how to dispose of the lot. the forgery of complainant‘s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.. and recommendation or decision . Pineda is found guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT of court. Rolando Torres with presentation of false testimony. 2004 (eva sison) NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court.exercise of this power has a twofold aspect: the proper punishment of the guilty party for his disrespect to the court or its order. consented to and participated in this act (involving lot 1603) . Marcelina Rivera and Felicisima Torres who is married to respondent . or other gross misconduct in such office. respondent. he had no part in the execution of the document.a lawyer may be criminally liable for breach of professional duty.01 and 1.siblings involved are Miriam Saria. Presentation of false testimony.where the punishment imposed is wholly or primarily to protect or vindicate the dignity and power of the court.. and failure to advise against.admits he was counsel in the reconstitution case. TING-DUMALI V TORRES PER CURIAM. SC referred the case to IBP for investigation. thus enabling them to sell the land (which they did. for any violation of the lawyer‘s oath.denies the allegations . again.complainant-affidavit filed on Oct. if made after the final decree. as remedial in nature. .02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.

dishonest. But before the completion of the demolition. respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. WON disbarment is the imposable disciplinary sanction proceedings.the oath is reflected in CPR (Canon 1. he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful. petitioners filed a complaint for ―Annulment of the judgment. Petition again was denied. 10). and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. Thus. On August 22 1985. therefore. On October 7 1985. a demolition order was issued. the disputed lot is not for acquisition by the NHA. the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted San Juan‘s report.he allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony in court and he himself may be punished as guilty of false testimony . latter said none . to pay the sum of P100 a month from January 1987 as compensation for the use of the premises until the land is actually vacated. which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent. When petitioners refused to remove their house. Petitioners again filed the same suit before a different branch of the Manila RTC. He is ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law. FACTS This case emerged from an ejectment suit filed by Vicente Caneda against Miguel and Thelma Masinsin. immoral or deceitful conduct. Thus the HELD 1. Lease Contract and Damages‖ was filed by the Masinsins asking for the nullification of the judgment in the ejectment case. 2016). he must have kept in mind that it is his duty to uphold the Consti and obey the laws of the land . 1967 (which after amendments became PD No. 7.under canon 10.respondent knew of his wife‘s siblings. A lawyer is a servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. ISSUE WON MTC of Manila lost its jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit due to PD 2016 HELD No.regarding respondent‘s argument that the non-declaration of other siblings was an oversight does not deserve credence because the petition clearly names only Felicisima and Marcelina as the petitioners and because during the hearing when respondent asked Marcelina WON she has bros and sis. Reasoning – the lawyers‘ oath is a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times . they underscore the role of a lawyer as a vanguard of our legal system—in this covenant. he himself may also be held liable for knowingly using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant . No appeal having been taken therefrom. pursuant to PD No.respondent‘s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession 2. Petitioners appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. It is located outside of the NHA projects under the Zonal Improvement Project. according to a report by manager of the Metro Manila Project Department of the National Housing Authority. it is found that respondent‘s gross misconduct calls for the severance of his privilege to practice law for life Disposition We find respondent guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer‘s oath. yet he presented the document stating that his wife and Miriam are the only children to the Register of Deeds . Reasoning . lawyer owes candor.the falsification of complainant‘s signature in the document which contains a waiver by the complainant of her right over the property.respondent did not advise his wife from doing acts which are contrary to law. May 31.given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case. MASINSIN V ALBANO VITUG. . a restraining order was issued by the RTC following a petition for certiorari. this was openly violated by respondent .In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an erring lawyer. fairness and good faith to the court. Petition was ultimately dismissed on August 23 1990. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. he presented such document. The complaint was dismissed due to res judicata.in its resolution. with preliminary injunction and for declaratory relief. Yes. a matter consulted to respondent. but reduced the penalty to a 6-year suspension ISSUES 1. the Masinsins filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila seeking the annulment of the decision of the ejectment case and to set aside the order of its execution. WON respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession 2. Petition was dismissed. 1994 (javi bautista) NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition. In this present petition. The NHA is definitely not acquiring the said land and therefore is not part of PD 2016. the trial court ordered the spouses to vacate the premises and to remove their house/apartment an surrender possession of the subject land. respondent miserably failed . when the property in question was proclaimed an area for priority development by the National Housing Authority on December 1 1987 by authority of PD 2016. honorable.LEGAL PROFESSION . is tantamount to falsification of a public document. petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila has lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit. we take into account the primary purpose of disciplinary Page 33 of 203 . As a result of the case. as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the CPR.recommended the disbarment of respondent . the judgment became final and executory. thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession.

. they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof. the Investigating Commissioner VillanuevaMaala submitted a report and recommended Atty. To our mind. Miguelito Nazareno V. one after another.m. private prosecutor in ―People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months ISSUE WON Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood HELD YES. through different counsel. they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a. Llantino for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer‘s oath. were devoid of personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the court. Petitioner‘s counsel of record is strongly CENSURED and WARNED that a similar infraction of the lawyer‘s oath in the future will be dealt with mot severely. it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative liability considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the application for bail filed on behalf of persons who.On December 7.” Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered. Sec. we held: It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police authorities on the same date ―tentatively‖ scheduled for the hearing of the application for bail. Atty. FACTS . Batuegas and Llantino. Walter T. whether in his professional or private capacity. calendared the motion on December 15.Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct. they contend that Young was not entitled to any notice. 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects. on the other hand. to file pleadings. pending in RTC Manila.According to respondents on December 13. They violated their oath when they resorted to deception.courts.WRT the lack of notice of hearing. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.a lawyer should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion .Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.On December 13. from which not even this court has been spared. 2001. as counsel for accused. without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. pervert. Jr. as shown by the Certificate of Detention . .On December 29. 2000. an officer of the court. probity. the next day. Batuegas and Atty. the certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14. Page 34 of 203 . which visibly tends to obstruct. The utter lack of merit of the complainants and petitions simply evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable execution of a decision that has long become final and executory. 2000.What immediately catches one‘s attention to this case is the evident predilection of petitioners. . his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. The lawyer‘s oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. I will not delay any man‟s cause 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 clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary.while a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client‘s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client‘s cause. Reasoning . 2001. report and recommendation or decision. the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila. . impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an exercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power. Miguelito Nazareno V. Ratio To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. ‖. Young learned that he surrendered only on December 14. . The pertinent part of the lawyer‘s oath involved in this case: I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless. in honesty. . referred to IBP for investigation. the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule 15. 2000. . such supervening event is of no bearing and immaterial. he is now under detention. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will ―do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court‖ and he shall ―conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys.In Comia vs. May 9. Antona. 2003 (owen ricalde) NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Moreover. thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. and good demeanor. As such. Obviously. 2000.In August 13.A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. The petitioners through different counsels tried to nullify the same MTC decision before different branches of the court. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them . Nevertheless. YOUNG V BATUEGAS YNARES-SANTIAGO. alleging that the “accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority.LEGAL PROFESSION MTC of Manila has jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment case.Susa. which shows him to be wanting in moral character. Disposition Petition is dismissed. Young. Ceasar G. false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same. Ceasar G. Batuegas. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. In no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer. . filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. Disbarment. such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. 2000 TF there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. at that point. namely > lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant > violation of the three-day notice rule > failure to attach the Certificate of Detention .‖ . they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender but due to heavy traffic. hence.

were dismissed. including a photographer who succeeded in penetrating the picket lines causing injuries to picketers. .Companies organized 3 bus-loads of employees. WON Presiding Judge Martinez and counsels of respondents are to be cited for contempt for misquoting a Supreme Court decision HELD 1.‖ . otherwise new employees would be engaged to perform their jobs. 1958 to date of actual reinstatement 3. When Garcia approached the picket line. 1971 (rach mayuga) NATURE Appeal by certiorari to review a decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations dismissing the Unions‘ complaint FACTS . When they left FFW. Ceasar G. 1958 – Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of Insular Life Bldg . Otherwise.The following UNIONS (Insular Life Assurance Co.July 29. FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Ass‘nNATU. and Enaje became personnel manager of the Companies. they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly. he engaged into a fight with one of the strikers and both of them suffered injuries..Sept/Oct 1957 . 1958 – Companies through the Acting Manager Olbes sent to each of the strikers a letter specifying incentives should they decide to go back to work . . .LEGAL PROFESSION . misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr v.Lawyers of the Unions include Enaje and Garcia (Sec-treasurer of FFW).Alleging that some non-strikers were injured. 1958 – Unions dropped their demands regarding security but the Companies still refused to negotiate .‖.In the case at bar.Sept 16. they are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. . as lawyers. Llantino are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood.Apr 25 to May 6 – They tried negotiating but with no satisfactory results .All of the more than 120 crim charges.. Companies sent individually to the strikers another letter which states ―If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group Companies. Batuegas.Garcia and Abella (Chief of Personnel Records Section) tried to penetrate the picket lines.. LTD.negotiations were conducted but snagged by deadlock on issue of union shop. WON the officials and members of the Unions are to be reinstated with full back wages.. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass‟n: (1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original. 1957 – Unions jointly submitted proposals for a modified renewal of their respective CBA contracts w/c were due to expire on 9/30 . Reasoning It is an act of interference for the employer to send a letter to all employees notifying them to return to work at a specific time. the Companies then hired them and Garcia became Asst. Verily. Unions then filed on 01/27/1958 notice of strike for ‖deadlock on collective bargaining‖ . THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.a) YES. . Page 35 of 203 . we may be forced to obtain your replacement.‖ (3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately succeeding paragraph in the SC decision. we are giving you until June 2 to report for work at the home office. The first letter contains promises of benefits to employees. WON the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice a) In sending out letters individually directed to the strikers b) For discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in the matter of readmitting employees after the strike c) For dismissing officials and members of the Unions without giving them the benefit of investigation and the opportunity to present their side 2. He was also made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Co. LTD. January 30. the second letter contains threats to obtain replacements. Corporate Sec and Legal Asst in the Legal Dept. Insular Life Bldg Employees Ass‘n-NATU) while still members of the Federation of Free Workers. . Although the union is on strike. Employees Ass‘n-NATU. entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with these COMPANIES (Insular Life Assurance Co. in connection with the changes in the agreement. Companies required them to secure clearances from the City Fiscal‘s Office and to be screened by a management committee . Free speech protection under the Constitution is inapplicable where the expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains a promise of benefit. Ratio It is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate with his employees individually. 1965 – CIR dismissed the complaint Relevant to the assigned topic (read pages 277-280!) . CASTRO. counsels for respondents quoted the CIR‘s decision ISSUES 1.May 31. the prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date. in the CBA with the Unions. the original reads.Before readmitting.Martinez. and if there are no criminal charges against you.. Miguelito Nazareno V. Although a motion may be heard on short notice. 1958 – CFI Mla granted injunction. except for 3.. 1958 – Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they considered as unfair labor practices .April 15.May 15. the Companies filed criminal charges against strikers and they also filed a petition for injunction. the employer is still under the obligation to bargain with the union as the employees‘ bargaining representative. respondents failed to show any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule. Disposition Attys. (2) Martinez used ―For it is settled that.Aug 17. 1958 – CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice . EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. ―For it must be remembered. the Presiding Judge of the CIR.In the respondents‘ brief. But employees decided to call of the strike and to report back to work on June 2. Ltd. or threats or reprisal. FGU Insurance Group) .May 20. from June 2.May 21. Ltd.

Also. They even separated active from the less active unionists on the basis of their militancy. They are now entitled to reinstatement with back pay because when they reported back for work.‖ (Miiranda v. so that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme Court of today is a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano. very loudly. As it is now constituted. Ratio The companies are guilty of discrimination in their process of rehiring. reads as follows: ―As author of the Press Freedom Law (RA 53). In the wake of so many blunders and injustices deliberately committed during these last years. They refused to readmit strikers with pending criminal charges. It need be said loudly. which I will introduce in the coming congressional sessions. except three.Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted. though innocent in themselves. At the same time. (4) Strikers were individually sent letters inducing them to return to work with promises of special privileges.In an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from charges of discrimination in rehiring. Import of sentences in the quotation is substantially the same as the cited decision. were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered. Victorino Mapa.c) YES.Totality of Conduct Doctrine: Expressions of opinion by an employer. Record shows that not a single dismissed striker was given the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges. Contempt FACTS . (5) Three truckloads of non-strikers crashed through the picket line. . (3) report for work on June 2. otherwise he would be replaced. which confers upon this Supreme Court the power to Page 36 of 203 .On December 7. Article VIII of the Constitution. NO.The circumstance that strikers later decided to return to work on account of injunction cannot alter the intrinsic quality of the letters which tended to interfere with the employees‘ right to engage in lawful concerted activity in the form of strike. (6) Criminal charges were brought upon picketers. Both were involved in unpleasant incidents with the picketers during the strike. a screening committee refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on ground of pending criminal charges. Ratio The members and officials of the Unions went on strike because of the unfair labor practices committed by the Companies. 2. but that it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority of its members. who has now to suffer 30 days imprisonment. the decisions and rulings of SC may lose their proper and correct meaning. is to change the members of the Supreme Court. and be saved precious time in finding out whether citations are correct. to copy it verbatim and to incorporate it in their brief. the Companies readily readmitted non-strikers who also had criminal charges. even after these employees have secured the required clearances. on the picket lines. (2) After notice to strike was served on the Companies. (7) An injunction was obtained from CFI. All employees are considered to have complied with first and third condition. it is the bounden duty of courts. respondents hired former legal counsels of petitioners. without requiring clearances. (1) Before Unions‘ submission of proposals for renewal of CBAs. Vicente Sotto was required by this Court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court for having issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in In re Angel Parazo for contempt of court. Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary. they reclassified 87 employees as supervisors. as published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the locality. YES. 3. they even delegated the power to readmit to a committee composed of Abella and Garcia. Respondent Atty. 1948. lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Angel Parazo. (9) When they did report for work. judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-forword and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. they were discriminatorily dismissed.b) YES. (8) Another letter was sent individually and by registered special delivery mail threatening them with dismissal if they didn‘t report for work on June 2.‖ 1. were able to secure the required clearances. Disposition Decision of the CIR is reversed and set aside. Ratio The Companies refused to take the employees back on account of their ―acts of misconduct‖ even if all. they were still refused admission. Counsels of respondents have the prima facie right to rely on the quotation as it appears in the Judge‘s decision. 1949 (bri bauza) NATURE Original action in Supreme Court. appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation. (3) During negotiations in Dept of Labor.Respondent does not deny having published the above quoted threat and intimidation as well as false and calumnious charges against this Supreme Court. Imperial) . I believe that the only remedy to put an end to so much evil. which statement. will have as its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. or lack of it. I announce that one of the first measures. to the detriment of other courts. but all non-strikers were readmitted immediately. 1958. the Supreme Court of today constituted a constant peril to liberty and democracy. which resulted in injuries on the part of picketers.‖ . reporter of a local daily. and the mere act of placing the power of reinstatement in their hands is a form of discrimination. (2) no criminal charges against him. I regret to say that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law. . IN RE SOTTO FERIA. compelling them to resign from unions. upon the invitation of their employers. they refused to answer the Unions‘ demands en toto. 1. It is clear that the main reason for the strike was ―when it became clear that management will not negotiate in good faith. But he contends that under section 13. Respondents are ordered to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively similar positions with back wages. This is because ―only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. January 21. (10) When almost all were cleared by fiscal‘s office. To this effect.LEGAL PROFESSION . for his refusal to divulge the souce of a news published in his paper. Impt: In citing SC‘s decisions and rulings. Reasoning There are 3 conditions for readmission of the strikers: (1) he must be interested in continuing his work with the companies. Ratio The misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent Judge to mislead.

soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated. form which the former receives its prerogative and the latter its jurisdiction… This Court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of its business in an orderly manner free from outside interference obstructive of its constitutional functions. v Sullens: ―The administration of justice and freedom of the press. though separate and distinct. petitioner Carlos. within the same period. because if well founded it may enlighten the court.S. 0992 and 0993 for qualified theft was arrived at certainly without circumspection-without any moral or legal basis-a case of knowingly rendering unjust judgment since the dismissal was tantamount to acquittal of the accused Gloria P. reflecting upon the court. are incompetent and narrow-minded. and that the Supreme Court can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law. Vicente Sotto. when in truth and in fact he is charged with intending to interfere and influence the final disposition of said case through intimidation and false accusations against this Supreme Court. under the Constitution. Consequently. Adriano R.As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. and a law has to be promulgated by Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive. they might be driven to take the law in their own hands.Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness. NOVEMBER 13. the officers of the court. and neither should be violated by the other. like any other. practice and procedure.He also alleges in his answer that ―in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon. is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court.Consequent to the dismissal of five criminal cases for qualified theft against Naval by respondent Judge Villamor. finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct contempt and sentencing them both to imprisonment of five days and a fine of P500 for degrading the respect and dignity of the court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the court. the parties. But in his above-quoted statement. . in his opinion. But the respondent also attacks the honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices of this Court into the disrepute and degrading the administration of justice. or tending to influence the decision of the controversy.As Justice Holmes very appropriately said in U. (In re Kelly) Reasoning In re Kelly lays down the doctrine of the power of courts to hold contempt proceedings. Naval who is now beyond the reach of criminal and civil liability-all because the defendant Hon. who according to his statement. Br. for said publication and the following statements made by him during the pendency of the case against Angel Parazo for contempt of Court. Leyte. Vicente Sotto guilty of contempt of this Court by virtue of the abovequoted publication. etc. The respondent misrepresents to the public the cause of the charge against him for contempt of court.. . within the period of fifteen days from the promulgation of this judgment. 0990. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts." Page 37 of 203 . That the dismissal of criminal cases Nos. The press and courts have correlative rights and duties and should cooperate to uphold the constitution and laws.‖ ISSUES WON the Supreme Court may hold respondent guilty for contempt of court. The summary power to commit and punish for contempt tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. as an individual exercises the right of self-defense. a fine P1000. through his lawyer and co-petitioner Guerrero filed before the RTC Br. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. CEB-6478 reading: "12. so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case. are equally sacred. nor intended to attack the honesty or integrity of anyone. HELD Ratio Any publication. This right will be insisted upon as vital to an impartial court. 0989. 1989 (jaja estoy) NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the order of the Regional Trial Court of Subprovince of Biliran. as inherent in courts as essential to the execution of their powers and to the maintenance of their authority is a part of the law of the land. and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom. . we find the respondent Atty. it will act to preserve its existence as an unprejudiced tribunal. . 0991. and show cause to this Court why he should not be disbarred from practicing as an attorney-at-law in any of the courts of this Republic. with reference to the suit. in order to influence the final decision of said case by this Court. . as a last resort. erroneously decided the Parazo case. and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice. He says that the cause for criticizing the decision of this Court in said Parazo case in defense of the freedom of the press. FACTS . pending a suit. the offended party. is contempt of court and is punishable. N-0989-0993 an Order of Direct Contempt of Court against petitioners.‖ Disposition In view of all the foregoing. The respondent is also hereby required to appear. 16. the counsel. but he has not attacked. and he is hereby sentenced to pay. Villamor was bent backwards with his eyes and mind wilfully closed under these circumstances which demanded the scrutiny of the judicial mind and discretion free from bias x x x. and disorder and perhaps chaos may be the result. and. ―this Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens. respondent Judge issued in Criminal Cases Nos. to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney. GUERRERO V VILLAMOR FERNAN.LEGAL PROFESSION promulgate rules concerning pleading. and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.‖ . reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of Justices from eleven to seven.The Supreme Court of the Philippines is.The derogatory and contemptuous language adverted to by respondent judge are the allegations in the complaint in Civil Case No. the respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of offending any of the majority of the members of this high Tribunal. he not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with a presentation of a bill in the next congressional session. who. 21 of Cebu City an action for damages against respondent Judge for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in the aforesaid consolidated criminal cases.

such criticism was directed to him when he was no longer in the process of performing judicial functions in connection with the subject criminal cases so as to constitute such criticisms as direct contempt of court.Be that as it may." . who. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration." This respectful attitude towards the court is to be observed. according to respondent Judge. Bain Construction At Co. the trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Vicente Raul Almacen FACTS . Furthermore. Inc." And it is "through a scrupulous preference for respectful language that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance of the respect due to the courts and judicial officers x x x. so much so that judges should always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are impersonal. Almacen received a copy of the decision. as said court was no longer functioning as such in the dispensation of justice. the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. "not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office. Atty.In his Comment. lawyers. 6478 because whatever was mentioned therein was not made "before" respondent Judge while in session or in recess from judicial proceedings or in any matter involving the exercise of judicial function of the Court while it is at work on a case before it." the trial court denied both motions.. . 1966 Atty. had already perfected the appeal. a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. on August 22. Calero. urging that Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. and. so that the absence of such proceedings should not be made a shield to sully the court's prestige. 1966 does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof and is. was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30. however.). the appeal was perfected out of time. but appalling-in giving the plaintiff before his court the run-around is at the very least distasteful. citing Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. 1966. petitioners contend that the words used in the subject complaint were ISSUE WON petitioners committed direct contempt of court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the court justifying the award of damages being sought HELD 1. vs. Almacen was counsel for the defendant in the civil case entitled Virginia Y. he moved for its reconsideration." IN RE ALMACEN RUIZ CASTRO. defendant judge should also visit upon him x x x for reducing plaintiff his agonizing victim of his disdain and contempt for the former who not only torn asunder and spurned but also humiliated and spitefully scorned. constitute indirect contempt subject to defenses that may be raised by said petitioners in the proper proceedings. ruin or disturb the dignity and authority of the court presided over by respondent judge. This second motion for reconsideration. and on July 5. the power being intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise.CA. on the other hand. 1966. 1966. vs. . No. 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card. Stress must be placed on the fact that the subject pleading was not submitted to respondent Judge nor in the criminal cases from which the contempt order was issued but was filed in another court presided by another judge and involving a separate action: the civil case for damages against respondent Judge. Direct contempt could not have been committed against respondent Judge in the complaint for damages because whatever was mentioned therein was not made before respondent judge while in session or in recess from judicial proceedings or in any matter involving the exercise of judicial function of the court while it is at work on a case before it. Strong words were used to lay stress on the gravity and degree of moral anguish suffered by petitioner as a result of the dismissal of the subject criminal merely words descriptive of plaintiffs cause of action based on his reaction and remorse and the wilfull infliction of the injury on him and that the same are all privileged communications made in the course of judicial proceedings because they are relevant to the issue and therefore cannot be contemptuous. consequently. dismissed the appeal. At the same time he filed a Page 38 of 203 . This. For "lack of proof of service. Although the allegations in the complaint for damages criticized the wisdom of respondent Judge‘s act of dismissing the criminal cases. Batu Construction & Co. criticize or condemn the dismissal of said criminal cases in no way obstruct or hamper. 1966.Petitioners assert that no direct contempt could have been committed against respondent Judge in the complaint for damages in Civil Case No. Furthermore.The power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly. opine. therefore. Inc.The Court sustains petitioner‘s contention that the alleged derogatory language employed in the complaint in the civil case did not constitute direct contempt but may only. is a very dangerous perception for then the court becomes vulnerable to all forms of verbal assaults. By the standard of a public official and a private person the conduct of defendant Honorable Judge-not only shocking. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution. is not decisive. should bear in mind their basic duty "to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and x x x (to) insist on similar conduct by others.Atty. The trial court tendered judgment against his client. respondent Judge maintains that petitioners harp too much on the fact that the five criminal cases are closed cases and therefore the language or words employed to describe. Feb 18. Any abuse of the contempt citation powers will therefore be curtailed and corrected. . on July 18. 1970 (kooky talon) NATURE Proceedings For Disciplinary Action Against Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION "xxx xxx xxx "14.Atty. Antonio H. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. ―for the reason that the motion for reconsideration dated July 5. Almacen himself. On June 15. the words they used In the subject complaint were merely words descriptive of the plaintiff‘s cause of action based on his reaction and remorse and the willful infliction of injury on him and that the same are all privileged communications made in the course of judicial proceedings because they are relevant to the issue and therefore cannot be contemptuous. Meanwhile. That the aforecited manifestly malicious actuations. distressing and mortifying and moral damages therefore would warrant on this kind of reprehensible behaviour x x x "15. . upon verbal motion of Atty. Because the plaintiff interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond. Almacen filed on August 17.‖ . which would shake the foundation of judicial authority and even of democratic stability. Yaptinchay vs. . if at all.

but also to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. you remained unpunished. 1 Refer to the case for Atty. who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment. The Court required Atty." and that "whatever mistakes. And more than this. . he ridicules the members of the Court. There is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts. amongst others. Almacen knew . It is his right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. saying "that justice as administered by the present members. the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the said date was ordered expunged from the records. we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.To said reminder Atty. he "chose to 'pursue the negative act‘. Almacen was reminded to turn over his certificate so that the Court could act on his petition. 1967. against the Court as well as its individual members. of the Supreme Court is not only blind. The way he addressed the Court and how he laid down his points should be a matter of interest. to which he manifested that since the Court is "the complainant. 1967. is now in the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in good faith. Almacen‘s own negligence caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal. .Nov 17. answer and oral argumentation far transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. Again. Almacen manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with Calero vs. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violation of the Constitution with impunity.‖ Page 39 of 203 . contemptuous. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation "in the event this Court has no. Venturanza. he continues. abundant with sarcasm and innuendo1. Inherent in this prerogative is the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from the practice of law those who have proved themselves unworthy of continued membership in the Bar. Almacen asked for permission to give reasons and cause in an open and public hearing. which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice. Atty. Almacen's petition.Atty. real qualities approached only through constant striving to attain them. a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence.Sept 28." he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and in an open and public hearing" so that the Court could observe his sincerity and candor. Almacen‘s written answer offered no apology. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority. When nothing came from him." He indicts the Court. . Almacen to state his reasons for such request." has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the' altar of hypocrisy.Post-litigation utterances or publications." ." He ends his petition with a prayer that ".that for a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal. to determine the rules for admission to the practice of law. . Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive or negative act. Almacen unremittingly repeated his jeremiad of lamentations. The petition was filed on September 25. a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional." so that "the people may know of the silent injustices committed by this Court." citing Republic of the Philippines vs. ISSUE WON the utterances and actuations of Atty. and by minute resolution denied the appeal.Every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers." Denying the charges contained in the Nov 17 resolution. As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941.Atty. 1967. critical of the courts and their judicial actuations.By constitutional mandate. Almacen then filed his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title. whether amounting to a crime or not. this Court in the reverse order of natural things.As citizen and officer of the court. Hence. in protest against what he asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court. every lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right. SC refused to take the case. that this Court's September 28. because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public consumption. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation." a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent. valid and healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy. Entry of judgment was made on September 8. Atty. and that since his offer was not accepted. As the court said. fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. . as a tribunal "people by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice. it is the SC‘s solemn duty. . Far from being contrite. incidentally. SC resolved to withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate. Atty. . Yaptinchay. which. Gregorio A. is not a matter of right.CA had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of Atty. Almacen here in question are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions HELD . prosecutor and Judge. Denied shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for extension of time.or ought to have known . 1967 SC resolved to require Atty." His client. . Almacen then appealed to the SC by certiorari. constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity. the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. or that it is articulated by a lawyer. but also deaf and dumb. . time to hear him in person. Almacen‘s written answer. said case is now final and executory". . made by lawyers. this is a matte r ―unprecedented and unprofessional‖. ." . in his own phrase." He was allowed to file a written explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument. the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which he did). Atty.A critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating. as the applicable case.LEGAL PROFESSION pleading entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Reconsideration.Atty. but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). Almacen‘s appeal in light of the law and applicable decisions of the SC. Atty. One paragraph reads: ―Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution.'' In the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice. The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated. . grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum. and requires detachment and disinterestedness.

to dismiss the case 3. SORIANO V COURT OF APPEALS PARDO. Socorro through counsel Atty. 1988.Socorro moved for an extension to file a responsive pleading to the supplemental complaint and to reset pre-trial . On May 28. Padilla filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration of various orders of the respondent court .In the same building.TC denied motion to inhibit . . they became indebted to Socorro in the amount of P638. in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. . Padilla to show cause whey he should not be cited for contempt of court. They talked to respondent judge Naval in his chambers and requested him to immediately act on Socorro‘s urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order. Padilla was sentenced to 5 days imprisonment with a P100 fine for direct contempt of court. 1988. August 28. Deogracias and Rosalina conveyed the property to Socorro by way of first mortgage.The TC denied Socorro‘s motion . the suspension to take effect immediately. Jr.The TC granted the second motion .On October 17. and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. 2001 (yella bautista) FACTS .On October 28. . It may be initiated by the Court motu proptio. the token amount of P1500 monthly was imposed. 1968. While looking for a buyer.On November 29. A deed of absolute sale was executed in place of a real estate mortgage.5M.a trial of an action or a suit. 1989. 1988. in 1973.Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes pleaded that they were employed by Socorro as manager and administrative assistant of her property and real estate in 1968. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to order the payment of the correct fling fee upon failure to pay the same. he was also a good friend of the attorney of the spouses . Hence. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the supplemental complaint with a theory directly contrary to the original complaint and in not dismissing it upon motion of defendant. Disposition Accordingly.On December 8. Padilla filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus with temporary restraining order assailing the orders of Judge Naval. 1989. . Public interest is its primary objective. Not being intended to inflict punishment. .On April 17. He consequently failed to do so and the court declared Socorro in default and Atty.As payment for their services.36. suspended from the practice of law until further orders. . WON the TC gravely abused its discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction in finding Atty. Deogracias and Rosalina filed a motion to admit attached supplemental complaint which pleaded that they have already paid their debt to Socorro but the latter refused to accept said payment without just cause thus was a clear move on her part to let the 3 year period provided in their MOA elapse . The parties agreed to pay for the debt by selling the two lots for P2.Deogracias and Rosalina complied with the order and paid additional filing fees .TC denied motion to dismiss supplemental complaint .The TC directed Atty. 1988. it is the sense of the Court that Atty. the spouses paid the filing fee and legal research.and does not involve . . Vicente Raul Almacen be. Socorro gave them one apartment unit to use as their dwelling for the duration of their lifetime and a token monthly rental on P150 was imposed.Deogracias and Rosalina owned two commercial lots with improvements.Socorro again moved for another extension and resetting of the pretrial . 1988. this proceeding is not .LEGAL PROFESSION .TC ordered Deogracias and Rosalina to pay a deficiency in the docket fees .On January 16. ISSUES 1. Socorro gave Deogracias and Rosalina notice to vacate the said two units . while still a law practitioner and politician. . Padilla filed a motion to inhibit Judge Naval 1. the Carmelite Sisters on behalf of their benefactress filed with the trial court an urgent ex-parte motion for restraining order.635.TC admitted the supplemental complaint .Deogracias and Rosalina filed an opposition . Padilla. it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to restrain or to remedy the forcible seizure by the plaintiffs of the property subject of the litigation 2.Socorro and Atty. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal. as he is hereby. but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. the second cause of action was premature . guilty of direct contempt 6.TC granted Socorro‘s motion for an extension .NOTE: disciplinary proceedings like the present are Sui generis. another unit was occupied by the spouses which was improved and converted by them into a pub and restaurant. WON the TC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to inhibit 4. WON the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in sanctioning the orders of the TC except the Order admitting the supplemental complaint HELD Page 40 of 203 . 5.Socorro again moved for another extension on which the TC did not act upon .Socorro‘s counsel Atty. the TC denied the motion. he was a frequent customer of the restaurant of the spouses and was a good friend of his 2. the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. For the use of the premises.Socorro moved to dismiss supplemental complaint . On December 16.Action was initiated by the spouses but the court released the two lots in favor of Socorro having presented the deed of absolute sale in her name. Socorro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: 1. the first cause of action was barred by the pendency of an ejectment case between the same parties over the same parties 2.

April 1. WON Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case despite the Court‘s ruling in Orap v. 1997. or to counsel within the fourth degree. NO. . SC. There was no intention on the part of Deogracias and Rosalina to degraud the government. or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. guardian. Napocor instituted expropriation proceedings against several lot owners in Bulacan including the complainant in this case. Yes. A judge who falsifies his certificate of Service is administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficiency. No. creditor or otherwise. Disbarment. administrator. The issue has already become moot and academic since the parties had already entered the premises in question. represented by its President Danilo V. YES. trustee or counsel.November 27. Complainant is a member of this organization.2 MALONSO V PRINCIPE TINGA. Inc. 2. without the written consent of all parties in interest signed by them and entered upon the record. or in which he has been executor. Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the complaint filed by the public respondent.ART VIII. . complainant executed a ―Kasulatan ng Pagbibigay Kapangyarihan‖ in favor of Danilo Elfa appointing the latter as the attorney-in-fact of the complainant on the matter of negotiation with the NPC.) ISSUES 1. There is nothing in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. in his exercise of his sound discretion. legatee.December 21.Napoleon Abiera of PAO alleged that the petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decisions have been determined and decided on or before Jan 31 1989 when in truth 15 cases were still to be determined.This is a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order for the Office of the Ombudsman to stop it from entertaining a criminal complaint regarding the alleged falsification of a judge‘s certification submitted to the SC. Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: A person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom. the investigation of the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court‘s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.00).LEGAL PROFESSION 1. 1997. in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the SC. December 16. .200. . . disqualify himself from sitting in a case. SANDAMA is the organization of lot owners affected by the expropriation proceedings. or his wife or child. not vindictive principle and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. Rule 137. The supplemental complaint contains matters directly different from and even contrary to the cause of action stated in the original complaint. 1993 (edel cruz) NATURE Petition for Certiorari of the order of the ombudsman FACTS . a ―Contract of Legal Services‖ was entered into between the law firm ―Principe Villano and Clemente Law Offices‖ and SANDAMA. No. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service. 2 NOTE: Lawyer has a duty to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or groundless personal attack. NPC‘s Board of Directors approved the amicable settlement of the expropriation cases by paying all the lot owners the total of One Hundred Three Million Four Hundred Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P103. And criminally liable to the state under the RPC for his felonious act. FACTS In the early part of 1997. The CA erred when it stated that a certiorari proceeding assailing the judgment of direct contempt was not proper as Atty. But a lawyer can file admin complaints against erring judges. A judge may. and now seeks to review orders of the Ombudsman . Padilla‘s innuendoes are not necessarily disrespectful to the court. Padilla in the original text of the case) Atty. 2004 (giulia pineda) NATURE Administrative case in the Supreme Court.Petitioner Judge Maceda was accused of falsification of Certificate of Service. (Abiera alleges Maceda lied that he finished the cases but he hasn‘t yet. The court also erred when it affirmed the trial court‘s finding of direct contempt of court against Atty. is pecuniarily interested as heir. irrespective of whether he loses or wins a case in a judge‟s sala. Padilla (see comments made by Atty. 4.The Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner‘s certificates of service to the SC for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load. Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides only the following grounds for the disqualification of judges. Padilla may have appealed therefrom. No.413. 3. The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative.No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he. or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. The rule allowing amendments to a pleading is subject to the general limitation that the cause of action shall not be substantially changed or that the theory of the case shall not be altered. sec 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests on the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. 2. computed according to the rules of the civil law. . They were in good faith and relied on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. April 22. Elfa. Rule 71.ADMIN CASES (THROUGH COURT ADMINISTRATOR) OMBUDSMAN – CRIMINAL CASE Page 41 of 203 . but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. (SO admin case first before criminal. MACEDA V VASQUEZ NOCON.) Disposition Petition granted. Sandiganbayan 2. 1999. WON the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC‘s constitutional duty of supervision over all the inferior courts HELD 1. 5.

. Because of the actions taken by the respondent.‖ . 3 The Contract states in part: . respondent filed an ―Ex-Parte Motion to Separate Legal Fees From Selling Price Between Plaintiffs and Defendants.October 25. . No acceptance fees. 1997 3. or on January 18. It was also found that the SPA was executed by Malonso in favor of Elfa after the Contract of Legal Services. From the evidence presented by both parties. . . . the execution of the decision approving the compromise agreement between the lot owners and the NPC was delayed . in the public interest and the expeditious administration of justice.March 7. Danilo Elfa.April 10. respondent filed an Opposition to the Compromise Agreement submitted by the lot owners and NPC for court approval.Normally. Respondent claims that Malonso is a member of SANDAMA and that the said member executed an SPA in favor of Elfa which served as Elfa‘s authority to act in behalf of Malonso . Ratio Before a lawyer may be suspended from the practice of law by the IBP. According to the respondent. 2000. Moreover. and/ or payment of just compensation of its members with the NAPOCOR. C. SECOND PARTY engages the services of the FIRST PARTY as their lawyer of the collection. no actual voting took place but a mere consensus. Ratio . the Court. without any extension granted by the SC. Both parties agree to exert their best efforts to increase or secure the best price from NAPOCOR. Rule 10.LEGAL PROFESSION . B. After illegally representing him.February 17. Principe‘s suspension in the practice of law properly arrived at 2. 2003 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspended him for 1 year . The rationale for this rule is simple: a decision reached by the Board in compliance with the procedure is the official decision of the Board as a body and not merely as the collective view of the individual members thereof. The parties mutually agree one with the other as follows: I. claimed to be a co-owner of Malonso‘s property. in the subsequent review made by the IBP Board of Governors.November 20. In view of the delay in resolving the instant complaint against the respondent. (69) lot owners including the complainant wrote a letter to NPC informing the latter that they have never authorized Mr. Legal Fees as stated above shall cover: i. Page 42 of 203 . complainant filed an ―Opposition‖ to respondent‘s entry of appearance and motion to separate legal fees. as embodied in the Contract of Legal Services executed on April 1. (2) a formal voting. Payment of Fees is on contingent basis. respondent filed a ―Notice of Adverse Claim‖ before the Register of Deeds of Bulacan claiming 40% of the rights. Respondent opines that the actions of the IBP Board were aimed at preventing him from pursuing his known intention to run for IBP National President.February 12. D.More that two (2) years after the expropriation cases were instituted and while complainant was represented therein by Atty. Danilo Elfa to hire the services of the respondent‘s law firm to represent them in the expropriation cases. it is also their duty to see that lawyers are paid their just and lawful fees.Principe counters this argument saying that the agreement is a continuing one. without authority entered his appearance as Malonso‘s counsel in the expropriation proceedings initiated by Napocor. ii. A contract of legal services between a lawyer and his client is personal and cannot be performed through intermediaries. 2. Without a vote having been taken. the complaint having been motivated by pure selfishness and greed.In the respondet‘s anawer. 2000. Benjamin Mendoza. 2000. SANDAMA is not a party in all of the expropriation proceedings instituted by Napocor. the Resolution is void and has no effect.a complaint for disbarment was filed before the IBP. Rule 10.The duty of the courts is not alone to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner.) Attorney‘s Fees of FIRST PARTY. II. the Court opts to resolve the same based on the records before it. he claimed that he did not authorize Elfa as the SPA was executed after the Contract of Legal Services. . 2001 . 2000. etc. WON Principe illegally represented the petitioners HELD 1. Atty.) Miscellaneous Expenses. respondent claims that the Resolution has no factual and legal basis. he claims that the services of his law office was engaged by Samahan ng mga Dadaanan at Maapektuhan ng NAPOCOR (SANDAMA) through its president. the report recommended the penalty of a 2 year suspension. both parties further agree on the following conditions: A. Scope of Work . and the Resolution itself invalid for having failed to comply with Rule 139-B of the RoC. and (3) a vote of at least five (5) members of the Board.) His representation expenses and commitment expenses. such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case. .In Malonso‘s reply. .According to the findings of the IBP investigator. respondent filed a ―Notice of Attorney‘s Lien‖ claiming 40% of the selling price of the properties being expropriated by NPC. the Investigating Commissioner continued to investigate the instant case despite the lapse of three months provided under Section 8 of Rule 139B. respondent herein filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the expropriation case claiming to be a co-owner of the property being expropriated. Pincipe claimed 40% of the selling price of his land by way of attorney‘s fees and in a Motion to Intervene.04. Julian Malonso claimed that Atty Principe. iii. or when public interest demands an early disposition of the case. appearance and liaison fees. 2001. hence Malonso was within the coverage of the contract. FIRST PARTY accepts the engagement. there should be (1) a review of the investigator‘s report. WON Atty. He also claims that he also had his own lawyer. 2. the Contract of Legal Services is between SANDAMA as a corporate being and the respondent‘s law firm. the Investigating Commissioner found Principe guilty of misrepresentation. or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties. has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them for further proceedings. .In his Appeal Memorandum.About ten days after respondent filed his motion to separate legal fees. The legal fees or payment to FIRST PARTY: 1. legal documentation.01 and Rule 12. claim. and the right of co-ownership cannot be derived from the said documents.June 6.February 26. . respondent filed his ―Notice of Entry of Appearance‖ (dated January 28. 2000) claiming that respondent is the legal counsel of the complainant. this forty (40%) [percent] is the maximum rate and may be negotiated depending on the volume of work involved. attendance to court proceedings and other related activities. title and interest of the lot owners over their lots being expropriated including that of complainant. However.negotiation. He was found to have violated Canon3. neither does it claim co-ownership of the properties being expropriated. 2000. 2000. Forty (40%) Percent of the selling price between NAPOCOR and the SANDAMA members. Benjamin Mendoza. a defendant in said case. non-compliance with the procedural rules would result in the remand of the case. and the required number of votes provided by the Rules was not secured considering that there were only five (5) governors present. ISSUES 1.

Despite its duty to police the ranks. non-profit corporation aimed towards the promotion of the landowners‘ common interest. much more.The Court cannot hold respondent guilty of censurable conduct or practice justifying the penalty recommended. respondent is the lawyer of SANDAMA. through SANDAMA and its president. Moreover. the incorporation of the landowners into SANDAMA was made and initiated by respondent‘s firm so as to make negotiations with NAPOCOR easier and more organized. but SANDAMA is not a party litigant in all of the expropriation cases. albeit in a collective manner. While filing the claim for attorney‘s fees against the individual members may not be the proper remedy for respondent. It is Page 43 of 203 . After all. But things are not as simple as that. However. the duty of the Court is not limited to disciplining those guilty of misconduct. the latter having only an indirect interest in the assets and business of the former. The second phase is concerned with the determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be taken which relates to the valuation thereof. . the Court believes that he instituted the same out of his honest belief that it was the best way to protect his interests. Aware that it might take a long time before the said appeal is finally resolved. acting through its directors. the same amount which was reflected in the deed of assignment made by the individual members of SANDAMA. the appraisers. a lawyer nevertheless is entitled to be duly compensated for professional services rendered. Respondent could not have doubted the authority of Elfa to contract his firm‘s services. .LEGAL PROFESSION . They sought the assistance of several political personalities to get some leverage in their bargaining with NAPOCOR. With the prevailing attitude of the SANDAMA officers and members.On the other hand. For one. the owners seek inroads to the leverages of executive power where compensation compromises are commenced and given imprimatur. the improvement of the administration of justice. Thus. Being a non-stock. . respondent relied on the representation of Danilo Elfa. The rule is that obligations incurred by the corporation. the landowners and NAPOCOR negotiated for a compromise agreement. respondent saw the immediate need to protect his interests in the individual properties of the landowners. where else would SANDAMA get the funds to pay for the legal fees due to respondent and his firm but from the contribution of its members.Second. perceived that he was also about to be deprived of his lawful compensation for the services he and his firm rendered to SANDAMA and its members. and in view of the delay in the adjudication of the case. Thus. respondent‘s legal services were disengaged by SANDAMA‘s new President Yolanda Bautista around the same time when the SANDAMA members abandoned and disauthorized former SANDAMA president Elfa. In effect. engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules formulated for their observance. They facilitated the incorporation of the landowners to expedite the negotiations between the owners. with whom he entered into a contract for legal services. the IBP is aimed towards the elevation of the standards of the law profession. persistence and resourcefulness of the negotiator. former SANDAMA president and attorney-in-fact of the members. But as it frequently happens. . . To assist them. . Reasoning . the IBP is not exempt from the duty to ―promote respect for the law and legal processes‖ and ―to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. It presented a unified front which was far easier to manage and represent than the individual owners. the landowners. who are supposed to be minions of the law. and having rendered legal service for years without having received anything in return. are its sole liabilities. rightly or wrongly. thus respondent had no basis to interfere in the court proceedings involving the members. and the enabling of the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. Indeed. After all. SANDAMA procured his firm‘s services and was led to believe that he would be paid for the same. officers and employees. They may have been mistaken in the remedy they sought. SANDAMA disengaged the services of respondent‘s law firm. those wrongfully found guilty. property belonging to a corporation cannot be attached to satisfy the debt of a stockholder and vice versa. just when the negotiations bore fruit. as summed by the IBP investigator. individual grants of authority from the SANDAMA members. the public purpose dimension is not as fiercely contested. With all these circumstances. and more importantly. There is evidence which tend to show that respondent and his firm rendered legal and even extra-legal services in order to assist the landowners get a favorable valuation of their properties.A review of the records reveals that respondent had grounds to believe that he can intervene and claim from the individual landowners. . the trial court had already ruled on the valuation of the properties subject of the expropriation. In this dimension. . while the practice of law is not a business venture. respondent. the same order which is subject of the appeal filed by the NAPOCOR.In the instant case. SANDAMA was a non-stock. Respondent could have easily and naturally assumed that the same figure assigned to SANDAMA was the same amount earmarked for its legal services as indicated in their service contract. .It is the duty of the Supreme Court to see to it that a lawyer accounts for his behavior towards the court. but the mistake was made in good faith. Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves. and with the prospect of not getting any compensation for all the services it has rendered to SANDAMA and its members. Negotiations are mostly out of court and reliant on the sagacity.There are two stages in every action for expropriation.With the validity of its contract for services and its authority disputed. Suddenly. non-profit corporation. but also to protecting the reputation of those wrongfully charged.Third. and NAPOCOR. the contract for legal services clearly indicated a contingent fee of forty percent (40%) of the selling price of the lands to be expropriated. respondent still dealt with the members. The first is concerned with the determination by the courts of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. engaged the services of a lawyer in the person of respondent.Lastly. in their quest to secure what they believe to be the fair compensation of their property. persuasion. including Malonso. patience. Danilo Elfa. just after concluding the compromise price with NAPOCOR and before the presentation of the compromise agreement for the court‘s approval. It is clear that respondent was hired precisely for the negotiation phase of the case. the services of lawyers different from the ordinary litigator may prove to be handy or even necessary.As a legal entity. a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members and from that of its officers who manage and run its affairs. his peers in the profession and the public. Elfa was armed with a Board Resolution from SANDAMA. respondent and his law firm auspiciously moved to protect their interests. his client.

PNB instituted another court action for the recover of the balance of the judgment amounting to P11. officials and employees. Its motions for separate legal fees as well as for intervention were dismissed by the trial court. VS. SEPTEMBER 30.The defendant claimed that in exchange for his waiver of his right to redeem the first property resold by PNB. WON a lawyer can appear as both counsel and witness in the same case HELD 1. The court ordered the defendant appellant to deposit the money due with the clerk of the court within three months from the date of judgment. Nevertheless. when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition. Pecson did agree to the condonation. 1934 for the sum of P17.During the period July 8-10.The CFI ruled that there was in fact a condonation made by the bank through one of its officer. Activism and Nationalism-Olalia) intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting since June 17.300 with PNB as the buyer.On August 1. . . a certain Mr. Costs for the defendant. .Defendant-appellant. In other words.38 with interest at seven percent per annum. The SC held that the appearance of a lawyer as both counsel and witness in a trial is not strictly prohibited. In case of failure to pay. at times obstructing access to and egress from the Court's premises and offices of justices. Its validity depends. Fenian as Chairmen of the Divisions where their cases are pending. .Respondent was disengaged by SANDAMA after a compromise agreement was entered into by the lot owners and NAPOCOR. Uy Teng Piao. WON PNB condoned the balance of the judgment 2. 1932 (romy ramirez) NATURE APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila FACTS . 300. this case is DISMISSED and considered CLOSED. and took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers.These acts were done even after their leaders had been received by Justices Pedro L. and Atty.The other property.574. 1987 (cha mendoza) NATURE Resolution FACTS . Disposition The decision of the CFI is reversed and the defendant is ordered to pay PNB the sum of P11. 1924. the bank would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. Jose C. 1930. They set up pickets' quarters on the pavement in front of the Supreme Court building. .The fact that the contract stipulates a maximum of forty percent (40%) contingent fees does not make the contract illegal or unacceptable. 1930. The SC however stated that it would be preferable if the lawyer in this case can appear only as one or the other. that the bank did in fact agree to the condonation. if they are to testify as required by the case. they should withdraw from the active management of the case. . the Court must. Espinas.600. They constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks. upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the case. Even if the SC grants that Mr. 8274 and thereafter sold the same to one Mariano Santos for P8. in large measure. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans.232. 1987 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court building. NESTLE PHILIPPINES INC. PNB secured from defendant a waiver of the latter‘s right to redeem one of the properties described as TCT no. set up a kitchen and littered the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and sanitation. counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees. Yes (No).Hence this appeal ISSUES 1. . 1987. SANCHEZ PER CURIAM.On February 11. This is embodied in Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics. . Disposition WHEREFORE. and will protect the aggrieved party. Pecson. 2.LEGAL PROFESSION but natural that he protects his interest. most especially when his fee is on a contingent basis. TCT No. Pecson was authorized by the bank through its board of directors or persons authorized by the said board to bind the bank to the agreement. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is enjoined to comply with the procedure outlined in Rule 139-B in all cases involving the disbarment and discipline of attorneys. . The total amount generated with the resale of the lots amonted to P 11. No.38 with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent per annum to be reckoned from August 1. 1925. the mortgage properties should be sold at auction in accordance with law and the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the judgment. There was no evidence presented except the uncertain testimony of the defendant. Page 44 of 203 . . members of the respondent labor unions (Union of Filipino Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity. Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law.42 with interest of seven percent per annum from June 1. Presiding from the ultimate outcome of an independent action to recover attorney‘s fees.574. had been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets PNB V UY TENG PIAO VICKERS. there is not evidence presented that Mr. 7264 was likewise resold and the proceeds was credited to the account of Uy. was sued by PNB for non payment of obligations at the CFI of Manila and said court rendered judgment in favor of PNB on September 9.The defendant failed to comply with the payment order and the properties were auctioned by the sheriff of Manila for a total of P1. Yap and Marcelo B. or that the compensation is clearly excessive. the Court does not see any obstacle to respondent filing such action against SANDAMA or any of its members.

Jose C. Grievances. Las Pinas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to Agusan del Sur Chapter because he coveted the IBP presidency.‖ IBP denied petition stating that there was no compelling justification for the postponement of the elections and that the petition for disqualification was premature. Espinas was further required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively dealt with. its agents. gagawa as Timog Katagalogan" (PAMANTIK). a member of the Board of Directors of the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter in Eastern Mindanao. motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner. as expressed in the IBP By Laws. .courts and juries. 2003. Espinas. Espinas likewise manifested to the Court that he had explained to the picketers why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons were willing to suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the circumstances. Petitioner’s Claim  De Vera had transferred his IBP membership from the Pasay. Jose C. the Court required the respondents to submit a written manifestation to this effect. and. is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection.. apologizing for their actions described and assuring that the acts would not be repeated. (2) holding the election on May 31. Disposition WHEREFORE. P. After the IBP national convention had been adjourned. did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture. and then and there to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in contempt of court. Ratio The respondents who are nonlawyers are not knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws.e. seeking the same reliefs as those sought in their Petition before the IBP. Oliver Owen L. President of the IBP Rizal Chapter. Espinas. or after the IBP National Convention. The EVP will automatically succeed the President in the next term] Page 45 of 203 . Santiago. Jose C.M. in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence. 1987 ISSUE WON the respondents and Atty. Atty. represented by Atty. 2003. no demonstrations or pickets intended to pressure or influence courts of justice into acting one way or the other on pending cases shall be allowed in the vicinity and/or within the premises of any and all courts. Respondent De Vera. and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their members. SO ORDERED.To confirm for the record that the person cited for contempt fully understood the reason for the citation and that they win abide by their promise that said incident will not be repeated. Their Motion was anchored on two grounds viz. 1987 at 10:30 A. which respondents complied with on July 17. He. nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of court. and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias. when his attention was called by this Court. Espinas further stated that he had explained to the picketers that any delay in the resolution of their cam is usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and that the Supreme Court has always remained steadfast in its role as the guardian of the Constitution. 1987. sent a letterrequesting the IBP Board to reconsider its Resolution. whoever will be elected Regional Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region in the 16th Regional Governors elections will automatically become the EVP. Reasoning The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. 2003 will render it impossible for the outgoing IBP Board from resolving protests in the election for governors not later than May 31. free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. Paranaque. the outgoing IBP Board reset the elections to May 31.On the appointed date and time. the contempt charges against herein respondents are DISMISSED. on July 10. representatives or persons acting in their place and stead to cease and desist from proceeding with the election for the IBP Regional Governor in Eastern Mindanao. Atty. therefore. that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court. must be ventilated through the proper channels. The SC issued a TRO. IN RE DE VERA TINGA. 2003. directing the IBP Board. Motion was denied. Espinas should be held in direct contempt of Court HELD NO. Thus. Later on. (1) IBP By Laws require the holding of the election of Regional Governors at least one month prior to the national convention of the IBP to prevent it from being politicized since post-convention elections may otherwise lure the candidates into engaging in unacceptable political practices. It is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice. Petitioners filed the present Petition before this Court. the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring the leaders of the respondent union leaders to appear before the Court on July 14. [Following the rotation rule. an unregistered loose alliance of about seventy-five (75) unions in the Southern Tagalog area. a month prior to the IBP National Convention scheduled on May 22-24.LEGAL PROFESSION were maintained. 2003 in compliance with IBP by laws. . however.Atty. i. rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record. Contempt charges dismissed. . Garcia. 2003 (joey capones) NATURE Administrative case for disqualification FACTS The election for the 16th IBP Board of Governors was set on April 26. the above-named individuals appeared before the Court. Emmanuel Ravanera and Tony Velez filed a Petition before the IBP Board seeking (1) the postponement of the election for Regional Governors to the second or third week of June 2003. if any. and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor union. any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof. Atty. through appropriate petitions. Attys. December 11. . Angelica Y. and (2) the disqualification of respondent De Vera ―from being elected Regional Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region. prejudice or sympathies. prayed for the Court's leniency considering that the picket was actually spearheaded by the leaders of the "Pagkakaisa ng Mang. They are not aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the Constitution. The duty and responsibility of advising them. Henceforth. along with Atty.

or to society in general. For one. change or transfer his chapter membership. Ratio Petition to seek disqualification of a person is premature when the person has not yet even been nominated. or by the By-Laws of the Chapter to which he belongs. 5. It was upon the invitation of the officers and members of the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter that he transferred his IBP membership. assuming that respondent De Vera gets nominated. WON this Court has jurisdiction over the present controversy 2. (3) he does not belong to a chapter from which a regional governor has already been elected. he can always opt to decline the nomination. modesty or good Page 46 of 203 . Petitioner Garcia is from Bukidnon IBP Chapter while the other petitioners. by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar. Art. Changes previously adopted by the Court simplified the election process and made it less controversial. In fact. Consequently. this is so because the determination of moral fitness of a candidate lies in the individual judgment of the members of the House of Delegates. and (4) he is not in the government service. Reasoning Petition has no firm ground to stand on. which in turn compelled him to surrender his California license to practice law. 3. honesty. Petitioners are not among qualified nominees. The grounds for disqualification were thus removed in the present by-laws. WON respondent De Vera is qualified to run for Governor of the IBP Eastern Mindanao Region HELD 1. WON the petition to disqualify respondent De Vera is the proper remedy under the IBP By-Laws b. It is unfair and unkind for the petitioners to state that his membership transfer was done for convenience and as a mere subterfuge to qualify him for the Eastern Mindanao governorship  He denies exhibiting disrespect to the Court or to any of its members during its deliberations on the constitutionality of the plunder law  As for the administrative complaint filed against him by one of his clients when he was practicing law in California. no nomination of candidates has been made yet by the members of the House of Delegates from Eastern Mindanao. Ratio With the applicability of Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws to the present petition. only nominees can file with the President of the IBP a written protest setting forth the grounds therefore. he states that it is baseless to assume that he was campaigning simply because he declared that he had 10 votes to support his candidacy for governorship in the Eastern Mindanao Region and that the petitioners did not present any evidence to substantiate their claim that he or his handlers had billeted the delegates from his region at the Century Park Hotel ISSUES 1. Conceivably too. For another. Assuming that petitioners have a cause of action and that the present petition is not premature. namely: a. WON the present Petition is premature 4. or conviction by final judgment of an offense which involves moral turpitude. Reasoning Sec. 2B. With regards to his transfer of membership the same is valid having been made 17 months prior election. 2A. vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men. or conduct contrary to justice. In this case. he cannot be barred. only IBP members from Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte are qualified to be nominated and elected at the election for the 16th Regional Governor of Eastern Mindanao. basically the disqualification of a candidate involving lack of moral fitness should emanate from his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law by this Court.  De Vera actively campaigned for the position of Eastern Mindanao Governor during the IBP National Convention. He was sanctioned by the Supreme Court for irresponsibly attacking the integrity of the SC Justices during the deliberations on the aconstitutionality of the plunder law. he has to be nominated first for the post. unless the election is the start of a new season or cycle. 8 of the 1987 Constitution confers power to SC to supervise all activities of the IBP. 2) he is included in the voter‘s list of his chapter or he is not disqualified by the Integration Rule. Reasoning Before a member is elected governor. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. petitioners are not the proper parties to bring the suit. Reasoning The basic qualifications for one who wishes to be elected governor for a particular region are: (1) he is a member in good standing of the IBP. the determination of which in turn requires the resolution of two subissues. Ratio As there exists a clear constitutional grant of power to the SC to promulgate rules affecting the IBP. WON petitioners have a cause of action against respondent De Vera. The only condition required under the rules is that the transfer must be made not less than three months prior to the election of officers in the chapter to which the lawyer wishes to transfer. WON the petitioners are the proper parties to bring this suit. He also could have been disbarred in the United States for misappropriating his client‘s funds had he not surrendered his California license to practice law. Ratio Since the IBP By-laws do not provide for disqualification of candidates for IBP governor. is purely an internal matter  Petitioners have no legal standing because there is no disqualification in the by laws. There is nothing in the By-Laws which explicitly provides that one must be morally fit before he can run for IBP governorship. the petitioners are not even qualified to be nominated at the forthcoming election. a prohibited act under the IBP By-Laws Respondent’s Comments  Court has no jurisdiction over the present controversy: the election of the Officers of the IBP. The IBP by-laws also recognize the full range of the power of supervision of the SC over the IBP.LEGAL PROFESSION  De Vera lacks the requisite moral aptitude. 3. Reasoning As provided in the aforesaid section. the SC has jurisdiction over the present controversy. This is pursuant to the rotation rule enunciated in the aforequoted Sections 37 and 38 of the IBP By-Laws. 4. Ratio As long as an aspiring member meets the basic requirements provided in the IBP By-Laws. he maintains that it cannot serve as basis for determining his moral qualification to run for the position as there is no final judgment finding him guilty of the administrative charge  On the alleged politicking he committed during the IBP National Convention. including the determination of the qualification of those who want to serve the organization. The contempt ruling cannot serve as a basis to consider respondent De Vera immoral. The act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does not involve moral turpitude (―an act of baseness.  An IBP member is entitled to select. Ravanera and Velez. Only election protests are provided for but only qualified nominees can file protest. are from the Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter. respondent De Vera has not been nominated for the post. petition to disqualify is not the proper remedy.

. Leonard De Vera to run for the position of IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao in the 16th election of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby DISMISSED. and live television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the "hooting throng" to arrogate unto themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused. sit in the available seats. Estrada." ISSUE WON live radio and television coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against Pres. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. such that the verdict of the court will be acceptable only if popular. . public interest. on the other hand. .The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information.‖) On the administrative complaint in California. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. again petitioners did not present any proof to substantiate the same. the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. the petition further averred. The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information. sent a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. . no final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. Aquino: ―Accordingly. at stake in the criminal trial is not only the life and liberty of the accused but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system. an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country.Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence 10 but only by evidence and argument given in open court. in order to protect the parties' right to due process. November 4. It must be emphasized that bare allegations. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. . A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago. On the allegation that respondent de Vera or his handlers had housed the delegates from Eastern Mindanao in the Century Park Hotel to get their support for his candidacy. to avoid miscarriage of justice.An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him.KBP. 2001 (glaisa po) FACTS . to paraphrase: Live television and radio coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses during the hearings intended to assure a fair trial. within the courthouse. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. . It is undeniable that these cases have twice become the nation's focal points in the two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and EDSA III where the magnitude of the events has left a still divided nation. and the fundamental rights of the accused.In effect.The Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the instant petition. the Court resolved to PROHlBIT live radio and television coverage of court proceedings. more than anyone else.The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of great dimensions so involving as they do a former President of the Republic. in its Resolution of 16 Apri1 2001.The request was seconded by Mr. .Parenthetically. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts do not allow live television and radio coverage of their proceedings.The transcendental events in our midst do not allow us to turn a blind eye to yet another possible extraordinary case of mass action being allowed to now creep into even the business of the courts in the dispensation of justice under a rule of law. PEREZ V ESTRADA VITUG. the petition seeks a re-examination of the 23rd October 1991 resolution of this Court in a case for libel filed by then President Corazon C. Estrada should be allowed HELD . . on the one hand. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 30 May 2003 which enjoined the conduct of the election for the IBP Regional Governor in Eastern Mindanao is hereby LIFTED.The Integrated Bar of the Philippines. MAGLASANG V PEOPLE PER CURIAM. expressed its own concern on the live television and radio coverage of the criminal trials of Mr. nevertheless. . a change in the standing rule of the court contained in its resolution of 23 October 1991 may not appear to be propitious.NO. 1990 (boots tirol) NATURE Resolution of the Petition for Certiorari to review the decision of the San Carlos City Court FACTS Page 47 of 203 . It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with the judicial process in action. Video footage of court hearings for news purposes shall be limited and restricted as above indicated. and live television and radio coverage of the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.LEGAL PROFESSION morals. to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. . still later.A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. Sarino in his letter to the Chief Justice and. unsubstantiated by evidence. should be evident bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation. June 29. Cesar N." . are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court Disposition Petition to disqualify respondent Atty. At the very least.

Castellano a copy of a strongly-worded complaint filed with the Office of the President of the Philippines whereby Khalyxto Perez Maglasang.50 was remitted and the Court was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision." . the SC dismissed the petition. Castellano claimed that the complaint "was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices concerned. Due to noncompliance with the requirements. Atty. Templado (San Carlos City Court) Negros Occidental. -Averred by way of Special and Affirmative Defenses.a petition for certiorari entitled "Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs. 1990. according to him. -On March 21. -Atty. reveals all too plainly that he was not honestly motivated in his criticism. Erneto Salunat (member of ASSA Law Firm-> Retained counsel of Philippine Public School Teachers Association) -Complainants filed an intracorpoate case against members of the Board of Directors for terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 for unlawful spending and undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA. Castellano. Atty. Castellano's complaint is a vilification of the honor and integrity of the Justices of the Second Division of the Court and an impeachment of their capacity to render justice according to law. -On September 9. and also the IBP O." In his "Opposition". respondent averred that Atty. Atty. Castellano further disputed the authority and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the Resolution requiring him to show cause inasmuch as "they are Respondents in this particular case and no longer as Justices and as such they have no more jurisdiction to give such order. and in claiming that a contempt order is used as a weapon by judges and justices against practicing lawyers. 1989. Ernesto B. Thus. which has no jurisdiction to discipline. accused all the five Justices of the Court's Second Division with "biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution. Justices of the Supreme Court. Castellano. The arrogance displayed by counsel in insisting that the Court has no jurisdiction to question his act of having complained before the Office of the President. and the legislative branches-has been lost on Atty. appeared as counsel for respondent despite being part of ASSA Law Firm the retained counsel of PPSTA Petitioner’s Claim -respondent is guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by PPSTA and was being paid out of its corporate funds to which they have contributed. as counsel of the petitioner. IBP Commission on Bar and Discipline recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months.00 and suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months HORNILLA V SALUNAT SANTIAGO. ISSUE WON a lawyer engaged by a corporation can defend members of the board of the same corporation in a derivative suit Page 48 of 203 . -His relationship with Aurelio Salunat is immaterial -He denies assuring victory of the PPSTA Board in the case but merely assured them the truth will come out. the amount of P316." Thus.malpractice and unethical conduct for filing trumped up charges against him. . and prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed and complainant be disciplined or disbarred. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust. -respondent violated rule 15.06 of the code of professional responsibility when he assured PPSTA Board Members in a meeting that he will win the PPSTA case Respondent’s Comment -He entered his appearance as counsel or the PPSTA Board members for and in behalf of ASSA Law and Associates." was filed by registered mail with the SC. Marceliano L. public and private.000. July 1. Castellano filed his "Opposition.Atty. moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the petition. In filing the "complaint" against the justices of the Court's Second Division with the Office of the President." ISSUE WON Atty Castellano is guilty of improper conduct and be punished for contempt HELD YES. the motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. specifically the nonpayment of the legal fees and the non-attachment of the duplicate originals or duly certified true copies of the questioned decision and orders of the respondent judge. and the date of the payment of his membership dues. The Supreme Court is supreme-the third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes. Castellano's assertion that the complaint "was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices" is but an effort to sanitize his clearly unfounded and irresponsible accusation.LEGAL PROFESSION . remove. 1989. much more.R. Disposition Atty. as complainant. Ricafort himself was guilty of gross violation of his oath amounting to gross misconduct .On January 22. through his lawyer.' Not even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts. Board of Governors approved the report and recommendation. even the most basic tenet of our government system-the separation of powers between the judiciary. however. This time. Presiding Judge. 2003 (dahls salamat) FACTS -Complainant : Benedicto Hornilla. People of the Philippines. -Respondent appeared as counsel for PPSTA Board Members in the said case. "the most they (Justices) can do by the mandate of the law and procedure (sic) is to answer the complaint satisfactorily so that they will not be punished in accordance with the law just like a common tao. Atty. Castellano. -Respondent in PPSTS v 1992-1995 Board of Directors of PPSTA. No. the executive. in a Resolution dated October 18. The motion for reconsideration did not contain the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Castellano was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct by reason of the strong and intemperate language of the complaint and its improper filing with the Office of the President. 1990 the Court received from Atty. Atty. Atty. FedericoRicafort (members of PPSTA) -Respondent : Atty. Atty. Castellano found guilty of improper conduct and contempt of court and fined P1.

or negligence. Petitioner. stated that the Board could no longer act on petitioner‘s July 19. Potenciano Ilusorio. 1991. informing him that petitioner had not been notified of any final action on her complaint .JR. Luis Lokin to the Board of Governors. WON the case should be dismissed for being inappropriate and improper. which was supposed to be a mere informal gathering to introduce the newly appointed government nominees for PHILCOMSAT to the private stockholders of POTC. Samuel Divina. in which SEC case respondent Lokin. a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders. learned about the recommendation of Commissioner San Juan and the setting aside thereof by the Board of Governors . the Republic was claiming shareholdings in Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) 99% of the shares of which appeared to be owned by POTC. in effect. -However. ILUSORIO V LOKIN. but it is his duty to oppose it for another client. his complaint was dismissed -Petitioner filed a new complaint against respondent -After hearing both parties. Atty Luis Lokin. together with Attorneys Demaree Raval and Salvador Hizon. with the assistance of the law firm of Raval and Lokin (successor to Liwanag Raval Pilando Suplico and Lokin). -Pertinent rule of the CPR: Rule 15. contrary to his oath not to represent conflicting interests. . IBP Investigating Commissioner San Juan found merit in petitioner‘s complaint and recommended that respondent be suspended for three months. on account of the death of Ilusorio and the failure of his children. To do so would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility. the Board Chairman. the gathering. -Ilusorio then contested the validity of the meeting by filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a complaint. et al. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.On March 10. 2004..03. WON the petition was filed within the 15-day reglamentary period 2. Ilusorio-Bildner (herein petitioner). A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. -Respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests and was ADMONISHED to observe higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. appeared as the counsel of Nieto. A Lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same corporation‘s board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. it is the lawyer‘s duty to fight for a issue or claim.Replying. 2004 to Atty. -The IBP Board of Governors set aside the recommendation of Commissioner San Juan and dismissed the complaint -No copy of the notice of resolution was served upon petitioner. CARPIO MORALES. by letter dated August 11. the Board of Governors said that it ―constrained to deny [petitioner‘s] request for a remanding or a reconsideration of the case‖ as there was no provision for a reconsideration of any such case either in Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court or in the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline. Atty. entered into a Compromise Agreement with the Republic. 2004 petitioner wrote a letter to the Board in her own name requesting ―that the Board take up the matter once more‖ and asking for ―the remanding of the case against Atty. it being based not on a resolution of the IBP Board 3. as petitioner should be deemed to have received Page 49 of 203 . otherwise it would. et al. 2004. be considering the letter as a motion for reconsideration which is not provided for by the rules of procedure for cases of the kind. Jose Anselmo Cadiz.LEGAL PROFESSION HELD No. -During the special stockholders‘ meeting of PHILCOMSAT held on August 27.727 POTC shares while Ilusorio was to get 673 POTC shares. against Manuel Nieto. nonetheless. WON in behalf of one client. Chairman of the IBP Board of Governors and concurrently National President of the IBP. Respondent contends that the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Maximo Ilusorio. was suddenly and without notice transformed into a Special Stockholders Meeting at which directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT were elected.‖ . and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong. 0009. and Erlinda K. December 14.Petitioner thus filed the present petition on September 2. ultra vires acts.. Ilusorio. through the ―high-handed and deceitful maneuvers‖ of respondent. Derivative suit: Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD Procedural Reasoning 1. 1998. 2005 (apple maramba) NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of a resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors FACTS On July 15. -There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. of which Ilusorio was one of the defendants -In that civil case. namely. who were purportedly elected directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT. where it was settled that the Republic was to get 4. actively handled the case for Ilusorio -While the case was pending. then wrote a letter of July 19. 2004 letter. engaged the services of the law office of Liwanag Raval Pilando Suplico and Lokin to represent him in the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. -Counsel for petitioner. WON personal knowledge of the petitioner of the facts alleged in the complaint is required to pursue the complaint Substantive WON the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.By letter of April 16. Jr. Jr. Sylvia Ilusorio. to establish their qualification to substitute for him. 2. 2004 ISSUES Procedural 1. -TESTS FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 1.

LEGAL PROFESSION notice of the challenged IBP resolution. personal knowledge is required. 2004 to file a petition for review. represented Gatcheco.. nor to any letter from the IBP Board Chairman or even of the Board. petitioner had only until March 25. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complaint or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board‘s resolution. Disposition Respondent fined and given a stern warning DE GUZMAN V DE DIOS PARDO. Hence. despite issuing a resolution on the subject complaint on February 27. – Proceedings for disbarment. Clearly. 2004 when she wrote the Board admitting having acquired knowledge of the reversal of Commissioner San Juan‘s recommendation. . in the SEC. Marcelino Cabucana. 2004 when her counsel received the August 11.Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which states: (c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition. 09-98-6086 are totally distinct from each other -Nowhere is the conflict of interest clearer than in respondent‘s Memorandum dated September 28. Respondent Luis K. Any right to be derived from the Compromise Agreement is clearly inchoate at this point in time. the present petition has been timely filed. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. It is however mitigated by the fact that the case was done in good faith and with no malice as supported by the findings of IBP Commissioner Reyes and Gonzales move of withdrawing the case. the rule is that the lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.The notice of resolution referred to in said paragraph (c) refers not to an unofficial information that may be gathered by the parties. as follows: ―A continued exercise of jurisdiction and a subsequent disposition of the instant Petition by this Honorable Commission would pre-empt the resolution by the Sandiganbayan of the disputed shares. GONZALES V CABUCANA. a party who desires to appeal from the IBP‘s dismissal of a disciplinary case should await the notice of resolution.Respondent IBP admits that no such notice has been sent to petitioner . but of her witnesses. if there are any. but to the official notice of resolution that is supposed to be issued by the Board. January 26. Although the firm was the one who represented the civil case the person is still in representation of the firm. Substantive Reasoning Respondent denies representing conflicting interests on the ground that SB Case No.Since no notice has been sent to petitioner. -The IBP has given no reason for the delay other than the nebulous explanation that records were still being completed. Lokin. Gonzales filed an administrative case saying that Cabucana violated the lawyer-client relationship due to conflict of interest. 2006 (ice baguilat) NATURE Administrative Case FACTS Gonzales being counseled by the law firm Cabucana. Section 1. he was advocating an interest hostile to the implementation of the same Compromise Agreement that he had priorly negotiated for Ilusorio Disposition The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dated February 27. 009 and SEC Case No. or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. Cabucana. 2001 (athe odi) NATURE Page 50 of 203 . generally. De Guzman and Cabucana Law Office. when respondent represented Nieto. suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio. . Gatcheco harassed Gonzales and subsequently Gonzales filed a criminal case. et al. ISSUE WON there is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for conflict of interest HELD Yes.‖ -Plainly. 2004. -In view thereof. JR. This Petition is a premature action to enforce the Compromise Agreement entered into by Mr. It at the least invite suspicion of double-dealing. Clearly. it bears noting in this instance that the Board. petitioner. 2004 letter of the IBP Board Chairman. the Supreme Court orders otherwise. Jr. as the August 11. . Even the fact of appearing to be treacherous and double-dealing is discouraged because people are expected to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. reprimand. or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. copy of which is given to all parties and transmitted to this Court. but on March 10. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. respondent claims. failed to send a notice of resolution to petitioner. Rule 139-B states: SECTION 1. -Personal knowledge is not a requisite for filing a disbarment complaint. not on August 17. et al. Ilusorio. 2004 is SET ASIDE. not of the complainant. It would in fact affirm the ownership by the Petitioners of the said shares subject of the Sandiganbayan case. 2. How instituted.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Three (3) Months. 2004 letter from the IBP Board Chairman cannot be deemed a notice of resolution. who had already confirmed that her complaint was dismissed through a letter coming from the IBP Board Chairman. this is beyond the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission. filed a civil case that was awarded to them in a judicial ruling and asked Gatcheco to execute such however Gatcheco failed to do so and Gonzales filed a complaint. cannot be faulted for appealing to this Court notwithstanding the absence of an official notice of resolution 3. Jr. 1998 filed with the SEC wherein he argued in behalf of Nieto. Atty. Acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer‘s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. is found guilty of violating Rule 15. While. at least at the time this petition was filed.

ACCRA lawyers said it was in furtherance of legit lawyering and they became holders of shares of stock only as incorporating or acquiring stockholders. Atty. Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also speaks of the devotion of a lawyer to the interest of the client. members of the firm act as incorporators or stockholders.Lawyer-client relationship is based on contract of lease of svcs and contract of agency. . . . An atty possesses special powers of trust given by client. they were auctioned and acquired by Ramon del Rosario. De Dios became the president – a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent. Yes . REGALA V SANDIGANBAYAN KAPUNAN.Privilege exists only after atty-client relationship has been established. WON lawyer-client confidentiality applies in this case 2.ACCRA Law Firm performs legal svcs incl. .submission of docs substantiating lawyer-client relationship . PCGG set conditions for exclusion of the petitioners: .Due process requires that the opposing party should. HELD Yes. De Dios argued that she represents the corporation. That denial is now being questioned. .00.disclosure of identity of clients . .LEGAL PROFESSION Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. In this case. However. Because of this.ACCRA lawyers filed a counter-motion that PCGG also exclude them as parties-defendant as it did to Roco. De Guzman still has original shares of P745. making the denial of the ACCRA lawyers‘ exclusion from the PCGG case a violation of equal protection clause. they do not claim any proprietary interest in said shares.De Guzman sought the assistance of Atty De Dios in forming a corporation engaged in hotel and restaurant business. They were able to have Suzuki Beach Hotel Incorporated (SBHI) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. and as such. 1996 (chris capul) NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS .03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. upon the advice of Atty. There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent.The right to counsel of an accused is also involved in this issue. . September 20.PCGG filed Third Amended Complaint w/c excluded pvt respondent Raul Roco bec he promised to reveal identity of principal/s for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder . .GENERAL RULE: .00. . which was on the verge of bankruptcy then.This is an offshoot of the complaint before the Sandiganbayan through the PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. one of the incorporators of SBHI. It does not attach until there is a client. she paid up P745.Petitioner Paraja Hayudini. . Reasoning 1. ISSUE WON Atty.000. enough for her not to be ousted from the corporation.In defense.Privilege generally pertains to subject matter of the relationship. The latter was the one who retained her as counsel not the corporation. Atty. HELD 1. who separated fr ACCRA. as a general rule.PCGG is not really after the petitioners but the ―bigger fish‖. She subscribed to 29. know his adversary. thus. the remaining 22. ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of said corps involved in sequestration proceedings. Disposition Atty.PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco of the said conditions. . not De Guzman in her personal capacity. They acquire info relative to assets of clients and their personal/biz circumstances. Later.submission of deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. This was passed on into the Rules of Court. Rule 15. . De Dios required De Guzman to pay the unliquidated shares. .000.00 during the stage of incorporation. 2. Granting that the sale of her delinquent shares was valid. Page 51 of 203 . While Atty. what she did was for the best interest of the corporation. De Dios on the ground of violation of Canon 15. .Sandiganbayan denied exclusion of petitioners fr the PCGG case. 3. De Guzman was ousted from the corporation completely.Canon 17 of Code of Professional Responsibility says that a lawyer owes fidelity to cause of his client. . This is clear fr the PCGG‘s willingness to cut a deal w/ petitioners – the names of clients in exchange for exclusion fr complaint. De Dios is guilty of representing conflicting interest.The corporation.De Guzman was the majority stockholder.800 shares. WON Roco and the ACCRA lawyers are similarly situated. There was an atty-client relationship between De Dios and De Guzman.Court has right to know that client whose privileged info is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Moreover.250 shares amounting to P2. But it is more than relationship of principal-agent and lessor-lessee.00 was left unpaid. If client were made to choose bet legal representation w/o effective communication and disclosure and legal representation w/ all his secrets revealed then he might be compelled to stay away fr judicial system or lose right to counsel. ISSUES 1. FACTS . De Dios rose to be the president of the corporation.Old Code of Civil Procedure forbids counsel w/o authority of client to reveal communication or advise given in course of professional employment. De Dios was SUSPENDED for 6 months. He also occupies quasi-judicial ofc since he is an officer of the court. . for recovery of alleged illgotten wealth including shares of stocks in certain corporations. . Sometimes.235. filed a separate answer. organization and acquisition of business associations/orgs. De Dios was retained by De Guzman.

Revelation of the name would provide the link for prosecution to build its case. RESOLUTIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN ARE ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. where none otherwise exists. a taxpayer. According to him. . In this case.Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing client‘s name would implicate that client in the very activity for w/c he sought the lawyer‘s advice.State has right to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials/employees. .It is also privileged where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. wrote the Ombudsman and asked for the investigation of Sansaet. . .An information for perjury was filed against Paredes.For ACCRA lawyers to be excluded. .The annulment of a resolution of the Sandiganbayan is being sought. . .It is diff when the client consults atty for illicit purposes.Apart fr the exceptions above.Person claiming atty-client privilege must present underlying facts. Sansaet as state witness. 2.I find it unreasonable for Sandiganbayan to compel petitioners to breach the trust reposed on them and succumb to a thinly disguised threat of incrimination.The instant case FALLS UNDER AT LEAST 2 EXCEPTIONS.It was also discovered that Paredes got the lot through fraudulent means. the link bet the offense and the legal advice/svc was duly established by no less than the PCGG itself. Without proofs. If Roco‘s revelation violated confidentiality of lawyer-client. Sansaet was still Paredes‘ counsel. . PEOPLE V SANDIGANBAYAN REGALADO. .The prerogative to determine who shall be made defendants in a civil case is initially vested in plaintiff (PCGG in this case).EXCEPTIONS . a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults atty abt it. PUNO [dissent] . the said name would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime. Yes . Page 52 of 203 .Disclosure of client‘s identity is necessary proof of existence of lawyer-client relationship and is not privileged info. . None of the lawyers in this case is being required to testify. .Privilege does not extend to further criminal conduct. . ISSUES 1. This does not apply to a crime which a client intends to commit.It is also privileged when govt‘s lawyers have no case against an atty‘s client unless. 1997 (aida villanueva) NATURE Special civil action in the SC FACTS .Lawyer-client confidentiality and loyalty exists not only during relationship but even after termination of the relationship.1976 – Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land. Court has no factual basis to determine whether petitioners fall w/in exception to the general rule. Info relating to the identity of client may fall w/in privilege when client‘s name itself has independent significance such that disclosure would reveal client confidence. . from them or from their nominees or transferees. . WON projected testimony of Sansaet is barred by the atty-client relationship 2. . Paredes was the provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur who later became governor and congressman. NO Ratio If a client seeks his lawyers‘ advice with respect to a crime he committed. . It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness and may be invoked at an appropriate time. SEPARATE OPINION VITUG . Petitioners have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients would implicate them. His application was approved and a title was issued to him. they must perform certain obligations as Roco did. there are alternative sources of info available to prosecutor w/c does not depend on utilizing a defendant‘s counsel as convenient and readily available source of info.LEGAL PROFESSION . DAVIDE [dissent] . he conspired with the other two.Court is trying to avoid fishing expedition by the prosecution. Another allegation was that he had used his position to get what he wanted. . it is given the virtual confessional seal. .Respondents failed to show that Roco actually revealed the identity of his clients.Gelacio. seeking advice on how to around the law. July 16.Confidentiality is not a cause to exclude a party. WON Sansaet qualified as particeps criminis (accomplice to the crime) for discharge from the criminal prosecution in order to testify for the State HELD 1.Rules of Court requires that complaint be against all persons who appear to be responsible. . Honrada and Paredes. Also.Sansaet was a lawyer who served as counsel for Parades in several instances petinent to the criminal charges involved in the present recourse. by revealing the client‘s name. . No such substantial distinctions exist. with the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to utilize Atty. First. After all. saying that the land had already been designated and reserved as a school site.1985 – Director of Lands cancelled the patent of Paredes. There has been an agreement/compromise settlement bet PCGG and Roco. PCGG shld show that Roco was treated as a species apart fr the ACCRA lawyers on basis of classification w/c made substantial distinctions based on real differences. other situations could qualify as exceptions. he would be solely answerable to his principals/clients and probably to the Court.Honrada was a clerk of court in a municipality in Agusan del Sur. disclosure would lead to establish the client‘s connection w/ the very fact in issue.

. January 23. He is a co-principal in the case for recovery of ill-gotten wealth. .Sansaet has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. represented by his heirs. . Sandiganbayan is ordered to exclude petitioner Gregorio Castillo as party defendant in the case RP v Enriquez. petitioner in not being required to name his clients. ISSUE WON petitioner‘s inclusion in the complaint violates the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege HELD YES. seeking to annul the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the attachment of the privilege. the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan . there was a clear finding that the ACCRA lawyers were impleaded by the PCGG as co-defendants to force them to disclose the identity of their clients as shown by PCGG‘s willingness to cut a deal with the ACCRA lawyers – the names of their clients in exchange for exclusion from the complaint. . Inc. because in said case. . 1996.The period is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney. 8 of the Civil Code. Imelda Marcos. February 21. petitioner. restitution and damages against several persons.He does not appear to be the most guilty. 1987.The other requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as state witness are present. 2002 (jojo mendoza) NATURE Petition for certiorari.The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Parades at the time he and Honrada. . et al in establishing Hotel Properties. in order to acquire beneficial interest and control.LEGAL PROFESSION Reasoning A distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to past crimes already crimes and future crimes intended to be committed. CASTILLO V SANDIGANBAYAN BUENA. or in the process of falsifying. the period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future.But for the application of the attorney-client privilege.On October 1992. In this case. FACTS On July 23. .In the case of People v Ocemar: ―And by „most guilty‟ we mean the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the commission of the offense and not necessarily the severity of the penalty imposed.His testimony can be corroborated by reputable witnesses. 2006 (bry san juan) NATURE Page 53 of 203 . .There is absolute necessity for Sansaet‘s testimony because the prosecution has no direct evidence available. of Silahis Hotel. . nominee and/or agent of defendants Ferdinand Marcos. the petitioner is being sued as a principal defendant for being in conspiracy with other defendants in the commission of the acts complained of and he is not being required to name his clients. 1998.Similar to the petitioners in Regala.It is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant consideration and warrants an imposition of the same penalty. yet one may be considered least guilty if We take into account his degree of participation in the perpetration of the offense. in Regala. .On October 15.defendant Gregorio Castilo acted as dummy. . The complaint alleges that. Respondent contends that the ruling in Regala does not apply to the present case. . the case of Regala is still applicable in the present case because the two cases are the same in more important aspects.Paredes was planning to commit the crime of falsification. One of the requirements for state witness is that he does not appear to be the most guilty (not that he is the least guilty as to what has been erroneously interpreted in some instances). 2. Sansaet fulfills all the requirements needed for his discharge as state witness. While it is true that unlike in Regala. . the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss. . petitioner is not a mere witness.The fact of the lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and defendants Enriquezes and Panlilios was immediately raised by petitioner as one of his affirmative defenses. were about to falsify. . Reasoning Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification and in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. the professional relationship was raised merely as a defense by defendant lawyers and was not yet proven during the trial. . This not withstanding. DALISAY V MAURICIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.Sansaet himself was a conspirator and it is settled that for the attyclient privilege to apply in communication. one of which is petitioner. it must be for a lawful purpose.On November 26. In the same vein. accounting. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint against him is violative of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and must be dismissed pursuant to the Supreme Court‘s decision in Regala v Sandiganbayan. reversion. petitioner died. While all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of conspiracy.Sansaet is the only cooperative witness to the actual commission of the crime of falsification. however. . the Republic of the Philipines Filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reconveyance. . the court struck out the complaint against the lawyers. He has made his position clear from the very beginning that he is not willing to testify and he cannot be compelled to testify in view of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and of his fundamental legal right to maintain inviolate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality. either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet. defendant Gregorio Castillo signed all pertinent documents as attorney-in-fact of the defendants Enriquezes and Panlilio.Since the doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents or stare decisis is provided in Art. and conceal ownership. YES Ratio Despite his involvement in the crime.

the date he was engaged as counsel. As a result.At any rate. When a lawyer accepts a case. found that ―for the amount of P56. his duty is. guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He should have returned complainant‘s money. From then on. that the complaint be dismissed. a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a petition for review of a decree. 2001 holding that ―the tax declarations and title‖ submitted by complainant ―are not official records of the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed. Third. hence.. complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. Unfortunately. no action had been taken nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent. Binangonan. Second.000. complainant contends that:: (1) respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her. he learned of the trial court‘s Decision dated December 6. the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. v. 00-044. he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing. As a matter of fact. 2001. A change of theory in the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable. As we have ruled earlier. Dalisay. in such a case. 00-044. On April 22. she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. 2001. we rendered the assailed Decision. 00-044. skill and ability to handle the case.00 from complainant. on its own. Binangonan. 00-044. respondent went to the MTC. It bears reiterating that respondent did not take any action on the case despite having been paid for his services. if anything at all has been achieved by respondent‘s inconsistent assertions. 2001. such as for filing fee. This is preposterous.000. but because it is contrary to the rules of fair play.Neither do we find merit in respondent‘s second argument. The fact that Civil Case No. 00-044.In his third argument. complainants. he failed to do this simple task.LEGAL PROFESSION Motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated April 22. complainant refused to provide him with documents related to the case. an attorney-client relationship is established. ISSUE WON respondent lawyer should be disciplined for failing to render services despite payment of his client HELD YES. complainant. . 00-044. respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant charging her with violations of Article 171 and 172 and/or Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code. But once he accepts money from a client.‖ Neither is there any evidence nor pleading submitted to show that he initiated new petitions. respondent attempts to evade responsibility by shifting the blame to complainant. giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the client‘s cause. his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning. justice and due process. . Civil Case No. Jr. but respondent refused. Paguinto. Rizal to verify the status of Civil Case No. his liability is unmistakable. As a lawyer. Surely. (2) respondent should have returned her money. managed to verify the authenticity of complainant‘s title. respondent never rendered legal services for her. respondent. In Pariñas v. he is expected to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. complainant made repeated demands. and champion the latter‘s cause with wholehearted devotion. adopting and approving in toto Commissioner Navarro‘s Report and Recommendation. but respondent is yet to return the money. 00-044 was ―considered submitted for decision‖ as early as August 6. .000. he should immediately return the filing fees to complainant. engaged respondent‘s services as counsel in Civil Case No. XVI-2004-121. upon learning of our Decision. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose. respondent raises the following arguments. . entitled ―Lucio De Guzman. . or more than two months prior to October 13. 2005 finding Atty. He alleged that complainant offered tampered evidence. There.‖ Thereupon. A party should decide early what version he is going to advance. Valeriana U. complainant did not engage his services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Sadly. Rizal. Melanio ―Batas‖ Mauricio. . Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. he had been remiss in the performance of his duties. FACTS . Branch I.[10] we held that ―a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected from the client.00 paid by the complainant x x x. In fact. respondent. He cannot now unbind himself from such admission and its consequences. assuming arguendo that complainant indeed engaged respondent‘s services in filing the two (2) new petitions. 00-044 was already ―submitted for decision‖ does not justify his inaction.Respondent assumed such obligations when he received the amount of P56. 2005. 00-004.In her opposition to the motion.On October 13. it is his dishonesty to this Court.On January 13. After agreeing to handle Civil Case No. etc. ―there is nothing in the records to show that he (respondent) entered his appearance as counsel of record for complainant in Civil Case No. The present administrative case was resolved by the IBP on the basis of respondent‘s previous admission that complainant engaged his legal services in Civil Case No.‖ She recommended that respondent be required to refund the amount of P56. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney‘s fees in the total amount of P56.” pending before the Municipal Trial Court. Navarro of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. ―he could not have done anything anymore‖ about it. She hired him for the purpose of filing two new petitions. respondent‘s present version is a flagrant departure from his previous pleadings. The ethics of the profession demands that. still. to enter his appearance.00 from complainant and agreed to handle Civil Case No.000. respondent knew where to obtain copies of the certificates of title. Page 54 of 203 . 2004. . On February 27. preventing him from doing his job. This cannot be countenanced.Undoubtedly. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. he admitted that his Law Office. And fourth. 2004. 00-044. Branch 1. and (4) his refusal to return her money despite this Court‘s directive constitutes contempt. (3) respondent should have verified the authenticity of her documents earlier if he really believed that they are falsified. prompting him to file falsification cases against her. This is tantamount to abandonment of his duties as a lawyer and taking undue advantage of his client. . Valeriana.00 to the complainant. Dalisay U. Incidentally. and surprisingly.In this motion for reconsideration. First. ‖ Per records. He has the right to decline employment. first and foremost. He must serve the client with competence and diligence. not due to the strict application of procedural rules.. instead of Civil Case No. He claims that she refused to provide him with documents vital to the case. but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand. There is nothing in the records to show that he filed any petition.

private respondent brought to Caesar's Palace the letter of Ramon Sy owning the debt and asking for a discount.Finally. several long distance telephone calls and two trips to Las Vegas by him elicited the information that Dewey Dee's outstanding account was around $1.00 was already sufficient remuneraion for his strictly voluntary services. Thereafter. If complainant refuses. exacting. First. . Upon private respondent's return to Manila. it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court. However. to wit: (1) At the time private respondent was ostensibly rendering services to petitioner and his father. said judgment was affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court on May 9. he conferred with Ramon Sy and the latter was convinced to acknowledge the indebtedness. private respondent personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace at Las Vegas. . 00-044. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. . perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal. . will it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. in an ironic twist of fate.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his clients has.000. and to the public. revealed that said account had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy. Dewey Dee. The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. petitioner claims that it was not in the nature of attorney's fees but merely "pocket money" solicited by the former for his trips to Las Vegas and the said amount of P50. filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the Appellate Court overlooked two important and decisive factors. 1983 (lora alamin) NATURE Petition for a writ of certiorari to overturn Court of Appeals‘ r esolution. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law.00 inceptively given to private respondent. 1981.00. 00-044. Petitioner's father was apprehensive over the safety of his son. thereafter.On appeal.02 of the same Canon specifically provides: Rule 19.In its resolution of July 31. . with Dewey Dee merely signing for the chits.Petitioner. he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. In fine. Dewey.00-044. however. to Caesar's Palace. respondent became the accuser of complainant. hence the interests of the casino and private respondent were united in their objective to collect from the debtor. . prompting him to file falsification cases against her. He advised the president that for the sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. the court a quo rendered judgment ordering herein petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of P50. he was actually working "in the interest" and "to the advantage" of Caesar's Palace of which he was an agent and a consultant.000.000. 00-004. requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. 1986. after which his services were reportedly contracted for P100. If much is demanded from an attorney. he insists that such visit was merely an informal one and that private respondent had not been specifically contracted to handle the problem. however. Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for the collection of attorney's fees and refund of transport fare and other expenses. 1986. 1987.In August.Private respondent assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter. Understandably. As for the P50.A. Instead of inaction. Rule 19. and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. The president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation.000. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule.00 with interest thereon. private respondent called up Caesar's Palace and. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot sustain his fourth argument. .As a lawyer. . Dewey Dee would be exculpated from liability for the account.S.000. respondent court reconsidered its decision and held that the sum of P50.Having thus settled the account of petitioner's brother. respondent Mutuc had allegedly volunteered his services "as a friend of defendant's family" to see what he could do about the situation.LEGAL PROFESSION . Petitioner. .00 and that the services he rendered were professional services which a lawyer renders to a client.Petitioner. shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same.Private respondent claimed that petitioner formally engaged his services for a fee of P100. . considering that at the time he was acting as counsel for petitioner he Page 55 of 203 . This is because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00 as attorney's fees. U. dated February 12. having heard of a link between the mafia and Caesar's Palace and the possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the latter. In his fourth argument. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No.000. He admits that he and his father visited private respondent for advice on the matter of Dewey Dee's gambling account. FACTS . Further investigations. reinstating the decision of May 9. accompanied by the latter's cousin. . On the contrary.000. then he should terminate his relationship with her. the account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered him. in the course of the representation. Nevada. private respondent sent several demand letters to petitioner demanding the balance of P50. DEE V COURT OF APPEALS REGALADO. From his residence. and (2) Private respondent is not justified in claiming that he rendered legal services to petitioner and his father in view of the conflicting interests involved.000. ignored said letters. He thus justifies his inability to render legal services to complainant. to seek his advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother. denied the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between him and private respondent. respondent accuses her of offering falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No.000.Petitioner and his father went to the residence of private respondent.00 already paid by petitioner to private respondent was commensurate to the services he rendered. Nevada. It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate. respondent is expected to know this Rule.00. and confidential character. August 24. let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or her retainer. however.In June.After trial. to the bar. a well-known gambling casino at Las Vegas. 1986. 1981.

ineluctably prove three facts. the former was also the Philippine consultant of Caesar's Palace. Valdes excluded the Moran property from the inventory.Even indulging petitioner in his theory that private respondent was during the period in question an agent of Caesar's Palace. was not the debtor. 1986. but once the trial court and the Court of Appeals have found that there was such a relationship the Supreme Court cannot disturb such finding of fact. petitioner was not unaware thereof. The previous partial payments totaling P50. at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court. The issue may be raised in the trial court. Valdes acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow Imelda Nakpil whom the Court appointed as the estate administratix. Valdes & Associates. the account of petitioner's brother. NAKPIL V VALDES PUNO. with costs against petitioner.However. dated February 12. reinstating the aforesaid decision of May 9. Valdes‘ name but it was the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer house. Respondent‘s law firm. the present respondent Court of Appeals issued another resolution. that there was a prior agreement as to the amount of attorney's fees to be given to the latter. a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. as verifications revealed. Title was issued in Atty. Baguio City. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting on behalf of his client in pursuance of a request from the latter. being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of said parties.000. from whom payment was ultimately and correctly exacted. lawyer and accountant) Atty.On the second objection. it is also not completely accurate to judge private respondent's position by petitioner's assumption that the interests of Caesar's Palace were adverse to those of Dewey Dee. Generally. March 4. Valdes to purchase the Moran property for him. Ramon Sy. FACTS -1965: Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence in Moran Street. Carlos J. with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions. Valdes would keep the property in trust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. ISSUE WON there was a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private respondent HELD YES. .LEGAL PROFESSION was also acting as the collecting agent and consultant of. For lack of funds.Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained. private respondent's role therein was not ethically or legally indefensible. There may be instances when there is doubt as to whether an attorney-client relationship has been created.On the first aspect. the receipt thereof being acknowledged by petitioner. Ratio The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a professional relationship which merits attorney's fees for professional services rendered. dated February 12. Misconduct. Page 56 of 203 . . it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. Carlos J. absent cogent reasons therefor. Pursuant to their agreement. -When Jose Nakpil died. A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and represent the interests of his client. Caesar's Palace. 1998 (marge alias) NATURE -Administrative case in the SC. Atty. -This case involves the disbarment of a CPA-lawyer for his demeanor in his accounting profession and law practice in connection with the property of his client. -The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings when Atty. hence he actually consented to and cannot now decry the dual representation that he postulates. To establish the relation. he requested long time friend (family business consultant. Hence. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney. with Caesars Palace was assumed by Ramon Sy and petitioner and his family were further freed from the apprehension that Dewey might be harmed or even killed by the so-called mafia. the evidence of record shows that the services of respondent Mutuc were engaged by the petitioner for the purposes hereinbefore discussed. Through his efforts. private respondent's representations in behalf of petitioner were not in resistance to the casino's claim but were actually geared toward proving that fact by establishing the liability of the true debtor. the latter is bound to pay his just feeds. The Court found no reason to interfere with the factual finding. Disposition The resolution of respondent Court of Appeals. A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties since a mutual lawyer. since the latter. However. Dewey Dee. Both the lower court and the appellate court concur in their findings that there was a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private respondent Mutuc. They agreed that Atty. and receiving compensation from. respondent Mutuc is indubitably entitled to receive a reasonable compensation and this right cannot be occluded by petitioner's pretension that at the time private respondent rendered such services to petitioner and his family. 1986 was AFFIRMED. 1987. may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences.00 made by petitioner to respondent Mutuc and the tenor of the demand letters sent by said private respondent to petitioner. an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending positions. respondent obtained 2 loans from a bank amounting to P140k which he used to purchase and renovate the property. and there was still a balance due and payable on said fees. the contract may be express or implied. . . He even transferred his title to the Moran property to his company. upon a motion for reconsideration thereafter filed by private respondent. aside from the facts stated in the resolution of respondent Court of Appeals. handled the proceeding for the settlement of Jose‘s estate. True. Reasoning There is no question that professional services were actually rendered by private respondent to petitioner and his family. the Caval Realty Corporation. the casino was a creditor but that fact was not contested or opposed by Dewey Dee. . viz: that petitioner hired the services of private respondent Mutuc. 1987. For such services. reinstating its original decision of May 9.

Factual Issues (as settled in the reconveyance case) 1. stockholder. -The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be. his interest is per se adverse to the estate. Quiambao resigned as president. 1979: Imelda sought to recover the Moran property by filing with the Baguio City CFI an action for reconveyance with damages against Atty. Valdes violated professional ethics when he: 1. When he subordinated the interest of his client to his own pecuniary gain. -When a creditor files a claim against an estate. after obtaining said loans for the purchase and renovation of the property he claimed for himself. but also used his services for a personal case (an ejectment case wherein respondent is the counsel of record). Valdes or his law firm explained the legal situation and its consequences to Imelda. filed a complaint for replevin and damages against Quiambao to recover a car assigned to Quiambao as a service vehicle by AIB.OSG relying on CA decision recommended dismissal of admin charge. all for the purpose of transferring the title to the said property to his family corporation. Valdes himself as the said loans were in his name. It is clear that the information available to the accounting firm as to how these two loans should be treated could have only come from Atty. even if it pertains to his private activities.CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. through Bamba. a family-owned security and investigation agency. Inc. 2. 3. not certainty of conflict. as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character. Valdes can be administratively charged before SC given that his alleged ―misconduct‖ pertains to his accounting practice HELD 1. hobby nilang gumawa ng security agencies) where respondent served as incorporator. Disposition Atty. Petitioner’s Claim Atty. prepared & defended monetary claims against the estate that retained him as its counsel and auditor. YES. Six months later. Quiambao then filed for disbarment and charged Bamba with acts of disloyalty and double-dealing. Bamba convinced Quiambao‘s brother to organize another security agency (yes. ISSUES 1. through his accounting firm. In violation of the trust agreement. -The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is probability. Loan of P140k: Atty. AIB. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct. -that such security agency was organized and Bamba was a ―silent partner‖ -that while serving as a silent partner. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor. Valdes transferred the Moran property to his corporation. and that of the two claimants (Angel Nakpil and ENORN. -Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. Valdes. 3. Valdes and the late Jose Nakpil agreed that the former would purchase the Moran property and keep it in trust for the latter. It was respondent‘s duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict of interest. WON Atty. He could not have been totally ignorant of the proceedings in the intestate case. Nestor Bamba for the corporate affairs of AIB. Valdes later transferred it to his corporation. Valdes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2. WON Atty. August 25.CA decision in reconveyance case has been reversed by SC. The relationship of the claimants to the late Nakpil does not negate the conflict of interest. 2. and president. To place the property beyond the reach of Imelda and the intestate court. assigned to his family corporation the Moran property which belonged to the estate he was settling as its lawyer and auditor. Atty. -A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. 2. Valdes found guilty of misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for one year with a warning that a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely in the future. . Carlos J. excluded the Moran property from the inventory of real estate properties he prepared for a client-estate and. charged the two loans as liability of the estate. There is nothing in the records to show that Atty. Valdes (&his corporation) who claimed absolute ownership over the property and denied that a trust was created over it. Ownership of the Moran property: Atty. (AIB). 2005 (maia rieza) NATURE RESOLUTION on administrative case for disbarment FACTS Felicitas Quiambao used to be the president of Allied Investigation Bureau. QUIAMBAO V BAMBA DAVIDE. which was still pending. Imelda filed this administrative case to disbar the respondent. and that he will assist in its organization. Complainant’s arguments -that she resigned as president because Bamba proposed that she organize her own security agency. . After. YES. honesty. Representation of conflicting interests may be allowed only after full disclosure of facts and informed consent of the clients. the intestate proceedings was still pending in court. Preliminaries . charged the loan secured to purchase the said excluded property as a liability of the estate. Inc) who are creditors of the estate. Resignation from law firm not supported by any documentary proof 4. YES. 3. Respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to observe candor. She procured the services of respondent Atty. Resignation from accounting firm in 1972 and 1974 is proven. CA reversed.LEGAL PROFESSION -March 29. WON Atty. Respondent’s arguments Page 57 of 203 . he clearly violated CPR Canon 17 which provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to his client‘s cause and enjoins him to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. fairness and loyalty in his dealings/transactions with his clients. Valdes‘ misuse of his legal expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical. But when Atty. Atty. at the same time. Valdes is guilty of representing conflicting interests 3. probity or good demeanor. respondent claimed absolute ownership over the property and refused to sell the property to complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. No presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney‘s favor. -During the pendency of the action for reconveyance. Bamba filed this latter complaint without withdrawing as counsel in the ejectment case.

03 of Canon 15. . of conflict. 1999: Mr. Barcelona reported that he just came from the Supreme Court where he ―fixed‖ the case of Daen.The nature of a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Moreover. .Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP required respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. BERBANO V BARCELONA PER CURIAM. Mr. .03.LEGAL PROFESSION -although he admits representing Quiambao in the ejectment case. Suspended for 1 year. and subsequently detained at Muntinlupa City Jail until his release on February 18. . not certainty. Loyalty to AIB becomes dubious with his interest as the president in another security agency. but reduced the penalty to suspension from practice of law for 6 years. Barcelona to facilitate Daen‘s release. in behalf of one client. few of which are:  whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and. Investigating Commissioner again required respondent to answer. 2003 (anton arcilla) NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court re: Disbarment. Barcelona declared that he was going to see a justice from the Supreme Court who could help the release of Daen. the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15. and to remove from the profession persons unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them. . . Wenceslao Barcelona to assist them. Reasoning The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself.Rule 15. FACTS . Muntinlupa. Daen was arrested by Muntinlupa police.‖ Disposition Guilty for violation of Rule 15.At a meeting in Max‘s restaurant. but despite due notice respondent fail to file his answer. as president ISSUE WON respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests (WON there was representation of conflicting interests) HELD Yes.January 26. an important criterion is probability.Barcelona continued to asked for money on several occasions. 1999 petitioner and Barcelona met at Putatan. Porfiro Daen as their attorney-in-fact. 1999.Barcelona asked for P50K to cause the release of Daen from prison the following day. at the same time. . lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become their client. ISSUE WON Barcelona should be disbarred or merely suspended HELD Ratio Wenceslao C. . Petitioner Felicitas Berbano is one of the heirs of REH. The heirs (including petitioner) approached Atty. as legal counsel. It requires lawyers to remain inviolate of the client‘s confidence and to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. In the process of determining whether there is a conflict of interest.That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. They have the right to decline such employment. as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. 1999.That he served in different capacities in two competing agencies does not justify the involvement in conflicting interests.While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case. he claims that he was made to believe that it was part of his function as counsel for AIB to handle even the ―personal cases‖ of its officers -that the ejectment case and replevin case were unrelated cases. . it is their duty to contend for something which duty to another client requires them to oppose. Petitioner never saw Barcelona since then. Barcelona failed to appear despite due receipt of notice. thus privileged information that may have been gathered from one case would have no use in the other -that he was never a silent partner in the security agency organized by Quiambao -that he serves AIB and the agency organized with Quiambao‘s brother in different capacities: in AIB. There are various tests in determining conflicting interests.Mr. September 23. .February 18. to oppose that claim for the other client  whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer‘s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty  whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment . Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: ―A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.A case was pending regarding a 244-hectare lot situated at Alabang. Petitioner gave him P10K and P15K on different times. Canon 15. . while in the latter. Muntinlupa. but did not show any documents supporting the claim. Page 58 of 203 . Petitioner also gave Barcelona P1000 for gasoline. .03. Daen has engaged the services of Atty. There Barcelona promised that he will return entire amount of P64 on February 18. owned by Rufino Estaban Hilapo. respondent is guilty Ratio Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when. Daen needed the assistance of a lawyer for his release.IBP Board of Governors found Barcelona guilty of malpractice and serious breach of the Code of Professional responsibility. Barcelona is barred from the practice of law for gross misconduct. and the heirs chose Atty. Upon a motion to declare respondent in default.

FACTS Melo (respondent) was hired as counsel by Licuanan (petitioner) in an ejectment case filed against her tenant. Melo.Respondent is guilty of culpable violations of the following Canons:  CANON 1—a lawyer shall xxx promote respect for law and for legal processes.In addition. instituted an administrative case against her (Aida Pineda) before the Chief of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society accusing her of "moral turpitude" arising from her alleged failure to pay the rent of her apartment as ordered by the City Court of Manila in Civil Case No.01—a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received fro or from the client.By his professional misconduct. he did not bother to inform or report to complainant about the said payments and instead unnecessarily retained the money -On April 27. By reason thereof complainant was compelled to file a groundless suit against her tenant for non-payment of rentals thereby exposing her to jeopardy by becoming a defendant in a damage suit filed by said tenant against her by force of circumstances. obtained judgment in Licuanan's favor against Pineda whereby the latter was directed by the City Court of Manila to pay Licuanan all her monthly rentals from October. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice.00 per month. February 9.Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither purely civil nor purely criminal.220.Barcelona was previously charged with and found guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer. and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made by her. 1979. Aida Pineda -On August 8. wounded feelings and social humiliation arising from the unfounded administrative case filed against her since as borne out by the records. the Judiciary has been besieged enough with accusations of corruption and malpractice. 1989 (apple maramba) NATURE Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. the new counsel retained by complainant. depriving her of its use.The court is constrained to find him guilty of deceit. . but explained that he kept this matter from the complainant for the purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals ISSUE WON the respondent is guilty of violating paragraph 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and breaching the Lawyer‘s Oath HELD Reasoning The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period. DEALING WITH TRUST PROPERTY The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client Money the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly. the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent. Ponciano B. He deserves the severest punishment. that he accounted for it -Respondent admitted having received the payment of rentals from complainant's tenant. Disposition Consistent with the crying need to maintain the high traditions and standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public faith in attorneys-at-law. she had been paying her obligation religiously to the lawyer of Licuanan . Atty. ― . the complainant herein. besmirched reputation. Manuel L. -Pineda continued paying her obligations religiously to Melo. not knowing that respondent had been receiving the rental payments of Pineda. Disbarment. . 1978 to February.  CANON 7—a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.00 received by him on behalf of his client. and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics particularly: ―11. 1980 at the rate of P180.  CANON 11—a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers xxx. besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. advising him to surrender the money to complainant. respondent decided to send her a letter demanding that she pay the monthly rental of her apartment otherwise he will be constrained to take the necessary legal action against her to protect the interest of his client . the amount of P5. She went to respondent's office and paid him P3. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character.060. respondent. for she allegedly suffered mental anguish. . His name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. as Licuanan's attorney. malpractice and gross misconduct in office. A member of the legal profession who invites mistrust on the judicial system with irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. .Pineda yielded to the demand of Melo. -During the entire twelve-month period that respondent had been receiving the said rental payments of Pineda. respondent has breached the trust reposed in him by his client. Jacinto. .It was only when Atty. when he misrepresented to the complainant that eh could secure the restructuring of the complainant‘s loan with PNB through his connection with a certain Mericullo (who did not really exist). and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used by him.  CANON 16—a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that ma come into his possession. covering the period between March 1980-January 1981. is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance. 037276 and claiming that she has ignored and refused to pay her just obligation -Pineda brought an action against Licuanan for damages before the then Court of First Instance of Manila. complainant.00 for rental payments for October. 1981. from the practice of law. wrote respondent a letter on May 4. 1978 and succeeding months thereafter. LICUANAN V MELO PER CURIAM. 1981. Page 59 of 203 .  Rule 16.LEGAL PROFESSION .When several months had elapsed without them hearing a word from Pineda. complainant was further compelled to engage the services of another counsel in order to recover the amount rightfully due her but which respondent withheld from her. He has shown himself unfit for the confidence and trust which should characterize an attorney-client relationship and the practice of law.

849-Q. 1971 and the cancellation of the mortgage executed by Alfonso Enriquez on July 18. he extended financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live with his family.As such. Go be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from receipt hereof and the IBP Chapter where he is a registered member be furnished a copy of the same for implementation hereof. Hernandez. respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his obligation and duty as complainant‘s legal adviser and counsel when he took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant in ultimately putting complainant‘s properties in his name and possession in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. depriving her of her real properties worth millions.It is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report to the complainant on how he paid complainant‘s creditors without selling her properties.In our Resolution dated September 24. . fear. 2004. respondent submitted a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint is premature since there is pending before the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City Civil Case No. 1141-A. 2005 (chris lao) NATURE Resolution of the verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. he convinced her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. Go. and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. in good faith. .The Report and Recommendation dated June 15. the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 1781 for recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of deeds of sale filed by complainant against him involving the subject lots.Instead of filing his comment.01. He averred that he sold.On January 17. . herein respondent. in view of the foregoing. her husband‘s numerous creditors demanded payments of his loans.It is evident from the records that respondent was the one who notarized the documents involving the said properties redeemed or repurchased by the complainant from her creditors which ended up in respondent‘s name like in the deed of sale executed by Victoriano Dejerano in favor of Nazaria Hernandez over Lots 1141-A-3-A and 1141-A-3-B. and social humiliation. On several occasions. the undersigned respectfully recommends that respondent Atty. 1975 filed by Nazaria S. WHEREFORE. When the mortgages fell due. Fearful that the various mortgage contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware of impending suits for sums of money against her. He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable consideration. Again. . report. He advised her to give him her land titles covering Lots 848-A. . 16. 1964 over the Tomas Claudio properties. . . Hernandez (now deceased) FACTS . . January 31. XVI-2004-39 adopting and approving the Report of Commissioner Navarro with modification in the sense that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law was increased from six (6) months to three (3) years. 2004 of Atty. likewise located in Zamboanga City. embarrassment. we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation.In his answer dated December 19. . and recommendation. respondent denied the allegations in the instant complaint. a fact also admitted by the respondent. . 1975.02 and 16. As a result.Both parties are from Zamboanga City. is quoted as follows: ―A careful examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties showed that all the properties of the complainant are presently owned by the respondent by virtue of several deeds of sale executed by the complainant in favor of the respondent without monetary consideration except Lot 849-D situated in Tomas Claudio which was returned by the respondent to the complainant on September 5. including himself. complainant‘s husband abandoned her and her son. . . Instead.On April 4. His children used to call her ―Lola‖ due to her frequent visits to his residence. Lydia A.On November 14. a mute proof of a lawyer-client relations between them. we issued a Resolution denying respondent‘s motion and requiring him to submit his answer. complainant engaged the legal services of Atty. and 1141-A. report. advised and gave solutions to complainant‘s legal problems and liabilities to her creditors and even requested her creditors for extension of time to pay complainant‘s accounts constitute practice of law as legal counsel for consultation aside from representing complainant in other cases.The foregoing legal activities and operations of the respondent in addition to his having discussed.On July 30. 1990. deed of sale executed by Antonio Masrahon on September 3. . Go dated June 23.LEGAL PROFESSION (Paragraph 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics referred to is reiterated in Rules 16. 1990 or after 13 years. 1975. Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. respondent redeemed the lots. we issued a Resolution referring the case to the IBP for investigation. which were mortgaged to her creditors. Luciano S. he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name.Complainant also owned Lots 2118.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated by the Supreme Court on 21 June 1988). 1974. then later on admitted that he was one of the purchasers of complainant‘s properties in utter disregard of their agreement and no evidence was submitted by the respondent concerning the value of the said sale of complainant‘s properties.Sometime in 1974.It was only on March 13. for valuable consideration. HERNANDEZ V GO PER CURIAM. subject to the approval of the Honorable Members of the Board of Governors. Shortly thereafter. . and recommendation. 1961regarding Lot No. Jr. 2139. he paid them out of his own funds. complainant came to know that respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon. . respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to complainant. 1977. complainant‘s lots to various buyers. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors. Jose C. Page 60 of 203 .The allegations in the letter-complaint are: Sometime in 1961. 1975. respondent was required to file his comment on the complaint. deed of absolute sale executed by Francisco Esperat over the Curuan properties on November 9.‖ . Jose C.Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness. Instead of selling to buyers at higher price. Navarro. 1 month and 26 days that the OSG filed a motion to refer the instant case to the IBP for the retaking of the testimonies of complainant‘s witnesses and the submission of its report and recommendation. . Jose C.

Thus. In Navarro vs. an attorney who extorted money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation. Francisco Ricafort FACTS . His name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.unlawful retention of client‘s funds . . by any standard. Clearly. Ratio With dishonesty. His acts of acquiring for himself complainant‘s lots entrusted to him are.Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court . GO is found guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession . Meneses III.Respect due to courts respondent chose to forget that by swearing the lawyer's oath. Ricafort. However. .” . December 22. and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit.000 from Businos supposedly for one of her Civil Cases when no such bond was required. with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. dishonest.Hence. Limson. Rayos. . But respondent failed to comply. grave misconduct. (3) gross misconduct in office. . honesty. we expelled from the brotherhood of lawyers. and an indispensable instrument in the fair an impartial administration of justice — a vital function of democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society. Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority.Code of Professional Responsibility . complainant could have earned more.Respondent required a bond of P2. she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots.000 by complainant Businos to deposit in the bank account of complainant‘s husband. (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. willful in character. an attorney was stripped of his license to practice law for misappropriating his client‘s money. immoral or deceitful conduct.000. BUSINOS V RICAFORT PER CURIAM. and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so. (4) grossly immoral conduct. had he sold the lots to other buyers. As correctly observed by Investigating IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro. He violated this Court‘s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves.Section 27. . 1997 (keefe dela cruz) NATURE Complaint for disbarment against Atty.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Obviously. (2) malpractice. a grievous wrong. believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors. and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession. for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money and later refused to return the same despite demand. respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty as complainant‘s counsel. and palpable disregard of: . (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.Canon 11 . grossly unethical behavior.The court required respondent to comment on the complaint time and again.Respondent Atty. .In Rayos-Ombac vs. (6) violation of the lawyer‘s oath. which amount respondent used for himself and delayed in payment. respondent is duty-bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold the latter‘s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors. ISSUE WON the 1-year suspension is commensurate sanction for the offenses committed by respondent Atty. which constitutes gross misconduct.Canon 17 of the same Code states: “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Ricafort was entrusted P30. Respondent. he became a guardian of truth and the rule of law. and integrity of the legal profession. As such. the principal source of ethical rules for lawyers in this jurisdiction.01 of Canon 1 . a dereliction in duty.The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and confidence in herein respondent. we have to modify its recommended penalty. that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. and referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant. respondent deserves the ultimate penalty. however. In Busiños vs. we find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light.LEGAL PROFESSION ISSUE WON the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility be sustained HELD Yes.Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.” . acts constituting gross misconduct.Respondent breached this Canon. a forbidden act. It bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client‘s financial plight to acquire the latter‘s properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity. we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal or failure to account for the P50.Considering the depravity of respondent‘s offense.The Office ordered respondent suspended for 1 year. Disposition Respondent JOSE S. that when she engaged his services.Rule 1. In Docena vs. Records show that she did not receive any amount from respondent. especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large. Page 61 of 203 . abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. . provides: “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. the court considered his right waived. Ricafort HELD NO. Businos filed a complaint for disbarment against Ricafort . Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. . .00 he received from a client to settle a case.

970.000. the sum of P2. Taruc to build on the reserved site a house for his residence and a training center for the Christian Social Movement. The officers of the Samahan thereafter approached Atty.00. the Colegio. Robinol by the officers. Santiago R. Following that advice. on the strength of the authority given him by plaintiffs in said civil case through the five officers. the five officers discovered that no payment had been made to Rivers. Martin went to one Maximo Rivera. 2. and on 2 June 1979. sold a land to the Quezon City Government as the site for the Quezon City General Hospital but reserved an area of 2. Robinol. the Samahan members hired as their counsel Atty. settled in the area since 1965 or 1966. thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed the case against Rivera. Robinol for refusal to return the P75. or a total of P75.Administrative Case No. equal to the portion that would pertain to each of them.To prosecute the appea in the CAl. Anacleto R. Father Federico Escaler. with the warning that a more severe penalty will be imposed for a repetition of the same or similar act. Montemayor formally entered his appearance in a civil case as counsel for the plaintiffs. Montemayor then filed on 20 March 1980 a Motion for Execution praying that the defendants and/or the Clerk of Court be directed to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs. His name is hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Luis Agawan. 21 out of 32 plaintiffs arrived at a "first consensus" to change their counsel. conveyance. issued the proper receipts prepared by Atty.On 20 March 1980.In 1972. Robinol should be suspended Page 62 of 203 .The Colegio de San Jose.00 was turned over to Atty. . Robinol filed a complaint for Disbarment against Atty. subject matter of the case.743 square meters as a possible development site. Robinol turned deaf ears to the demand. Atty. Atty. after he was shown the document containing the consensus of the Samahan members to change Atty. Robinol. Atty. At the hearing of the Motion for Execution. Congressman Taruc suggested to Father Escaler the idea of donating or selling the land cheap to the squatters. on 31 May 1979 the amounts of P1. Robinol for which the latter was paid P2.500. Montemayor. The Treasurer. through its administrator.030. et.00 respectively. with Bernabe Martin as President. Disposition Consistent with the urgent need to maintain the esteemed traditions and high standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public faith in the members of the Philippine Bar.After almost a year. When queried.500. dismissed the case. After confronting Atty. Robinol was also to be given by the members a part of the land. What was initially a verbal commitment on the land sharing was confirmed in writing.Administrative Case No. Robinol. through Father Escaler gave permission to Congressman Luis R.00 as attorney's fees on. In 1970. A subsequent letter of the same tenor was similarly disregarded by Atty. the latter gave other excuses. . .000. little by little. Montemayor readily accepted the case without his (Robinol's) formal withdrawal and conformity and knowing fully well that there was no consensus of all the plaintiffs to discharge him as their counsel.500. a realtor. Robinol manifested that he had no objection to the appearance of and his substitution by Atty. . Robinol a letter informing the latter of their decision to terminate his services and demanding the return of the P75. still questioned the first consensus. Congressman Taruc then advised the squatters to form an organization and choose a leader authorized to negotiate with Father Escaler.LEGAL PROFESSION Reasoning Respondent's transgressions caused dishonor. Santiago R. Atty. ISSUES 1. another document labelled the a second consensus" was signed by 21 plaintiffs during a meeting held for the purpose on 24 November 1980 to the effect that they had decided to change Atty. . Robinol as their counsel because he had delayed paying for their land notwithstanding the Decision of the Court of Appeals in their favor. however. who recommended: 1. P2. Robinol be suspended for three months for refusing to deliver the funds of the plaintiffs in his possession.000. Robinol replied that there was an intervention filed in the civil case and that a Writ of Execution bad not yet been issued by the CFI of Quezon City.961. Upon Atty. Robinol as their lawyer. be dismissed. Montemayor. FACTS . Robinol with that fact. which the officers discovered to have no basis at all. . The CFI.961. .But instead of working for the welfare of the Samahan. .000. Disbarment. however. 2180: Atty. Robinol.00 from each head of family. Robinol. with whom he connived to obtain the sale to the exclusion of the other Samaban members. . plus expenses for ejectment of the non-plaintiffs occupying the property. the Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.65 ordered paid by the Court of Appeals. 2144: On 15 April 1980 the Samahan officers filed this Administrative Complaint before this Court requesting the investigation of Atty. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the practice of law. since he has not committed any misconduct imputed to him by Atty. the sum of P68. The prevailing price of the land in the vicinity then was P1 00 to P1 20 per square meter. however.00 deposited with him.00. Montemayor's advice. AnacIeto R. the five officers of the Samahan collected. transfer of title etc. the squatters formed the "Samahang Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala".00 and praying that the Court exercise its power of discipline over members of the Bar unworthy to practice law. documentation.65. it turned out that the motion for intervention had already been dismissed. However. al. WON Atty. vice Atty.Court referred administrative cases to the Sol. but to the noble profession to which he belongs. Gen. Montemayor. QUILBAN V ROBINOL PER CURIAM. Robinol. That the case against Atty. Father Escaler had been made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters on the property. . April 10. Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters. for it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. The land was ultimately sold to Rivera at a cheap price of PI5 per square meter or a total consideration of P41. . the officers sent Atty.. Anacleto R.On 14 November 1978. That Atty.Because Atty. and that he be ordered to return to the plaintiffs. Atty.000. 1989 (sarah cabrera) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in the Supreme Court.To raise the amount of P41. not merely to respondent.On 6 March 1980. the Court resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. . Atty.00 and P2. who agreed to be their counsel. the sum of P75.On 18 May 1979. Squatters. Montemayor for alleged gross unethical conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in that Atty.00. . Atty.

500. Asserted that he acted in good faith as shown by the fact that he returned the documents with an explanatory letter and refunded complainant by issuing a personal check. Montemayor is concerned. the same is absolutely without merit. it was highly unjust for him to have done so.00. 2180 against Atty. The IBP Investigation Commissioner also recommended that he be ordered to repay his client within 90 days from receipt of notice and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. Anacleto R. Atty. which he alleges to be the monetary value of that area.Complainant Ruby Barnachea sought the services of respondent Atty. YES Reasoning Atty.Atty. we agree with the findings of the Solicitor General that he has not exposed himself to any plausible charge of unethical conduct in the exercise of his profession when he agreed to serve as counsel for the plaintiffs. Robinol against Atty. 5. Robinol has rendered himself unfit to continue in the practice of law. he is hereby declared to have forfeited his rights to attorney's fees and is ordered to return the amount of P75. They had painstakingly raised their respective quotas of P2.A formal investigation was conducted by IBP thereafter and it found that the complainant engaged the legal services of the respondent as admitted by respondent himself in his letter to the complainant. Edwin Quiocho.00 per family with which to pay for the land only to be deprived of the same by one who. In this case. respondent: 1.There is no doubt that clients are free to change their counsel in a pending case at any time (Section 26. that respondent was not able to meet his financial obligations due to financial difficulties and that he was in good faith in his failure. broken the fiduciary relation between lawyer and client. communication between both parties broke down. therefore.On Nov. In so far as the complaint for disbarment filed by Atty.000. BARNACHEA V QUIOCHO CALLEJO. Claimed to have discovered that the original copy of the transfer certificate of title had been burned and that complainant‘s copy therefore needed to be reconstituted before it can be cancelled and transferred. he has no home phone and that phone calls between him and complainant at his work place had been cute due to souring relationship with his co-workers. a task that a non-lawyer familiar with the procedure can perform. 2. . therefore.00 to the plaintiffs. .In his answer to the complaint. . in fact. heartlessly took advantage of them. Alleged that his failure was caused by his difficulty in making good the claimed amount. 3. is the conclusion that Atty. 1. Robinol had no right to unilaterally appropriate his clients' money not only because he is bound by a written agreement but also because. And that he had.Respondent failed to cause the transfer and consequently. Disposition . for loss of trust and confidence. Robinol has no basis to claim that since he was unjustly dismissed by his clients he had the legal right to retain the money in his possession. which he was duty-bound to pro. .The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner‘s recommendations with an additional sanction of reprimand.Atty. Firstly. Montemayor should be disbarred HELD 1. complainant demanded that she be refunded and that the documents she entrusted to respondent to cause the transfer be returned to her.000-00. tect. Respondent failed to comply with the demands. the plaintiffs in the civil suit below decided to change their lawyer. Robinol has. even if there were no valid ground.The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that complainants' evidence on this is the more credible. 280 through a personal check. he is bereft of any legal right to retain his clients' funds intended for a specific purpose-the purchase of land. . as respondent‘s mobile phone was stolen. been guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct that make him unworthy to continue in the practice of the profession. He has also brought the profession into disrepute with people who had reposed in it full faith and reliance for the fulfillment of a life-time ambition to acquire a homelot they could call their own. March 11. During this time. Respondent wrote complainant a letter saying he failed and that he would return the documents and the title entrusted to him as well as refund the P 41. NO Reasoning In so far as Atty. a lawyer who has stopped practicing for some time and was only in the second month of resuming practice. 280 payment but claimed they were for actual and incidental expenses and not for legal services 2. Atty. along with the fact that he was afflicted with diabetes and loss of sight of his right eye. Inevitable. 2003 (jat tabamo) NATURE Administrative matter. 2001. He stands obliged to return the money immediately to their rightful owners. after having seen the color of money. His clients were mere squatters who could barely eke out an existence. He however failed to fund the check despite the demands of complainant. He has not only violated his oath not to delay any man for money and to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients . WON Atty. . Rule 138. received the total sum of P75. Certainly. Received the P 41. Montemayor for disbarment is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 280 for the expenses for said transfer and for respondent‘s legal services. in fact. Breach of Lawyer-Client Relations FACTS . suddenly. and following up on the transfer. After the CA had rendered a Decision favorable to his clients and he had received the latter's funds. Page 63 of 203 . . Secondly. under the circumstances. His clients had lost confidence in him for he had obviously engaged in dilatory tactics to the detriment of their interests. there was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel.000. Rules of Court) and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. 4. . paying taxes and fees. Denied that complainant contracted his legal services. Montemayor is concerned. By reason of his unethical actuations. Claimed that he only agreed to help complainant with the condition that his task was merely to go through the regular process of presenting available documents. Santiago R.LEGAL PROFESSION 2. and proven himself unworthy to continue in the practice of law. She paid P 41. Robinol. Robinol is hereby DISBARRED for having violated his lawyer's oath to delay no man for money. he had a change of mind and decided to convert the payment of his fees from a portion of land equivalent to that of each of the plaintiffs to P50. to cause the transfer under her name the title over a property previously owned by her sister. That act was well within their prerogative.Administrative Case No.

During WWII.Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in the Barrio of General Luna. Isaias Batiller. directly or indirectly. Iloilo which he bought from his father-in-law. Even as he promised to fund his account with the drawee bank.280 within 10 days from notice. Francisco Militante sold to the plaintiff. the record of the case was lost. A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor. respondent intransigently refused to return to the complainant the amount of P 41.During the trial of this case on the merit.On August 31. both Rubias and Militante were declaring the land for taxation purposes . with the interest of his client. . It can easily be inferred from respondent‘s letter that he used complainant‘s money to alleviate if not solve his financial woes. who illegally entered said portions of the lot on two occasions — in 1945 and in 1959. Francisco Militante filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an application for the registration of the title of the land but was opposed by the Director of Lands. his title . Rubias. Ratio 3: The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate. he shall be meted an additional suspension of 3 months for every month or fraction thereof of delay until he shall have paid the said amount in full. respondent shall serve successively the penalty of his one year suspension and the subsidiary penalty. Neither did respondent adduce evidence that he had been sick with diabetes and had lost his sight in his right eye. He is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. RUBIAS V BATILLER TEEHANKEE. Francisco Militante in 1956 against its present occupant defendant. the plaintiff will prove by competent evidence the following: Page 64 of 203 .On April 22. He is also directed to restitute the complainant the full amount of 41. the registration was denied.280 which he received for the expenses for the transfer to her of the title of the property and for his professional fees. therefore. 1934 . Ratio 2: A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. he failed to refund the amount of P 41. respondent could have easily contacted the complainant at her residence or could have written her a letter informing her that the original copy of TCT No. In case a subsidiary penalty of suspension for his failure to restitute the said amount shall be necessary. and was registered in the Registry of Deeds . 280 and to return to complainant the deed of absolute sale and title over the property. a lawyer. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not utilized.Before WWII. which he caused to be surveyed on July 18-31. open and continuous possession since time immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question. Worse. respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him. In his answer with counter-claim defendant claims that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual. Domingo Rubias the land. 1973 FACTS . Even then. Unfortunately. the plaintiff filed forcible Entry and Detainer case against Isaias Batiller in the Justice of the Peace Court of Barotac Viejo Province of Iloilo .Soon after. Quiocho is found guilty of violating Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. is hard to believe. Respondent simply refused to adduce evidence to prove his allegations in his Answer to the complaint. respondent failed to do so when the check became due. 1960. despite demands of complainant. 1964. case law has it that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties Reasoning In this case. fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. municipality of Barotac Viejo province of Iloilo. the Director of Forestry and other oppositors. After the war. The conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way. Ratio 1: Respondent‘s claim that complainant did not retain his legal services flies in the face of his letter to complainant. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He failed to adduce a morsel of evidence to prove that his telephone at the business center was cut or that his mobile phone had been stolen. Francisco Militante petitioned this court to reconstitute the record of the case but in the end.He appealed but pending the decision (which was denied in the end). May 29.LEGAL PROFESSION ISSUE WON the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors corresponds to the gravity of the wrong committed by respondent HELD No. filed a suit to recover the ownership and possession of certain portions of lot located in Barotac Viejo. Reasoning The lawyer‘s failure to return the money of his client upon demand gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. Reasoning In this case. What compounded respondent‘s unethical conduct was his drawing of a personal check and delivering the same to complainant without sufficient funds in his bank account to cover the check. The Court finds that the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors is not commensurate to the gravity of the wrong committed by respondent. respondent failed to comply with his undertaking for almost two months. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Although the Court is led to believe that respondent‘s failure to cause the transfer of the title of the property under the name of complainant was due to a financial problem that beset him shortly after he received the checks from complainant. In this case. Respondent‘s claim that complainant could not contact him because he did not have any landline at his residence and that his mobile phone was stolen in October 2001. The profession. exacting and confidential character. . plaintiff Domingo D. His dishonest conduct was compounded by his interjection of flimsy excuses for his obstinate refusal to refund the amount to complainant Disposition Respondent Atty. must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. 324411 in the custody of the Register of Deeds was burned when the Quezon City Hall was gutted by fire and that there was a need for the reconstitution of said title.If respondent fails to restitute the said amount within the aforesaid period.

Yap Pongco sold this land to Francisco Militante as evidenced by a notarial deed (Exh." . Francisco Militante was the subject matter of LRC No. "J") which was registered in the Registry of Deeds on May 13. judicial officers and employees. of which Yap Pongco was the purchaser (Exh. 2 of the Psu-1552 it (Exh. reproduced supra. public. good customs. on Jan. . by virtue of Article 1409. by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property. (4) public officers and employees. He must. from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived. "1-1"). prosecuting attorneys. 1491. + (5) Justices. (See pp. clerks of superior and inferior courts. Record on Appeal. "I"). from the beginning. provincial Sheriff of Iloilo. 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code which reads: > Art. in the ownership and possession of the land in the year 1930. public order or public policy" or which are "expressly prohibited or declared void by law" and declares such contracts "inexistent and void from the beginning. "1").R. the late Francisco Militante over the property subject of Plan Psu-99791 was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his fatherin-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute HELD YES. and ruled that counsel is a lawyer and is presumed to know the law. 1965. on the other hand will prove by competent evidence during the trial of this case the following facts: > That lot No. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. > That Lot No. either in person of through the mediation of another: . No.Defendants. 32-35 Record on Appeal). . peaceful and continuous in the concept of an owner. 1940 (Exh. . The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (7) Those expressly prohibited by law. the property and rights of in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions. 1934. as to Page 65 of 203 . 1919 the land was sold at public auction by virtue of a judgment in a Civil Case entitled "Edw J. Liberato Demontaño Francisco Balladeros and Gregorio Yulo. The sale was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on August 4. therefore. the sale having been registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on February 10. and lawyers. the land remains in the possession of the defendant. > On September 22. Canto. defendants". or purpose is contrary to law. and (6) others especially disqualified by law. 1934 (Exh. judges. the lower court issued an order disclaiming plaintiffs complaint (pp. 1965. > That the alleged predecessors in interest of the plaintiff have never been in the actual possession of the land and that they never had any title thereto. defendant's counsel manifested in open court that before any trial on the merit of the case could proceed he would file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint which he did. 6 and that consequently. the subject of Free Patent application of the defendant has been approved. open.On August 17. consequently.Invoking Arts. 2. . with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. 695 filed in the CFI of Iloilo. . The public interest and public policy remain paramount and do not permit of compromise or ratification. alleging that plaintiff does not have cause of action against him because the property in dispute which he (plaintiff) allegedly bought from his father-in-law. 1409. the Court ordered the issuance of a writ of possession for the return of the land by the lawyer to the adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by him and other expenses. 69 (Exh. Record on Appeal). 1934 in favor of Yap Pongco (Exh. plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client could sell the same since as already shown above. 13497-R in which aforesaid case plaintiff was the counsel on record of his father-in-law. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase. "1-3"). Francisco Militante. "J-1"). . on the death of the former in 1920. (2) agents. have been well aware of the defect in his title and is. the permanent disqualification of public and judicial officers and lawyers grounded on public policy differs from the first three cases of guardians.LEGAL PROFESSION > That the land he purchased from Francisco Militante under Exh.nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite and permanent and cannot be cured by ratification. 1920. a possessor in bad faith.New Civil Code recognizes absolute nullity of contracts "whose cause. (3) administrators. Plaintiff strongly opposed defendant's motion to dismiss claiming that defendant can not invoke Articles 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code as Article 1422 of the same Code provides that 'The defense of illegality of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests are not directly affected' (See pp." .) In the aforesaid order of dismissal the lower court practically agreed with defendant's contention that the contract (Exh. Basilio Batiller. "A" was formerly owned and possessed by Liberato Demontaño but that on September 6.Defendant claims that plaintiff could not have acquired any interest in the property in dispute as the contract he (plaintiff) had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void.On October 18. object. and a definite Deed of Sale was executed by Constantino A.In a case. prosecuting attorneys. 19. and since then up to the present. > ART. exclusive of any other rights and adverse to all other claimants. paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or declared void by law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. . morals." as follows: (1) guardians.The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article 1491 paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code. 42-49. this prohibition includes the act of acquiring an assignment and shall apply to lawyers. Civil Code). ISSUES WON the contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law. Isaias Batiller succeeded his father . under Primary Entry No.Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons." . 22-31. even at a public auction. In his aspect. '5') was originally owned and possessed by Felipe Batiller. which case was brought on appeal to this Court and docketed as CA-G. agents and administrators (Article 1491. as his sole heir. his possession being actual. Psu 155241. grandfather of the defendant Basilio Batiller. Pflieder plaintiff vs. his client's claim to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no legal effect. A) between plaintiff and Francism Militante was null and void.

00 allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another P1. fraud. CANTILLER V POTENCIANO PER CURIAM. in which cases its validity shall be determined only by the circumstances at the time the execution of such new contract. and also with gross misconduct. introduced them to Potenciano. Potenciano asked for the remaining balance of the P2. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. Thus. Reasoning The acts of Potenciano in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. instead went to the Max's Restaurant where Potenciano ordered some food-including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be given to the judge who would issue the restraining order. the presiding judge asked Potenciano to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship. Pagalunan. when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153. Thus.000 which the former earlier gave to the latter.000 to cover the expenses of the suit. The ratification or second contract would then be valid from its execution. . Branch 57. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement.LEGAL PROFESSION whose transactions it had been opined that they may be "ratified" by means of and in "the form of a new contact. Potenciano stressed to the complainant the need and urgency of filing the new complaint. 1987 while the civil case for ejectment was decided by the MTC against her. Pasig. may have already become lawful at the time of the ratification or second contract. this letter was never answered and the money was never returned. no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained. on December 23. or the intention which could not be ascertained may have been clarified by the parties.000 as attorney's fee which the latter paid that same afternoon. Desperate and at a loss on what to do. December 18. . FACTS . Cantiller alleges that Potenciano promised her that the necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the judge who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend). Metro Manila for "reconveyance with damages. however. 1987. Cantiller gave her last money-a ten dollar ($10. 55118. product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass him. Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or Page 66 of 203 . the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed. 1987.000 which he earlier demanded. Potenciano informed complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with the RTC to enable them to retain possession of the apartment. . 1987 pursuant to the writ of execution issued in the civil case for ejectment. San Juan. However. 1987. was then pending before the RTC. Potenciano told complainant to prepare the amount of P10. withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. complainant lodged this administrative complaint against herein respondent.A petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment. 1987. it came to complainant's knowledge that there was really no need to make a deposit of P10.Potenciano in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases Nos. since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged cause of action founded thereon were being asserted against defendant-appellant. then. defendant in an action for "ejectment" before the MTC of Manila.Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Potenciano demanded from Cantiller P1. likewise involving Peregrina but this time as plaintiff. At this juncture. in turn." was prepared by Potenciano to forestall the execution of the order to vacate. For this purpose. Potenciano. However. Potenciano went to the house of Cantiller and asked her to be ready with P2.000. they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan on the matter. Another action. . He is charged with deceit. he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion.000 relative to Civil Case No. or the service which was impossible may have become possible. contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order. the lower court therefore properly acted upon defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss on the ground of nullity of plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land. poorly conceived. Cantiller and Peregrina were served a notice to vacate the rented premises within four (4) days from receipt of notice. ISSUE WON Potenciano is guilty if the charges against him HELD Yes. and misrepresentation. After such introduction.Sometime thereafter. 21862. complainant sent a demand letter to Potenciano asking for the return of the total amount of P11.Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V.On October 11. Hence. When the two cases were concluded.On October 8.000 which they immediately gave to Potenciano. Later Potenciano informed Cantiller and her sister that he could not locate the judge who would issue the restraining order. Humberto V." Both actions involve the apartment unit being rented by Cantiller and her sister.Complainant is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller. On October 26. and haphazardly composed" petition for annulment of judgment. the money was handed over to the respondent. 55118 and 55210 was done in good faith and that the allegations of complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all lies. 1989 (ricky cantre) NATURE Administrative complaint versus Atty.At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. Metro Manila. 55118 on October 30. ." . Potenciano. Branch 168. As a consequence. . it does not retroact to the date of the first contract. 1987. Cantiller and her sister were only able to raise the amount of P1. The causes of nullity which have ceased to exist cannot impair the validity of the new contract. Complainant and Peregrina raised the said amounts through the kindness of some friends and relatives. Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Order.As applied to the case at bar. etc. the parties "impliedly agreed" that Potenciano would handle their case. The civil case for reconveyance was ordered dismissed by the RTC on June 9. malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court. Cantiller was made to sign by Potenciano what she described as a "[h]astily prepared. The parties. 55210. In the afternoon of October 9.00) bill.000 to be given to another judge who will issue the restraining order in the ejectment case. Thus. . Potenciano. . a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. Peregrina came out the losing party. the object which was illegal at the time of the first contract. After another inquiry. Ratio When a lawyer takes a clients cause.

4/18/70: respondent prepared a complaint w/ Ramon. ADVERSE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTING INTEREST It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties. Apparently Potenciano was more interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a hopeless situation. He must have done research on the court records of CC No. he had to inform himself of the personal circumstances of defendant Sales -w/ this knowledge. Even assuming that Potenciano had no previous knowledge that he would be asked to withdraw. he had several interviews w/ Ramon and Norberto re: CC No. it was null and void since Ramon was insane and hence w/o capacity to sue) . is simply incredible. This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. That respondent will shoulder all expenses of litigation. Within the meaning of this canon.The actuations of respondent attorney violated Paragraphs 1 and 2. respondent will be paid 50% of the value of the property recovered. 55118 Potenciano already filed a motion therein withdrawing as complainant's counsel interposing as reason therefore his frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids. Indeed. Despite such prior knowledge. 9559. 9559 and concealing the fact that he had been the former legal counsel of Sales .YES because: 1. The Court finds that Potenciano failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. it is his duty to contend for that which duty Page 67 of 203 . This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court. 9559).8/21/73: defendant Sales filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action had prescribed . 6.000 was given to him as fee for his services. Potenciano failed to find a replacement.Jalandoon claims he only discovered his previous professional relationship with Sales during the pre-trial on Oct. does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. Disposition Court finds Atty. No. such amount is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered. Having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant Potenciano should have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. to the bar or to the public. 1972 ISSUE WON Jalandoon is guilty of non-disclosure to client of adverse or conflicting interest HELD . the record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. Instead he pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious. 4963 because Alisbo failed to file a motion for execution of judgment in his favor w/in the reglementary 5year period. he also serves the ends of justice. For CC No.000 with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is actually returned. And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of complainant all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that Potenciano does not deserve to remain as an officer of the court. Potenciano be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law. on the same day. Before filing the complaint. As attorney's fees. in behalf of one client. 55118 and 55210 appear to be poorly prepared and written.10/3/73: the CFI of Negros Occidental dismissed the case on the ground of prescription (though Ramon filed the complaint w/in the ten-year prescriptive period. Humberto V.12/8/71: an amended complaint was filed w/ Ramon. signed by Atty. Despite this void. The salient provisions of the Contract for Professional Services (Exhibit A) between Alisbo and Attorney Jalandoon were the following: 1. The allegation of Potenciano that the P10. he should have declined employment by Alisbo due to conflict of interest . a lawyer represents conflicting interests when. Worse still he got P10. Complainant reposed full faith in him. Pablo alone (10 years after final judgment) .3/16/70: Ramon Alisbo engaged respondent Atty. Potenciano took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client. Teotimo.1/2/74: complainants charged Jalandoon w/ having deliberately caused the dismissal of CC No. Jalandoon as his counsel in an action to recover his share of the estate of the deceased sps Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma w/c had been adjudicated to him under the judgment of CC No.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. and 3. He did not even ask complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead. Respondent is ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of P11. July 18.000. The little time involved is no excuse. and any interest in or connection with the controversy. and eight others as plaintiffs. he withdrew it and replaced it with a complaint w/ Ramon as sole plaintiff and Teotimo and Pacifico impleaded as defendants w/c respondent and Atty. his judicial guardian Norberto. Pablo signed as counsel . 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide: 6. That circumstance explains the public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability. 4963 2. Potenciano had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No. That respondent will decide whether or not to file a suit for the recovery of Ramon Alisbo's share 2. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. which might influence the client in the selection of counsel. He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to "buy" the restraining order in the other.LEGAL PROFESSION defense of his client's cause. and Pacifico Alisbo as plaintiffs and Carlito Sales as defendant signed by him alone (CC No. 1991 (kiyo miura) FACTS . . except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. ALISBO V JALINDOON GRINO-AQUINO. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests. 4963 3.

At the auction sale. 1991 (rean balisi) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil case. a former classmate of respondent. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: "(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence. however. 1971. July 30. Faustino Tugade. It appears then that Atty. When the adverse parties Soriano and Leonido filed a motion for reinvestigation of their case against herein complainants.Respondent. Tugade violation of subparagraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20. 1987.) -Jalandoon had delayed the filing of CC No. had been complainants‘ (Fulgencio. of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3. Ngayan noted a paragraph which did not mention Leonido was with Soriano when both suddenly barged into complainants' residence. Castro‘s property subject of the case. they 4 Section 20. instead asking the court to resolve the pending incidents in CC No. Respondent was subsequently discharged by complainants as counsel.LEGAL PROFESSION to another client requires him to oppose. 14-15. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court FACTS . Apolo P.On January 8. Chang for $320. IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW TINGA. "(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witnesses. violative of the first part of paragraph (f). Gaminda. Tugade to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to be filed against Mrs.The Superior Court of Guam suspended Atty. [a] Respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and Rowena Soriano advancing facts prejudicial to the case of his former clients demonstrates clearly an act of offensive personality against complainants. Further. Thereafter.Jalandoon alleges to have only found out about Ramon‘s incapacity on July 17. Edward Benavente. it was rendered wholly defective and ineffectual in stopping the prescriptive period . it was found out that herein respondent attorney was also a lawyer of the brother of Robert Leonido in an insurance company. Maquera served as Castro‘s counsel in said case.‖ However. Without thoroughly reading the same. Mrs. entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter.00. 2004 (monch bacani) FACTS .C. . Ngayan allegedly signed it because she was rushed to do the same. Atty. Maquera exercised Castro‘s right of redemption by paying Benavente $525. concluded that although the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct. February 7. Rules of Court. The right of redemption could be exercised by paying the amount of the judgment debt within the aforesaid period. 4963. Violation of subparagraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20. was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 9559. After signing. then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client‘s case. . in consideration of Maquera‘s legal services in the civil case involving Benavente. Benavente purchased Castro‘s property for $500. later when it had prescribed Disposition It was more than simple negligence.5 and 1. The first complaint w/ Ramon and his brothers was only partially defective due to Ramon‘s insanity. It was in violation of Rules 1. retained the right of redemption over the property for one year. Mrs. Maquera had the title to the property transferred in his name. (pp. unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged" Page 68 of 203 .S. Likewise.On August 6. Soriano and Leonido presented Ngayans‘ first affidavit which contained herein respondent‘s omission. Rate 138. Tomasa A. .The IBP on the other hand. to preserve the secrets of his client. Complainants asked Atty. This was allegedly made by Atty.000. and at every peril to ISSUE himself.00 . the creditor of a certain Castro.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt. 1988. NGAYAN V TUGADE PER CURIAM. Rule 138. 1988. Ngayan allegedly told respondent about his omission and in front of her. Chang and C. Tugade submitted an affidavit to the Court favorable to the cause of Soriano and Leonido. Section 20. the Court found respondent guilty of serious misconduct and infidelity and was suspended for a period of 2 years. Atty Tugade crossed out the paragraph she complained about and promised to make another affidavit. . 1987. After discharging respondent they found out that the name of Robert Leonido was not included in the charge. Mrs. Castro.4 Simply put. the amount which Castro was adjudged to pay him. whether he failed to uphold the trust and confidence conferred to him by his clients HELD YES. by making Ramon the sole plaintiff in the second complaint. and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval. Maquera sold the property to C. Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized entry into complainants' dwelling. respondent's act of joining the adverse parties in celebrating their victory over the dismissal of the case against them shows not only his bias against the complainants but also constitutes a degrading act on the part of a lawyer. [b] Respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful order. Mosquera from the practice of law for 2 years as he acquired his client‘s property as payment for his legal services.8(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in Guam.On December 31. Solicitor General's Report. he only amended the complaint impleading his guardian as plaintiff 5 months . Tomasa and Bella Aurora Ngayan) counsel for a number of cases prior to this complaint.On December 21. It was meant only to titillate the anger of complainants. a parcel of land. This omission was however remedied by their new counsel. WON Atty. Rules of Court. . Castro. ―there is no evidence to establish that he committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines.

a gas stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyer‘s acquisition by assignment of the client‘s property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year or until he shall have paid his membership dues. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. However. Jose A.The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 is founded on public policy because. Camano and Atty. . WON Atty. ISSUES 1. owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. . Inocentes for exercising command responsibility. He informed Atty. Reasoning Atty. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow complainant to remain at the apartment. Camano. ISSUE WON Maquera‘s acts in Guam constitute as grounds for suspension in the Philippines HELD Yes. Camano. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. the advice given by Atty. Atty. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: ―The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated. Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. Such transaction falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491. including awarded attorney‘s fees and costs of suit. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying.Complainant‘s sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Unquestionably. by virtue of his office. It appears that she left for the States and her apartment was used by members of her family. For the meantime.01. Reasoning Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension‖ . The judgment.The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired his client‘s property by exercising the right of redemption previously assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal services. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. whichever comes later. Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. WON Atty. Camano on the latter‘s dealings with complainant. Inocentes referred him to Atty.Mosquera‘s acts are violative of a lawyer‘s sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients. Camano‘s advice. Disposition Atty. 2. . YES Ratio An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. . They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. SOLATAN V INOCENTES TINGA. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2.Section 27.Atty. an verbal agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister. It should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.Complainant was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. specifically. . Canon 17 and Rule 1. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. August 9. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION suspended him indefinitely for failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP. However. paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Inocentes.Complainant failed to make any other payment. Oscar Inocentes. . Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty.complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Under Article 1492. . YES Ratio His failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. Camano representing half of the attorney‘s fees. As name practitioner of the law office. the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments. Inocentes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD 1. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally Page 69 of 203 . Mosquera is required to show cause within 15 days why he should not be suspended or disbarred. Atty. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Acting on Atty. complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. the prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. 2005 (jonas azura) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court FACTS .

This is not the only case wherein in dealing w/ the court‘s orders. Petitioners' Claim . The complainants contend that due to respondent‘s inaction. It is a matter of public interest. .But inspite of the CA‘s tirade on his professional competence.Nov. intended to use in operating a restaurant. . LEGARDA V COURT OF APPEALS PER CURIAM. Atty. Nonetheless. 1992 (ajang pineda) FACTS .The lower court then rendered a decision by default leaving Legarda on the losing end. the lower court issued a TRO enjoining Victoria Legarda and her agents from stopping the renovation of the property. Page 70 of 203 . ―a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. who simply failed to file the answer in behalf of the defendant. he was made to believe that it was made by a non-lawyer. Camano is affirmed. honest.03. Once again. . he lost the opportunity to present his cause and ultimately.Atty. complainant categorically admitted that plaintiffs were the declared owners for taxation purposes of the land involved in the case .the court thereafter ordered the parties to submit their affidavits and position papers w/in 10 days from receipt of order – but the respondent failed to do so. Coronel appears to exhibit a pattern of negligence. the 2nd motion was denied ISSUE WON Atty. but his motion was denied . When found out that it was actually made by lawyer. Then another 30-day extension. but he was denied. . Sanction on Atty. inattention to his obligations as counsel.Dec. Coronel did not lift a finger to file a motion for reconsideration.LEGAL PROFESSION responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. However. It said. Colorado was negligent thus violating Canon 18 of the Professional Code of Responsibility HELD Yes. Not filed in time. The RTC directed the parties to file their memoranda. sloppiness and superciliousness. Patrosenia Endaya. June 10. 13.He filed for another 30-day extension. respondent appeared as counsel. The courts original decision was reversed and set aside.The court then required Atty. Legarda was not able to file her answer within the 10 days given so she was declared in default. neither did he initiate moves towards an appeal on the decision which was adverse and prejudicial to his client.He filed an urgent motion for extension of 10 days which was granted by the court. The complaint was filed by Apolonia Hornilla. Wilfredo Oca for violation of the lawer‘s oath and for professional delinquency or infidelity FACTS .Thereafter.At the continuation of the preliminary conference.respondent denies this and stresses that he was not the original counsel of the couple .‖ .Thereafter.The plaintiffs appealed the decision. In Imelda Marcos vs PCGG. strict compliance w/ one‘s oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative. ―It is our belief that this case is one of pure and simple negligence on the part of the defendant‘s counsel.Victoria Legarda was the defendant in a complaint for a specific performance with damages filed by private respondent New Cathay House Inc (NCHI). At a time when strong disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession. Disposition Petition granted. Antonio Coronel of the Coronel Law office entered his appearance as counsel for Legarda. the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the real parties in interest . an ordinary business proposition. the complainant filed this administrative issue for professional delinquency consisting of his failure to file the required pleadings. The profession is not synonymous w.Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. During the conference. above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing w/ their clients. 2003 (ajang pineda) NATURE A complaint filed by Artemio Andaya against Atty. it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court to file an amended answer bec. Coronel to show cause w/in 10 days from notice why he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions w/c resulted in grave injustice to petitioner. the CA found the petition unmeritorious and dismissed it. Atty. Atty.a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Endaya and his spouse. Thus the CA decision became final. As prayed for in the complaint. respectable.‖ . 1991 . Inocentes is admonished with the warning that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely. the case itself Respondents' Comments . Upon appeal.Victoria Legarda then got a new lawyer and won the case. . A preliminary conference was conducted w/c the couple attended w/o counsel. September 3. the respondent failed to do so. .Lawyers should be fair. he also moved for the amendment of the answer previously filed by the couple. 7. ENDAYA V OCA TINGA. he asked the court to relieve him as the couple‘s counsel. 1991 – the Endaya couple filed their answer which was prepared by a certain Isaias Ramirez. the complainant couple sought services of the public attorney‘s office in Batangas City wherein the respondent attorney was assigned to handle the case .he avers that when he agreed to represent complainant at the continuation of the preliminary conference in the main case.Having lost the case. The complaint is aimed at compelling Victoria Legarda to sign a lease contract involving her house and lot which Cathay House Inc. . Colorado violated Canon 18 which states that ―A lawyer shall serve his client w/ competence and diligence‖ specifically Canon 18. thereby paving way for the presentation of evidence ex parte . Pedro Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez . the court imposed a fine on him after he was found guilty of negligence Ratio .

April 27. As for the alleged failure of the respondent to all her documents to complainant Pasion. FACTS . of which Abay is a stockholder.The lawyer‘s oath embodies the fundamental principles that guide every member of the legal fraternity. Blanza pardoning respondent cannot prejudice complainant Pasion because res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. His failure to immediately return them was due to complainants‘ refusal to hand him money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents. With his resolution not to file the pleadings already firmed up. for 6 long years in their pension claims. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. Sol Gen feels that respondent deserves at least a severe reprimand considering 1) his failure to attend to complainants pension claims for 6 years. ISSUE WON Atty.Much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law because they have a duty not only to their clients but also to the court. he volunteers his professional services. the documents and their photostats were actually returned by respondent during the fiscal‘s investigation with him paying for the photostating costs himself. After 6 years they finally asked respondent to return the said documents but the latter refused. Upon their refusal to co-operate.Motion for Reconsideration of the judgment of dismissal was denied by the trial court Page 71 of 203 . 2003 NATURE Original Proceeding in the Supreme Court. maintain respect to the legal profession. Respondent‘s explanation for the delay in filing the claims in returning the documents has not been controverted by complainants. Moreover. Abay charges Atty. . Raul T. the affidavit of Mrs. hired Montesino as counsel in an action for ―Cancellation of Title of Ownership. From it springs the lawyer‘s duties and responsibilities that any infringement thereof can cause his disbarment. Recovery of Ownership and Possession and Damages with Preliminary Injunction‖ against the estate of Vicente T.June 21.Negros Institute of Technology (NIT). 1967 (javi bautista) NATURE Original Proceeding in the Supreme Court. On the contrary. soldiers.Fiscal found respondents explanation satisfactory and recommended the respondents exoneration.November 3. perforce. Disciplinary action. . But failure to do so per se is a violation of Rule 18. Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal standard. they admitted that respondent asked them to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did not give him any money. Montesino with gross negligence. The lawyer‘s diligence and dedication to his work and profession not only promote the interest of his client. As a man of law. And although we voted that he not be reprimanded. both P. in a legal sense. 2) his failure to immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him. they noticed that respondent lost interest and no progress was made. 1995 . it likewise help attain the ends of justice by contributing to the proper and speedy administration of cases.The respondent did not submit the affidavits and position paper when required by the MCTC. After which.He also asserts that he purposely did not file a rejoinder believing in good faith that it wasn‘t anymore necessary ISSUE WON Atty. complainants are partly to blame. Disciplinary action. he did not bother to inform the MCTC of his resolution in mockery of the authority of the court . let this be a reminder to Atty. . Atty.Respondent‘s stubborn and uncaring demeanor surfaced again when he did not file a rejoinder to complainant‘s reply Ratio . . December 4. allegedly all of her documents. Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen profession require of him.Eduardo T. September 5. Neither she nor her counsel of record appeared.LEGAL PROFESSION .The facts and circumstances in this case indubitably show respondent‘s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer BLANZA V ARCANGEL BENGZON. Galo . 1995 . FACTS .03 . . the former denies this. he had already advanced the expenses himself and turned over the documents to the fiscal. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in connection with the death of their husbands. They handed Arcangel pertinent documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers. be par excellence. Thus.C. especially so when.Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client w/ competence and diligence . the Curt refused to take disciplinary action against respondent due to lack of clear preponderance of evidence substantiating the accusations against him. he is necessarily a leader of the community looked up to as a model citizen.RTC dismissed the civil case. Oca (respondent) violated the lawyer‘s oath through his professional deliquency HELD Yes.‖ ABAY V MONTESINO PANGANIBAN. His conduct must. 1955. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasance HELD No. Hence. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait and hope. However. gross incompetence and evident bad faith. to the bar and to the public.Nevertheless the Court also stated that ―we cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of the bar. suspension or other preliminary action . and 3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion. 2002 . as in this case.His failure to file the affidavits did not prejudice his clients for the court nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to them. he should have terminated their professional relationship rather than keep them hanging. Anyway. Complainant Pasion had another opportunity to substantiate her charges in a hearing but she let it go. Upon questioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was referred by the Solicitor General respondent admitted having received the documents but explained that it was for photostating purposes only.On April. in violation of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar .

the latter expressed the wish to continue the appeal > should have given due importance to the decision of his client to avail of a legal remedy available to it under the legal system 3.Although Montesino filed a Notice of Appeal with CA. 2002) that 1. Any conduct found wanting in these considerations. pending appeal. This is not to mention the fact that a total of 120 days extension. he felt that to pursue the appeal would be ―dilatory. CA dismissed the appeal with the following admonition: “We made a warning in our Resolution dated as early as October 20. and that he had a cavalier attitude towards the cause of his client. effective upon receipt of this Decision. The lawyer advised the client to abandon the appeal and to consider the other available remedies but the client wanted to pursue it.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Montesino admits that after he advised NIT and herein complainant on the futility of pursuing the appeal. we directed. they must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause. 2003 – IBP Report by San Juan found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility because: 1. Reasoning . recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months. Feeling that he was ―unjustly adamant‖ in wanting to do so. 1989 NATURE Appeal by certiorari to review the judgment of the IAC FACTS . Indalecio CASASOLA in a case involving a contract with a building contractor named Norman Page 72 of 203 . the legal profession.The legal profession is invested with public trust. over and above the 45-day reglementary period. Raul T. Rules 18. expensive.The conduct of shows that he failed to exercise due diligence.We emphasize that all lawyers owe fidelity to their client‘s cause.03 . shall subject them to disciplinary action. he failed to submit an appellant‘s brief and in March 19. John QUIRANTE is the counsel of Dr. memoranda or briefs. he should have properly withdrawn his appearance and allowed the client to appoint another lawyer. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. the appellate court noted that respondent failed to file the appellant‘s brief despite being granted several extensions of time to file it. Disposition Atty. Regardless of their personal views. 1998. January 31. 1999.LEGAL PROFESSION . He therefore violated Rule 12. he discovered that the property that it was seeking to recover had been the subject of another case which was a result of the overlapping transfers of rights effected by the heirs of Vicente Galo 2.Atty. The abandonment by the former of the latter‘s cause made him unworthy of the trust that his client reposed in him. frivolous and taxing to the precious time of the CA and it was wise to advise the stockholders of the NIT to abandon the appeal and instead file appropriate Complaints against Grandea. had already been granted …We cannot see any reason why the court‟s admonishing for a limited time to do compliance does not apply to this case now before Us. he still faithfully performed his duty during the entire time he served as its counsel . Failure of respondent to file the appellant‘s brief was a clear violation of his professional duty to his client . the dismissal of the appeal.The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. They must perform their four-fold duty to society. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so . 1998 that no further extension will be entertained. QUIRANTE V INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT REGALADO. on January 8. why did he request from CA numerous extensions of time to file 2. et al to recover NIT‘s claimed properties 3.Client and lawyer disagreed on the legal course to be taken regarding the appealed case. Montesino is found guilty of negligence and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings.Montesino allegedly abandoned the appeal without the knowledge and consent of the NIT and supposedly never told NIT that its appeal had already been dismissed thus the complaint . . . Its goal is to render public service and secure justice for those who seek its aid.” . complainant was unjustly adamant in his demand to continue with the appeal despite legal advice and since he sincerely felt that the best way to protect the rights of NIT was to file appropriate complaints. . .Abay attributes the failure of Montesino to submit the brief to the latter‘s gross negligence and evident bad faith .03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.April 24. Even if respondent was ―honestly and sincerely‖ protecting the interests of complainant. with a warning that a harsher penalty would be meted out for a similar infraction in the future ISSUE WON pursuing methods not according to the client‘s wish and consent deserves sanction HELD YES and SC agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. not able to justify his failure to file the brief. he allowed the period to submit NIT‘s Appellant‘s Brief to lapse 4. although NIT did not pay his legal fees or reimburse him for his expenses. Precisely because of non-submission of the Brief.03 and 18. > if respondent actually believed it was futile to pursue the appeal. the courts and their clients in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession. Rule 18.Moreover. which mandates that lawyer shall not. the lawyer contrary to the desire of the client deemed it wise to abandon the appeal without informing his client and not filing an appellant‘s brief is prejudicial because such failure could result in the dismissal of the appeal. whether in their professional or private capacity.Montesino answered (October 29.04 specifically provide: Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client‟s request for information.If indeed respondent felt unable or unwilling to continue his retainership. the former still had no right to waive the appeal without the latter‘s knowledge and consent.

but she could not remember when she gave those amounts. wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant. not of his counsel. 1987. Respondent did not pay those loans.00 bond. 1989 NATURE Administrative case in the Supreme Court. the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services. SOLICITOR-GENERAL‘S REPORT: Evidence for Complainant . upon the theory that the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case in which the services of counsel have been rendered. Casasola.00 surety bond. or in a separate action. not his counsel. Casasola also sued PHILAMGEN. Although she offered to execute a document evidencing their lawyer-client relationship. complainant Hilaria Tanhueco filed before the Court a petition for Disbarment against respondent Justininao G. exemplary damages. In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120. the Court may pass upon said claim. Secondly. and the IAC. The case was then elevated to SC and is now still pending. . with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors. (During this period. the determination of the propriety and amount of attorney‘s fees should be held in abeyance. RTC also denied MFR filed by the opposing party.LEGAL PROFESSION GUERRERO.000. (B). 2. Also. This is especially true given the subsequent developments in the civil case against Guerrero and PHILAMGEN: On May 21. CASASOLA died.00. TANHUECO V DE DUMO PER CURIAM.) . which agreement was allegedly confirmed in writing by the widow. John C. But the IAC reversed the decision of RTC (IAC granted petition for certiorari filed CASASOLA heirs. Disbarment. Inc.‖ Disposition Decision of IAC is affirmed except for the portion which holds that the alleged confirmation to attorney's fees should not adversely affect the non-signatories thereto.Complainant secured the legal services of respondent to collect indebtedness from her different debtors.Complainant also declared that respondent borrowed from her P2. and b) refusal to return documents entrusted to him as counsel of complainant in certain collection cases. the attorney's fees of the undersigned counsel (Atty. 1982. Here. Dante Cruz.00.June 18.00 and P3. Page 73 of 203 . . petitioners chose to assert their claims in the same action. Mely Garcia and Virginia Nazareno. ―The orderly administration of justice dictates that such issue be likewise determined by the trial court inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the same contingencies in determining the propriety and assessing the extent of recovery of attorney's fees. amount of surety bond.‖ ISSUES 1.) Hence. Petitioners’ Claims .000. liquidated damages. what is being claimed here as attorney's fees by petitioners is different from attorney's fees as an item of damages provided for under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. . it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of I. and the two daughters of the deceased.The attorney's fees would then be computed as follows: (A).However. and the litigant. It ordered Guerrero and Philamgen to pay actual damages. leaving his widow and several children as survivors. 1975. there is the assumption that the court trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature and extent of the lawyer's services.Also.In filing the motion for confirmation of attorney's fees. WON IAC correctly ruled that the alleged confirmation of attorney's fees would not be binding on all heirs HELD 1. FACTS .300. April 25. If the first alternative is chosen.Philamgen brought the case to the appellate court. 1983. NO Reasoning This decision is also pre-emptive of factual and evidentiary matters that may be presented for consideration by the trial court. It also denied MFR filed by Philamgen on Nov 4. the alleged confirmation of attorney's fees will not and should not adversely affect the nonsignatories thereto. who failed to perform his part of the contract within the period specified. Hence the award of damages may be premature. and attorney‘s fees (P30T). . which was granted by the RTC. on May 4. de Dumo for having violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by his a0 refusal to remit her money collected by him from debtors of the complainant. is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by execution.000. QUIRANTE filed this appeal by certiorari in the SC. Reasoning Since the main case from which the petitioner's claims for their fees may arise has not yet become final. de Casasola. Asuncion Vda. moral damages.Oct 16. Quirante) shall be P30.) which acted as bondsman for Guerrero.On February 24.―Firstly. Obiter Counsel's claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services in question have been rendered. P1. the supposed contract alleged by petitioners as the basis for their fees provides that the recovery of the amounts claimed is subject to certain contingencies. Casasola with regard to his attorney's fees. Dr. dismissed petition for quashal of the writ of execution. IAC’s ruling . She nonetheless offered to give him 15% of what he may be able to collect from the debtors. This is also a proper remedy under our jurisprudence.000.000. In case of recovery of the P120. 1981 – RTC Manila ruled in favor of CASASOLA by rescinding the contract. there is still pending in the Supreme Court a petition which may or may not ultimately result in the granting to the Casasola family of the total amount of damages given by RTC. even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed by law for the jurisdiction of said court. (The Philippine American General Insurance Co. assuming that the grant of damages to the family is eventually ratified. WON confirmation of attorney‘s fees is premature 2. the SC rendered judgment setting aside the May 1983 decision of IAC. YES Ratio An attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court. . . Atty. 1983 – QUIRANTE filed a motion for the confirmation of his attorney‘s fees. The issue over attorney's fee only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid. Quirante and Atty. respondent told her that it was not necessary. Dr. .There was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr.00 on three separate occasions.

With respect to Manosca. it was explained that the principle that courts should reduce stipulated attorney‘s fees whenever it is found under the circumstances of the case that the same is unreasonable is deeply rooted in this jurisdiction.00 less fifteen percent thereof) or a net amount of P10. the Court does not agree) ISSUES 1. in respondent‘s words. .000. the attorney‘s fees that respondent is entitled to in respect of collection cases here involved shall be an amount equivalent to fifteen percent of the total amount collected by respondent from the debtors in those cases. Reasoning When respondent withheld and refused to deliver the money received by him for his client.000. complainant herein. and given her desire to realize debts owed to her before death took over. the complainant. Notwithstanding subsequent demands of complainant for the money.‖ Under this scheme.00 .. because comlainant filed a complaint against him.00 initial payment of Manosca.000. the P12. Jr. the deceased complainant Hilaria Tanhueco. he shall promptly account Page 74 of 203 . and that respondent also borrowed some amounts from her.Respondent denied having borrowed the amounts of P2. does not relieve him from his duty to promptly account for the moneys received. What evidence he had were all gathered by him on his initiative. into distrusting him.00. the fees should be subject to judicial control. conclusive evidence to support them. A lawyer is primarily a court officer charged with the duty of assisting the court in administering impartial justice between the parties. Evidence for Respondent .Both respondent and complainant admit of an attorney-client relationship between them.Undoubtedly. respondent‘s failure to account for the P12.00 although the debt was only P12. The initial payments made by these judgment-debtors were all given to complainant. and turn over the remaining balance to the complainant.000. he terminated his relationship with complainant and demanded his attorney‘s fees equivalent to 50% of what he had collected. he did not also turn over to her the P12.200. she would easily succumb to the demands of respondent attorney regarding his attorney‘s fees. or applied.00.Respondent filed cases against her debtors and that one of them. He also denied having received documentary evidence from the complainant. such allegations have no factual basis. or that the compensation is clearly excessive. ―penniless. Tipace and Leonila Mendoza. . deduct his attorney‘s fees due in respect of the amount actually collected by him.00 and P1. Findings and Recommendation . WON respondent violated Canon 13 (now Canon 20) regarding attorney‘s fees. respondent had refused to give her the amount.300. P1.000. The contingent fee here is grossly excessive.000.000. and hence.00 to respondent.Complainant indeed secured services of respondent to collect from her debtors.It is recommended that respondent be severely reprimanded and admonished that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Manosca.LEGAL PROFESSION . complainant confronted respondent but the latter denied having received payment from any of her debtors.00 from judgmentdebtor Constancia Manosca.Respondent also admitted having received P12. 2) Ratio Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. and 2) attorney‘s fees charged to the defendant and ―not to be included in the computation. Disposition WHEREFORE. If he has in fact made any other collections from deceased complainant‘s debtors. with the agreement that he gets 50% of what he may be able to collect.000.As regards the charges that respondent received documents evidencing the debts to complainant and had refused to return them to the latter. representing payment of the judgment-debt of Manosca constitutes unprofessional conduct and subjects him to disciplinary action. Respondent estimated his attorney‘s fee due from complainant in the amount of P17.‖ She was already 76 yrs. respondent obtained a judgment for P19. Ultimately. . pointing out that complainant did not even have money to pay him so that he handled the cases for her on contingent basis. respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys‘ oath and of serious professional misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with. paid P12. Complainant refused to pay him. Morena. and was able to obtain favorable judgment in the cases against Manosca. But when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition. there is no competent. Reasoning Respondent claimed that he charged complainant. respondent was actually collecting as attorney‘s fees more than half of the total amount due from defendant debtors.500. who were also her friends.Respondent also declared that complainant was influenced by her debtors. and 4. .00. In the present case. which he considered. Constancia Manosca. respondent shall return to the estate of complainant Hilaria Tanhueco any documents and papers received by him from the deceased complainant in connection with the collection cases for which he was retained. . his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.000. 2. Complainant then brought the matter to the attention of Malacanang which referred her to Camp Crame. respondent shall return forthwith to the estate of complainant Hilaria Tanhueco. (To this recommendation. Perforce. and others. In Mambulao Lumber Company v PNB. WON respondent violated Canon 11 (now Canon 16) regarding trust of client‘s moneys 2. HELD 1) Ratio Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his client. And there is reason to believe that fraud was committed –complainant was an old and sickly woman and.00. The fact that a lawyer ahs a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client. a contingent fee of 1) 50% of the sum of principal and interest collected from different debtors.000. constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the client. old when she filed the complaint.00. the Court Resolved that: 1. what respondent could have properly done was to make an accounting with his client. In her circumstance.000. Informed of such payment by Manosca herself. hence.00 respondent received on behalf of his client less attorney‘s fees due to him in respect of that amount (P12. and applying it instead as part of his attorney‘s fees. P3. as part payment of his attorney‘s fee. 3.00. the Court must and will protect the aggrieved party. he breached the trust reposed upon him. without turning over the amount to his client. his client. He thus filed cases against Tipace.

It views with disapproval any and every effort of those benefited by counsel‘s services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. for P600. countered that the P50. as attorney‘s fees. Respondent CA affirmed trial court‘s order. RTC issued an order granting payment of attorney‘s fees. Albano alleged that after liberation and long after the courts had been reorganized Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and termination of their civil case. efficiently. These were mortgaged by Javier with Metrobank to secure a loan obligation of Felix Angelo Bautista and/or International Hotel Corporation.2M. according to her. METROBANK V CA REGALADO. ―so much as he deserved‖) cause of action for reasonable value of services rendered. WON private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien for payment of its attorney‘s fees. as a result of which they had themselves represented by another lawyer. and to the best of her knowledge and capacity. Any counsel who is worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully recompensated for his services.LEGAL PROFESSION therefore to complainant‘s estate and shall be entitled to receive in respect thereof the fifteen percent attorney‘s fees provided for herein. . went to trial for several days and. A charging lien to be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney‘s fees requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in favor of his client. 1980. pursuant to Sec 37. fraud and misrepresentation committed against him by Javier. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents. with the assistance of her sister who was also a lawyer. Disbarment. 1984. in behalf of Metrobank from March 1974 to September 1983.it was during the pendency of these suits that the lands were sold by Metrobank to its sister corporation. January 23. however. Obligors defaulted and Metrobank foreclosed the mortgages.Oct 15. ALBANO V COLOMA FERNANDO. ISSUE WON Coloma may recover attorney‘s fees HELD Yes. to private respondent. ISSUES 1. . based on quantum meruit. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. . 1984. 1990 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari impugning the decision of CA affirming order of RTC. he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. which lower court granted. finished after careful. offering a compromise amount of P600. properties were resold to Herby Commercial and Construction Corporation for P2. and filed with the Court of Appeals a 35-page brief. to secure payment of attorney‘s fees.000 but negotiations were unsuccessful.May 28. HELD 1. equivalent to 25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties.‖ Her dismissal then. 1983 private respondent then filed a motion to enter the charging lien6 in the records of the civil cases. private respondent Arturo Alafriz and Associates. continuously. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished each to the Bar Confidant and spread on the personal record of respondent attorney.000. Service Leasing Corporation. OCTOBER 11. . WON a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien 3. or a lien that an attorney may request from a court on a fund or judgment obtained for the client by the attorney‘s efforts. Metrobank manifested it had fully paid private respondent. and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. .‖ She likewise denied that she could have been removed for her failure to comply with the obligations as counsel as she served ―faithfully. et al. He also claimed that Coloma intervened in the case to collect her attorney‘s fees. 2. including P14000 paid on Dec 15.000. Private respondent.000 given by petitioner could not be considered as full payment but merely a cash advance.in this case. P936. Private respondent did not have knowledge of such transactions. FACTS Coloma was the counsel of Albano and his mother during the Japanese occupation. On same day. was made without just cause and without her consent and only when she had already won the case for them in the Court of First Instance and in the Court of Appeals. alleging deceit. Such an eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. and exhaustive study and preparation.Private respondent handled civil cases for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale.Alejandro brought suit against Javier and included Metrobank as defendant. acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in the expenditure of time and energy. NO. 1 Page 75 of 203 . It also appears that private respondent attempted to arrange a compromise with Metrobank in order to avoid suit.(lit. Such an attitude deserves condemnation. 6 Charging lien or attorney‟s lien – a lien on money. . private respondent filed motion to fix its attorney‘s fees. papers. and property of a client in the hands of an attorney. he himself would not get his due. obtained a favorable judgment in the Court of First Instance for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs.Aug 16. conscientious. With his capital consisting solely of his brains and with his skill.Alejandro et al filed a motion to dismiss their complaints. FACTS . . Coloma denied that she did nothing to expedite the hearing and termination of the civil case as the record would show that she filed ―more than 20 papers and pleadings. Herby then mortgaged the same properties to Banco de Oro for P9. or occasionally of goods or materials provided. fixing attorney‘s fees and directing petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) to pay its attorneys.000 as attorney‘s fees on a quantum meruit5 basis. with damages. the dismissal order neither provided for any money judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant.5M. much less in quantum meruit .Celedenio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaquio Alejandro. . the amount of P936. under circumstances in which there was no enforceable contract to pay for them but it would be unfair to leave plaintiff uncompensated. WON private respondent is entitled to 25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis. 1967 NATURE Original Action in the Supreme Court.

Roxas and Pastor . Under the contract in question.an enforceable charging lien. Rizal with a total land area of 1. No. a Letter-Agreement was executed by and between the Zuzuarreguis and Attys. 500. stated that the property would be acquired at a cost of P19.The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. A lawyer may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident in the main action in which his services were rendered when something is due his client in the action from which the fee is to be paid.4 76. and anything in excess of that shall be the contingent fees of Attys.36 . An attorney merely defeating recovery against his client as e defendant is not entitled to a lien on the property involved in litigation for fees and the court has no power to fix the fee of an attorney defending the client‘s title to property already in the client‘s possession. 425. 596. civil and/or criminal action . JR.LEGAL PROFESSION favor of petitioner. decision of CA is reversed and set aside. Roxas and Pastor are to receive contingent fees for their professional services. as to its reasonableness ROXAS V DE ZUZUARREGUI. Roxas and Pastor. is within the jurisdiction of the court trying the main case and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is settled. a joint special power of attorney was executed by the Zuzuarreguis in favor of Attys. . 1985. . 00.Attys. where sanctioned by law. CHICO-NAZARIO: January 31. NO. .The Court of Appeals ordered Attys. Yes. The total amount released by the NHA was P54.Pending the resolution of the MFR filed by the NHA. for the purpose of confirming all matters which they had agreed upon previously. should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation. a Compromise Agreement was executed and it was approved by the Court in a Decision dated December 20. In fact. but should always be subject t o the supervision of a court. Roxas and Pastor formally terminating their services . 2. 1987. but such lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation. 1985. Romeo G.426. Roxas and Santiago N. The difference of P19. The Court refrained from resolving the third issue so as not to preempt or interfere with the authority and adjudicative facility of the proper court to hear and decide the controversy in a proper proceeding which may be brought by private respondent. Attys. a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis‘ new counsel to Attys. Roxas and Pastor to return to the plaintiffs the amount of P12. .50 per square meter and that it will be paid in NHA Bonds which the yield would be based on the Central Bank rate at the time of the payment . The Zuzuarreguis. issued by the NHA. Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states: a contract for contingent fee. 570. the elements to be considered are generally (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy (2) extent of services rendered (3) professional standing of lawyer . undoubtedly.275 . It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. 122. 1174 dated December 16. .The amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. 2. Roxas and Pastor for their legal services Page 76 of 203 . Roxas and Pastor which fixed the just compensation due the Zuzuarreguis at P17. 583. 1983 which indicated that the contingent fees that the lawyers will receive at P11 or more per square meter is thirty percent of the just compensation . Private respondent‘s supposed charging lien is thus without legal basis. without prejudice to appropriate proceedings as may be brought by private respondent to establish its right to attorney‘s fees and the amount thereof. fully gave their consent thereto.The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued and on October 29. 916. NOTE: in fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit. the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to them situated in Antipolo. a Partial Decision was rendered fixing the just compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30 per square meter . 1985. the property of the Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34. 878 is. WON the contingent fees were reasonable HELD 1.The Zuzuarreguis filed a Notice of Appeal . WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as law between them 2. Roxas and Pastor then filed a petition for certiorari ISSUES 1.50 per square meter. Roxas and Pastor demanding that the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days from receipt. they demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds be turned over to them . A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself. There is absolutely no evidence to show that anybody was forced into entering into the Letter-Agreement.They executed a Letter-Agreement dated April 22.The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration for the lowering of the amount of just compensation in accordance with applicable laws .Computed at P19.1977.The Zuzuarreguis also filed a MFR . 1987. 520. with respect to the other. 1984. Pastor .All MFRs were denied for lack of merit . however. to give something or to render some service. Disposition Petition for review is granted. a letter was again sent to Attys. 000 in NHA bonds . Roxas amounted to P30. duly recorded. applies only where the charging lien is valid and enforceable.an attorney may acquire a lien for his compensation upon money due his client form the adverse party in nay action or proceeding in which the attorney is employed. 3. already deducting the reasonable attorney‘s fees in the amount of P4.The RTC dismissed the complaint . the yield of the bonds.On December 10. it was them who sent the said letter to Attys.On August 25. Roxas and Pastor filed a MFR .The NHA and Pedrosa also filed a MFR .The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action for Sum of Money and Damages. 2006 FACTS . in entering into the LetterAgreement. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go seems huge from the surface but it just actually passed their hands.On September 29. under pain of administrative.Resolution No. 790. . This.As a result of the NHA Resolution.Attys.Attys.

Roxas and Pastor received an amount which is equal to 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis. Rule 138. through machination or other deceitful means. Said provision enumerates the grounds for the suspension and disbarment of lawyers. namely: Sec.e.In the instant case. 19 December 1994) and asking Complainant to modify the previous letter by issuing a new one similarly worded as his draft. this time incorporating some of Peña‘ s suggestions. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. .Peña denied all the allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint.One of the conditions of the sale was for ISC to cause the eviction of all the occupants found in said property. (Emphasis supplied)” . Attorney‘s fees are unconscionable if they affront one‘s sense of justice. . constitutes malpractice. The SC affirms the decision of CA with modification in the computation of the attorneys‘ contingent fees.Complainant charges that respondent is guilty of deceit. Rule 138. URBAN BANK. i. the 44% is undeniably excessive. . grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. .After the lapse of more than thirteen (13) months. granting him the authority to represent the bank in maintaining possession of the aforesaid property and to represent the bank in any court action that may be instituted in connection with the exercise of said duty. malpractice and gross misconduct in violation of Section 27.A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. . 2001 NATURE Administrative Matter. 27.Complainant acceded to the request and issued a letter-authority dated 15 December 1994. The remaining amount is what is due to Attys. Complainant was informed by ISC and Peña about the necessity of a letter of authority in favor of the latter.Peña then requested for a modification of said letter of authority by furnishing Complainant with a draft containing the desired wordings (including the date. but grounded on the oral contract of agency the two purportedly entered into. Page 77 of 203 . It was.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the guidelines by which a lawyer should determine his fees (see original) . ISSUE WON Peña should be disbarred on the ground of deceit. Complainant willingly obliged and re-issued a new letter of authority to Respondent. or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without any authority to do so. but only after making it very clear to Peña. . . .17% of the yields of the bond should go to the Zuzuarreguis computing from the amounts stipulated in the Letter-Agreement. from respondent‘s own admission. then using the very same letter for demanding agent‘s compensation. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. .If only to expedite and facilitate matters.He added that there was no reason for him to deceive complainant into writing a letter of authority because he knew very well that the verbal agreement was sufficient to constitute an attorney-client relationship. V ATTY. damages and attorney‘s fees‖ on the basis of the letter given to him for the purposes of evicting the occupants. This condition was incorporated in the Contract to Sell and adopted in the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between ISC and Complainant.The letter. the power to determine the reasonableness of attorney‘s fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.The IBP decided in favor of Peña and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. . knowing fully well the circumstances surrounding the issuance of said letter of authority. . Disbarment FACTS . utilized solely as documentary evidence to buttress respondent‘s assertion regarding the existence of the agency agreement. It is one thing to allege deceit. (Respondent here is not suing by virtue of the letter of authority as what the Complainant is saying. Reasoning ***Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest. Therefore. undertaken for public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them. Roxas and Pastor.According to Complainant: Peña. the eviction of the occupants of the property in question was successfully carried out.LEGAL PROFESSION Canon 20. malpractice and gross misconduct under Section 27. . just served to officially confirm a done deal.1 December 1994. He proceeded to take the necessary steps to evict the occupants of the property subject of the sale. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case.Indubitably entwined with the lawyer‘s duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney‘s fees if the same is excessive and unconscionable (Section 24. Peña filed a collection suit against herein Complainant and its senior officers ―for recovery of agent‘s compensation and expenses. malpractice and gross misconduct HELD NO. . INC.Complainant has not proferred any proof tending to show that respondent really induced it. September 7. . PEÑA PUNO. malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. hence.No evidence in respect of the supposed deceit.We referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Magdaleno M. decency or reasonableness. Attys. or for any violation of the oath of which he is required to take before admission to practice. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Complainant bought a parcel of land located along Roxas Boulevard from the Isabela Sugar Company (―ISC‖ for brevity). . 87. on what grounds. . Peña. In the opinion of the Court. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court. constitutes deceit. to issue the December 19 letter of authority ostensibly for the purpose of evicting illegal occupants. that it was ISC which contracted his services and not Complainant.Eventually. malpractice or gross misconduct was adduced by the complainant. and another to demonstrate by evidence the specific acts constituting the same. MAGDALENO M. . Rules of Court). ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement.During the eviction process. malpractice and gross misconduct. Rule 20.. of the Revised Rules of Court.ISC hired Atty. .

we can safely state that Corpuz had already acquired security of tenure in the said position. she submitted the appointments to the MTRCB. Hence. other than its Secretary. could have been the subject of a direct action for revocation or recall which may be brought to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after its approval. that nothing was immediately done to implement Resolution No. . could have instituted a suit against the complainant. namely: (a) recommendation by the Chairman which is accomplished by the signing of the appointment paper. however. Mendez stated that she discovered that the appointments extended by Morato were not submitted to the MTRCB for approval pursuant to Section 5(c) of P.The MTRCB filed with us a special civil action for certiorari. the appointee can claim no vested right in the office nor invoke security of tenure.In his memorandum. the latter declaring that petitioner‘s separation from the service as Atty V in the MTRCB was not in order and directed that he be automatically restored to his position. he cannot invoke the security of tenure. 8-1-91. 7902. 876-A. FACTS . The Resolution was likewise kept secret and it was only on 12 March 1993 that an announcement 8 of its contents was posted by an Ad Hoc Committee on the MTRCB bulletin board. Peña is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit CORPUZ V CA DAVIDE. Until the process is completed. however. An Ad Hoc Committee composed of MTRCB members was then constituted to look into the appointments extended by former Chairman Morato. respondent. . . Corpuz. . Magdaleno M. 1993. 93-5964 of the CSC." This undated resolution noted that the past and present Chairmen of the MTRCB had failed to submit for approval the appointments of administrative and subordinate employees to the MTRCB before forwarding them to the CSC. . 8-1-91. with or without the letter. ISSUE WON Corpuz can invoke security of tenure HELD Ratio No. No. This announcement invited the submission of any information concerning the appointments involved therein to the Committee. the assent or confirmation of some other officer or body is required. he cannot invoke security of tenure. Since no such action was filed with the Commission.Atty Corpuz was appointed MTRCB‘s legal counsel – Prosecutor and Investigation Services (Supervising Legal Staff Officer). the commission can issue or the appointment may be complete only when such assent or confirmation is obtained. CORPUZ DID NOT HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MTRCB BOARD WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED. the Commission can not allow the current Board's disapproval of the said appointment to produce any effect.August 1991. Reasoning .Indeed. in violation of Section 5 of P.The Committee resolved to recommend to the MTRCB the approval of the appointments.A public official or employee who assumed office under an incomplete appointment is merely a de facto officer for the duration of his occupancy of the office for the reason that he assumed office under color of a known appointment which is void by reason of some defect or Page 78 of 203 . and later. 1986. . he was designated Attorney V under the Salary Standardization Law. No. and which the latter does not deny to have benefited from. if defective. IS TANTAMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO SECURITY OF TENURE‖ . It appears. The record shows that the appointment of Corpuz was not approved by the Board. Atty. 8-1-91 as he was then on leave. 1998 NATURE Petition to set aside the decision of CA which reversed the resolution of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).CORPUZ was unaware of the promulgation of Resolution No.It is long settled in the law of public offices and officers that where the power of appointment is absolute.Respondent can hardly be faulted and accused of deceit. the CSC promulgated Resolution No. ruling that since the appointment of Corpuz was not approved by the MTRCB. even if he has rendered service for a number of years. he declared that he is no longer seeking reinstatement but for the continuity of his government service from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time he was permanently employed with the Office of the Ombudsman. P. In either case. malpractice and gross misconduct for invoking the aid of the court in recovering recompense for legal services which he claims he undertook for the complainant. . what he did was a lawful exercise of a right. .D. and (b) approval or disapproval by the MTRCB of the appointment. which were not submitted to the MTRCB for approval. January 26. There is no gainsaying that a verbal engagement is sufficient to create an attorney-client relationship. . 93-3509 granting the MTRCB authority to fill up positions vacated in the agency due to appointments.LEGAL PROFESSION . which we referred to the CA in view of Republic Act No. they ruled that: The appointment of Atty.On 27 July 1993.There are two stages in the process of appointing MTRCB personnel. Where.D. may issue at once. Disposition The disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. No. and the appointee has been determined upon. In its decision.On 31 August 1993. no further consent or approval is necessary. In her comment to the complaint. . Indeed. Subsequently. In the Resolution of the CSC dated December 23. DAVID B. the MTRCB passed MTRCB Resolution No. 1986. hence to cure the defect. . except that of Corpuz and seven others . which was denied. as well as the qualifications of the appointees. The appointment was approved by the Asst Regional Director of the CSCNCR. Corpuz can no longer be separated from the service except for cause and after observing the requirements of due process. Corpuz and one Larry Rigor filed a complaint with the CSC requesting a formal investigation and hearing. the commission.At the MTRCB meeting of 19 January 1993. .Corpuz filed a motion for reconsideration. As such. which is among his powers under Section 5(d). the appointment becomes complete when the last act required of the appointing power is performed. as mandated by PD 1986 Sec16. 8-1-91 5 entitled "An Act To Declare The Appointments Of The Administrative And Subordinate Employees Of This Board As Null And Void. the appointment was invalid and he could not invoke security of tenure. He then filed an instant petition under Rule 45 RoC and asked the Court to reverse the decision of CA on the ground that: ―THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER ATTY.D. MTRCB Chair Mendez was informed about Resolution No. and the formal evidence of the appointment. the CA declared null and void Resolution No.

shark loans and shady deals. respondent issued to complainant a postdated check in the amount of P176. under the facts here. which the Page 79 of 203 . . Reasoning .Atty Agrava thought that in returning the documents a proper explanation be made as to why the firm is not taking her case. even if he has declined to perform the services required by the original client. That formality is not the essence of employment.00) from complainant which he intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new car.90. Complainant acceded and introduced respondent to Atty. Complainant lent Romero the money and.R. In return. the respondent alleged that the complainant is engaged in buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars. 1946.Respondent borrowed two hundred thousand pesos (P200. When advised of the same. The letter binds and estops him in acting for others against Hilado. .On May 29. Agrava to return the documents as the firm will not handle her case against Assad. from this transaction. July 14. Francisco with regard the case filed against Assad despite the fact that she had previously retained a different set of lawyers to act on her behalf. . Benjamin Dacanay. . Certiorari FACTS . . 37694 is AFFIRMED. Atty Agrava. . HILADO V DAVID TUASON.Yes. The fee is separate from the fee that a client is obligated to pay the lawyer for the services which he was retained to perform. Hence. the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of 13 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CAG. Complainant used the commission to pay respondent‘s arrears with the car financing firm. a relationship of attorney and client between Francisco and Hilado ensued when he issued the written opinion to Hilado. the lawyers of Hilado wrote Francisco urging him to discontinue representing Assad on the grounds that he was consulted by Hilado with regard to her case. . and that during the consultation. SP-No. Hilado brought to his office documents related to the case. and has many cases pending in court. CORPUZ was such a de facto officer.Respondent failed to heed complainant‘s repeated demands for payment.In any case. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.528. . Hilado consulted respondent Vicente J.January 1993: respondent introduced to complainant a certain Emmanuel Romero who wanted to borrow money from complainant. forming a part of the machinery of the law for the administration of justice and as such are subject to the disciplinary authority of the court. complainant‘s retained lawyer.LEGAL PROFESSION irregularity in its exercise. he instructed Atty.In the course of the case.The SC noted that it is in the interest in the administration of justice that lawyers are viewed without reproach in their actuations.289. respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and the financing firm sent demand letters to complainant. on her behalf. . 2003 NATURE Complaint for disbarment FACTS Complainant’s Side .July 1992. . the court held that a lawyer is engaged professionally when he is just in fact listening to a client‘s preliminary statement of his case or when he is giving advice thereon. certain documents were turned over to him. He likewise mortgaged to complainant his house and lot in Quezon City but did not surrender its title claiming that it was the subject of reconstitution proceedings before the Quezon City Register of Deeds. respondent earned commission in the amount of P52. The Court also stated that in matters of the practice of law the jurisdiction of the court is pervasive. Hilado‘s lawyers. GENATO V SILAPAN PUNO. he already advised her that her case cannot prosper on the basis of what was told him by her. respondent allegedly asked the complainant if he could rent a small office space in complainant‘s building in Quezon City for his law practice.In citing jurisprudence on the matter.The Court then expounded on the nature of the ―retaining fee‖ as a means of compensating the lawyer who was asked to give professional advise to the detriment of the lawyer not being able to act as counsel for the other side. Francisco claims that these documents were received by his assistant. there is no way of knowing if this was in fact the case.In the foreclosure case. Atty. Francisco signed the letter to Hilado without reading the same. This flows from the fact that lawyers are officers of the court where they practice. .Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an action Against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot executed by her now deceased husband during the Japanese occupation.Subsequently. . Based on the facts. ISSUE WON Francisco should be disqualified from representing his clients against Hilado HELD Ratio . Francisco claims that at the time. Disposition WHEREFORE. Undeniably. . 1946. filed this original action. . .The fact that the action against Francisco was brought four months after he filed in appearing in the case does not operate as a waiver of Hilado‘s right to ask for his disqualification.000.When Francisco did not reply.On January 28. The confidence once reposed cannot be divested by expiration of professional employment. even if it were true that what was given to Francisco were facts that were already public knowledge.00 to answer for the six (6) months interest on the loan. Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. Complainant tried to encash respondent‘s postdated check with the drawee bank but it was dishonored as respondent‘s account therein was already closed.1949 NATURE Original action. who accommodated respondent in the building and made him handle some of complainant‘s cases. Atty Francisco entered his appearance as attorney of record for Assad in the case instituted by Hilado.The respondent bought the car but the document of sale was issued in the complainant‘s name and financed through City Trust Company.

respondent‘s allegations and disclosures in the foreclosure case amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him. It was improper for the respondent to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and respondent‘s professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. Thus.00 loan and for this reason. He argued that he is not guilty of breaking his confidential lawyerclient relationship with complainant as he made the disclosure in defense of his honor and reputation. -The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. Ratio A lawyer must conduct himself. praying also that an administrative sanction be meted against respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check Respondent’s Side . especially in his dealings with his clients. It even survives the death of the client. . Essex L. with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. and (b) as a form of assurance that he will not abandon the cases he was handling for complainant. . in turn.Respondent asserted that he executed the real estate mortgage in favor of complainant without consideration and only as a ―formal requirement‖ so he could obtain the P200. which would be determined by the trial court. filed a complaint for libel against him. Page 80 of 203 . WON the respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainant‘s alleged intention to bribe government officials in connection with a pending case. the communication is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer professionally. Ratio We shall not delve into the merits of the various criminal and civil cases pending between the parties. -However. and thus would be sanctioned HELD 1. 1993. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation. but only: (a) to serve as ―some kind of acknowledgment‖ that he already received in advance a portion of his attorney‘s fees from the complainant for the legal services he rendered. Respondent also alleged that he filed a perjury case against complainant who. . Complainant refused and insisted that he would transfer ownership of the car only after the termination of his criminal case which respondent was handling as his defense lawyer. 1993: the Court referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.August 3. the Board of Governors of the IBP approved the report of the investigating commissioner finding the respondent guilty as charged and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. He used this amount to pay his arrears with the car financing firm. as in this case. adding that the allegations were libelous and were irrelevant to the foreclosure case. immaterial to the foreclosure case and maliciously designed to defame him. or by any other change of relation between them.000. respondent stopped paying the amortization on the car. SO ORDERED. It is for the trial courts handling these cases to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations made therein. 2. aside from being false. Disposition IN VIEW WHEREOF.It was complainant who offered him an office space in his building and retained him as counsel as the latter was impressed with the way he handled a B.Respondent denied that he received a P52.LEGAL PROFESSION complainant denied. According to the complainant.October 27. he asked complainant to execute a deed of sale transferring ownership of the car to him. On January 29.90 commission from Romero‘s loan which he allegedly helped facilitate. 22 case filed against complainant. nor is it affected by the party‘s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another. respondent Atty. If the unlawful purpose is avowed. tell lies and violate laws. the complainant would only give the respondent the document of sale of the car if the latter would bribe the review committee of the DOJ for a case of the complainant. . the allegation was. -The obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. before paying the next amortization on the car. there being no professional employment in the strict sense. He claimed to have made these statements in the course of judicial proceedings to defend his case and discredit complainant‘s credibility by establishing his criminal propensity to commit fraud.P. The Court Administrator is directed to circulate this order of suspension to all courts in the country. unless the latter consents. the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. the attorney-client privilege does not attach. . Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. YES. Silapan is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Decision.There was nothing libelous in his imputations of dishonest business practices to complainant and his revelation of complainant‘s desire to bribe government officials in relation to his pending criminal case. WON the court has the jurisdiction to sanction respondent for his issuance of the bouncing check 2.the complainant then filed this complaint for disbarment. 2002. not for account or for value. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. . he did not surrender his title over the mortgaged property to complainant. NO. the complainant‘s alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to his case. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness. ISSUES 1. it is not for the Court to sanction respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check. Consequently. A particular allegation states that in one case.289. Reasoning Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The longestablished rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client. the respondent was also guilty of breaking their confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively liable. . report and recommendation. alleging that the amount paid to him was for attorney‘s fees.Respondent claimed that he issued the postdated check.

She was apparently resigned to the futility of filing any such motion. 7. He was representing the estate and not the administrator. she be substituted in lieu of the former joint administrators and that her counsel be served with copy of the CA‘s decision. Maria and Atty..When complainant was unable to do so. . that. section 8 of the Rules of Court. for having squandered cash funds of the estate.000. lawyer withdrew his appearance as complainant‘s counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity. The estate's counsel in the CA. report and recommendation. Disposition Petition dismissed. as a consequence. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. . so he advised the complainant about its completion with the request that the remaining balance of P7.00. Complainant later on filed motions praying for the imposition of the maximum penalty of disbarment. The records at bar amply show that Atty. 50% of which was payable upon acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. the former remains to be counsel of estate.The parties agreed upon attorney‘s fees in the amount of P15. 1971 NATURE An original action for certiorari challenging a judgment of the Court of Appeals as null and void for having been allegedly entered in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion. The present administratrix gives no satisfactory explanation as to her failure to substitute herself vice Luis Domingo. It found respondent counsel guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be ―severely reprimanded.LEGAL PROFESSION DOMINGO V AQUINO TEEHANKEE.IBP Board of Governors resolved that the penalty be amended to 3 months suspension from the practice of law.000. Petitioner‘s motion for substitution filed with the appellate court after its decision recognized the fact that the appellate court had already duly handed down its adverse decision and petitioner merely expressed her wish to belatedly file a motion for reconsideration on behalf of the petitioner estate. Atty. Atty.500. were appointed co-special administrators of the estate of Luis Domingo. Del Castillo and Macaraeg.Atty. Dealca had prepared the appellant‘s brief and contrary to their agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case. since the latter's removal or to then engage new counsel vice Atty. CA denied motion for reconsideration. but the estate's attorneys in the intestate proceedings pending in the lower court. and after respondent had filed in the intestate court a motion for execution of the judgment. Unson. 50% down and 50% upon its completion > He was able to finish the appellant‘s brief ahead of its deadline. Unson and praying that as present judicial administratrix. MONTANO V IBP KAPUNAN. Luis Domingo.Montano hired the services of Atty. that as judicial administratrix. . Consuelo Domingo de Lopez filed on March 9. so that even after latter‘s removal. that Atty.IBP conducted investigation. petitioner filed this petition alleging that CA decision was entered in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion. Jose A. Atty. in fact. petitioner‘s counsel shall pay treble costs for falsely representing to the SC that the CA had granted ―new and further relief‖ to Aquino when.Complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4. with the CA an "Appearance with Motions for Substitution and to be served with a copy of the Judgment. No withdrawal as counsel or petition for change of counsel was filed in accordance with the Rules of Court.00 be Page 81 of 203 . This was opposed by Aquino on the ground of finality. After almost 5 mos. Jose A. Notice and copy of the CA's decision were duly served by registered mail on the estate's counsel of record at his address of record in accordance with Rule 13. FACTS Asuncion Domingo Sta. Luis Domingo. Jr. 1967. complainant paid respondent the amount of P7. . Sr." stating that Asuncion Domingo Sta. he had duly prayed for the relief awarded and for filing unmeritorious cases that clog the court dockets. Attys.500.500 . CFI approved the money claim of Aquino. in view of the finality of the appellate court's decision — for such motion was never filed. Maria had long resigned as special administratrix with the permission of the intestate court.Prior to the filing of the appellant‘s brief. And in accordance with said Rule. Dealca again demand payment of the remaining balance of 3. Accordingly. did not receive the notice and copy of the judgment sent to him by registered mail. (who had caused the prosecution of the appeal) was removed from his trust by the intestate court. Dealca sought reconsideration saying: > Complainant went to him just to prepare and submit complainant‘s appellant‘s brief on time at the agreed fee of P15. 1967 is dissolved. 2001 FACTS . Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant. Luis Domingo. Jr. Dealca demanded an additional payment from complainant.‖ . she was appointed judicial administratrix and has since been administering the estate alone.Montano claimed that such conduct exceeded the ethical standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with administratively. Unson in the appellate court. Jr. She cannot use as an excuse the substitution of administrators/counsels. CA affirmed CFI judgment with modifications in favor of Aquino (allowed compounded interest). Pedro Aquino filed a money claim on the estate. writ of preliminary injunction issued on Nov.000. Primicias. April 29. ISSUE WON CA‘s decision has become final HELD YES Ratio CA decision has become final and executory in accordance with the Rules of Court and since no appeal was filed. . . were verbally informed by respondent's counsel of the judgment. Reasoning Motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and delay was without legal basis. Jr. Unson was the counsel on record of the petitioner estate in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel. Both parties appealed to the CA. .. service by registered mail of the appellate court's decision upon the petitioner's counsel of record was deemed completed and effected upon the addressee's failure to claim his mail on the fifth day after the first notice of the postmaster. May 21.Even before Atty. she wished to file a motion for reconsideration and that the clerk of court be directed to serve copy of said judgment on her counsel instead of on Atty.

filed by Felizardo Obando. it granted Eduardo's later Motion to Dismiss HELD 1. filed Complaint against Eduardo and Amigo Realty (respondents). for the nullification of the sale.the alleged Will bequeathed to Obando properties left by the Figueras couple. . Eduardo assumed administration of the joint estates of Jose and Alegria.00 ―tomorrow‖ or on ―later particular date. Reprimand is deemed sufficient. > Complainant paid P4. complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation.pending settlement of the estate. . WON the trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who was allegedly no longer Eduardo's counsel of record 2. . In fact.‖ This promise-non-payment cycle went on repeatedly until the last day of the filing of the brief. both of which are on appeal. . We find Atty. . injustice or fraud. and (4) whether there was a conflict between the Order dismissing the civil case and the previous actions of the trial court. (2) whether a motion to dismiss filed after the responsive pleadings were already made can still be granted. Despite denial. .Probate case was consolidated with the intestate proceedings. Petitioners' Claim -Assignment of Errors: Simply stated.Rule 20.1993: Trial Court granted the Motion and dismissed the civil case . Denied. since there was no categorical statement that the purported will was a forgery. under the circumstances of the present case. 1990 NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the RoC. seeking to annul a Decision of the CA which affirmed dismissal. on the strength of an Order issued by the probate court in 1991. respondents filed Motion to Dismiss. (3) whether the conviction of Petitioner Obando for estafa through falsification and the revocation of his appointment as administrator. Dealca‘s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney‘s fees.1997: the probate court removed Obando from his office as coadministrator. . which led to the conviction of Obando for estafa through falsification of a public document .Consequently. would accomplish the end desired. (2) the client‘s written consent is obtained.Eduardo was served a Petition for Probate of what purported to be Alegria‘s Last Will and Testament. New titles were issued in the name of Amigo Realty. WON trial court whimsically and capriciously departed from its previous rulings when.CA dismissed Obando‘s Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus . filed complainant‘s brief on time. . Rule 138 of RoC. Such P3. ISSUES 1. the following issues are raised by the petitioners: (1) whether the trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who was allegedly no longer Eduardo's counsel of record.affirmed the dismissal of the action because the probate court‘s Order alluded to the fact that the Will was a forgery. mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition.4 of Canon 20. the lawyer was still Eduardo‘s counsel of record. and Obando was appointed as Eduardo‘s co-administrator of the joint estates.rejected Obando‘s contention: that he did not lose his legal personality to prosecute the civil case.00 remains unpaid until now ISSUE WON Atty. .1964: Alegria Figueras and her stepsons Eduardo and Francisco filed a Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband Jose Figueras.00 only. he. .Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty.1990: probate court denied Eduardo‘s Motion for authority to sell the parcels of land. WON that it was premature for the trial court to dismiss the civil case because Obando's conviction for estafa through falsification was still on appeal 4. WON a motion to dismiss filed after the responsive pleadings were already made can still be granted 3. Dealca‘s conduct just and proper HELD No.that the probate of the Will had not been decided on the merits did not change the fact that the probate court had removed Petitioner Obando as co-administrator. as co-administrator and universal heir of Alegria. such as temporary suspension. of Petitioner Felizardo Obando‘s action for annulment of contract and reconveyance earlier ordered by the RTC of QC.1992: Petitioner Obando. including 2 parcels of land in Quezon City.500. OBANDO V FIGUERAS NARVASA. . Alegria died. > Even without being paid completely. Ratio Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel in accordance with Section 26.Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.upon investigation. without prejudice. of his own free will and accord. in its Resolution dated February 11.500. Alegria‘s nephew (herein petitioner) .000. constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss the civil case. lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. he sold the lots to Amigo Realty Corporation. and its probate was still pending . promising to pay the P3. . . Counsel may be substituted only with the ff requisites: (1) new counsel files a written application for Substitution. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty. based on Obando‘s loss of his legal standing to pursue the case. FACTS .Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services. Dealca‘s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.Petitioner Obando filed a Motion for Reconsideration. . the NBI found the Will was a forgery. Atty. (3) the written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured Page 82 of 203 .LEGAL PROFESSION paid. 1993.

0033. It was only then that this ground became available to the respondents. and not the petitioners. facts surrounding case constitute exception to the rule Ratio:  privileged confidentiality does not apply to crimes which the client intends to commit in the future  the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Parades at the time he and Honrada. the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction. Such exclusion was based from the manifestation of Roco that he would identify the persons and stockholders involved in the said PCGG case. Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court requires that. NO. People vs. even after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading.the respondents did not waive their right to move for the dismissal of the civil case based Petitioner Obando's lack of legal capacity. and business dealings of their clients). Honradoclerk of court and acting stenographer of Municipal Circuit Trial Court) o Falsified documents making it appear that since perjury case had already been dismissed. Since he lacked the legal capacity to sue on behalf of the Figueras estates. Sandiganbayan Facts:  Petitioner wished to discharge Generoso Sansaet as state witness. There is no conflict between these court rulings. a final conviction in a criminal case has nothing to do with such revocation. In this case. The first Motion to Dismiss was denied because. However. Sansaet was discharged as state witness because he has a co-conspirator to the crime committed. in general. Verily.24 and (4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal. the defendant should be allowed to file a motion to dismiss. Rule 9 of the Rules. it is generally considered waived under Section 1. The Motion to Dismiss was beneficial to respondent Eduardo. an attorney who served as counsel for one Paredes. provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur and then governor  Case against Paredes was for fraudulent misrepresentation in his application of free patent over land at Rosario Public Land Subdivision Survey o Violation of section 3(a) of RA 3019  Pending such case for perjury and graft. Petitioner Obando still had legal capacity to sue as co-administrator of the Figueras estates. if the plaintiff loses his capacity to sue during the pendency of the case. resulting in the exclusion of Roco from the list of defendants. Petitioner Obando derived his power to represent the estate of the deceased couple from his appointment as co-administrator.23 (3) lack of cause of action. 4. it could not be said that they waived it by raising it in a Motion to Dismiss filed after their Answer was submitted. personal transactions. YES Ratio if the plaintiff loses his capacity to sue during the pendency of the case. Reasoning The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the circumstances of the case. Regala vs. 2. the PCGG amended the complaint. Reasoning This argument has no bearing at all on the dismissal of the civil case. Ratio When an appointment as co-administrator of an estate is revoked by a probate court. a motion to dismiss should be filed within the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading. Sandiganbayan Facts Raul Roco and his colleagues from the ACCRA Law Office were charged together with Eduardo Conjuangco for acquiring ill-gotten wealth.LEGAL PROFESSION Reasoning Eduardo did not dismiss his Atty (Yuseco). as in the present controversy. were about to falsify. He should raise the matter in his appeal of the Decision removing him from administration of the Figueras estates. filing a graft case would constitute double jeopardy o Sansaet testified that he was induced by Paredes Issue: WON Sansaet‘s projected testimony is barred by the attorneyclient privilege Held: NO. Page 83 of 203 . Later. It was only after he had been convicted of estafa through falsification that the probate court divested him of his representation of the Figueras estates. At the discretion of the court. The PCGG based its charge from the refusal of the law firm to divulge information as to who had been involved in PCGG Case No. the grounds under Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan  Sansaet was himself a co-conspirator in the falsification o Privilege will only attach if it is for a lawful purpose or lawful end However. who has been dismissed by a client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client‘s rights. he lost that authority. If a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all within the reglementary period. even after an answer has been filed. Hence. any irregularity should have been raised by respondent Eduardo. despite the nature of the services performed by ACCRA (e. even after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading. The second Motion was granted because the probate court had already removed him from his office as co-administrator.g. NO. 68. the law firm knows the assets. Costs against petitioners. taxpayer Teofilo Gelacio prayed 3 respondents be investigated (inc. 3. he could not continue prosecuting the civil case. Disposition the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED.28 Thus the trial court properly granted the Motion to Dismiss on this ground.29 Whether a final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is necessary to remove him from his administration is not a proper issue in this Petition. he had no reason to complain. as in the present controversy. Reasoning they were based on different grounds.27 When the probate court removed him from office.22 (2) litis pendentia. or in the process of falsifying. at the time. an atty. The change in his legal capacity accounts for the difference in the adjudication of the trial court.25 Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction. 69. either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet.26 . the defendant should be allowed to file a motion to dismiss.

Agusan del Sur) and bribery o in cases for ejectment of squatters in Mascarinas‘ land. the identity of the client should not be shrouded with mystery. Lantoria vs. as a requirement of due process. or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Bunyi allegedly was the one who prepared the decisions and judge simply signed them Issue: WON Bunyi is guilty of unethical conduct Held: YES Ratio:  letters show that he indeed prepared draft decisions for the judge to sign o does not matter if it was clearly shown that the judge consented to such act or even asked for it    violated canon 3: attempts to exert personal influence on the court violated: CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence.  Issue/s 1) whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not giving the law firm equal treatment as that of Roco despite the fact that the confession of Roco did not really reveal the information being asked by the PCGG 2) 3) whether or not the Sandiganbayan strictly applied the concept of agency whether or not the Sandiganbayan did not uphold the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship 70.LEGAL PROFESSION a) The law firm petitioned for the PCGG to grant them the same treatment as what had been accorded to Roco. Resolution 1) yes… violation of the equal protection clause 2) no 3) yes… violation of the confidentiality privilege Rationale 1) the inclusion of the ACCRA lawyers was merely being used as a leverage to compel them to name their clients… classifying persons as to those who can give valuable information apart from those who cannot is not a valid classification espoused by the equal protection clause 2) an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client as a general rule. Constancia Mascarinas in certain civil cases  allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption. a legal practitioner in Metro Manila. It was only at this point that the PCGG answered with a ―set of requirements and conditions for exclusion‖ which were: 1) disclosure of the identity of the clients 2) 3) submission of documents purporting to the substantiation of the lawyer-client relationship presentation of the deeds of assignments which the lawyers executed in favor of its clients. Rayos Facts:  petition for disbarment filed by Mrs. covering the shareholdings of the latter  revealing the name of a client would implicate the latter in the very activity for which he sought the advice of the lawyer the disclosure would expose the client to civil liability the content of the client communication is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance b) c) the case of the prosecution must be built upon evidence gathered by them from their own sources. nor seek opportunity for. cultivating familiarity with judges. 71. and corruption of the judge (Vicente Galicia of Esperanza. Irene Rayos-Ombac against her nephew. Rule 13. Rayos. Ombac vs. counsel for Mrs. for "his failure to adhere to the 3) Page 84 of 203 . Orlando A. except when :  SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to. not from compelled testimony requiring them to reveal information prejudicial to their client the confidentiality privilege extends even after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship To bolster this set-up. Atty. dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. the PCGG presented supposed proof to the effect that Roco had complied with such conditions The 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan denied the petition of ACCRA. Bunyi Facts:  Cesar Lantoria sought disciplinary action against Bunyi.

DEALING WITH TRUST PROPERTY The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Manuel Melo for breach of professional ethics o Was counsel for Licuanan in an ejectment case filed against her tenant o Failed to turn over collected rentals o Did not even report the receipt of such rentals o Only returned such when Licuanan demanded it from him o Defense: he wanted to surprise her of his success in collecting the rentals Issue: WON respondent violated Code of Professional responsibility Held: Yes Ratio:   he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money. 72. Daroy vs. they will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and his other heirs will be precluded from inheriting part of it o withdraw Php 588. Licuanan vs. He passed the 1954 bar examinations with a rating of 75. Ratio:  violated: DISBARRED.75%).000 was going to be withdrawn on "December 8. malpractice and professional misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of his clients DISBARRED. and later refused to return the same despite demand aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw the disbarment case she filed against him Issue: WON Melo breached professional ethics Held: Yes. (from sale of coconut land) prayed that the respondent be disbarred. Ombac to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust them to him for safekeeping o if she withdraws all her money in the bank. Rayos induced 85 year old Mrs. Meneses Navarro in behalf of and for Pan-Asia International Commodities Inc Facts: Page 85 of 203 . He also urged her to deposit the money in his name to prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same o offered to pay 2 second hand cars and Php 40. Navarro vs. Jacinto> Issue: WON lawyer is guilty of wrongful conduct charged Held: Yes Ratio:   respondent made it appear that the said sum of P4. o Was hired to represent petitioners in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the spouses Aquilino Gonzaga and Paz Velez-Gonzaga 11.LEGAL PROFESSION  standards of mental and moral fitness set up for members of the bar Atty. Legaspi Facts:   Attorney Ramon Chaves was charged with malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of four thousand pesos which he had collected for them. Melo Facts:  Atty. <new lawyer for Licuanan was Atty. 73. *  Licuanan was then compelled to file groundless suits(moral turpitude) against her tenant (Pineda).000 DISBARRED. and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used by him. 1969 at nine o'clock when in fact he already withdrew such amount guilty of deceit. Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly.000 o advised complainant to deposit the money with Union Bank where he was working. 74. 1 o (He was 59 years old in 1974.

(3) willful abandonment. de dumo  (a) (b) de dumo allegedly violated Canons in his: refusal to remit to her money collected by him from debtors of the complainant.   Issue: WON lawyer breach Code SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS AND WARNED Held: Yes 76. Robinol (repeat case) Ratio: 77. Ricardo Neri. and refusal to return documents entrusted to him as counsel of complainant in certain collection cases. Cruz vs. Dealing with trust property. 000 from Arthur Bretania to settle case with one Gleason but never really appropriated such amount to the amicable settlement of the case The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. His housemaid Avegail Payos also admitted that she simulated the signature of Emmanuel Gimarino (Deputy Register Of Deeds) upon the command of her amo. Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstance be comingled with his own or be used by him.LEGAL PROFESSION      Atty Meneses was charged with: 1) malpractice and gross misconduct unbecoming a public defender. The spouses.00 entrusted to him to be paid to a certain complainant for the amicable settlement of a pending case received Php 50. Padilla was nowhere to be found. Quilban vs.01 of canon 16: a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client Facts A certain Concepcion Padilla requested a P285. Later it was discovered that the mortgage had for its object a fake TCT. due to his continued failure to account for the amount of P50. Resolution malamang !!!… suspended from the practice of law for 6 months Rationale 1) business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of law… no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney‘s favor Page 86 of 203 . (2) dereliction of duty.000. it was shown that he had been collecting 60 percent instead of 50 no sufficient evidence as regards 2nd charge  DISBARRED. 12000 he retained as his attorney‘s fees with Tanhueco refused to pay him    Issue/s whether or not Jacinto committed malpractice Issue: WON he breached Canon Held: Yes Ratio:  violated canon 11: 11. authorized Jacinto to prepare the necessary documents for the registration of the Real Estate Mortgage as a security of the loan in favor of the couple. as for the contingent fees. Jacinto    RTC records did not show any motion to dismiss case despite claimed out-of-court-settlement with money involved Amicable settlement was not settled and finalized Violated Rule 16. borrowed different amounts from Tanhuenco on 3 separate occasions but didn‘t pay for them collected 12.000 loan from the Cruz spouses through Atty.500 from debtor Mañosca but didn‘t remit it to Tanhueco defenses: denied having borrowed money. Tanhuenco vs. by violating his oath to do everything within his power to protect his client's interest. Estrella Palipada (secretary of Jacinto) testified that she was instructed by Jacinto to notarize the mortgage by signing the name of Atty. When the loan became due. Ernesto Jacinto. believing the representation of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk. and (4) loss of trust and confidence. 75.

The sellers maintain that Lot C was not part of the plan. paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or declared void by law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Resolution yes… suspended from the practice of law for 6 months Rationale Article 1459 Civil Code 81. the land was sold to Ong Chua. intending to apply a portion of the would-be proceeds as payment for his fees. Fernandez Decision:   purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article 1491. 3764. paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client could sell the same since as already shown above.LEGAL PROFESSION 2) a higher standard of good faith is required of a lawyer when he engages in business dealings… this is because his position gives him an advantage which he might abuse Issue/s whether or not Ruste committed malpractice Resolution yes… suspended from the practice of law for 1 year 78. Ehile the criminal suit was pending appeal. Batiller had better right over it because of actual possession years before Militante sold such land Rationale whether the deed of sale in question was executed at the instance of the spouses driven by financial necessity (as contended by Ruste) or at their behest (as contended by the couple) is immaterial  in either case. Batiller Facts:  one Militante sold a piece of land to Atty. Laig vs. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived. This misunderstanding as to the identity of the lot became the cause of action of both parties in a series of civil and criminal cases they filed against each other. Ca facts:  Galero was able to obtain land which he sold to one Mario Escuta becoz such alienation allegedly violated section 118 of Public Land act o Laig was lawyer for Galero Galero then sold land to Laig for Php1500 plus attorney‘s fees  Page 87 of 203 . On 21 March 1931. The P 375 payment of Chua through Ruste never reached the hands of the San Juan couple. Ruste demanded for his fees. by virtue of Article 1409. 79. so he asked them to execute in his favor a contract of sale of their share of Lot No. his client's claim to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no legal effect. The spouses complied. the lawyer occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms to a harrassed client 80. but Go Beltran had already attached a sketch to the plan which included Lot C." Facts Honorio Pajaron and Natividad Ypan-Pajaron conveyed two parcels of land to Gerardo Go Beltran. Go Beltran vs. The couple did not have enough money to pay him. Rubias vs. Rubias ( his counsel in a land registration case involving the very same land sold here) when defendant. An 11/12 share of the estate was adjudged in her favor. Issue/s whether or not Fernandez committed malpractice Sale to Rubias voided. Inocentes Fernandez (counsel for the spouses) purchased Lot C. In re Ruste Facts Melchor Ruste appeared as counsel for the San Juan spouses in a cadastral proceeding.

but notary public Erasmo Damasing affirmed that Daroy and his wife signed the document before him in his presence Decision:  Mrs. which the latter then happened to sell to Nena. was able to obtain a favorable judgement in the ejectment case that they filed.filed for such transfer Pending such application. Decision: GUILTY 82. with Daroy as the highest bidder. Laig has better right over land for having acquired it in good faith o Verzo was landlady of Atty. To satisfy the monetary considerations of the judgement. fraud. Daroy claimed that the affixed signature on the Deed Of Sale that covered the said parcel of land was forged by Abecia. 1097. Abecia responded that it was Daroy who sold the land to Gangay. in a resolution concerning the said case. Laig when latter bought land from Galero o Her sister witnessed said sale o Baldomero Lapak was also in bad faith  Knowing of the existence in his records of the original of OCT No. People vs Ingco Facts Atty. and haphazardly composed 3 petition for annulment of judgment Lapaks: disciplined. Barrios answered that he was busy in the preaparation of the pleadings of another client. asks for an explanation from Barrios as to why he incurred a 15-day delay in the filing of the motion for the extension for the filing of the brief of his client. Page 88 of 203 . the sheriff auctioned a parcel of land belonging to one of the defendants. and that his schedule was fully booked for appearances in different courts.000 from client as deposit but deposit was not required and such was also not made failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client‘s interest 4 days before hearing of preliminary injunction. malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court. 1097 to Petre Galero in just four (4) days.LEGAL PROFESSION   When Laig died. wife noticed that tile to land was still not transferred to husband‘s name. he already withdrew as counsel (frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids) o did not find replacement. The latter was sentenced to death for the crime of rape with homicide. Galero however sold the land to Carmen verzon for 600 pesos 2) it is true that the NBI found the signature of Daroy to have been forged. counsel for Regalado Daroy. Cantiller sisters impliedly contracted services or Potenciano after they lost in an ejectment case Asked 2000 to give to a judge who could issue restraining order 10.000 to be deposited with treasurer as purchase price of apartment prepared a "[h]astily prepared. Baldomero Lapak effected the issuance of the second duplicate of OCT No. Cantiller vs. and misrepresentation. poorly conceived. Alfredo Barrios was appointed as counsel de officio for Gaudencio Ingco. mostly in the provinces. Daroy avers that Abecia did this to have the land sold to Jose Gangay. Issue/s whether or not Abecia is guilty of malpractice Resolution no… case for disnarment is dismissed Rationale 1) the prohibition set forth by Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply to the sale of the property of the client to his counsel if the property was not the subject of litigation      first duty was to file best pleading within his capability depended on his closeness to judge to get desired decision extorted 10. Esteban Abecia. his son Jose was the notary public of sale between Verzo and Galero  Daroy had the burden of proving that the signature was not his  even the NBI personnel who investigated the signatures was not presented before the court to give their testimony 83. and also with gross misconduct. did not inform client INDEFINITE SUSPENSION 84. The high tribunal. Abecia Facts Atty. Daroy vs. Potenciano      Potenciano is charged with deceit. which the latter would then sell to Nena Abecia (his wife). dispensing with the requirements of notice and hearing to interested parties 1. Not mentioned how.

as Sales' counsel. He did not verify the real status of Ramon Alisbo before filing the case. Otherwise. Otherwise. Robinol (repeat case) 88.  used his position as Alisbo's counsel precisely to favor his other client. CA Facts:  Atty. when he sent a letter to the fiscal saying that his name was being adversely affected by the false affidavits of complainants and for that reason. Tugarde Facts: Page 89 of 203 . Carlito Sales. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines.  asked respondent to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to be filed against Mrs. when the affidavit he prepared for complainants but subsequently crossed-out was submitted as evidence against complainants in the motion for reinvestigation f. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint against petitioner. Legarda vs.LEGAL PROFESSION Issue/s whether the delay incurred by Barrios is tantamount to negligence which exposes him to the disciplinary power of the court Resolution yes… severe reprimand Rationale The mere fact that the counsel de oficio has an extensive practice that required him to appear in provincial courts does not lessen the degree of care required of him in defending an impoverished litigant 85. He dropped Ramon Alisbo's co-plaintiffs and impleaded them as defendants. he set off the events which resulted in the deprivation of petitioner's rights over her house and lot  86. e. care and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from a client 87. Coronel was Victoria Legarda‘s lawyer when new Cathay House filed an action for specific performance and damages against her. In doing so. Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized entry into complainants' dwelling *Robert‘s name was not included in first document) Decision: suspended for a year   furnished the adverse parties in a certain criminal case with a copy of their discarded affidavit. he frittered away precious time. also classmate of adverse party‘s lawyer) Decision: suspension for 2 years  betrayed his client Ramon Alisbo's trust and did not champion his cause with that wholehearted fidelity. the complaint would have been defective only in part. by delaying Alisbo's action to revive the judgment in his favor and thereby deprive him of the fruits of his judgment which Attorney Jalandoon. thus enabling them to use it as evidence against complainants was partial to the adverse parties as he even tried to dissuade complainants from filing charges against Robert Leonido (lawyer is counsel for Roberto‘s brother. lawyer did not inform client 1. 3. respondent was contemplating to file a criminal and civil action for damages against them. Quilban vs. 2. Ngayan vs. Alisbo vs. He postponed the motion to revive judgment and gave way instead to a motion to resolve pending incidents in Civil Case 4963. Jalandoon Facts:  Jalandoon was former counsel for Alisbo spouses o to recover his share of the estate of the deceased spouses Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma which had been adjudicated to him o complaint was dismissed but it was discovered that Jalandoon was former legal counsel of Carlito Sales. had vigorously opposed did not immediately take action regarding Ramon‘s insanity Decision: suspended for 6 months    violated Canon 18: a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence violated rule 18. his lack of capacity to sue would not have been at issue. o To compel Legarda to sign a lease contract which Cathay intended to use for a resto o Lawyer failed to file an appeal therefrom within reglemetary period o Did not make an appeal from CA decision o When Cathay house sent notice to Legarda for her to vacate property in 3 days. adversary in the probate proceedings  violation of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20.03: shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

 Lawyer did not act on case for 6 years and refused to return documents turned over to him by ‗clients‘. Suntay of Chuidian office appeared for old counsel to secure postponement. if we can’t find the case. Arcangel Facts:  Atty. 1955). o moral damages and o attorney's fees Said lawyers did not appear in court on May 12 working on the assumption that they had already been released by the Club and that office of Juan Chuidian was now handling case (however. Ibadlit Facts:    for having been negligent in handling her case for partition. as well as the Court of Appeals in denying relief based thereon. which one? 89.C. tama ba?read the case) 92. CA Facts:  Balcoff. 4. o for unenjoyed vacation leave. di na lang daw ididiscuss) Issue: WON there was excusable neglect on the part of both counsels to the extent of making the action of the trial court. complainant‘s brother. was asked to inform complainant about adverse decision and futility of any possible appeal 91. Poblador and Angel C. 1 filed notice of appeal only on July 17.LEGAL PROFESSION Coronel is a dean of a law school. CA (sabi ni sir. Arcangel volunteered to held Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands. such substitution was only formally effected and recognized by court on May 14. Decision: suspended for a year    was shown that brother was not given authority to communicate with counsel about case when complainant asked lawyer about status of case. Blanza vs. soldiers. Because of such failure to appear in court. 1955. accounting and reconveyance then pending with the RTC-Br. Hmm. 1989 when due date was July 4 defense: Proculo Tomazar. Sibagat vs. an abuse of discretion constituting reversible error. no authority to waive his client‘s right to appeal    90. he only told her period for appeal was over and then returned records of case to her did not even consult client‘s opinion if latter wants to make an appeal. Aklan. Kalibo. plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence even without defendant. both firms knew of the Club‘s desire to change lawyers. Wack Wack Golf and Country Club vs. o Should have then made the necessary arrangement for the protection of the interest of their client o Should have turned over files to Chuidian group for them to prepare a valid defense o Chuidian knew of trial‘s date and he should have filed his appearance opportunely and prepare for the trial on May 12 (yikes. Held: NO Ratio:  as of may 5. Reontoy vs. Cruz represented Wack-Wack in a case filed against it by former employees (Arcangel and Bernardo) for: o a money claim for overtime services rendered to said employer. Issues: 1. both P. WON he was legally entitled to recover fees for services rendered Page 90 of 203 .

delay was partly complaiants‘ fault  failed to deposit money to copy documents (photostating)  lawyer has no obligation to shoulder such expenses  no sufficient proof to establish that lawyer did not return documents Court however counsels against his actuations as a member of the bar. RTC decided in favor of Pacifica Mallare and Co. suspended for a year  Canon 19: a lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law.000. witness Sergio Manuel testified to the genuineness of the signatures in the contract 3.LEGAL PROFESSION Held: NO Ratio:  volunteered to held them out  but even so.e. Atty. Guerrero died and subsequently. thru counsel. the attorney's fees of the undersigned counsel (Atty. bad faith could be on the part of the Albanos: took advantage of lawyer‘s services and then dismissed her right after she won the case for them  93. Eustaquio Montero represented Elsa Dy Co in an ejectment case filed against her by Millare‘s mother.  Trial court ruled in favor of Casasola  Nov. Felicidad Albano‘s testimony showed that Angel Albano was authorized to give such contingent fee 4. Albano vs. if 120. Issue: WON Quirante could claim attorney‘s fees Held: NO Ratio:  petition for review on certiorari was still pending in court o an attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court o even if there was supposedly a contract. there was insufficient evidence to warrant discimplinary action against lawyer. 1.   he should not have prolonged case for 6 years should have terminated relationship with clients when latter refused to cooperate with him in the preparation of necessary documents Perpetua Colomo was counsel for Angel Albano and Mother in a civil case.  respondent failed to expedite the hearing and termination of the case. denied o Petition for Review on Certiorari. John C. denied o Motion for the Issuance of a Prohibitory or Restraining Order o Special civil action 95. Quirante) shall be P30. Quirante and Atty. there was attorney-client relationship which expected him to exercise due diligence in the handling of the cases However. Casasola. there was a written contract of professional services proven to be authentic 2. it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of I. Quirante vs. Indalecio Casasola in a case which the latter filed against Guerero who failed to comply with his obligations as the building contractor.00. Quirante filed a motion in trial court for the confirmation of his fees pending adverse party‘s filing of a petition for review on certiorari o That he and the doctor had an oral agreement regarding said fees and such was confirmed in writing by the wife o In case of recovery of the P120. o In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120. court would still be in better position to determine basis of fees Decision: VIOLATED CODE.000 surety bond would be recovered  even if heirs allegedly confirmed contract. Dante Cruz. 16.000. Millare vs. the provisions thereof were made to depend on the outcome of the case i. IAC Facts:  Atty John Quirante represented Dr.  to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.00 surety bond. as a result of which they had themselves represented by another lawyer  respondent intervened in the case to collect her attorney's fees o presented evidence that Albanos promised to pay her a contingent fee of 33-1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages Issue: violated code? entitled to claimed fees? Held: No Yes Case against Coloma dismissed Ratio: 1. filed the following actions: o Manifestation and Motion that RTC and MTC decisions were void for allowing lessor to increase rentals by 300 percent for an old house o Petition for Annulment of Decisions which was dismissed o Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Arguments of the CA decision.000. 1981: Dr.00 bond. Coloma Facts: Page 91 of 203 .03  unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process  delayed the execution of judgment 94.01)  warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19. Montero Facts:   Atty.

the amount of P936. though its services were terminated in midstream and the client directly compromised the case with the adverse party.  Federico claims that Sison had already received 67thou and such was sufficient compensation. Held: court refused to resolve issue but gave the elements to be considered in fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit These are: (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy. Teofilo Sison claimed 400thou for attorney‘s fees for services rendered as counsel for Federico Suntay Suntay in intestate estate proceedings (Jose Suntay‘s estate). Issue: WON fee was excessive Held: NO Ratio:  fee was only a little over 10 percent of the damages collectible by the Zuluetas  other factors were considered: o quantity and quality of the services rendered o nature of the case and the amount involved therein o his prestige as one of the most distinguished members of the legal profession in the Philippines 99. 96. mere approximation. 000 attorney‘s fees accorded to Zulueta‘s lawyer. Arturo Alafriz and Associates. to pay for attorney‘s fees together with the award for exemplary damages  Pan-am opposed the P75. Zulueta vs. with damages.00 as attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis. movant therein. Sison vs. Issues: (1) whether or not private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien for payment of its attorney's fees. Inc. lawyer entitled to 10 percent)  Cases handled were all for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale. without prejudice to such appropriate proceedings as may be brought by private respondent to establish its right to attorney's fees and the amount thereof. ETPI Facts:  Petitioner was awarded attorney‘s fees worth P26.350. Court trying main case will determine attorney‘s fees (3) whether or not private respondent is entitled to twenty-five (25%) of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis. Metropolitan Bank vs.779.  the services performed by counsel 2. oral evidence sufficient to establish value of estate 100. supra 97. 101. and (3) the professional standing of the lawyer order of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. rule 138 provides that a lawyer is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien for payment of it‘s attorney‘s fees only when money judgment or monetary award is provided for by court (di ko ‗to naintindihan) (2) whether or not a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien and Held: Not necessary." No money judgment or monetary award was provided o Section 7. Makati. Alfredo Benipayo and deemed it to be excessive. among other things. Issue: WON 400thou was reasonable Held: YES plus additional 75thou Ratio: 1. Page 92 of 203 . supra 98.000. determination of what would be reasonable compensation for the attorney for an administrator or executor of the intestate estate should consider:  the size and value of the decedent's estate (estate was worth 4 million. Suntay Facts:  Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION issue on attorney‘s fees held in abeyance until after final decision of case. CA Facts:  Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company was ordered to pay its attorneys.91  handled the case for its client Eastern Telecommunications Philippines. Pan-Am Facts: (persons case to so we shud now this)  Court ruled in favor of the Zulueta‘s and ordered Pan-am. (2) the extent of the services rendered. filed with the Regional Trial Court. Held: NO Ratio:   all civil cases were dismissed upon plaintiff‘s initiative "in view of the frill satisfaction of their claims. Rilloraza vs.

Gonzales Facts:  Ramon Gonzales was charged with malpractice. payable within twenty-four months. " REMANDS the case to the court of origin for the determination of the amount of attorney's fees to which petitioner is entitled. Africa.671. without the knowledge of the private respondent. Research and Services Realty vs. whether on contingent basis or quantum meruit. whether there is an agreement or not. Under this MOA. was not able to finish the case to its conclusion. Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized when (1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client. (4) when the counsel. deceit. for justifiable cause.000.000. o Lawyer‘s contribution was merely to ask for suspension or postponement of proceedings 104.   Issue: WON RADA was entitled to amount they were claiming for services rendered Held: NO. Sarile instituted before the RTC of Makati City an action against the petitioner for rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement which provided that: o petitioner shall undertake to develop.00) paid by PLDT to ETPI would be too unconscionable. While case was pending.00 as his contingent fee in the case even if he had no participation in the negotiation and preparation thereof. Africa.886. CA Facts: Page 93 of 203 .     Issue: proper fee? Held: No. is excessive and unreasonable. CA Facts:  Atty. subdivide. (2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's fees.04. Gonzales and San Agustin (SAGA)  Handled case from the very beginning till 1988 SAGA was later dissolved and Rilloraza. the former assigned its rights and obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement in favor of the latter for a consideration of P28 million. and (3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to purely formal defects of execution. Filstream International. gross misconduct and violation of lawyer's oath Issue: WON Gonzales committed alleged acts of misconduct  specifically in entering into a contingent fee contract with the Fortunados o We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee. Buenaventura. (5) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's fees 102.LEGAL PROFESSION Petitioner was a partner of San Juan. for the suit.00 attorney's fees. and promote the sale of the parcels of land owned by the Carreons o The proceeds of the sale of the lots were to be paid to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the landowner's mortgage obligation.04) plus Fifty Million Pesos (P50. Bautista vs. entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 5 with another land developer. you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] 103. Held: Yes Ratio:  contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. Mabanta. administer. the law firm Romulo. the petitioner. De Ocampo & Africa (RADA) was formed o RADA was retained as counsel but such retainer agreement was subsequently terminated ETPI entered into a compromise agreement when it ended the services of petitioner and through the effort of ETPI's new lawyers. [See also Rule 16.  "In any case. the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court. (hereinafter Filstream). but they were entitled to attorney‘s fees nevertheless Ratio:  attorney-client relationship between petitioner and respondent no longer existed during its culmination by amicable agreement  To award the attorneys' fees amounting to 15% of the sum of One Hundred Twenty Five Million Six Hundred Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six Pesos and Four Centavos (P125.000. Code of Professional Responsibility  lawyer may advance expenses but subject to reimbursement: this was not provided for in the contract suspended for 6 months. Manuel Fonacier was hired by petitioner when the Carreons and a certain Patricio C. excessive and unreasonable Ratio:  P600. including court fees. 1993: petitioner terminated services of Fonacier Petitioner had already received 7 million from Filstream Upon knowing the existence of the MOA. o defray all expenses. provided.000. o and the net profits to be shared by the contracting parties on a 50-50 basis. Fonacier filed an action to recover the sum of P700. Sayoc and De los Angeles. Corpuz vs. March 31. the courts shall fix a reasonable compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services. Inc.

o Administrative case filed against Corpus by several employee of the Central Bank Export Department of which the defendant is the director o Initially Corpus was represented by Atty.000.  Contract was binding: obvious that complainant respected services of lawyer coz he even retained services of counsel even after conviction by trial court 2. Mitre who.. Risma sought to collect fifteen per cent of the recovery obtained by his client. Alavarez. Corpus gave David 2thou and even mentioned that he wished he could give more: implied promise to pay procedure in filing claim proper: when Corpus was re-instated. 5. Linsangan Facts:  Flora Narido charged Atty.50 as back salaries and emoluments after deducting taxes as well as retirement and life insurance premiums due to the GSIS b. to Mariano Corpus. in a written contract. There was an implied understanding between the petitioner and private respondent that the former will pay the latter attorney's fees when a final decision shall have been rendered in favor of the petitioner reinstating him to -his former position in the Central Bank and paying his back salaries.485. Claim that lawyer‘s present income should also be considered in deciding amount of fee was not given attention by court: * The income of a lawyer is not a safe criterion of his professional ability. Page 94 of 203 . subject of the present petition. and 2. case against tolentino was dismissed for lack of merit 2. Mitre in four other cases Decision: entitled to 6000. 4. issued in his favor by the defendant Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. Scottish Union Facts:  Petitioner sought to recover: (1) P6. had covenanted to pay the same out of the proceeds of a fire insurance policy for P12.158. as attorney's fees in a criminal case for arson against the defendant Miguel H.  lawyer properly defended client which led to an acquittal fee was valid for being contingent upon acquittal David was held in contempt though:  filed on or about September 13. Extent of services rendered (4 years as collaborating counsel) Decision: 1. humiliation and defamation" of a brother in a profession In such action against Linsangan. Perez vs. Linsangan with a violation of his lawyer‘s oath by submitting a perjured statement  Counsel for Narido was Risma. Risma is exculpated from the charge of having instigated the filing of an unfounded suit  However.000. unpaid balance of attorney's fees owing by the defendant Miguel H. David made a written demand on April 19. contrary to the explicit provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of ten per cent and that only where the case is appealed o  Issue: WON David was entitled to attorney‘s fees Held: YES Ratio: 1. Fees claimed in number 2 were not supported by sufficient evidence 1.LEGAL PROFESSION  Juan David sought to recover attorneys fees for professional services rendered by the plaintiff. (2) P1. They lost the case. o Alleged that David offered services gratuitously Linsangan claimed that Risma instigated his client to file a false and malicious complaint resulting in what respondent Linsangan called "embarrassment. Corpus received P150. validity of contract upheld  A contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. 1978 a motion with the court a quo for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce its decision in Civil Case No 61802. 3. o Father of Corpus then asked David to handle case because he thought former lawyer wanted to give up the case. admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining how much under our law he could recover by way of attorney's fees  Admonished only because he had made no effort to collect on the same and had even advanced expenses for a poor client 106. Narido vs. basis were: a. 1965 upon petitioner Corpus for the payment of his attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to 50% of what was paid as back salaries absence of written contract regarding fees: excusable based on close relationship of parties 20thou was reasonable compensation. knowing fully well that it was then still pending appeal before this Court  105.

076. Librada Peña. Charge: gross immorality  “It is a willful. Had a daughter out of that illicit relationship Lived together in Ayala Alabang Village. Sato vs. he proceeded to marry Lydia Geraldez. allow his claim and direct the administrator to pay it as an expense of administration Figueroa vs. file a petition in the Testate or Intestate Proceeding asking that the Court. more than the legal procedural requirements Ratio:  complaint was not only filed against the administrator as such and as a distributee but also against the other distributes  would have been enough for counsel to request the administrator to make payment and file an action against him in his personal capacity and not as an administrator should he fail to pay or  attorney also may.LEGAL PROFESSION 107. flagrant. it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Iris Bonifacio allegedly carried on an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui. as against the original amount of P130.545. 500 Ratio:  estates and distribute thereof were greatly benefited (Colloector of Internal revenue effected a revised assessment which was the basis for the payment of P22. or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.” *took his oath at 62!!!! Leslie Ui vs. with gross immorality and grave misconduct. After breaking up with Mijares.‖ Judge Priscilla Vda.    Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and opinion of good and respectful members of community. Facts:  Issue: WON grounds invoked were sufficient to grant a petition for disbarment Held: No Ratio:  acts suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral conduct ― A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Disbarment. Villaluz married Mijares knowing fully well that the annulment of his marriage to his first wife. Respondent was admitted to the bar in 1982. after making a false statement in his application for marriage license that his previous marriage had been annulled. 1971: she learned that he married another woman. Bonifacio. she and Carlos never lived together even after they had first child. She and Barranco had a child out of wedlock and that Barranco did not fulfill his promise to marry her. Suspension for 2 years with severe warning that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or similar Page 95 of 203 . Villaluz. instead of bringing such action. 333 SCRA 38 Nature: Administrative Matter in the SC. In fairness. she distanced herself from Carlos after learning of his true civil status. Issue: WON act constituted gross immorality Held: No Ratio: Even if the following occurred:  should have exercised prudence and had been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui‘s personal background  did not exert effort to find out if indeed Carlos and the Chinese woman were unmarried  despite marriage. 276 SCRA 445 Nature: Administrative Matter in the SC. To warrant disciplinary action. against Simeon Rallos in his capacity as administrator and distributor of the Testate Estate of Numeriana Rallos and the Intestate Estate of Victoria Rallos Issue: WON lawyer was entitled to fees. husband of Leslie Ui. De Mijares vs.47 as taxes. Disbarment Facts:     Atty. De Mijares charged a retired justice of the CA. had not yet attained finality.43 Issue: WON procedure for filing claim was sufficient Held: No. Court fixed sum of 12. Held: YES. Barranco. He passed 1970 bar exams but failed 1966-1968 exams. Facts:      That Barranco should be denied admission to the legal profession. 274 SCRA 1 Nature: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. after notice to all persons interested. Rallos Facts: for the collection of attorney's fees by plaintiff Primitivo Sato. Vda. Gross Immorality and Grave Misconduct. Onofre Villaluz.

which puts his moral character in serious doubt. Cordova. Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. Aznar. 179 SCRA 680 (1989) Melendres vs. He did so several times by threatening her that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would not submit to his desires. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension Facts:   Atty. however. Contrary to justice. then chairman of Southwestern University. Issued documents informing complainant that she will be assuming the name Lizette Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer. Delos Reyes vs. 6. Refused to support family. 3. DISBARRED. 22) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer. although not related to the discharge of his professional duties as a member of the Bar. honesty. Facts:     Salvacion Delizo charged her husband.  Page 96 of 203 . Tuanda. renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. When she became pregnant.LEGAL PROFESSION offense hereafter. Cordova. Guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility Cordova vs. Immoral or Deceitful Conduct and Violation of the Lawyer‘s Oath Facts:   Atty Dorotheo Calis exacted 150. compromise their clients‘ litigation or receive anything in discharge of a client‘s claim but the full amount in cash. went on to have another mistress. Marquez (sale on commission basis of several pieces of jewelry). Atty. Conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar. 2. Fely Holgado. 179 SCRA 653 (1989) Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. After promising to be a reformed man. Facts:  Atty Jose B.000 from Marilou Sebastian as payment for his service. it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. violation of BP Blg.000 instead of 4. Sebastian vs. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case. Unlawful. DISBARRED. 314 SCRA 1 Nature: Administrative case in the SC.000 exacting usurious interest making it appear that amount had escalated to 10 thousand failing to inform complainants of the import of the documents failing to demand from complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property failing to inform then that mortgage had been foreclosed and that they had right to redeem property within a period of time. modesty and good morals. had carnal knowledge with second year med student. Gil Ramas.‖ Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer. Dishonest. Aznar. Luisita Magallanes SUSPENDED. Disbarment. Traders Royal Bank In the estafa case against Reynaldo Pineda: ―Lawyers cannot without special authority. making it appear on the real estate mortgage that the amount loaned was 5. 181 SCRA 692 (1989) Nature: Administrative Case in the SC. he forced her to undergo abortion under Dr. Decena. Calis. 176 SCRA 663 (1989) Nature: Administrative case in the SC. Rosario de los Reyes. Immorality. Process documents for her trip to USA. DENIED. 5. Malpractice and Breach of Trust Acts constituted deception and dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. Fe Tuanda issued bouncing checks to Ms. 1. Took advantage of his position. 4. Laurence D. He maintained for about 2 years an adulterous relationship with a married woman. Crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney‘s oath and the CPR under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land. People vs.

a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation C15: Ledesma vs. C17: Director of Religious Affairs vs. Luison maneuvered for 14 years to resist execution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one court to another (5 times in the SC). Salazar. Climaco Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. which hold sessions in Ilagan. etc. 2 Phil 266 (1903) Nature: In the matter of the suspension of Howard D. SEC 21 of Code of Civil Procedure amd by Act No.LEGAL PROFESSION Complainant was apprehended at the Singapore Internationla Airport DISBARRED.  1815: names in a firm name of a partnership must either be those of living partners and in case of non-partners. Mabanta and Reyes Denied. Plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct C18: Firm name cases Nature: Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name Facts:  Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to continue using. an officer of the court. Rule 101. the names of partners who had passed away  Died: Atty. should be living persons who can be subjected to liability  1825: prohibits a 3rd person from including his name in the firm name under the pain of assuming liability of a partner C16: In re tagorda. Feliciano. C14: Castaneda vs. Also wrote to a lieutenant of barrio informing him that despite of his membership to the provincial board. he would still keep his residence in Echague where he would be performing legal services on Sundays. with knowledge of their objects. 2nd: his youth and inexperience. Romulo. Code of Civil Procedure sec 21: The promoting of orgs. Terrel from practice of law Facts:  Terrel assisted in the organization of Centro Bellas Artes Club. Malpractice Facts: Page 97 of 203 . Herminio Ozaeta of Ozaeta. and 3rd: promised not to make the same mistake in the future. either personally or thru paid agents or brokers. constitutes malpractice * disbarment sana but mitigated by his intimation that he as unaware of the impropriety of his acts. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Offered legall services like execution of deed of sale for lands. 1943 ―marriage license promptly secured thru assistance and the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired. 2828: ―The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain.‖ Violated section 25 of Rule 127: The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. and for which he may be removed or suspended. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Alexander Sycip of Sycip. Ago. created for the purpose of evading the law then in force in said city SUSPENDED FOR A MONTH. 53 Phil 37 (1929) Nature: Original Action in the SC. Certiorari Facts:  question the order of Judge Climaco denying a motion filed by petitioner to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio  his appointment as ER of COMELEC: he was not in the position to devote full time to the defense of accused Denied:  it is the responsibility of a member of the bar to act as counsel de oficio  right to counsel could in effect be rendered nugatory if withdrawal was allowed REPRIMANDED. and Castillo  Died: Atty.  Allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise. as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office. Everything confidential. Malpractice. affidavits. Facts:  published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune on June 13. in the names of their firms. Jose M. 65 SCRA 505 (1975) Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA Facts:  Atty. constitutes malpractice SUSPENDED. and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. de Leon. deceived complainant all for material gain    Luis Tagorda advertised his profession on a card. Violated Canon I. C13: In re Terrel. Bayot Nature: Original Action in the SC. for the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of the attorney.Hernandez. Legal assistance service.

training. Practice of law means any activity. in proper cases. Pineda. Lawyer-manager/entrepreneur/legislator C24: People vs.  Complaint assigned to Prosecutor Diosdado Ibañez  Pascual gave 1. 70 Phil 97 (1940) Nature: Original Action in the SC. 20 SCRA 748 (1967) Nature: Original Action in the SC. ROC) C20: In re IBP C21: Macoco vs. Misappropriation of SSS Contribution Facts:  1989: Encarnacion Pascual. Bulacan Facts:  C19: Dacanay vs. Ibañez. being an alien law firm. Prudencio Penticostes was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. Paras. 69 Phil 556 (1940) Nature: Petition for certiorari and/or mandamus from an order of the CFI. Facts: Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza and their 3 children were killed by respondents. a law firm organized in Illinois Yes. When prosecution may be enjoined: 1. Certiorari with preliminary injunction. 201 SCRA 210 Nature: Petition to review the decision of the COA Facts: Cayetano questioned the appointment of Monsod as chairman of the COMELEC. GUILTY of professional misconduct. Esteban Diaz misappropriated 300 pesos from Sagutan who also failed to return the money to Marcelino Macoco. Facts:  Atty. because the statue relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid C25: de la Cruz vs. respondent remitted money.  A prosecution attorney shall file a particular information if he is convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof. Page 98 of 203 . knowledge. to avoid multiplicity of actions 4. legal procedure.  Penticostes filed complaint. Respondent did not remit amount to system. for the orderly administration of justice 2. and experience. Permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partner‘s name: otherwise. C26: Penticostes vs. such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Tomas Narbasa Tambac Alindo Rufino Borres Respondent judge denied motion for recon by city fiscal and insisted that there should only be one case filed rather than five. to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights 5. cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec 1. did not engage in the practice of law for 10 years PETITION DISMISSED. Baker and Mckenzie Nature: Administrative case in the SC Facts:  Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name Baker and McKenzie.  breach of trust  his being a deputy fiscal aggravated his crime  want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office C22: Cayetano vs. Monsod. sis-in-law of Atty. DISBARRED. Diaz. Malpractice.  Court held that fiscal‘s five information were valid. Baker and McKenzie. Rule 138.LEGAL PROFESSION    a professional partnership depends on the personal qualifications of its members a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity but a mere relationship for a particular purpose no local custom in the Phils. which requires the application of law. in or out of court. there is the possibility of deception When various victims expire from separate shots. to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner 3. 304 SCRA 281 Nature: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. 804 to respondent as payment of her SSS contributions on arrears.

CPR) 6. ginamit ang helicopter ng PNB para magcampaign. CPR) 3. 52 Phil.LEGAL PROFESSION     duties of a prosecutor do not include receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility – all of which. malpractice. and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude. Royong vs. a high sense of honor. SC en banc. or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. 9. 490 SCRA 299) Reprimanded with stern warning C27: Misamin vs. 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. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice. Balicanta. education or other. at least twenty one years of age. Requisite for admission to the Bar 1. bastos noh?  also violated the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney-at-law by the Supreme Court for any deceit. Good moral character includes at least common honesty (In E Del Rosario.basta parang namigay ng plane tickets. Oblena. NECESSITY OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER IN THE LIFE OF A LAWYER A. San Juan. (Rule 1. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.02.03. throughout the centuries. or deceitful conduct Canon 6: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks. intellectual honesty. (rule 1. and Paculdo were investigated. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad moral character. Rules of Court) C. have been filed or pending in any court in the Philippines (Sec. and a resident of the Philippines.02. the duty to promote respect for law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Cordon vs. or for willful disobedience or any lawful order of a superior court. 2. Basta maraming specific acts. employer and owner of New Cesar‘s Bakery  charge was violation of the Minimum wage Law Dismissed for not having been duly proved * should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgiving as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar In re 1989 Elections of the IBP. Code of Professional Responsibility) The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. full candor. (Rule 7. exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated bar. now should he. (Rule 701. 27. other modifications were added (wow. immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Rules of Court) 2.  Decision: 1. Definitions of good moral character. or other relevant attribute. 7 SCRA 859) 8. of good moral character. (Justice Fred Ruiz Castro.labo sobrang helpful na digest to. dishonest. Nisce. 72 SCRA 491 (1976) Nature: Resolution Facts: Miguel San Juan: captain of MM Police force  member of the bar  legal representative of certain establishments owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent  coerced Jose Misamin to drop charges the latter filed against Tan Hua. nagsolicit ng votes. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong.01. as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines. Rule 138. resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports. From a lawyer. have been compendiously described as moral character. Section 14 enumerates 5 prohibited acts relative to IBP elections. basahin na lang. 399. 64 SCRA 784. immoral. (Sec. Canon 1. are expected those qualities of truth-speaking. IBP elections were annulled. Condition for maintenance of membership in the Bar 4. Specifically. to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter. helpful) Page 99 of 203 . (Rule 7. 178 SCRA 398 (1998) Facts: Responding to reports from lawyers and publishers about intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates. either personally or through paid agents or brokers constitutes malpractice. candidates Viola Drilon. 7. Rule 138. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. or for gross misconduct in such office. Candidates for the presidency Issue/Held/Ratio: WON candidates violated section 14 of the IBP by laws Yes. CPR) B. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. dishonest. IBP committee that drafted code: A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office. gross immoral conduct. whether in public or private life. 2. ―Apostacy in the Legal Profession‖. Rule of Professional Responsibility [CPR]) 5.

Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest. quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant‘s name. academically.C. [12] respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. ANA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. Blg. July 20.LEGAL PROFESSION ROBERTO SORIANO vs. we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged. he acted like a god on the road. the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. immoral or deceitful conduct. In People v. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder.C. 2006 DAYAN STA. in his motion for reconsideration. January 30. for which he may be suspended. To this end. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. June 15. SERGIO E. and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually. CARANDANG Clearly.C. still respondent is liable. but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exact revenge‖ A. was disqualified from owning real property..NAPOLEON ESPIRITU The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence. however. ATTY. ATTY. DANTE A. No. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed. we explained the nature of violation of B. dishonest. his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. 5377. multiplied a thousand fold. including the Occupancy Agreement. and. lawyers must at all times conduct themselves. morally. Yet. all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity.In effect. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession. By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument. but also an injury to the public. A. Clearly.P. more so in a lawyer. Tuanda. A. 2006 Page 100 of 203 . In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant. June 27. A.S. 2006 PETER DONTON vs. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office. ATTY. he led us to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who signed the document. but its continued possession is essential to maintain one‘s good standing in the profession. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION vs. equally important. Law is a noble profession. MANUEL DIZON B. respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents. injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. and distinguishes it from any other calling.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Respondent. BERNABE Respondent's act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence of one the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.C. February 9. January 25. . E. especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large. who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted.] VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. A. The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions. with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. Rule 1. No.A lawyer shall uphold the constitution. 2006. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and the legal processes. 2006 The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. Good moral character and the duties of a lawyer CANON 1 . respondent admitted that Stier. By his conduct. TANSINGCO By his own admission. 6792. even if the check was drawn by Bingo Royale. Respondent's conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord on notarized documents. 5542.01. Thus. As it were. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness. can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce. which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. 6057. Blg. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. 22 as follows: The gravamen of the offense punished by B. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment . 5700. citizen. ATTY. 2006.C.C. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system. No. No. ATTY. honesty and integrity of their profession. he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. the practice is proscribed by the law. a U. aware of the prohibition. . The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his function as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of the law. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. INC. But respondent provided ―some safeguards‖ by preparing several documents. Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. A.P. . that would guarantee Stier‘s recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant‘s name. vs. 6963.

Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of right from complainants. 2006 ELSA MONDEJAR vs. LOUIS UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY & STAFF vs. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law. 2001 date as it would merely input additional conditions thereto? The above-quoted discussion by the Investigating IBP Commissioner of why he discredited respondent‘s explanation behind the conflicting dates appearing in the document is thus welltaken. such conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. No. how could an error have been committed regarding the other year 2001 original entries in the notarial register. Rule 1/02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment. VIVIAN RUBIA The document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002. Obviously. The document was allegedly notarized on January 9. and as such have the following powers: Page 101 of 203 . No.C. he had no right to sell. SARMIENTO Respondent failed to comply with the above provisions. CALUBAQUIB & BALIGA Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. The invocation does not impress. 5907. Records show and as found by Investigating Commissioner.01. ATTY.400. VITUG vs.C. Said section does not grant the NBI the power to make warrantless arrests.C. ATTYS. it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. as correctly found by IBP Commissioner Maala. If that were so. Dizon invoked Section 1 (a) of Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter) which empowers the NBI ―to undertake investigations of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines. respondents should have been acutely aware of their responsibilities. sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. 6288.C. DIOSDADO RONGCAL While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ Undoubtedly. Moreover. respondent committed deceit by making it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to collect the money judgment awarded to the former. No. No. 2006 ATTY. he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. In particular. DIZON vs. It was only when complainant reported the matter to the NBI that respondent paid him P40. August 28. HOMOBONO CHAVEZ In the instant case. decency and morality However. ATTY. His act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place. A. Being not only lawyers but also public officers. respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1. respondent‘s act constitutes immoral conduct. 2006 MARILI C. ATTY. we are not prepared to consider respondent‘s act as grossly immoral. respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally his lawyer's lien by dividing the money into 60-40 ratio." In fact.000. when the purported new document was to retain the original January 9. August 9. A. ORLANDO V.000.00. despite knowing he was not entitled to it. ATTY. MALHABOUR vs. Atty.‖ Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of Investigation shall be peace officers. and. vs. The NBI Charter clearly qualifies the power to make arrests to be ―in accordance with existing laws and rules.00. he retained the amount. When he failed in his undertaking. he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar.490. : A. A. 6968. September 7. March 31. Respondents‘ acts did not amount to mere simple and excusable negligence. ATTY. ATTY. therefore. Worse.LEGAL PROFESSION VICTOR LINGAN vs. 2006 ST. 2001 but a new revised/amended document was made in 2002 bearing the original date of execution/acknowledgment. He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.00 as partial payment of the "award.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. there still remains an outstanding balance of P10. et al. 6313.C.00). It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership. respondents were squarely in violation of Rule 1. July 21. 6010. MARICHU LAMBINO In the main. 2006 CATHERINE JOIE P. He did not inform the complainant that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot. after receiving from the NLRC cashier the check amounting to P99. ALBERTI R. This finds support in the following recommendation and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors. AMADOR Z. Having failed to perform their sworn duty.C. respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. measured against the definition. 54171 . 2006. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties. justice. June 16. But is it so gross as to warrant his disbarment? Indeed. is contrary to honesty. upon its own initiative and as public interest may require‖ [5] and to make arrests. No. made matters worse for him. A. RONQUILLO. A. His acceptance of the bulk of the purchaser price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937.

et al. [6] x x x x (Emphasis supplied) By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant. CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. 2006. vs. dishonest. 6352. As public officers. which constitutes a violation of Rule 1. No. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.01 of Canon 1. Dizon violated Rule 1.C. March 24. professionalism." Thus. dishonest. No. CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence. Thus. searches and seizures in accordance with existing laws and rules.02 [18] of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interest.01 [17] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this case. 2006 ATTY. vs. SAGUCIO . and shall void harassing tactics against opposing counsel. as correctly pointed out by complainant. However. PABLITO M. 6705.. Moreover. WILLIAMS vs. a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility. which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. dishonest. which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful. February 27. but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients. A. perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice. Indeed. C. LEON L. Furthermore. the avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the government service: As lawyers in the government service. intelligence and skill required of them. No. a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer‘s oath. A. [19] Respondent‘s conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers. et al. As a retired judge. CASTILLO. they were found to have engaged in unlawful. the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution. Here. fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues. ATTY. GUTIERREZ Respondent‘s act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter‘s pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1. 4517. ASA. 6707. CARLOS B. 2006 SPS. Certainly.C. A. Otherwise said. in championing the interest of clients and defending cases. ATTY. he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing." Respondent's admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct. No. 6501. Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws. respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713. immoral and deceitful conduct.LEGAL PROFESSION (a) To make arrests.01. and participate in continuing legal education programs. support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in dessiminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence. March 31. Nonetheless. ATTY. FRED L. September 11.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ATTY. the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 — the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees — unless the acts involved also transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A.C. by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. immoral or deceitful conduct. respondents failed to live up to the high degree of excellence. especially from one occupying a high public office. RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. respondent's violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1. Atty. They also violated their oath as officers of the court to foist no falsehood on anyone. violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government. A. CANON 6 – Thee canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasksRule 6. Page 102 of 203 . or deceitful acts. JR. Implicit in a lawyer‘s mandate to protect a client‘s interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments. [16] As lawyers.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use is public position to promote or advance his private interests. ATTY VITALIANO FABROS. respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant while working as a government prosecutor. when the law is so elementary. 2006 AQUILINO PIMENTEL. the most basic law of the land. participate in continuing legal education programs. said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6. nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. RUDY ENRIQUEZ As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner.C. lest the latter‘s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. August 31. respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal profession because public office is a public trust. Even the receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's fee. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client. 2006 GISELLA HUYSSEN vs. ET AL.

it should always be dignified and respectful. March 28. JR. he represented his clients as tenants and acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the subject land. INC. Benedicto Valerio. both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. fairness and good faith to the court. et. it can even be said that the respondent IBank and its counsel Atty. REVILLA. He is an officer of the court. Petitioner thereafter goes on to state the basis for his accusations against everyone connected to the case: 1) Looyuko had withdrawn his appeal. and Looyuko's counsel Atty. petitioner's nemesis against whom he initiated several cases. Rule 10. to our mind. Our apprehension is not without basis. A lawyer shall not allow any falsehood. 145213.C. In the disturbance compensation case. Atty. PEREA vs. 2006 PLUS BUILDERS. March 10. that the fishy and suspicious actuations of Atty. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. offensive and menacing language or behavior before The courts. ANASTACIO E. Javier are in cahoots with one another in their common objective to pin down Mr. he conveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were adverse possessors claiming bona fide ownership. and. Mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this Court. 2006. Almadro.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.. 3) Atty. No.C. Go. Rule 11. In the action to quiet title. Alberto Looyuko. Javier neglected his case and continued to represent Looyuko in other cases. ATTYS. No. consider the following: ―. Flaminiano conformed to the writ of execution. No. 7056. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor. 2006 RENATO MALIGAYA vs. A lawyer should submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. However.01. 2006 JUDGE UBALDINO LACUROM vs. ATTY. Under Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. JACOBA Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer. fairness and good faith to the court. The spectacle of members of the bar being engaged in bickering and recrimination is far from edifying. Jr. It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision. 5246.01 are but restatements. 5) Judge Abrogar was once an assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal Atty. Before closing.‖ Rule 10. Almadro Atty. ATTY. His act infringed on every lawyer‘s duty to ―never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Jimmy T. ALMADRO Said statement shows very clearly that Atty. RUBEN T. even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom‘s Resolution. who is an officer of the court. September 15. September 13. No. 2) Atty. Branch 150 Zeuz Abrogar and Petitioner's negligent counsel Atty. A. al. Their being classmates in the law school is not a reason to be less cautious in his dealings with the Court.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. Personal colloquies between counsels which promote unseemly wrangling should thus be carefully avoided. he shall not attribute to a judge motive not supported by the records or by evidence. nor consent to the doing of any in court. The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration. The petitioner alleges that: ―Now it can be told. vs. Javier was done for the sole purpose of making sure that Jimmy T. Atty. Almadro has received a copy of the complaint. NO. Flaminiano. 2006 EDGAR O. Rule 11. 4) Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite petitioner for contempt that was filed by the Bank. A. On its face. For how can he prepare a draft of his comment if it were not so? This should have alerted Atty. nor consent to the doing of any in court. however. xxxxx The Court is also dismayed that such baseless attacks were assisted by counsel. ZEUS C. the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. 6198. he owes candor. Caneda. Not only that. ATTY.‖ of which Canon 10 and Rule 10. A. Go will lose his case. the Court has a few observations regarding the conduct of petitioner and his counsel in this case. and as such.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case.C. A. Consequently. May 2. ANTONIO DORONILA By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits. Alambra to verify the veracity of the claim of Atty. Though a lawyer‘s language may be forceful and emphatic. should have known better than to permit the irresponsible and Page 103 of 203 . Flaminiano.C. G. 5921. respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients‘ lost cause.LEGAL PROFESSION A final word. the Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. ABROGAR. JIMMY T. In particular. he was able to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the execution of the provincial adjudicator‘s Decision. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. GO vs. Alambra should not have relied on the statement given by Atty. he violated the lawyer‘s oath to ―do no falsehood. Doronila breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. CANON 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist in similar conduct by others.R. With due respect. HON.

NO. Rule 15. This led to he filing by the complainant of civil and criminal case against the sheriff and his wife. Rule 12. should have taken pains to remind complainant about it and ascertain the true intent of the latter regarding the same. Clearly.C. who presumably knows the intricacies of the law. at the very least. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional responsibility. What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.. 7062.LEGAL PROFESSION unsupported claim against Judge Abrogar to be included in the pleadings.C.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Complainant filed an administrative charge against him. ATTY. January 23. he was representing the family of the murder victim. at the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo. Respondents have no discretion on this matter. Caneda. are STRICTLY WARNED not to make disrespectful statements against a Judge without basis in the records or the evidence. No. No. 6986. Jr. Both respondents labor arbiter and commissioner do not have any latitude to depart from the Court‘s ruling. 2006 JULIUS AGUSTIN v. No. 5649. ATTY.A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case. ATTY. It is incumbent upon respondents to order the execution of the judgment and implement the same to the letter. and there is no conflict of interest involved because it was his brother Edmar who handled the civil case for ms. fully aware that there is a pending court order for the submission of a compromise agreement. 2006 HUMBERTO C. however. A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. A. It did not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their counsel and instead. 126561 is final and executory and may no longer be amended. a lawyer cannot enter into a compromise agreement without his client‘s consent. Respondent. A. spawned the administrative complaint at bar. Here. A. CABUCANA. ENRIQUE EMPLEO True. JOSE A. DANILO DELA TORRE As found by the IBP. that a lawyer is also an officer of the court with the correlative duty to see to it that cases are disposed in the soonest possible time. impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.C. ATTY. 2006 NESTOR PEREZ v. Respondent claimed that his appearance for the sheriff and his wife was in good faith and pro bono. DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA Law Office. Hence. so that he. After a decision was rendered in favor of the complainant.R. Gonzales. No. Allowing such statements to be made is against a lawyer's oath of office and goes against the Code of Professional Responsibility.03. ―frustrated‖ the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. can make the necessary legal action in order for the case not to be unduly delayed and appear not to be indefinitely pending in the docket of the court concerned. Gregorio D. 5303.04 . CANON 12. A. LIM vs. GEOBEL A.C. for they do not have any discretions in executing a final decision. The implementation of the final and executory decision is mandatory. March 30. No. four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims. CANON 15 . BARTOLABAC. 6836. Be it remembered. respondent. should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused‘s choice of counsel. ET AL. respectively. September 26.C. The representation of opposing clients in unrelated cases constitutes conflict of interests or. constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. 2006 RENERIO SAMBAJON. as complainant‘s counsel. his representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. January 27. The acts of respondent cannot be regarded as acceptable discretionary performance of their functions as labor arbiter and commissioner of the NLRC. much less any authority to change the order of this Court. fairness and loyalty in all his delings with his client. Petitioner Jimmy T. a writ of execution was issued but Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco failed to fully implement the same. in the absence of the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts. June 15. et al. MARCELINO CABUCANA Complaint was plaintiff in a case for sum of money handled by Atty. A. March 6. Page 104 of 203 . denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations therefor. two of the accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios. Respondent Marcelino Cabucana (of the same law office) entered his appearance for the sheriff and his wife in he said cases. alleging that respondent. QUIJANO vs. A. 6160. he even assisted them in executing the extrajudicial confession. invites suspicion of double-dealing. 2006 DANDY V. Edmar Cabucna of the CABUCANA. Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15. 2006 LETICIA GONZALES vs. Go and Atty.A lawyer shall observe candor. The Decision in G. NICANOR VILLAROSA The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests. SUING Herein complainants. vs.C. ATTY. acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil.

6125. respondent failed to inform the trial court of said agreement. Respondent received the money in his capacity as counsel for the complainant. ATTY. PEPITO A. 2006 FLORENCIA SOMOSOT vs. Rule 18. it is undisputed that respondent acted as complainant‘s counsel in the Lizares case. [13] Before admission to the bar. His omission not only gave complainant much anxiety. ATTY. A. gross misconduct and unethical behavior. which complainant had purchased from Dizon.C. He should have filed a manifestation before the trial court informing it of the agreement instead of leaving the trial court waiting and wondering whether said memoranda will be filed at all. No.LEGAL PROFESSION Even respondent‘s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family members] was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still required. 2006 SPS. ANTONIO SORIANO vs. While it is not clear from the records that the Lizares cases included Dizon‘s property. A. Specifically. the act of Atty. 2006 LETICIA ADRIMISIN vs. It is clear that Atty. malpractice. A. ELIAS PONTEVEDRA Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and must therefore be always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18. CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.. No. complainant suffered actual loss. not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. respondent did not inform complainant that the case had been submitted for decision without memorandum despite complainant‘s repeated requests for information regarding the status of her case. Reyes‘s negligence. At the same time. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. ATTY. 4676. without accounting for and returning such sum to the rightful owner. JR. they are required to keep their client informed of the status of the latter‘s cases and to respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. ROLANDO JAVIER A lawyer‘s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.C. September 8. No. MINERVO L. they are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. For. July 25. A. vs.‖ Failure to comply with these abiding precepts of ethical conduct renders counsel liable for violating the canons of his profession. September 19. May 2. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. 6697. PAZ vs. and [their] negligence in connection therewith shall render [them] liable. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. LANGIT Respondent committed flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended for his client. He caused dishonor. by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit. 4285. respondent was also representing Dizon before the DARAB for cancellation of lis pendens involving Dizon‘s property.‖ Additionally.LEONARD S. May 4. ATTY. de Vera in holding on to his client‘s money without the latter‘s acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many Page 105 of 203 .C. July 25. No. A. Worse. respondent was duty-bound to assail the complainant‘s title over Dizon‘s property. Respondent was clearly in a conflict of interest situation.C. Respondent was representing complainant against Lizares where respondent was duty bound to defend complainant‘s title over the properties against the claims of Lizares. and while respondent may have been constrained simply to enter into an agreement with the opposing counsel to submit the case for decision without memorandum. respondent held the money in trust for complainant. DE VERA In the instant case. 2006 DAVID ALMENDAREZ. Therefore. In this case. Under Canon 18. it also needlessly compounded the long delay in the resolution of the 23-year-old case.C. SANCHEZ By respondent‘s own admission. Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client. While it was impossible for him to prepare a memorandum without the transcripts of stenographic notes and his case folder. CANON 16 – A lawyer shal hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. ATTY. 2006 ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs. respondent failed to exercise that degree of diligence required of him in the performance of his duties. 2006 SIMON D. both complainant and Dizon were respondent‘s clients at thqat time. which cancellation was needed for complainant to purchase the Dizon property. by reason of Atty. 2591. 7057. ATTY. No. In this case. A.C. de Vera. No. RENATO REYES Canon 18. In filing the second DARAB case pn Dizon‘s behalf. care and time to his cases. He should have given adequate attention. they are not to ―neglect a legal matter entrusted to [them]. when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon‘s behalf against complainant. it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence. lawyers subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves ―with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients.

EDUARDO A. shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same. 2006 ROMEO G. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client‘s interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client‘s cause.e. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case. May 3. 2006 LUZVIMINDA LIJAUCO vs. January 31. he should undertake the task with dedication and care. Furthermore. a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and reasonable fees. January 23.C. JAIME J. In doing so. except in certain cases. No. A. proves that he failed to give complainants timely legal advise CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. DALISAY v. should have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. ROGELIO TERRADO Respondent‘s disregard for his client‘s interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property. vs. A. complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. Respondent‘s admission that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does not release him from liability.C. ROXAS. under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 00-044. respondent went out of town without contacting complainants to give them proper legal advice. 2006 VALERIANA U. he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and complainant‘s companies for his own end. CANON 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. as correctly found by the investigating commissioner. No/ 4809. PORTUGAL In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused.. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused which stands to be lost but more importantly. 5655. Rule 19. ……. 2006 BUN SIONG YAO vs. JR. Otherwise. No. A. This highlights his motives rather than his cause of action. However. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding.LEGAL PROFESSION cases that he can efficiently handle. his admission that complainants were [1] under the impression that they first had to pay off their civil liabilities prior to filing a petition for probation and [2] unaware that they had only fifteen (15) days from their counsel‘s receipt of a copy of the decision to file their petition. and failing which he has to terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. and that she releases her claims against it. their right to their life and liberty. ATY. such that. 6155.C. As a lawyer. 152072. 6317. GINA FRANCISCO. A. First.C. No.C. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. et al. i. he should undertake the task with zeal. WILLIAM ADECER vs. vs. March 14. respondent is expected to know this Rule. et al. ATTY. First.C. the same should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. CANON 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of the client. that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI.. respondent‘s act of filing multiple suits on similar cases of action in different venues constitutes forum-shopping. A. As found by the Investigating Commissioner. that a timely petition for probation was not filed due to the fact that he was out of town and that complainants were laboring under the misapprehension that the civil liability must be paid in full before probation could be availed of. August 31. If complainant refuses. his clients will be prejudiced. then he should terminate his relationship with her. as to its reasonableness. A. ………. EMMANUEL AKUT Respondent is bound by the representations he made in his Memorandum in Support of the Petition for Probation. ATTY. ATTY. At the very least. he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices. AURELIO Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. will it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. he should have informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already given Page 106 of 203 . in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law. et al. MELANIO MAURICIO. then he is not true to his lawyer‘s oath. and should always be subject to the supervision of a court. Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused. 2006 MA. care and utmost devotion. 7023. Instead of inaction. CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. March 30. ATTY. Once he agrees to handle a case. No. Either of his two ―explanations‖ is enough ground to render him liable for negligence under the Code of Professional Conduct.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his client in the course of the representation. If he should do any less. 2006 SPS. perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal. despite his receipt of a copy of the Decision and the consequent running of the fifteen (15)-day period to file a petition for probation.

1840 of the Civil Code. Still. of the individual property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by the person who continues the business using the partnership name. had been more engaged in business and politics (for a list of his jobs. o in regulating other professions.  Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments: o Art. W/n Monsod is qualified for the position of COMELEC chairman. The Commission on Appointments affirmed the nomination and appointed Monsod to the position. who expects to remain in good standing. Then. 3 CAYETANO V MONSOD Facts:    Pres. the cited provision on Canons of Professional Ethics is not applicable. he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz. The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed for 8 times) 2 IN RE SYCIP FACTS:  This is a consolidated petition. 1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO FACTS: ▪ Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. 9-C Sec. He says that Monsod is not qualified to the position because he has not been ―engaged in the practice of law for ten years‖ (requirement is provided by Consti Art. o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a deceased partner when permissible by local custom. see p. right to counsel is absolute. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. even assuming that he continues his position. Art. It is not a partnership formed for then purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding property. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. There is no excuse for him to shirk from his obligation as member of the bar. 4. the SC said that he can still be considered Issue:  Held:  Page 107 of 203 . ISSUE:  W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased partners in their firm names HELD:   NO! Art. Alexander Sycip and the other filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Negros Occidental by COMELEC ▪ Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequately the defense. In not so doing. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partner‘s name. the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner. No fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. They pray that they be allowed to continue using the names of partners who had passed away. 3. a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. he was negligent in handling the case of the accused. 2. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Therefore. The first one filed by the surviving partners of atty.238). Thereafter. should fulfill. as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. 1(1)). SC says yes. He worked in a law firm for several years after graduating but after that. Renato Cayetano now assails the appointment. It must be considered that in the Philippines. his volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. Aquino nominated Christian Monsod to the position of COMELEC chairman. and even appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a dissolved partnership.   DISSENTING OPINION:  Petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip and Ovaepa are dead or the period when they served as partners sould be stated therein. ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed HELD: No. Requires counsel of repute and eminence. RATIO: 1. 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than a professional partnership whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its individual members. ▪ Judge Climaco denied his motion. Thus. Herminio Ovaepa.LEGAL PROFESSION instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. Monsod passed the bar in 1960 and had been consistently paying his professional fees. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a profession and not a mere trade). In criminal cases.

The dissenters pointed out that for the past ten years. Jesus holds the degree of Bachelor of Laws but is not a member of the Bar. menacing or otherwise improper His radical deviation from these norms cannot be excused W/N ALAUYA BEING A MEMBER OF THE SHARI‘A BAR CAN USE THE TITLE ―ATTORNEY‖ NO. public safety and public interest‖ ALAUYA. or a pharmacist (in order). Villarosa  ALAUYA. deceit. was sent to the VP of Villarosa  ALAUYA also wrote the NHMFC repudiating as void his contract with Villarosa and asking for cancellation of his loan  Finally. knowledge. This reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation after proving what was required by the Bar. a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by ALAUYA of a housing unit  A housing loan was also granted to ALAUYA by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC)  Subsequently. however. Antonio‘s claim to the position is based on a ―convenio‖ where then administrator Teodoro resigned in favor of him. Antonio‘s restoration to the roll of lawyers wiped out restrictions and disabilities resulting from the previous disbarment. legal procedure. Justice Padilla even came up with qualifications – habituality. This group believed that the Consti required that the practice of law be on a regular basis. RESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR  Dissents:  Most of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti requirement pertains to habitual practice of law. public order. Possession of the degree is not indispensable to qualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way. The deed. or a civil engineer. which requires the application of law. gives preference to a descendant who has a ―titulo de abogado‖ or a doctor. practice or procedure. if we consider the modern concept of the practice of law.B. making pleadings or appearing in court). while Antonio is a member of the Bar (he was formerly disbarred. training and experience.e. The term ―titulo de abogado‖ is not just mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto. This modern concept pertains to any act. was reinstated. however. and refrain from doing acts contrary to law. ALAUYA wrote 3 other letters to officers of the SC to stop deductions from his salary regarding the loan from NHMFC  NHMFC also wrote the SC requesting it to stop said deductions  Learning of the letters. Jesus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui. offensive. which bore no stamps. Antonio RATIO Page 108 of 203 . ALAWI filed a complaint alleging that ALAUYA o Committed malicious and libelous charges o Usurped the title of attorney ISSUE W/N ALAUYA VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES YES. whether in or out of court. However. a charitable institution established by Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui. had no prior notice of this. compensation. though. incumbent executive clerk of court FACTS  Through ALAWI‘S agency. and atty. dishonesty and abuse of confidence by ALAWI and proceeded to expound using acerbic language  A copy of the letter. being a member of the Shari‘a Bar and an officer of the Court. 5 ALAWI V ALAUYA PARTIES  ALAWI.-client relationship – to determine w/n a person has been engaged in the practice of law. Jesus‘s claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation (which recognized their father Mariano as a legitimate descendant to the position) as he is the older of the two. 4 CUI V CUI Facts:  The main concern in this case is the respective qualifications of Jesus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barii. ALAUYA wrote a letter to the President of Villarosa advising termination of his contract on the grounds that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation. qualifying one to the practice of law. by the SC and was just reinstated weeks before assuming the position)    HELD RATIO    ISSUE HELD Issue: Who has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose and Antonio? What does the term ―titulo de abogado‖ mean? Held: Antonio. SC now says that since most of Monsod‘s jobs involved the law. application of law. fraud. Or to the one who pays the highest taxes. a nephew of the founders of the institution. Jesus. sales rep of E. may not use language which is abusive. even if he has not been engaged in traditional lawyering (i. he can still be considered as to have been engaged in the practice of law.. scandalous.LEGAL PROFESSION as practicing law. It was also argued that Antonio is disqualified for having been previously disbarred since the deed also provided that an administrator may be removed if found to lack a sound moral character. PARTICULARLY SECTION 4 Section 4 ―public officials and employees at all times respect the rights of others. Monsod really seldom practiced law. legal principle.

Congress may repeal. The existing laws on pleading. and are declared Rules of Courts. 1. if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. Its power is limited to repeal. 71. The additional candidates who want to be admitted claim that they suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and of inadequacy of preparation. and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and.5 per cent in 1955. or supplement the rules concerning pleading. be admitted in mass to the practice of law. the 74% was raised to 75% A few candidates who missed the above marks set by the courts approached Congress. 2. therefore. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of 6 IN RE CUNANAN Facts: This is the ―Bar Flunkers Act of 1953‖ case. but the authority and responsibility over the admission. and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes. it is no less certain that only the SC. disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession. as in this case. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter. the classification is fatally defective. for justifiable reasons. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit. it is a judgment — a judgment Page 109 of 203 . suspend. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish increase or modify substantive rights. have obtained a general average of 69. A breakdown of the numbers is on page 538. those who. suspend.5 per cent in 1952. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit. alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this court. and the admission to the practice of law. for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices. and procedure. and procedure in all courts. which has been invariably followed since 1950. a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. and those will obtain 72. without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. suspension. The public interest demands of the legal profession. and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. which was allowed by the president to become a law without his signature. practice. alter. That. Issue: W/N RA 972 is valid. precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult. Pursuant to the law in question.094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. and not the legislative nor executive department. As per the Rules of Court." The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. This is RA 972. and 73. modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter. A bar candidate must have a general average of 75% in all subjects without failing below 50% in any subject. the court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only:  72% in 1946  69% in 1947  70% in 1948  74% in 1949  In 1950 to 53. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951. There is no motive stated by the authorities for the qualification in RA 972 because of this. In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952. adequate preparation and efficiency. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. the disputed law is not a legislation. notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent. Section 13.5 per cent in 1954. Held: RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1. In spite of this. that may be so. void and without force and effect. 70. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions. Congress made a bill. it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. article VIII of the Constitution provides: "Section 13. practice. will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar. practice.5 per cent in 1953. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in the SC.LEGAL PROFESSION   Court has already had an occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari‘a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and may practice law only before Shari‘a courts ALAUYA‘S wish of not using ―counsellor‖ because of confusion with “councilor‖ is immaterial because disinclination to use said title does not warrant his use of the title ―attorney‖ revoking those promulgated by this Court during the years affecting the bar candidates concerned Although the SC certainly can revoke these judgments even now.

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term. they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the Chief Justice may set. Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading. the Integrated Bar. (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied. It was not a full pardon which could have blotted out the offense committed. he and other co-conspirators murdered the Page 110 of 203 . or modify substantive rights. alter. the admission in the practice of law. for which they were held guilty and sentenced to the penalty of death. or supplement rules concerning pleading. pleading. For the first time. and with the use of a motor vehicle. 7 ECHEGARAY V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE pp. honesty. modesty.  In the Lontok case. practice and procedure in all courts. Royong gave birth to a child  Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him. or good morals. The 1987 Constitution Article VIII. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must adhere to them or incur the risk of suspension or removal. increase. shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. and the integration of the Bar.  The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after the rape incident showed The 1987 molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. by taking advantage of his official position. or modify substantive rights. While he was the municipal mayor of Calapan. It was held that such pardon releases the punishment and blots out existence of guilt. It expanded the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. The widow of the murdered victim then filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking that Gutierrez be removed from the rule of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127.  As a result if the sexual intercourse. such a crime. Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. After serving a portion of the sentence. Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family. Issue: W/N the conditional pardon to Gutierrez places him beyond the rule of disbarment Held: NO. former municipal mayor of Calapan. altered. which. 9 ROYONG v OBLENA FACTS:  Royong. It also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. the admission in the practice of law. the pardon granted was conditional. and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71. practice. The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted on condition that the shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. without doubt. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. was granted absolute or unconditional pardon after conviction for the crime of crime of bigamy. Murder is. in conformity with section 10. are considered as having passed. so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Upon review by the Supreme court the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua. or supplemented by the Batasang Pambensa. the court was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. But most importantly. however. Lontok. Gutierrez was granted conditional pardon by the President. practice and procedure in all courts. is valid and shall continue to be in force. and procedure. Consequently. 8 IN RE GUTIERREZ In re Gutierrez Facts: Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar.LEGAL PROFESSION the law. the respondent. section 5. filed a rape case against the latter. The degree of moral turpitude warrants disbarment.  Under section 5 of Rule 127.5 per cent or more. the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena. without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.  The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band. may be repealed. After this decision has become final. increase. on which Gutierrez relies. article VII of the Constitution. 111-112 The 1973 Constitution Article X.  In the case at bar.  In her complaint. the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal. whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive. Admission of a candidate to the bar requires academic preparation and satisfactorytestimonials of good moral character. ―Moral turpitude‖ includes everything contrary to justice.

What the law provides is that if the Solicitor       Issue:  Held:        11 TING-DUMALI v TORRES FACTS:  Isidra Ting-Dumali charges Rolando Torres with violating his oath as a lawyer and canons of legal and judicial ethics.  Isidra‘s parents died intestate and left many parcels of land to their 6 children (Isidra. President. seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Sec 25. tapos dinemolish na niya. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court.    ISSUE:  W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles. the investigators concluded that A. General finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar. B. Also. piercing the corporate veil) Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the original complaint. the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority. Balicanta became the Chairman of the Board. Cordon‘s ancestral home was demolished and Cordon was detained in a nipa shack. even after he became a lawyer and C. W/N Balicanta should be disbarred Hello?! Siyempre he should be disbarred. 10 CORDON v BALICANTA (complaint for disbarment against Balicanta) Facts:   Cordon and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City when Cordon‘s husband died. American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law. he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation.LEGAL PROFESSION  that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in the province Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition After the hearing. Balicanta‘s complaint was dismissed. Oblena‘s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed is untenable. Balicanta cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation (wow. Lahat ng ginawa niya against The Code of Professional Responsibility. Eliseo and Vicente and Felicisima (married to Rolando Torres)) Page 111 of 203 . Oblena took advantage of Royong‘s trust on him. One‘s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. 19 parcels of land was transferred in the name of the newly formed corporation. Oblena‘s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is wrong. a married woman. Sabi kasi ni Balicanta na he‘s just going to have the house remodeled and repainted. are sufficient grounds to cause Oblena‘s disbarment HELD:   YES! Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape. in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other people thinks he is. Balicanta enticed Cordon to organize a corporation to develop the properties. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. Balicanta did not even try to redeem the properties and even sold the right to redeem to another person. Gago talaga. Sometime after.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal liability. Miriam. Cordon and daughter demanded that Balicanta return all the properties given by them to the corporation but Balicanta is unable to do so (napunta na sa ibang tao eh) IBP investigation recommended that Balicanta be disbarred. General Manager and Treasurer of the corporation (kupal talaga) Balicanta was able to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Suy Ong through an SPA signed by Cordon. Buti na lang at nadiscover ni daughter kung ano nangyari. His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law. Marcelina. Balicanta was also able to obtain a loan from Land Bank using as collateral 9 parcels of land. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles. Balicanta fought back and said that the investigation is prejudiced against him and filed a complaint for disbarment against the people who investigated his case and the lawyers of Cordon. Gago talaga to si Balicanta. Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. his common-law wife.

LEGAL PROFESSION     Torres consented to the forgery of Isidra‘s signature for an Extrajudicial settlement making it appear that his wife and Miriam were the only sole heirs. And that his conformity through his signature was pro forma because the property was a paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife.  Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito Benitez. but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. Edmundo submitted the decision of RTC declaring his marriage to Page 112 of 203 . nor is it mere words. immoral or deceitful conduct. the duress has ceased after wedding day. on a reconstitution hearing.  His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and  ISSUE: WoN Torres should be disbarred? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. insisting instead that complainant Florence was fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage. While the marriage between complainant Florence and Edmundo has been annulled by final judgment. Edmundo having freely cohabited with her and even begot a 2nd child. presented false testimony that Miriam and Felicisima were the only sole heirs Torres presented the reconstituted deed to the RD to enable them to profit by selling the land Torres contends that his acts were done in good faith believing for himself that his and the siblings had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. Held: Yes. Florence further averred that Edmundo entered into a 3rd marriage with Josephine Constantino. and that he abandoned Florence without providing them w/ regular support. he entered into a 2nd marriage with complainant. Edmundo claimed that he left complainant and their 2 children w/ her consent.  Ariola claims that the document he notarized was superfluous and unnecessary.. drift and hollow.  P3. of the JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management. and prejudiced no one. Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal charged Atty. and therefore he should be exonerated – the document was cancelled the same day he notarized it. Issue: Held:  W/N Ariola can be held liable. That the false testimony was a clear oversight. the person who supposedly executed it. 3. 12 MACARRUBO v MACARRUBO Facts: Florence Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her 2 children files a complaint for disbarment against Edmundo Macarrubo alleging that Edmundo deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen Esparza. to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice. he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful. Ariola of committing fraud. Said company had a contract with the Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost houses. 13 SICAT v ARIOLA Facts:  Arturo Sicat.  Yes. dishonest. Facts show that while Edmundo has a subsisting marriage w/ Helen Esparza s/ whom he had 2 children. Torres. and falsehood in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The lawyer‘s oath. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor criminal but is rather an investigation by the court on the conduct of its officers. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Issue: W/n Edmundo should be disbarred. The decision of RTC annulling their marriage is not res judicata on the final resolution of this case. Investigating Commissioner of IBP suggested disbarment complainant void ab initio. but that Florence dragged Edmundo against his will to a 'sham wedding'. Gregorio E. to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice.  Notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them an personally appeared before the. this does not cleanse his conduct of impropriety. hence legally there was no public document that existed. deceit.700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management for services not rendered (as consultants). Even assuming arguendo that Edmunod was coerced by complainant to marry her. Edmundo denied the allegations.  What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the SPA was notarized more than 2 months after the death of Benitez. 2.. is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards.

LEGAL PROFESSION
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act.  Ariola is disbarred, and not merely suspended for a year. 14 CHUA v MESINA, Jr Facts: 15 DE YSASI III v NLRC FACTS  This is a case filed by a son against his father  ‗Father‘ employed ‗Son‘ as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao  ‗Son‘ suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions, June and August 1982  ‗Father‘ took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive compensation  However, in April 1984, ‗Father‘ ceased to pay ‗Son‘s‘ salary  ‗Son‘ filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full back wages  NLRC dismissed case stating that ‗Son‘ has abandoned his work and termination is for a valid cause though ordered ‗Father‘ to pay P5,000 as penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son

 Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a building owned by Mesina‘s family. The property, however, was actually mortgaged in favor of a bank for a loan obtained by Mesina‘s mother—Felicisima Melencio (who was the registered owner as well).  When Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank, the spouses were convinced by Mesina to help his mother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale was made conveying the property to the spouses.  But when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty Mesina suggested to execute another deed of sale—this time, the date of the transaction is 1979, which is before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.  Not long after the title was handed over to the spouses, another lessee of the building—Tecson—questioned the transaction as he was, himself, interested in buying the property. Tecson filed charges for falsification of documents.  To avoid the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale wherein the spouses would appear to resell the property to Felicisima. A new title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was entrusted in the hands of the spouses.  Later on, Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina borrowed the title of the property from the spouses and promised to transfer, yet again, title in the name of the spouses.  But Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the property is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action. The case was investigated by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be suspended for gross misconduct.

ISSUE HELD

W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED YES

RATIO  Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may valid terminate an employment  ‗Father‘ banks on the fact that ‗Son‘ has abandoned his work  However, to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate and justified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence  In the case at bar, the reason for the ‗Son‘s‘ absence was due to his illness of which Father was aware of since he paid hospital and medical bills  ‗Father‘ is ordered to pay ‗Son‘ backwages in lieu of reinstatement and separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service ISSUE W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HELD NO

Issue: Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct? Held: Blimey! Of course! When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed of sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. When he convinced Chua to execute another deed to make it appear that the property was conveyed back to Felicisima, Mesina committed dishonesty. And when he obtained the title upon the misrepresentation that he will return the same after 4 months, he committed dishonesty again. There were also badges of fraud that can be attributed to Mesina as there were marked differences in the signatures of Felicisima. Clearly, Mesina violated his oath of office and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His disbarment is warranted.

RATIO  Rule 1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides ―a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement‖  In the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took pains to initiate steps geared toward a rapprochment between their clients  In the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit of the Labor Code as he did not exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of the labor dispute 16 PEOPLE v ROSQUETA

Page 113 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
Issue: W/N Atty. is liable to be sanctioned. Facts:  There was a criminal case against Antonio Rosqueta, Jr., Eugenio Rosqueta and Citong Bringas. On appeal, the SC issued a resolution ordering Atty. Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for his failure to file the brief for appellants during the required period.  Estacio failed to explain, so he was suspended from the practice of law.  He then filed a motion for reconsideration saying that he did file the briefs but he sent it to Rosqueta Sr., whose house was burned down along with the briefs. He also said that the reason why he did not file the briefs was because the accused declared that they intended t withdraw their appeal for lack of money.  The SC did subsequently receive affidavits from the accused withdrawing their appeal. Issue:  W/n Estacio‘s acts should be punished. Held:  SC says yes. His acts were not consistent with the idea that the law is not a business but a profession. Lawyers do their job not for the sole consideration of money. Estacio should have continued with his duties despite knowing that the accused did not have money anymore.  SC commended what some lawyers would have done in that situation which was to be declared as counsel de officio so that the client remains properly represented by a lawyer who is already familiar with the case.  SC said that Estacio‘s suspension for 5 mos. is already sufficient punishment for his acts. Thus, the suspension is lifted and Estacio is not anymore required to file the briefs but he is censured for negligence and inattention to duty. 17 CANOY v ORTIZ Held: Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month. Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct. CANON 18–A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03–A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04–A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client‘s request for information. His failure to do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the client. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark. Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz‘s election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. 18 PEOPLE v STA TERESA Facts: Angeles Sta. Teresa was found by the trial court to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 12-year old daughter, and was given the penalty of death. The case is now on automatic review. When accused was arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. After 9 days, his counsel de oficio made a manifestation that the accused wanted to change his plea to ―guilty.‖ The prosecution no longer presented testimonial evidence and merely presented exhibits to which counsel de oficio did not comment nor object. During the promulgation of RTC‘s decision, counsel failed to appear and the trial judge had to appoint another counsel de oficio for the purpose of promulgation. Issue: W/N counsel de officio discharged his duties properly Held: NO.  The abbreviated and aborted presentation of the prosecution evidence and the improvident plea of guilty was not in accordance with requirements of due process  Considering the gravity of the offense charged and the finality of the penalty, the counsel de oficio‘s performance was utterly wanting. As a lawyer sworn to uphold justice and the law, he

Facts: A Complaint was filed Canoy accusing Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the case. Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, ―he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer.‖

Page 114 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
had the duty to exert utmost efforts to defend his client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he appears to be. This duty becomes more compelling is his client is accused of a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life  The right to counsel means more that just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. Counsel must provide effective legal assistance and commit himself to the cause for the defense. There must be active involvement by the lawyer and he must be well-versed on the case, the procedures, law, and jurisprudence. 19 KHAN V SIMBILLO FACTS:  An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads: ―ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 5324333/521-2667.‖  SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information.  Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo answered who said that his husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and guarantees a court decree within 4-6 month. The services of Atty. Simbillo is for P48,000. half of which is payable at the filing of the case and the balance after the decision has been rendered.  Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin.  Khan, Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 and 3.01.  Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that solicitation and advertisement is not prohibited per se and that it is about time to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation. He also said that the interest of the public is not served by the prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted.  IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition of similar act will be dealt with more severely.  While the case was being investigated upon by the court, Simbillo again advertised his legal services, for 2 times, in the Buy & Sell Free Ads Magazine. ISSUE:  W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:   YES! Rule 2.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business while Rule 3.01 states that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which the duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. The gaining of livelihood should be a secondary consideration.  Aside from advertising himself as an ―Annulment of Marriage Specialist,‖ his assurance of his clients that an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months from the filing of the case encourages people, who might other have 2nd thought, to dissolve their marriage. Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. However, solicitation must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The use of simple signs stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and residence address and the fields of expertise, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. The use of calling cards is now acceptable.

20 IN RE TAGORDA Facts:   

Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela Previous to the last election, he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and notary public He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In essence he was informing the lieutenant that he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this information to the other people in his town. W/N the acts of Tagorda is advertising Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa yung code of professional responsibility, 1929 case to) The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife. Tagorda suspended for a month.

Issue:  Held:      

21 DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V BAYOT FACTS:  Bayot was charged with malpractice by publishing ―Marriagelicense promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.‖ In the Sunday Tribune

Page 115 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
 Bayot first denied the publication but later on admitted, and asked for mitigation saying: o o I only did it once. I won‘t repeat it again! I never had any case by reason of the publication  substantial distinction. The use of the name the Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers and that it renders legal services. The advertisement in question is meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the practice of law. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court since law practice is not limited merely to court appearances. Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information or statement of facts. The proscription against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. Exceptions: o Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon o Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only the statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law practiced. Considering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE: WoN Bayot can be charged with malpractice? HELD: YES. 1. The publication is tantamount to a solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent..Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

2.

3.

22 ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC FACTS:  Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B (p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machine. ISSUE:  W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice of law  Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of HELD:  According to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services and legal services, common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without

23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS Facts: 

  

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Roberto Romanillos, for representing conflicting interests and for using the title ―Judge‖ despite having been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos). Apparently, Romanillos was previously an active board member as corporate secretary of Durano Corp. Inc. (DCI). But it allowed itself to represent San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc (SJHAI) before the human Settlements Regulation Commission in a case against the same DCI. Irrelevant info: the case above was an alleged violation of DCI of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer‘s Protection Act. DCI sold a land designated as a school site, without disclosing it as such. (page 106) When SJHAI‘s petition over the land was denied, the SJHAI‘s Board terminated Romanillos‘ services. Also, Romanillos acted as counsel for Lydia DuranoRodriguez who substituted for DCI. Thus, a disbarment case was filed for conflicting interests.

Page 116 of 203

The judge‘s action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused.  Issue: Can the orders of Judge Roura and Judge Villon be sustained despite procedural defects? Held: No. but he resigned instead of being booted out) The title ―judge‖ should be reserved only to judges. and the subsequent arraignment of the Yabuts are void and set aside. Asst Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes conducted a reinvestigation. It also included his use of ―judge‖ although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct. o Alfonso-Reyes was aware of the private prosecution‘s appeal to the DOJ from her resolution. resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to comment on the complainants‘ action. she filed the Information. the circumstance that the accused waived the filing of their counter-affidavits left Alfonso-Reyes no other choice but to sustain the MCTC findings—which she did not do. with no bail recommended. o Office of the Prosecutor did not even inform the trial court of the pending appeal to the DOJ Secretary. o Alfonso-Reyes recommended a bond of 20k for the Yabuts despite the fact that they were charged of homicide and that they were fugitives from justice (having avoided service of warrant of arrest). Yet. Procedural irregularities in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor: o Warrants of arrest were issued by the MCTC.01 and 3. Thus.01. It would be more prudent to wait for the DOJ resolution. As long as the lawyer represents 2 or more opposing clients. The orders of Judge Roura denying Motion to Defer proceedings are void and set aside. the acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is void. a ten-day period with which the complainants can file petition with the CA. he still continued to serve as counsel for Durano-Rodriguez.  W/N Romanillos should be disbarred Held:   (The subsequent resolution of the DOJ Secretary exposed her blatant errors. a second disbarment case was filed. They are servants of the law whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape and innocence shall not suffer. nor the right of the State and offended party. the Office of the Public Prosecutor (particularly the Asst Prosecutor) and two Judges (who handled the case) committed serious procedural flaws resulting in the impairment of due process (prejudicial to both the offended party and the accused). but he was merely reprimanded. and whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case but that justice be done. but the Yabuts were not arrested or were never brought unto the custody of the law. 25 TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS  TRIESTE was charged with 23 separate violations of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act* because while being the Municipal Mayor and member of the Committee on Award of the Municipality of Numancia in Aklan and having financial or pecuniary interest in TRIGEN Agro-Industrial Development 24 DIMATULAC v VILLON Facts:   In the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac. he is guilty of violating his oath.LEGAL PROFESSION   The IBP handled the case. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. an not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service. Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is ordered to comply with the DOJ Secretary‘s resolution. Though a prosecutor may disagree with the findings of the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation (and conduct his own). incumbent and retired. His continued use of ―judge‖ violated Rules 1. When the State is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. pending appeal with the DOJ. Judge Roura‘s procedural lapses: o Deferred resolution on the motion for a hold departure order until ―such time that all the accused who are out on bail are arraigned‖ o Denied the motion to defer proceedings for the reason that ―private prosecution has not shown any indication that the appeal was given due course by DOJ‖ Judge Villon‘s procedural lapses: o Ordered arraignment despite: a motion to defer proceedings. The lack of opposition does not mean consent. The judge ―should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice‖. It is inconsequential that SJHAI never questioned the propriety of respondent‘s continued representation of DuranoRodriguez. Prosecutors are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy. Issue:   Yes. In spite of this. And later on. Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to file their counter-affidavits without first demanding that they surrender by virtue of the standing warrants of arrest. Page 117 of 203 . (he was a judge before.) And despite the pending appeal. The penalty imposed on him in the Zarate case forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges: including the title judge. The order of Judge Villon on the arraignment.

are not that complicated to require 3 years before formal complaints are filed. and (c) failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.. after leaving gov‟t. Page 118 of 203 . or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest 26 TATAD v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:  Oct. service. the Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo. Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner. Oct.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses Almeda. he awarded purchases of construction materials by the said municipality from the said corporation and signing the vouchers as evidence of said purchase The Sandiganbayan found TRIESTE guilty and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification TRIESTE. 1. contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity. when #2 was involved in a civil action. Ferrer. 25.02 that states: A lawyer shall not. accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in said service. 7 (a) Giving D’Group. specially his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers (h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business. alleges that he signed the vouchers only after all the purchases had already been made. he became involved in 2 transactions: 1. 1980 – report by PSC was submitted recommending the filing of charges for graft and corruption. TRIESTE cannot be held liable under such Law TRIGEN did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction such that there is no complaint for non-delivery. as consideration for the release of a check to the said corp. of DPI Francisco Tatad. Also. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law and substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by law is part of procedural due process. Vice-President of the Asset management Group of PNB. July 5. Ong. During Cedo‘s stint with PNB. 12. delivered and paid for by the Municipal Treasurer hence he cannot be guilty under the provisions of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT NO TRIESTE already sold his shares to a certain MRS TUASON before he assumed office and despite the absence of it in the SEC records. SC says yes they were violated by the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan. for printing services rendered during the Constitutional Convention Referendum. When a civil action arose because of #1. The case was ready for disposition as early as 1982 but the informations were only filed in 1985.LEGAL PROFESSION Corporation. Gen. 1974 – Antonio de los Reyes. 1985 – Tanodbayan issued a resolution calling for the filing of charges against Tatad in the Sandiganbayan.   ISSUE HELD RATIO   Issue:  Held:       NOTE *Section 3. after leaving the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. the court finds this fact immaterial as there is no law requiring submission of reports regarding sales and disposal of stocks (what is required is only submission of annual financial reports) The Municipal Treasurer testified that there was never a public bidding hence if there is no bidding then there could be no awarding by TRIESTE Testimonial and documentary evidence both confirm that TRIESTE signed vouchers after payment and since what is contemplated in the Anti-Graft Law is the actual intervention in the transaction which one has financial or pecuniary interest in. a private corporation owned by his brother –in-law unwarranted benefits. 1979 – a formal complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan Apr. Marcos and the charges became widely known.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. filed a report to the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) containing charges of violations of RA3019 7 27 PNB v ATTY CEDO Facts: PNB filed a complaint against Atty. TRIESTE should be acquitted (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts) against Sec. 1982 – all affidavits and counter-affidavits were in and the case was ready for disposition. (b) receiving a check from Roberto Vallar. The charges in the complaint. Cedo for violation of Rule 6. Manager of Amity Trading Corp. Dec. underdelivery or overpricing in the transactions Hence. W/n Tatad‘s rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated. Ong and 2. Cedo. He alleges that his rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated. Cedo was the former Asst. in his defense. Tatad now questions the propriety of the filing of charges.       1979 – Tatad had a falling out with then Pres. former Head Executive Assistant of the Department of Public Information (DPI). 5 informations were filed against Tatad in 1985. A delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. 1980 – Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the PSC for investigation and report. June 16.

02. Cioco is disbarred. Cioco is sought to be disciplined as a lawyer Page 119 of 203 . he will retire from the service  Atty. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests. The exception is . Soriano violated Canon 6.LEGAL PROFESSION Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Records disclose that page four of the said Certificate was surreptitiously substituted. Held: Cedo violated Rule 6. since it is already a public document. He also claims that even if it was his law firm handling the Almeda case. in behalf of one client. Soriano which was received by his son.  According to Igoy‘s friend. thus he may now longer be charged. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this complaint against Igoy in the SC  Arguments of Atty. Soriano: o It is unnatural for a person to give money to someone whom he does not know well and whom he met only for the first time o The money was offered gratuitously by Igoy o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to him on the SC parking lot for many employees were passing in that place o it is not Eng.  Atty. William Redoblado introduced Atty. In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty. Cioco. Cioco‘s participation in changing the bid price in the Certificate of Sheriff‘s Sale affects his fitness as a member of the bar. then clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff. it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. Taneo o if the SC finds that he is guilty. Mactan Shangrila Hotel. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is pending in the CA  Atty. Herein. of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant cause.000. utilized against his former client information given to him in a professional capacity.02. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616 ISSUE:  W/N Atty. Ferrer.   under the court‘s plenary authority over members of the legal profession. At a foreclosure sale conducted by the sheriff. there is no double jeopardy as both proceedings are administrative in nature. in advance of the trial. Cioco and the sheriff who conducted the sale had previously been administratively charged and dismissed from service. et al.  Eng. Soriano offered to prepare the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC. Redoblado who introduced him to Igoy but Mr. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the CA. Rule 6. Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous case. 263. Soriano asked for an additional P20. 28 DINSAY v CIOCO Facts:  Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank) certain properties as security for the payment of its loan. Therein. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the Court‘s administrative powers.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:   Issue: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res adjudicata appplies) Held:   Cioco‘s contention has no merit. vs.000  Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty.000 but the former reminded the latter the he will only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC  Igoy‘s case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. as in this case. Atty.   29 IGOY v SORIANO FACTS:  Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy. Atty. if that misconduct affects his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency. and that disbarment was deemed adjudicated therein. inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation.67 to only P730. Now. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of the loan so the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20.  SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality  Igoy later found out that Atty. except by express consent of all the parties concerned after the disclosure of facts. the property was sold to the bank. Issue: W/N violated Rule 6. A certificate of Sheriff‘s sale was executed by Atty. Cioco was administratively proceeded against as an erring Court personnel under the supervisory authority of the court. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when. Ong‘s case. the mere fact that their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side. He argues that there was res adjudicata due to the administrative case. The general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He knows it is patently illegal to alter its contents after notarization. The new page lowered the bid price from the original amount of P3. 182. and the client. While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct. who was the sole bidder. the case was being handled by Atty. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty.

Apparently. The intervention contemplated in Rule 6. 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party Intervention – interference that may affect the interests of others         31 IN RE GALANG Page 120 of 203 . 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent.        30 PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN *kalokohan na kaso to.LEGAL PROFESSION   Yes! Atty. In relation to this case. it does not apply to Mendoza. his family and cronies.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza No. representing the government. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. And Mendoza‘s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.03 will make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to one‘s work as a government counsel. because of his participation in the liquidation of Genbank. no Rule 6. The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. Genbank failed to recover. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 yet)  Bottom line. Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. A public bidding of Genbank‘s assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. However. Atty. Sandiganbayan denied PCGG‘s motion. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. This is not the ―matter‖ contemplated by Rule 6.   Concurring Opinions:  Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6. According to the Sandiganbayan. The matter (see 3rd note).03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel Matter – any discrete. they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively Notes:  Adverse-interest conflicts – where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse Congruent-interest conflicts – the use of the word ―conflict‖ is a misnomer. The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should e matched with actual deeds. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and is suspended from the practice of law. resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts Resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative sanctions To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will open the floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption.03 and other historical stuff sa case Facts:  1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Solicitor General Mendoza. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. it does not involve conflicts at all. or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza.03 should have a prescriptive period  Tinga: Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for public service is a public trust. Issue:  Held:   W/N Rule 6. Nonetheless.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General. 1986: after EDSA I. intervened with the liquidation of Genbank. 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza. Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents. Kyle‘s interpretation: PCGG getting desperate Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6. PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Sandiganbayan heard the case. 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision – 28 pages lang ** merong history of Rule 6. Soriano‘s offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty may be imposed on him.

he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required prelegal education as prescribed by the Department of Education. He is therefore unworthy to be a lawyer. Two years after. he claims that he really got his college diploma from Arellano University in April 1949.‖ The fact that he hurdled the bar is immaterial. Diao‘s name is removed from the roll. Galang‘s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case (which he later admitted) and his failure to clear his name for 13 years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty. Among other grounds for disbarment: a. is equivalent to a HS diploma. Misrepresentations of. Also. His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte shich resulted to the latter's untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar.63. to take the lawyer's oath. and o Diao never attended Quisumbing College Diao claims that he left HS in his third year. 3. as a graduate of Quisumbing Collge. And in 1966. the education authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year HS. it would have showed that he took up law 6 months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. The Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao‘s name be erased from the roll of attorneys. Rule: ―That PREVIOUS to the study of law. or indicted for. He then would have not been permitted to take the Bar. probity and good demeanor. a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of Law.an alleged crime is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law. (Guilty of Fraud upon the Court) 2.. in his school records. BUT. His discharge from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various certification attesting to his righteous peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character. a neophyte. His oath taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Exams subject to the condition that should he pass the same he shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the court.66.. Diao has not completed BEFORE taking up law.64. Held: YES.69 and 71… he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred? HELD: YES! RATIO: 1. died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him.. petitioner's co-accused below. The conviction stemmed from Cuevas' participation in the initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS. Severino Martinez charged him for having falsely represented his application: that he had the requisite academic qualifications. which according to him. and upon return to civilian life.67.67. Had his application showed that he graduated from Arellano. the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education: o Diao did not complete his HS training. he was allowed to do so only because he fraudulently concealed and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in 1962.  Issue: W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath.69 and 71. petitioner applied for and was granted probation. Cuevas prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the court's most convenient time. where Raul Camaligan. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar of the fact that he had been charged with. Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams 32 IN RE CUEVAS  Facts: Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr.LEGAL PROFESSION FACTS:  Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila  He took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath in 1972. He was later discharged from probation and his case considered closed and terminated. W/N Diao should be removed from the roll. recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Lack of good moral character c. Thereafter. the reqt on applicant‘s educational attainment b. passed the General Qualification Test. or false pretenses relative to. 33 DIAO v MARTINEZ Facts:      Telesfor Diao was admitted to the Bar in 1953. He says he was erroneously certified. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. due to confusion. (he did not offer any explanation for such omission). Issue: Held:    Yes. This resolution was due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. In this petition. The court nonetheless is willing to give Cuevas a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al Caparros Argosino (case sa legprof). The ―error‖ or ―confusion‖ was to his own making. he entered the US Army. Page 121 of 203 .

she cut all ties with him  In proceedings before the IBP Commission. whether in his professional or private capacity. LESLIE filed a motion to cite IRIS in contempt for making false allegations in her Answer to impress upon the IBP that her 1st child by CARLOS was within wedlock RATIO Immorality  Requisites to admission to practice of law includes being a person of good moral character and possession of such must be continuous  Loss of good moral character is a ground of revocation of the privilege of the practice of law  In the case at bar. the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena.  As a result if the sexual intercourse. such conduct to warrant disciplinary action must be grossly immoral that is so corrupt and false to constitute a criminal act or moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community  IRIS‘ act of immediately distancing herself belies the alleged moral indifference and proves she has no intention of flaunting the law  Hence. Certificate of Marriage certified by State Registrar revealed that date of marriage was actually Oct 22.e. any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading especially in this case since IRIS had personal knowledge of facts stated therein  Hence. IRIS should be reprimanded for attaching marriage certificate with an altered date 36 ROYONG v OBLENA FACTS:  Royong.  In her complaint. Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family. HELD o o IRIS indicated in Answer she got married to CARLOS in Oct 22. which shows that he lacks moral character to continue as officer of the court. A complaint for disbarment was also filed by Calub before the SC.LEGAL PROFESSION taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. 1987 W/N IRIS SHOULD BE DISBARRED NO Issue: Can Atty Suller be disbarred? Held: Yes. Royong gave birth to a child Page 122 of 203 . A criminal complaint for rape was filed against Suller. The CFI acquitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. filed a rape case against the latter. the fact remains that IRIS‘ relationship with CARLOS was clothed with marriage and cannot be considered immoral  Moreover. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. IRIS was imprudent in her personal affairs  Circumstances existed which should have at least aroused her suspicion that something was amiss (i. The rape by a lawyer of his neighbor‘s wife constitutes such serious moral depravity. Acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of an administrative case for disbarment. IRIS should not be disbarred False allegation  Any normal bride would recall date and year of marriage  Difficult to fathom how IRIS could ―forget‖ the year of her marriage  Moreover. 1985 However. children by another woman. 35 UI v BONIFACIO FACTS  LESLIE‘S side of the story o LESLIE Ui married CARLOS and had 4 children with him o Subsquently. etc) but she did not do anything about it  However. LESLIE found out later the illicit relations continued and IRIS even had 2nd child with CARLOS o LESLIE filed a complaint for disbarment against IRIS on ground of immorality  IRIS‘ side of the story o Met CARLOS who represented himself as a bachelor with children by a Chinese woman with whom he had long been estranged o CARLOS and IRIS got married in Hawaii o Upon return to Manila. LESLIE found out CARLOS was having illicit relations with Atty IRIS Bonifacio and begot a daughter o CARLOS admitted this relationship with LESLIE who confronted IRIS o IRIS told LESLIE everything was over between her and CARLOS o However. 34 CALUB v SULLER Facts:    ISSUE Atty Suller raped the wife of his neighbor Cristino Calub. they did not live together because CARLOS wanted his children with the Chinese woman to gradually know and accept his marriage with IRIS o When IRIS knew about the 1st marriage. not living together as husband and wife.

she failed the subject. he slept at the house of his friends.LEGAL PROFESSION   Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him.‘s finding that Aznar committed gross misconduct. They went to Manila. seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Sec 25. It appears that Atty. his common-law wife. the latter cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and wife. One‘s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other people thinks he is. Aznar denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila. From the evidence. Villanueva abandoned them.       Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging that after Atty.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles. It is the duty of the lawyer. B. As such. Held: Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct. The court agrees with the Sol. Soberano sent a letter to the court asking that no action be taken on her petition until her mother has arrived and decided whether it should push though. Aznar for gross immorality. Soberano sent another letter saying that her mother has arrived and that the case must case.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal liability. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment. While Aznar denied having taken Delos Reyes to the Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her.  37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR Facts: Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty. Soon thereafter. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. she bore him two children. Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next morning inside the Ambassador Hotel. Oblena‘s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is wrong.  Oblena‘s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed is untenable. the investigators concluded that A. Page 123 of 203 . the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority. Also. whenever his moral character is put into question. American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law. As a consequence of this. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the original complaint. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. and subsequently. she approached Aznar for reconsideration. Gen. After dining in a restaurant. Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in the province Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition After the hearing. to satisfy the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy continued membership in the bar. he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation. it appears that Aznar was the Chairman of the Board of Southwestern University. Oblena took advantage of Royong‘s trust on him. Aznar told Delos Reyes that she should go with him to Manila or else she will flunk. Aznar assured her that she would pass. he did not present any evidence to show where he was on that date. in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes. even after he became a lawyer and C. His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law. Despite her plea. are sufficient grounds to cause Oblena‘s disbarment HELD:   YES! Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape. He cannot dispense with the high exacting moral standards of the profession. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. a married woman. Delos Reyes failed her Pathology subject.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle on to continue in the practice of law 38 SOBERANO v VILLANUEVA Facts:    ISSUE:  W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles. Villanueva had induced her to take part in a fake wedding.

Purog in all the dealings  But Atty. Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank checks to respondent to serve as collateral. Page 124 of 203 . Velasco violated one of the basic tenets of legal ethics by giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the position to influence the courts. Velasco claimed that he has connections with judges and they were claiming money from Rau Sheng. Velasco.000 shares in Haru Gen for P1. these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act. Purog o He refused to deliver the certificate of stocks and the land titles because of the Rau Sheng‘s incomplete payment of the purchase price o As to the immorality claim. Velasco wherein the latter was asking money from the former to be given to judges hearing his cases  An additional charge for immorality because of his illicit relationship with Lucy Matienzo who is not his legal wife was filed by Rau Sheng wherein he presented the baptismal certificate of Jenny Velasco which listed Atty. where Villanueva is practices his profession. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.3M with a remaining balance of P300.represented by Atty. Subsequently. but Atty. The last one is Hon.000. Lourdes. One is no less than the Executive Judge of the CFI of Negros Occidental. acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in the amount of P10K.  A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which gave the appearance of influencing the courts and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril. The other is the Dean Montemayor of the Ateneo College of Law. Lourdes paid Deciembre the amount of the loan plus interest and surcharges.  No profession offers greater opportunity for public service than that of a lawyer. 3 lands of Atty. SC held that in light of the circumstances in this case. Angeles Velasco as his legal consultant and counsel of his company Foreign Investors Consultancy and Management. Rule 1.  Velasco violated Canon 1.000 but the former refused to deliver the certificates to the Taiwanese despite complete payment made by the Taiwanese  Also. Velasco denied all the allegations of Rau Sheng with these arguments: o He could not deceive Rau Sheng for the Taiwanese was always represented in all their transactions by Atty. Atty. Guillermo Santos. 39 RAO SHENG v VELASCO FACTS:  Rau Sheng Mao is a Taiwanese national who engaged the services of Atty. Velasco presented affidavits of his wife and Lucy Matienzo Issue: W/N Villanueva should be disbarred Held: NO  The letters of Soberano to Villanueva clearly indicated that intimate relations had existed between them prior to the date when the alleged fake wedding occurred. Velasco was bought by Rau Sheng for P3. prayed that her motion to withdraw the petition be denied. These indicate that there was o need for Villanueva to stage a fake wedding to induce Soberano to cohabit with him. a lawyer was tasked with the equally greater responsibility of upholding the ideals and ethics established. since Villanueva had procured the motion by means of threat and intimidation. They filed this case for disbarment against Atty. distinguished members of the bar had attested to Villanueva‘s good moral character.  What is more. Lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with the greatest caution. Deciembre. Inc (FICMI).  father together with the affidavits of several people confirming Velasco‘s illicit relationship with Lucy as evidence Atty. Velasco as its director and stockholder. former Chairman of Agricultural Tenancy Commission. Velasco was found guilty of the having illicit relationship with Matieza and giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the position to influence the court and he was ordered suspended from the practice of law for 2 years  The court found it unlikely that Rau Sheng was deceived by Atty. Velasco is guilty of having an adulterous relationship with Matienza with whom he has 3 children all bearing his surname as seen in all the school records of the children. then Judge of CFI and Court of Agrarian Relations.101 by engaging in unlawful and immoral acts. entered into a management agreement with FICMI  Atty Velasco sold to Rau Sheng his 10.  Haru Gen Beach Resort and Hotel Corporation .000. Velasco still refused to deliver the titles  Rau Sheng filed an administrative case against Atty.  Some of the letters showed that Soberano reminded him of his promise to marry her after he passed the bar  As to whether the extra-marital relations between Soberano and Villanueva warrants disciplinary action. nor so unprincipled as to warrant a disbarment of disciplinary action. Velasco is guilty of all the allegations made by Rau Sheng HELD:  YES! Atty. and that she was finally withdrawing her complaint the last letter written by Soberano to the court however.LEGAL PROFESSION   Soberano again wrote a letter saying that the filing of the petition was not sincerely her own wish. 40 OLBES v DECIEMBRE Facts:     Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Office in Manila.  Also. Velasco as its ISSUE:  W/N Atty. For the privilege conferred upon him. with the help of Deciembre. Rau Sheng presented as evidence letters made by Atty. Velasco in all their transactions for he was always represented by Atty.

Therefore he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. Deciembre filled up the blank checks in the amount of P50k each. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the legal processes. The subsequent judgment of annullment of marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. A lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Investigating officer: Deciembre‘s version of the facts is highly doubtful. They are even saying that some of their officemates suffered the same fate under Deciembre. Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer worthy member of the Bar. Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession. the first division of SC issued a resolution setting aside the CFI Decision declaring the marriage null and void and remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding. Page 125 of 203 ..LEGAL PROFESSION     Notwithstanding payment. whether it be professional or non-pro. CFI delared that marriage null and void. De Silva  De Silva tendered a check to Grande as settlement of the civil aspect of the case. Canon 1 says that a lawyer shall uphold the consti. The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment. 43 REYES v CHIONG JR. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.  IBP recommended that de Silva be suspended for two years. Complainant filed with CFI a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondent Palma and Lisa. Thereafter. knowing fully well that Palma is a married man and has 3 children. Deciembre then filed BP22 & estafa cases against the Olbes spouses. Good moral character is always an indispensabel requirement. How else would a lawyer endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even simple directives. The nature of the office of an atty requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. He frequented theis house and even tutored Cojuangco's 22-year old daughter Maria Luis Cojuangco. Issue: W/n Palma should be disbarred. the client of Atty. The penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for 2 years is too mild. Wihtout the knowledge of complainant Cojuangco's family. To this date. W/N Deciembre should face disciplinary sanctions Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule 7.  The check was returned with the notation that the ACCT CLOSED  Grande filed a suit against De Silva for violation of BP 22 and Estafa (sha naman ang nakasuhan tuloy hehe)  De Silva refused to comment on notices of complaints sent to her. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyer‘s moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to continue in the practice of law. Cojuangco fileed with the SC the instant complaint for disbarment. Complainant was shocked. Meanwhile. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life. Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case. Siyempre tumalbog yun mga cheke. Deciembre is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely. He even filed BP22 cases against the couple. There are discrepancies between his oral and written testimonies. Issue:  Held:      41 GRANDE v DA SILVA FACTS:  Emilio Grande is the private offended party (of estafa and BP 22) against a certain Sergio Natividad. Held: YES. Deciembre is found to be lacking good moral character. Palma married Lisa in Hongkong. 42 COJUANGCO v PALMA Facts: Complainant Cojuangco wa a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices and Palma was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Also. Franklin was even detained for 3 months because of the cases.03 He committed falsification when he filled up the blank checks even if this was not agreed upon and despite knowledge that the loan had already been paid. The truth is respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Herosisima. This shows the vileness and wretchedness of his soul. Respondent's culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just 22 years old and was under psychological treatment for emotional immaturity. It was only the next day that Palma informed complainant of such fact. Her deliberate refusal to accept the notices served on her stains the nobility of the profession. For a lawyer‘s professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. 2. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. justifies disciplinary action. Palma's relationship with the Cojuangcos became intimate. ISSUE: WoN de Silva should be suspended? HELD: YES RATIO: 1..

Held:    A complaint was filed against Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and for using improper and offensive language. Atty. He also averred that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid. It was Pefianco‘s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so that caused the untoward incident (shouting at Salvani and the woman).    Page 126 of 203 . Thus the filing of the cases had no justification. but he also filed a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against Xu. District Public Attorney Alcantara. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. 44 ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO Facts:  Atty Pefianco is counsel in a criminal case. his public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect for it. Salvani was talking to the woman. Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the estafa case which was baseless. Atty. If Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. he could have instituted disbarment proceedings.   Issue: Did Pefianco violate the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes. Pefianco says that he was just moved by the sight of a crying woman whose husband had been murdered.LEGAL PROFESSION  Facts:    Atty. Victoriano Chiong. Jr for Chia Hsien Pan. 45 CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN FACTS  9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published objectionable features or articles in the school paper  Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549  CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case  While the civil case was still pending. But Pefianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid (loud enough for other people to hear). While Atty. and Prosecutor Salanga. and so Xu asked that his money be returned. W/N Chiong should be suspended. Chiong then filed a motion to quash. talked to Pefianco. Atty Reyes. Ramon Reyes counsel for Zonggi Xu. Atty. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based fishball. dignity and civility. a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Xu. IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years. Atty Pefianco shouted at them and questioned the actions of the woman (pertaining to the settlement). As a lawyer. Atty Salvani attended to her. Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Though he thought that this is righteous. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena against Pan. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Atty Pefianco was fined and reprimanded. One day the private offended party went to the Public Attorney‘s Office to have her civil claims (in the criminal case) settled. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Xu then filed a case of estafa against Pan. and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. He alleged that Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation he still filed the complaint against Pan in spite of Pan‘s motions. A commotion in the office ensued (Pefianco even tried to attack Alcantara). letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge of CAMACHO  CAMACHO filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge they procured and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to waive all kinds of claims they may have with AMA  CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension  PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case ISSUE HELD RATIO W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED/DISBARRED YES    Issue:     Yes. Atty Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy. tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it. as head of the agency. fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues.

Ireneo Torres against Atty. Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio‖ (3) an ordered by the MTCC where Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel. charged the latter with grossly immoral conduct. At the helm of her complaint was the allegation that the Atty. As to the third cause of action. Torres alleges that Javier used language that was clearly abusive. 46 TORRES v JAVIER Facts:   47 CAMBALIZA v CRISTOBAL-TENORIO Facts: Cambaliza. Jose Javier for malpractice. CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the expelled AMA students PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates. are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry. Javier has disobeyed such mandate and is thus suspended from the practice of law for 1 month. The court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner on Bar Discipline. petitions and motions. She says that her firm is a sole-proprietorship.01.01 based on the ff. Javier implied that Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get certain documents. she had no partners in her law office. Group card of ―Atty. Third. and improper. the allegations stem from statements/remarks made by Javier in the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA) (Torres is the President). Any lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer is guilty of violating rule 9. has been falsely representing herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio. got a fake marriage license. She also alleges that the Atty. SC says only as regards the second cause of action. the Court ruled that the statements made regarding Torres‘ intellectual aptitude were not relevant to the ―attorney‘s fees case‖. denies all the allegations. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.). with Felicisimo as senior partner. including all kinds of pleadings. much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him but should only deal with his counsel. This was with regard to Javier‘s ―Reply to Respondents Answer/Comment‖ in the ―attorney‘s fees case‖ where Javier made a comment on the intellectual capacity of Torres. inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. For the first cause of action. cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband Felicisimo. offensive. The court made mention that it is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy. criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against AMA arising from their previous dismissal‖ Hence. Torres says that this statement is demeaning to the legal profession and the notarial service. cooperated in illegal practice. Second. hence.     Issue:  Held:  This is an administrative case filed by Atty. (2) Sagip Radio Comm. Held: The lawyer is guilty. Cristal-Tenorio. There were 3 causes of action First. The issue in the said case was whether the 10% attorney‘s fees ―checked off‖ from the initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal (I don‘t really understand this pero yan lang yun nakalagay). who is not a member of the bar. in violation of Rule 9. Cambaliza alleged that Atty. PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months made in the course of judicial proceedings. utterances Page 127 of 203 .      DOCTRINE A lawyers should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel. W/n Javier should be held liable for his acts. The SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility instructs that respondent‘s arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. These statements give a possible scenario as to the reason for the burglary in the UEFA office. Issue: W/N the lawyer is guilty of cooperating in the illegal practice of law. gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer‘s oath. when in fact Felicisimo was already married to another woman (Atty. As to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty). Torres finds fault in Javier‘s statement that implies that it is normal for notaries public to let their relatives sign the documents for them. whether by design or oversight. is an excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case was belied by the Manifestation which states ―9 signatories agreed among others to terminate ALL civil. however false or malicious they may be. the SC gave Javier the benefit of the doubt that he issued these statements only in the defense of his client. evidence: (1) letterhead of CristalTenorio Law office. caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit against a Makati Councilor. Atty. IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.LEGAL PROFESSION   It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Readmission Agreements were formalized. According to the Commissioner. a former employee of Atty. the SC held that such statements made by Javier were necessary in order to resolve the petition for audit filed.

section 3. This case was submitted for decision. The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law agency. But notwithstanding their Issue:  Held: 50 PHILIPPINE LAWYERS v AGRAVA Facts:       Agrava is the Director of the Philippines Patent Office (PPO). held out to the public as such as attorney-at-law The case is remanded to the court of origin      Issue: W/N the agreement was valid. The ruling of the lower court is wrong for ―assuming to be an attorney. PLA: one who passes the bar is licensed to practice law and is qualified to practice before the PPO.  The commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association: ―34. to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame.  Held: NO.  The agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is ―the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. David drafted a contract signed by him and Tan Tek Beng stating among others that ―On all commissions and attorney‘s fees that we shall receive from our clients. the client.‖ In the same contract. we shall divide fifty-fifty. and the court from the incompetence and dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice. and to the Supreme Court. they took their oaths as lawyers before a notary public and formally advised the SC of such oath taking and that they will engage in the practice of law in all courts of the Philippines RTC: not guilty of contempt of court unless the respondents actually engaged in the practice of law or held out to the public that they are lawyers by means of circulars  ISSUE:  W/N the act of the respondents of taking their oath before a notary public constitutes contempt of court HELD:    YES! The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only before the SC by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice. Also. the respondents had. respondents. he can require additional requirements to practice before the PPO. not a business. Take note – Agrava has been issuing examinations before but it was only now that this power has been contended W/N appearance before the PPO constitutes or is included in the practice of law Page 128 of 203 . by taking the oath of office as attorney-at-law and notifying the SC of what they had done and their intent to practice law in all courts of the Philippines. Phil.‖ ―35. personal or corporate. He is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. except with another lawyer. Although they sought admission under the Bar Flunkers Act. No division of fees for legal services is proper. (PLA) filed this case for prohibition and injunction against Agrava. David also agreed not to deal directly with their clients. which intervenes between client and lawyer…‖  David should have known better than to enter and act upon such void and unethical agreement. The purpose is to protect the public. and acting as such without authority. While the case was being investigated by the Solicitor General. 49 PEOPLE v DE LUNA FACTS:  De Luna. the bar. know that they did not pass the bas examination. either personally or through paid agents or brokers.LEGAL PROFESSION The lawyer‘s duty to prevent or not assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. 48 TAN TEK BENG v DAVID Facts:  Tan Tek Beng is a non-lawyer while David is a lawyer. x x x. disqualification to be admitted to the bar. Lawyer‘s Assoc. for all intent and purposes. The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last since there were mutual accusations of doublecross. Tan Tak Beng died. they were notified of the decision of the SC denying their petitions. based upon a division of service or responsibility. Tan Tek Beng accused David of not complying with the agreement and denounced the latter to then Presidential Assistant Ronaldo Zamora.‖ This meaning is in consonance with the principle that the practice of law is a profession.. That like his US counterpart. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the additional qualification Agrava: prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge. Agrava issued a circular announcing that there will be an examination to determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the PPO.‖ is only one of the grounds under Rule 64. Respondents clearly defied and challenged the orders of the SC by willfully taking the lawyer‘s oath before the notary public despite the resolution of the SC denying their petition to be admitted to the bar. ET al. He did not file any action to enforce the agreement.

immoral or deceitful conduct b. Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. beside him.and that Llamas believed in good faith that he is only allowed a limited practice ISSUE: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable? HELD: YES. in view of Llamas‘advanced age. Although it is admitted that there is some technicality involved in the work for PPO. fairness and good faith to the Court d. The practice of law embraces any activity. CA or any other tribunal. On the other hand it took the OSG. is guilty of violating… a. RATIO: 1) a lawyer by indicating ÏBP. training and experience.01. Senen Gavino was assigned by the Manila Pilot's Association (MPA) to conduct docking manuevers for the safe berthing of the vessel. When the vessel was already about 2000 feet from the pier. and support the activities of the IBP c. It would be fair to conclude that when FESC filed its petition GR no 130068. it took 210 days before the OSG filed its comment. FESC was not even furnished with a copy. PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against FESC. A commotion ensued between the crew members. as appropriate. Canon 7. Gavino and MPA. representing PPA. Gavino stationed himself in the bridge. which requires the application of law. Nowhere in the Philippine law is it provided for that the director has the power to require additional examinations for attorneys.Rizal xxxx in his pleadings. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel. 130150 then pending with the third division was duly filed with a copy thereof furnished by registered mail to counsel for FESC (atty Tria). GR 130068 which is assigned to the Court's second division.LEGAL PROFESSION    Yes. But considering that it was a superfluity at that stage of the proceeding . since he was a senior citizen. it would aready have received a copy of the copy of the petition by MPA. the Page 129 of 203 . it being unnecessary to file such certification of non forum shopping with a mere motion for extension. Rule 10. his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law. dishonet. Rule 1. The Phil. In GR no 130068.A lawyer shall at all timed uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Reviewing the records. it is still within the ambit ―practice of law‖. this contention is wrong. Issue: Are the counsels for the parties committed acts which require the exercise of the court's disciplinary powers? Held: YES. Atty Tria. Victor Kavankov. which he had declared in his Income Tax Return. CA ruled in favor of PPA holding them liable with MPA (employer of Kavankov) entitled to reimbursement from Gavino. In Gr no 130150 it took 180 days before comment was   51 SANTOS v LLAMAS FACTS:  Soliman Santos. However the anchor did not hold as expected. the court finds that the petition filed by MPA in GR no. nor consent to the doing of any court. Court held a penalty of 1 year suspension or until he paid his dues. As to Agrava‘s contention that he has the authority just like his US counterpart. When Gavino inquired about the commotion. RA 7432). Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor. Patent law and the US Patent law are different as to the sections involving the powers of the director. in or out of court. And moreover. a member of the Bar filed a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues against Atty.A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. is the the counsel of record for FESC in both GR no 130068 and GR no 130150. legal principle. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction when he requires an additional examination for lawyers. the court disregarded such error. The bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. It wa therefore encumbent upon FESC to inform the court of the pending action. Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. but everything still goes back to the Patent law as well as other laws. The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario thru its associate. 52 FAR EASTERN SHIPPING v CA Facts: M/V Pavlodar owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC) arrived at the port of Manila. thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP due. with the master of the vessel. Francisco Llamas  Santos bases his claims on the grounds that 1) Llamas has been dismissed as Pasay City Judge and 2) his conviction for estafa  Llamas contends that 1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside 2) that his principal occupation was a farm. thus unduly delaying the resolution of these cases.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. commenced with the filing of a verified motion for extension of time which contained a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel Tria stating that to the best of his knowledge there is no action or proceeding pending in the SC. an ordinately and unreasonably long period of time to file its comment. he was exempt in paying (in pursuant to Sec 4. practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by an artifice 2) a lawyer‘s failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings that he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty --HOWEVER. The SC has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.

On March 13. By altering the material dates to make it appear that the notice of appeal was timely filed. and to maintain professional competence. he was in fact given the opportunity to present his evidence during the course of the proceedings. Later on.  Held:     W/N Judge Noynay has the jurisdiction to handle the election cases in his sala. the IBP Board ordered Corral‘s suspension.   54 RIVERA v CORRAL Facts:                 Issue: A decision in a case for ejectment was sent to Atty Corral. to be faithful to the law. The judge should be reminded of his duty to be studious of the principles of law. According to the records. Contrary to Corral‘s claim that he was not afforded due process. he quoted the memorandum of te Court Administrator (not the SC) and made it appear that these were the words of the SC. or deceitful conduct.LEGAL PROFESSION filed. Rivera filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Corral for tampering the court‘s records without such court‘s permission or knowledge. 53 COMELEC v NOYNAY Facts:   Judge Tomas Noynay ordered the records of a certain election case to be withdrawn and directed to the Comelec. His secretary received the decision on Feb 23. Comelec wanted to prosecute Amor et al. (This case is irrelevant to the main case) Apparently. (RC Note: parts of the SC decision were in the ―Facts‖ portion. But he did not appear on the scheduled hearings. 1990 Atty Corral filed a notice of appeal. He cannot now claim that he was denied due process. 1990. Comelec‘s lawyer was Atty. Corral committed an act of dishonesty. The judge dismissed the cases. The case was against Diosdada Amor. to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself. specifically its asscociate Tria is reprimaded and warned that a repetition of the same acts shall be dealt with severely. since you will not understand the case if I placed it in the bottom‖ Yes. Baka lang itanong kung ano ruling: The decision of the CA is affirmed. a public school principal and other public school teachers for having violated the Omnibus Election Code: for having engaged in partisan political activities. Corral went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to change the date of receipt of the decision from Feb 23 to Feb 29 (which was later changed to Feb 28 when Corral realized that there was no Feb 29 that year). Corral claims he was not afforded due process or hearing. The next day. This disinclination of the OSG to seasonably file required pleadings constitutes deplorable disservice to the public and can only be categorized as inefficiency on the part of the govt law office. Issue: Can Atty Corral be suspended? Held: Yes.02 mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. The IBP investigating committee affirmed the charges and recommended suspension. It should be remembered that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. not with RTC but with MTC. but erroneously: o What he used: ―Alberto Naldeza‖/Alberto o Alberto Naldoza He said the case was in volume 245 of the SCRA. In his Motion for Reconsideration (see p 263). the hearings had to be rescheduled several times to accommodate his requests. He cited a case. Jose Balbuena from the Comelec legal department. Rule 10. The original members of the legal tean of the OSG are admonished and warned tha a repetition shall also be dealt with more stringently. Para hindi siya madisqualify ng 15-day appeal period. Balbuena should also be admonished. Judge Noynay and Atty. Gavino. Counsel for FESC. dishonest. using as basis the Judiciary Reorganization Act: Not exceeding 6 years. the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed 6 years. 55 YOUNG v BATUEGAS Page 130 of 203 . But the Omnibus Election Code states that the regional trial court shall have the ―exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this code XXX‖ A closer reading of the Judiciary Reorganization Act (in its first sentence says): ―Except in cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court XXX‖ The Omnibus Election Code is an older law v the Judiciary Election Act Judge Noynay ―did not read at all the opening sentence of the Judiciary Election Act‖ when he dismissed the cases. the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario. A suspension for 1 year is warranted. The Court finds that Atty Corral violated his oath by engaging in unlawful. MPA and FESC are declared solidarily liable with MPA entitled to reimbursement from Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the amount equivalent to 75% of its prescribed reserved fund. but it was really in volume 254. Balbuena should also be admonished for his utter carelessness in his references.

10 of the Code of Judicial  Page 131 of 203 . et al feel short of the duties and responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused. 2000 and not 13 o As to lack of notice. They have two children.02. Then in 2002. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them His a lawyer‘s solemn duty is to defend his client. as such. his conduct must never be at the expense of truth In the case at bar. But when H-F heard of news that Florido was planning to take the children to Bacolod.LEGAL PROFESSION  FACTS  YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana  BATUEGAS. Atty. is not entitled to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices  Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months  IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said recommendation ISSUE HELD RATIO        W/N BATUEGAS. on the other hand. H-F. He violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.01 and 10. by his act of making up a spurious CA resolution and using such false resolution to his aadvantage. is now under detention  Upon verification with the NBI. they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail o They immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender o However. CONCEALED TRUTH A lawyer must be a disciple of truth He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court As officer of the court.     57 ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Atty. this present action. H-F doubted the authenticity of the CA resolution so she did not give her children to Florido. H-F admits that she and her husband live separately. 2000. Florido demanded that H-F surrender custody of their children to him. his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion The courts. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court should inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5. Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the CA resolution he presented to H-F earlier. et al should be suspended for 6 months 56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO v FLORIDO Facts:  Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this administrative complaint against her husband James Florido for violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing. Florido arrived accompanied by armed men. YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. BATUEGAS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and. due to heavy traffic. while H-F and her children were in the ABC Learning Center. Sometime in Dec. et al are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case  On Dec 13. BATUEGAS. 2000 (not 13)  BATUEGAS. H-F agreed to let the children sleep with Florido just for one night at a hotel. particularly Rule 10. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo. Thus. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. 2001. The SC thinks that suspension of 6 years is too much so they lowered the penalty to just a 2-year suspension.  BATUEGAS. ET AL ARE GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND SHOULD BE SUSPENDED YES. The IBP has recommended that Florido be suspended from the practice of law for 6 years. This petition was dismissed because Florido did not appear and HF presented a certification from the CA that there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of their children. they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day o That was why the Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. flaunting and usng a spurious and bogus CA resolution/order. YOUNG being a private prosecutor. Florido went to HF‘s house and showed her a photocopy of a resolution issued by the CA apparently giving to Florido the legal custody of their children. she immediately took them away. fearing for her children‘s safety. called the police. they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns  Issue:  Held:  SC says that Florido should be held liable. In the police station. 2000. et al in their defense alleged that o On Dec 13. W/n Florido should be held liable for his actions. BATUEGAS. et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception Hence.

integrity.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.LEGAL PROFESSION Conduct. and that Atty. Atty. this right must be exercised responsibly. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. 58 TIONGCO v AGUILAR (Canon 10 Morada) Facts:   Atty.‖ Held: YES  Atty. etc. The criticism must be bona fide. Sigiuon Reyne. it is the act of the Supreme Court. Jose B. Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5. Paguia attacked the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada vs. thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and in the judiciary. For that reason. Armonio be warned that repetition of the incident will be dealt with more severely and that necessary attention must be employed by the partners in   Page 132 of 203 . the justices have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and authorizing the assumption of office by President Arroyo.‖ ―a hypocritical judgment in plaintiff‘s favor. if the act of the justices is lawful. o It was because Atty. He charged them with violating their duty to render justice.  He also showed disrespect to and contempt for the respondent judge. According the Atty. In Tiongco‘s Compliance. Armonio. Tiongco did not at all show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and print media. As such. agencies. Armonio. obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice. Armonio became emotionally involved in the case o Not one of the partners was able to pass upon the draft or final form of the said motion.  Issue: W/N Tiongco must be held administratively liable. The petition contained malicious and intemperate language.‖ ―it was the devil who dictated it. Tiongco to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for the violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. While Tiongco tried to justify as true his descriptions of the Judge as ―liar.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct. the court asked him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Paguia. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against Estrada. without using language that would tend to create or promote distrust in judicial administration and undermine the people‘s confidence in the integrity of the members of this Court. it is not the act of the Supreme Court. HELD:  The SC decided that Atty. He is indefinitely suspended from practice of law. he alleges that the SC failed to mention that he also called the judge a ―robber. Held: Atty. is not the act of the SC. argued that: o It has never been their intent to be disrespectful o It was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. 59 RHEEM OF THE PHILS v FERRER FACTS:  The SC issued an order directing Atty. an associate. Issue: W/N Atty. Tiongco filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a review of a lower court‘s decision. Atty. and he thereby promoted distrust in judicial administration. the SC required Atty.‖ and ―abetter of graft and shady deals. Neither did he show their relevance to the petition.‖ and ―blasphemer. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality.  By insinuating that this Court did not at all read the petition. being born and raised amongst the nonpropertied class‖ Tiongco also filed a pleading with the SC stating that ―it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition and hold that the same failed to sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed grave abuse of discretion. Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs. and authority of the members of the court. Atty. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin.‖ ―the Judge was confused. Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede.‖ ―perfidious. Atty. The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Atty.  Although a lawyer has the right—even the duty—to criticize the courts.‖ In a previous resolution. and if the act of the judges is not lawful. Paguia is sanctioned. Tiongco stated that the decision of the trial court Judge was ―crafted to fool the winning party.‖ ―a rotten manipulator. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming. Armonio and the partners in his firm must be held in contempt because of the disrespectful language contained of the pleading prepared by Atty. which prohibits judges from participating in partisan political activities. Armonio who thought best to focus the attention of the court to the issue in the case and was not in any way meant to slight or offend the court.‖ he did not offer any excuse for the other intemperate words and phrases he used. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.‖ ―thief. Armonio and the senior partners in his law firm to show to cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court  The law firm of Ponce Enrile. signed and filed the motion without clearing it with any one of the partner of the firm ISSUE:  W/N Atty. prepared. Tiongco exhibited gross disrespect and attempted to discredit the Members of the First Division.

Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile. And guess what. Andres a moron). only to be abandoned or withdrawn.  The Sheriff of Manila levied upon the shares of common stock registered in Damaso Perez‘name with the Republic Bank. Perez. Issue:  Held:      61 COBB-PEREZ v LANTIN FACTS:  Ricardo Hermoso commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez and Gregorio Sumbong. Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney. us the source of disorder. he used the words ―a victim of the court‘s inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction‖ 1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath-taking until he has shown that he has changed his ways.44 representing unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing business of Hermoso. ordering the defendants to be held jointy and severally liable.g. or which could have the effect of ―harboring or encouraging discontent which. involving the same subject matters and   60 ANDRES v CABRERA Facts:      Stanley R. During the protracted litigation. moronic. want of intention is no excuse for the language employed. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what. creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration. Implicit in the quoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to respect. Judgment was rendered in favor of Hermoso. he still used unfit language (e. She dismissed a case filed by Cabrera‘s mother against a certain Atty. sneaky and maneuvering tactics to thwart the ends of justice? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. huwag niyo silang subukan. It is proscribes to use unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts. thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power . filed to lift the writ of execution alleging that the shares of stock were conjugal assets and that the debt was a personal obligation. it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation. Pikon yung Supreme Court.g. The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court. the language he used were still unfit and even insincere. have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor.LEGAL PROFESSION  exercising adequate supervision and control of the pleadings submitted by its associate The pleading which contained ―one pitfall into which this court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question‖ and the sweeping charge that the decisions of this court ―blindly adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statues‖ implies that the court is so patently inept in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court. incivil and uncouth language (e. for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Because of the dismissal. for recovery of sum of P17. Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against Andres (graft and corruption.g. at some stages alternatingly. they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in contempt.  Napikon yata yung SC. In subsequent motions by Cabrera. unparalleled stupidity. abetted by their counsel. In Cabrera‘s reply he still used unfit language (e. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. It is his obligation to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice.309. degradation of the administration of justice)  Page 133 of 203 .‖ The claim of Atty. The petitioners and their counsel. Some of the actions were filed. W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days. calling Atty. the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions. supreme stupidity. (and they managed to have the sale suspended 6x) o They alleged that levy was highly excessive and unjust o Even the wife of Damaso Perez. not for the sake of the temporary incumbents of the judicial office. idiotic) Cabrera‘s oath-taking was therefore postponed. It is the duty of lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. Atty. in many cases. Armonio that his statements was not in any way meant to slight or offend this court. One cannot escape responsibility by claiming his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977. falsification of public documents) Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera.  Petitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the execution of judgment. The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. It detract much from the dignity of and respect due this court. 62 MAGAT v SANTIAGO Facts: For delaying the termination of an unlawful detainer case by filing multiple petitions before the SC. ISSUE: WoN petitioners restored to tricky.

64 ETERNAL GARDENS v CA Facts:    (RC Note: The first part of the case is pointless. When the spouses filed a Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession. No. *what‘s relevant to ethics: The case has delayed the execution of a final judgment for 17 years. nagfile pa ito ulit ng motion reconsideration. expressing their profound regret for his past misconduct and his avowal ot amend his ways. But the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed Eternal Garden‘s claim since the judgment (in the queting of title case) was binding upon the latter. being a transferee. The court in ruling for the suspension of Magat stated that a lawyer owes the duty of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunal before whom he practices his profession. 63 MILLARE v MONTERO Facts:       Montero has made a mockery of the judicial process. This plea has been reiterated for a period of more than 2 years since his suspension. the execution of the judgment need not necessarily desecrate these properties. And of course. Issue: W/n the suspension should be terminated. Said motion was initially granted but was later denied.. or impede the execution of a judgment. which efforts were all rebuffed. the SC suspended Atty Magat from the practice of law . Held: YES. It further contended that since there is a pending issue on possession (a different case). the order of the court shows that it took into account the interests of such lot owners—in fact certain limits were provided. Montero‘s acts are justified.. such should first be resolved before a writ of possession be issued to the spouses. So nagfile ng certiorari si Eternal sa CA. Issue: Is Eternal Gardens bound by the decision in the quieting of title case? Held: Yes. they should not forget that they are officers of the court. Atty Magat and members of his family is now praying for judicial clemency.  Seelin spouses filed a case against Central Dyeing for quieting of title. Montero used procedure to circumvent the administration of justice) Pacfica Millare. So Seelin spouses filed for a second writ of execution. Dahil sa makulit (not to mention optimistic) si Eternal Gardens. which were attempts by the same party and his counsel to delay enforcement of a judgment that has long become final and executory. The court is satisfied that Magat appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necesary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law. obtained a favorable judgment against Elsa Co. the mother of the complainant. By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment. As to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be disturbed by the writ. And disregarded the canons in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was rendered: thus abused procedural rules to defeat the ends of substantial justice. The CA. The summary of which is in page 8. Issue:  Held:     W/N Atty. Eternal Gardens is the former‘s successor-in-interest who will be bound by the judgment. as recommended by the IBP which found him guilty of malpractice. It also argued that it was not bound by the decision since it was not impleaded in the case. Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp opposed claiming that it is the true and registered owner of the property—having bought the same from Central Dyeing in good faith. being the successor-in-interest of Central Dyeing. It just wants to impress on you that Atty. The case was for ejectment filed with the MTC. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their client‘s rights. Page 134 of 203 . Montero should be suspended for one year. essentially with the same arguments. on the same grounds. respondents violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws. The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 1986. The spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an executory. they filed the case to the SC. Hence. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case. it does not have to be included or impleaded by name in an action against the transferor—according to the Rules of Court.LEGAL PROFESSION cause of action. Moreover. bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. There is no need to know what they are though. in view if the said family's financial and economic difficulties to his inability to earn his livelihood as a lawyer. Montero is also guilty of forum shopping. Having admitted that they bought the property from Central Dyeing. Judging from the number of actions filed. Numerous appeals/complaints/petitions were filed to frustrate the execution of the MTC judgment. denied Eternal Garden‘s appeal. Inherent in that obligation is the duty to assist in the speedy disposition of cases.

These requirements are mandatory due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. It is mandated by the Notarial Law that a notary public should enter the number. Edison Rafanan. PAGUIRIGAN was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties. 1997.000 with a warning that repitition of the same act will be dealt with even more severely. Thus. and (c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized. Rafanan should be fined. this petition. the due date being Nov 14. However. SC says yes. The IBP found Rafanan guilty of violating the requirements of the Notarial Law and imposed a fine of 3. Rasdas and Villa (COMPLAINANTS) were defendants in a civil case for recovery of a residential lot. the failure to submit these pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of the client. 11 Santiago vs. can only place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. On Oct 14.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides ―a lawyer shall not. the lawyer assured them that he would seek a review of the decision of the CA. it was denied for having been filed out of time. PAGUIRIGAN filed the petition. the importance of filing an appellees‘ brief cannot be gainsaid because upon appeal. He admits that he failed to file the appellees‘ brief which just shows the cavalier attitude he took towards his clients‘ cause. PAGUIRIGAN was their attorney.000. the COMPLAINANTS were surprised to receive a writ of execution issued by the trial court. ISSUE NEGLIGENCE HELD W/N PAGUIRIGAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR YES. Although the failure to file the appellee‘s brief in a case is not a ground for an adverse ruling. 66 SANTIAGO v RAFANAN Assignment no. Rafanan – Lopez Facts:  This administrative complaint was brought by Jonar Santiago against Atty.   Issue:  Held:  W/n Rafanan‘s acts were contrary to law. PAGUIRIGAN is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and ordered to refund the COMPLAINANTS P10. Subsequently. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. the COMPLAINANTS continued the services of the said lawyer when the plaintiff in the civil case appealed. And PAGUIRIGAN‘S allegation about the SC‘s belated action on the petition only succeeds in showing his ignorance of 2 basic principles: first. that a party cannot presume that his motion will be granted. Trusting in the able representation of Atty PAGUIRIGAN. considering that the 30 day extension was to expire on Nov 14. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. FOR FAILING TO FILE PETITION AFTER BEEN GRANTED EXTENSION OF TIME PAGUIRIGAN is thus guilty of violation of Rule 12. that he did not file an appellees brief since the filing of the same though required is not mandatory and that the Court granted his motion for extension belatedly. The law also says that a notary public should keep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have notarized. place of issue and date of the Community Tax Certificate of the affiant in his affidavit. 1997. memoranda and briefs. 1997. which says that a lawyer should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client. 1997 (not from the day the resolution was dated). 1997. The COMPLAINANTS were informed that the CA reversed the trial court‘s decision. he again lost through default by failing to file said petition.‖ Hence. the COMPLAINANTS found out Atty PAGUIRIGAN failed to file an appellees‘ brief in their behalf. (b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register.000 for docket fees. all in violation of the Revised Administrative Code. 1997 but the SC acted on it only on Nov 19. Having violated these requirements. and. Santiago also points out that Rafanan made an affidavit in favor of his (Rafanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he (Rafanan) was actively representing his client. that any extension granted is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period which is Oct 14. The COMPLAINANTS gave PAGUIRIGAN P10. When COMPLAINANTS confronted PAGUIRIGAN. Upon inquiry in the CA. PAGUIRIGAN did not only fail to file an appellees‘ brief but after being granted a 30 day extension of the time to file a petition for review of the decision of the CA. Hence. On Nov 20.LEGAL PROFESSION 65 SPS GALEN v PAGUIRIGAN Spouses Galen. PAGUIRIGAN filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari which the SC granted in its resolution dated Nov 19. As to the affidavit executed by Rafanan in favor of his client. 1997. To make matters worse. because of the latter‘s failure to (a) make the proper notation regarding the community tax certificate of the affiants. second.08 of Canon 12. PAGUIRIGAN alleges that he agreed to represent the COMPLAINANTS without remuneration when their former counsel withdrew. Judgment was rendered in favor of the COMPLAINANTS. They are required to enter the number of the register and the page where a particular affidavit has been recorded. the SC says that this is in violation of Rule 12. The SC explained that appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the  Page 135 of 203 . a notary public. the appellate court.

and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their Release Orders. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes. Barcelona regarding the ―grease money‖ to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. Atty. Barcelona and gave P10. Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client    Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged Almarvez. In SC Administrative Circular No. they learned that Atty. There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. with discourtesy to his fellow employees. Barcelona. Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private practice. This would ensure his credibility as a witness.   Page 136 of 203 . in defense of his client. Held: Atty. and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC. if a lawyer appears as client and counsel. Daen. who is a private practitioner. The heirs of Hilapo tried to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary. he is a witness to the crime. Barcelona should be disbarred. Thus. In this case. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. Issue: W/N Atty. Daen. Since. Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in advance of its unauthorized release). When the spouses visited Atty. Atty. The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. was using his wife‘s office address in his law practice. In support of this charge. Atty.000. Regarding this. documents were submitted such as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Its intention is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the misconduct of the officers of the court. Because the heirs could not produce the total amount.000. they merely gave P15. Rafanan is supposed to do everything in his power. In the end. the SC considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense for the benefit of the client. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty. people would automatically think that his testimony as a witness is biased in favor of his client.LEGAL PROFESSION lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested. Rafanan cannot be made administratively liable. Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him. Thus he was suspended for 3 months. Commissioner Bautista found Atty. a Court Aide/Utility Worker. Daen. and from the Supreme Court This was admitted by Judge Paas. Daen the next day. because of his violation of the Notarial Laws and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. but she claims that this was done only to ensure and facilitate the delivery of those notices. neglect in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and often being absent from work). for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded. to be guilty of malpractice and breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred. Atty. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not presented at the hearings.  Despite of this.000. Atty.000. the court held that this elicits the suspicion the Judge is just fishing for more evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client. Rafanan is fined 3. In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case. On another occasion. Atty. First. Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given special treatment by other judges or court personnel.-in-fact. under the pretext of having connections with a member of this court. The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24. Obviously. What he should have done though was to exempt himself from being counsel. The heirs were recommended to Atty. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that he had connections to secure the release of Atty. Held:  YES Using the Judge‘s address is a subtle was of sending a message that Atty. Issue: W/N Judge Paas and Atty.700. the heirs went to the house of Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred. Daen was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. it was found that Judge Paas‘ husband. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty. Barcelona. it was stated that court officials and employees must ―never use their offices…for any other purpose that for court or judicial functions. Paas. particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. 68 ALMARVEZ v PAAS Facts:    67 BERBANO v BARCELONA Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Daen as their atty. Paas. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty. Barcelona reached P64. 01-99.‖ Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others.

13. PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients During the proceedings. set up kitchens and littered the place.000  As members of the law firm. and that any such efforts to influence the court constitutes contempt of court. ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders.  The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner.‖. while Judge Paas shall pay a fine of P12. It violates canons 3.  Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection. for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was. 10. Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA) ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders      Issue:  Held:   Issue:  Held:    In re: Canon 14  the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary Page 137 of 203 . They have also constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks. petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nomineestockholder The ACCRA lawyer‘s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG‘s offer) by the PCGG and the court. an unregistered loose allegiance of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped. they took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers ISSUE:  W/N the rallyists must be held with contempt HELD:  The contempt charges were dismissed  The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised that the incident will not be repeated again  The picketing was actually done by the members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan). which includes shares of stock in certain corporations PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3rd amended complaint. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al. union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. 0033 – ―RP v. and 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION    SC Circular No. the picketing continued  The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the court‘s premises. In keeping with the office practice. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer‘s prestige. Concepcion. Hence. this motion for certiorari W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Yes. PCGG has no valid cause of action W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients General rule: a client‘s identity should not be shrouded in mystery o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client‘s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer‘s advice o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense Roco merely stated that he was acting as nomineestockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering. who filed a case in court intensified their pickets that they had been conducting since June 17 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC  Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel. 70 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:   Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara. 69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS:  From July 8-10. free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law.  But the court will not hesitate in future similar incidents to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court to acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients. Anong kalokohan yan? o Civil Case No. Abello. 0033.

LEGAL PROFESSION
 the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation, Dewey would be exculpated from liability. Ramon Sy acknowledged the obligation, thereafter, the account of Dewey was cleared. Atty Mutuc sent demand letters to petitioner demanding the balance of P50,000 as attorney‘s fees. Petitioner Dee ignored said letters. Atty Mutuc filed a complaint against petitioner Dee for the collection of attorney‘s fees. Petitioner denied the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between hin and Atty Mutuc. Dee insists that the visits made to Atty Mutuc was merely informal and that Atty Mutuc had not been specifically contacted to handle the problem. The P50,000 given to Atty Mutuc was alleged to be given not in the nature of attorney‘s fees but merely pocket money. Issue: W/n there was a lawyer-client relationship… Held: YES. The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a professional relationship which merits attorney‘s fees for professional services rendered. To establish the relationship, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting on behalf of his client in pursuance of a request from the latter. Therefore, Mutuc is entitled to receive a reasonable compensation. Atty Mutuc did not represent conflicting interests as claimed by Dee when Dee alleged that Mutuc was acting as agent of Ceasar‘s Palace. Mutuc‘s representations in behalf of petitioner Dee were not in resistance to the casino‘s claim but were actually geared toward proving the liability of true debtor, Ramon Sy. 73 BR SEBASTIAN v CA Facts:   Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty Mutuc to seek his advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner‘s brother Dewey Dee, to Ceasar‘s Palace. Petitioner‘s father was apprehensive over the safety of his son, Dewey having heard of a link between the mafia and Ceasar‘s Palace and his possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the latter. Atty Mutuc assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter, after which his services were reportedly contracted for P100,000. Further investigations revealed that the alleged debt of Dewey had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey merely signing for the chits. Atty Mutuc talked with the president of Ceasar‘s palace and advised the president that for the sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. The      Eulogio Reyes, before he died filed an action for damages against the Director of Public Works, and BR Sebastian. BR Sebastian (BRS) was held to be liable, but the Director of Public Works was exonerated. BRS appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Reyes died. He was substituted by his heirs (the Reyeses). In 1974, BRS received notice to file Appelant‘s Brief within 45 days from receipt. Counsel for BRS (The Baizas, Alberto and Associates) failed to file the brief. The appeal was then dismissed. Much later, around 5 months after the deadline, Baizas Law Office (different daw from the former one) file a motion for reconsideration. It alleged that as a result of the death of Atty Crispin Baizas, senior partner, the affairs of the aid firm are still being settled between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin) and Atty Ruby Alberto. And that Atty Espiritu, the lawyer who handled this case in the trial court and who is believed to have also attended to the preparation of the Appelant‘s Brief but

71 DAROY v LEGASPI FACTS:  Complainants charged Atty. Ramon Chavez- Legaspi with malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of P4,000.00 which he had collected for them. They prayed that he be disbarred  FACTUAL EVIDENCE: Complainants hired Atty. Legaspi to represent them in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the spouses Gonzaga. The complainant-heirs in a joint petition, which Atty. Legaspi signed as counsel agreed that the coconut land left by the decedents would be divided into 6 equal parts and that the proceeds of the sale of the land would be distributed among them.  Atty. Legaspi wrote to the father of Mrs. Daroy, Teofilo Legaspi that the money deposited could be withdrawn. However, Atty. Legaspi had already withdrawn the money (therefore he acted in bad faith). It turned out that Atty. Legaspi was also an heir (although it wasn‘t shown how). ISSUE: WoN Atty. Legaspi should be disbarred because he violated the relation between attorney and his client? HELD: YES! RATIO: 1. The relation between an atty and his client is higly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. In view of that special relationship, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands collected for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received. 2. The complainants, however, have to recover the money in an ordinary action, and not in this disbarment proceeding. 72 DEE v CA

Page 138 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
failed to submit it through oversight and inadvertence, had also left the firm. Issue:  Held:      W/N the appeal of BR Sebastian should be reinstated. No. In this case, no fraud is involved. Only simple negligence on the part of the BRS‘ counsel. The confusion in the office of the law firm following the death of Aty Crispin Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the brief. The responsibility of the associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. The law firm should have assigned the case to another associate. Or it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer. The negligence of the counsel binds the client. Held: The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case (with Francisco‘s signature); this opinion was reached on the basis of papers submitted at his office; and that Hilado‘s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Francisco‘s professional services. From these ultimate facts, an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have ensued. To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. When a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established. The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case. An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it be used in the interest of another, or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of confidence which forms the basis of an attorneyclient relationship. The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon). The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents submitted by Hilado will not preclude the existence of an attorney-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional advice from which emerged the relation. The letter binds and estops him in the same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. And an information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm. The failure to object to counsel‘s appearance does not operate as a waiver of the right to ask for counsel‘s disqualification. Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed. *A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act for the client. 75 SANTOS v BELTRAN US…. 76 NAKPIL v VALDES

74 HILADO v DAVID Facts:      Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilado‘s husband. Delgado et al. was counsel for Hilado, while Ohnick et al filed an answer for Assad. Later on, Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad substituting Ohnick et al. The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the other party (Hilado) in the same case. It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that the former turned over papers to the latter. From such documents, Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado. Since makulit si Francisco, Delgado et al. sought to disqualify Francisco from representing Assad in the case. Francisco‘s defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when the latter informed him about the case. He added that when Hilado left documents in their office, he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm would not handle her case. And that the written opinion was made by his assistant, which he signed without reading, and only for the purpose of explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case. David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for disqualification against Francisco. Said judge reasoned that no attorney-client relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco.

 

Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado? Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad?

Page 139 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
Facts:     Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran, Baguio. He went into an agreement with Atty. Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the property in trust for Nakpil. Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. The lands‘ titles were transferred to his name. When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of Valdes and his accounting and law firms for the settlement of the estate of Jose Nakpil. What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets of Jose Nakpil (he actually transferred the property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation) while including the loans he contracted. What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. While the case was pending, Imelda also filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Valdes. The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. The CA reversed the CFI. The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor of Nakpil. The SC held that Valdes only held the lots in trust for Nakpil. W/n Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely: o Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil; o Including his loans as claims on the estate; and o Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his law firm. The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year. The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the latter agreed to use his professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear that Jose Nakpil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the property in trust for Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the estate and including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit) as claims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him (they had a close relationship since the 50‘s), which was the basis for Imelda‘s decision to use his services. As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests which is proscribed by Canon 15 Rule 15.03. In the case at bar, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate. Facts: Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. Echavia was driving a Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-in-law Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela. Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10,000 as attorney‘s fees and P2,000 as filing fee. Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo. She alleged that Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to Artezuela, atty. did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty. withdrew his services without obtaining Artezuela‘s consent. Artezuela also alleged that Atty. Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests. She says that while acting as her counsel, Atty. Maderazo prepared Echavia’s answer. Atty. Maderazo claims that the document of Echavia was not prepared by him. According to him, the answer by Echavia was only printed in his office. Issue: W/N Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Held: Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Suspension of 6 months. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be the counsel-ofrecord of the adverse party. He does not have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of another party who is claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of the original client. Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client, sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. 78 HORNILLA v SALUNAT Facts:  Salunat was a member of the Phil. Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) Board, which approved Atty. Salunat‘s engagement as counsel of PPSTA  Complainants, who are members of PPSTA, filed an intracorporate case against its Board of Directors. Atty. Salunat entered his appearance as counsel for the board members in said cases.  Complainants contend the Atty. Salunat was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed.  Atty. Salunat pointed out that he entered his appearance as counsel for the board members for and in behalf of ASSA Law and Associates. He also stated that it was another partner of the firm, Atty. Agustin who handled the case. Issue: W/N Atty. Salunat engaged in conflicting interests.

   Issue: 

Held:  

77 ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO

Page 140 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
 Held: YES.  In a derivative suit such as the one filed by the complainants against the BOD of PPSTA, the prevailing rule is that the lawyer engaged by the corporation may not represent the directors, since that would give rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by the interest of the individual corporate officials.  That Atty.Salunat entered his appearance in behalf of ASSA Law Firm doesn‘t exonerate him. He admitted that ASSA was the retained counsel of PPSTA.  Since this is the first offense, respondent is admonished to observe a high degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. 79 NATAN v CAPULE  FACTS:  Natan is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Patero.  Natan had filed an action against Santiago, the husband of Maria Patero to recover Maria‘s share in the conjugal property. ½ of Santiago‘s share in Hacienda Minit was ordered to be delivered to Maria  Capule was contracted by Natan to file an action of forcible entry against Edonga, etc. and he delivered to him various documents including the decision of the previous court on the partition of the property of Santiago, specifically Hacienda Minit, which was received by Maria.  Partial payments were received by Capule from Natan amounting to P275 but Capule was unable to attend the hearing. Since the Judge refused to grant postponement, Natan handled the case personally, being an attorney himself.  Thereafter, Capule represented Olimpio Patero, claiming that he is the sole heir of Santiago Patero and in possession of Hacienda Minit, and filed an administrative case against Natan asking the court to order Natan to return ½ of Hacienda Minit. ISSUE:  W/N Capule violated his duty as a lawyer HELD:   YES! And the court sentenced him to be suspended him from the exercise of his profession for the period of 2 years Capule had utilized the papers, knowledge and information that he had received from his former client Natan in connection to the Hacienda Minit against Natan and for the benefit of his new client Olimpio Patero Capule, because of his previous relationship with Natan, was disqualified to accept the case of Olimpio who claims ownership over Hacienda Minit. The fact the Capule retired from the forcible entry case prior to retaining the case of Olimpio did not relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and loyalty to his former client. The inconsistency between his position as attorney of Natan and that of Olimpio is so apparent that it could not have escaped his attention Issue:  Held:    An attorney may not do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he formerly represented him, nor may he, at any time, use against his former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of his previous relationship.

80 BAUTISTA v BARRIOS Facts:  Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Barrios to draft an extra-judicial partition between Bautista and her brothers and sisters and Rovero on the other side. Barrios prepared the deed. Rovero later on refused to comply with the terms of the deed. Bautista sued him. Instead of representing Bautista, Barrios instead appeared for Rovero. Barrios defense: it was Rovero who engaged his services in preparing the deed and not Bautista W/N Barrios may handle a case nullify a contract which he prepared No, he may not. Suspended for 2 years. When Bautista approached Barrios to enforce the deed, Barrios merely said that she has no cause of action. Barrios did not inform her that he was already representing Rovero. Supposing that Barrios was indeed representing both Bautista and Rovero, he could not appear for one as against another.

 

81 GAMILLA v MARIÑO FACTS:  Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35 Milllion. The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. In 1989, the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino, Jr.  The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired. In the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment to settle backwages.  The important fact in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president, negotiated with UST as union attorney, even though he was an interested party since he was one of the officers who were dismissed (conflict of interests) ISSUE: WoN Marino should be reprimanded?

 

Page 141 of 203

and applied for an agricultural loan of P4. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking compensation from the UST for their illegal dismissal. complainant Suntay alleged that respondent Atty Suntay pursued a case against him for violation of PD 296 for the alleged disappearance of 2 creeks traversing complainant‘s fishpond. Samar Branch of the Philippine National Bank. During the preliminary investigation. when he obtained the attys fees of P4. Atty Suntay. Hence. respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys. they discovered that no such bond was ever posted by Limon. Issue: Whether the acts of Atty Suntay in filing the complaints constitute malpractice… Held: YES. Marino was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement.LEGAL PROFESSION HELD: YES RATIO: 1. In addition.. indirectly. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him at the expense of the other faculty members. W/N Limon should be sanctioned. the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. He also ought to have disclosed his interest (which he only did only years after the consummation of his share.000. wherein Limon himself acted as guarantor. and most contemptible. He then required the Docena spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10. When The Docena‘s went to the CFI to withdraw the bond after the case. it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an atty to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts.00 from the Borongan. He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has. union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution.) 82 SUNTAY v SUNTAY Facts: The complaint for disbarment was filed by Frederico Suntay against his nephew. when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president.000. borrowed P2. or worse. alleging that respondent was his legal counsel who was privy to all his legal.00 allegedly to stay the execution of the appealed decision The Docena‘s obtained a loan of P3. Limon claims that the P10T was just his attorney‘s fees. so low and dishonorable. It is also not necessary to specify the alleged confidential information used. eroded the peoples' confidence in the judicial system.00 from the Borongan. respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a level so base. Atty Suntay acted as counself for clients in case involving subject matters regarding which he had either been previously helped complainant to administer as the latter‘s counsel and confidant. in which Dinglasan is an officer.  Page 142 of 203 .200.140.000 as consideration for the destruction of complainants record in the BIR. Atty Sntay   Issue:  Held:   acted as counsel of Magno Dinglasan. Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests. Since they parted ways.00 from a private individual. Atty Marino. and thereafter. Atty Suntay had been filing complaints and cases against complainant making use of confidential information gained while their attorney-client relationship existed. 3. When complainat declined the demand. 83 DOCENA V LIMON Facts:    Atty. Dinglasan charged complainant with the crime of false testimony and grave oral defamation. which is reflective of his depraved character. To make the passing of confidential information a condition precedent would not enhance the welfare of the litigants. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of the attorney-client relation. Complainant testified that he consulted Atty Suntay about the demand made by Dinglasan. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is ―whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. Both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound to protect and advance the interest of the union members and the bargaining unit above his own.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such clain to the members of the UST Faculty Union. and political affairs. first. actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. tsk bad. Limon was the Docena spouses‘ lawyer for their appeal in a Forcible Entry case. Magno Dinglasan demanded from complainant P150. Atty Suntay is suspended for 2 years. Atty. Complainant alleged that Atty Suntay ‗s possession of the TCT and the blueprint plan of the property while he was still counsel for complainant provided him with the information that there used to be 2 creeks traversing the fishpond In one case. He should be DISBARRED! By extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation.000.860. Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines. By his reprehensible conduct. 2. In the same manner.

000 today‖  CUNANAN indeed received P30. Salubre‘s appointment as judge did not extinguish the obligation incurred by him when he was still a trial lawyer. Salubre also claimed that the money he received from Sevilla was supposed to be the latter‘s payment for his appearance and other litigation expenses Salubre. failed to keep up with the exacting standards of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Affidavit of Desistance did not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions upon Salubre. The primary object of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline erring lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers. Salubre‘s defense was that the complaint was a result of misunderstanding and the filing of an Affidavit of Desistance is proof that the matter was already resolved. Complainant‘s voluntary desistance does not confirm nor deny Salubre‘s non-culpability. Instead of consigning it to the court.01 It was established that the P200. 85 CUNANAN v RIMORIN FACTS  CUNANAN.000 payable to ATTY RIMORIN  To complete payment. a retired US citizen. It was shown that Salubre later returned the funds to Sevilla after the case for estafa was filed. by delaying payment of his obligation. was Sevilla‘s counsel in a civil case for repurchase and damages.000 in the bank account of ATTY RIMORIN  According to the affidavit of NOLI. Administrative cases against lawyers can still proceed despite the dismissal of civil and/or criminal cases against them. eventually. in exchange for an exclusive interview regarding the story of CUNANAN‘S son. There was an allegation of violation of Canon 17 but this was not substantiated. VIOLATED CANON 16 RULE 16. engaged the services of ATTY RIMORIN in the matter of settling his ―overstaying alien status‖ with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation so tat he could attend the funeral of his son. represented by NOLI DE CASTRO.000 which the lawyer received in trust for him] ISSUE REPRIMANDED HELD RATIO   W/N ATTY RIMORIN SHOULD BE    Issue: Should Salubre still be held liable for his acts despite the desistance of the complainant? Held: Yes. as corroborated by NOLI in his affidavit The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that ATTY RIMORIN should promptly account for the said funds which he received and held for the benefit of his client.01 and should be penalized accordingly   Page 143 of 203 . Upon advice of Salubre.000 were received by ATTY RIMORIN for the benefit of and in trust of CUNANAN. the 2 payments were intended for CUNANAN  ATTY RIMORIN sent a letter to CUNANAN stating ―due to rains there is no way of checking whether the check deposited by ABS-CBN has been cleared…I‘ll try my very best to produce the other P30. Later on. he bombarded complainant with a long line of promises hoping that the latter would allow the matter to be. Salubre violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to return the funds of his client upon demand. By the time the case was referred to the Office of Court Administrator. Sevilla gave P45k to him to be consigned with the court as repurchase money. Salubre deposited the money in his own account and later used personally by him. ABS-CBN deposited the balance of P100. and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer‘s oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. because those funds properly belong to the latter From the time of the filing of the administrative case until the present. CUNANAN. NOLI acting in behalf of ABS-CBN. Salubre is fined and given a stern warning. Several extensions were sought by Salubre but he still failed to pay.000 but after that there was no more communication from ATTY RIMORIN  Hence. prior to being a judge. YES. The fact that he was eventually appointed as Judge will not exculpate him from taking responsibility of the consequences of his acts as an officer of the court. left unsettled. ATTY RIMORIN fell short of his duty as a lawyer under Canon 16 Rule 16.000  This amount was to be paid out of the goodwill money to be paid by ABS-CBN. Salubre promised Sevilla that he would pay the sum of money. His appointment as Judge is not a valid reason not to properly address the demand of complainant. issued a check for P100. His defense that the money was supposed to be Sevilla‘s payment for his services should have been made known to the latter at the earliest time when the demand was made. CUNANAN‘S demand for accounting has not yet been satisfied by ATTY RIMORIN Thus. Andrew  For the 1st partial payment. checks were issued to cover the indebtedness. Instead.LEGAL PROFESSION 84 SEVILLA v SALUBRE Facts:     Salubre. CUNANAN filed an administrative case with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for the disbarment of ATTY RIMORIN and for failing to render the accounting of P200. Andrew Cunanan. the amount due was around P77k (45k as principal and 32k as interest). in the United States  CUNANAN verbally agreed to pay ATTY RIMORIN P40. But these were dishonored on the ground ―account closed‖. He even issued a promissory note for said amount.

The acts of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period. also recommended the suspension of Atty. In fact. Held: YES. Yes. 16. then finds out that the money paid by Pineda was with Melo. through another lawyer.  Taguines later on gave Castillo a bouncing check worth P500. Pineda paid the rentals to Melo (worth P5. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. Taguines failed to delver to him P500 representing the monetary settlement of a civil suit between Castillo and Licup.00 for the settlement of the case to Taguines. depriving her of its use. After being threatened with another lawsuit. Respondent's unprofessional acts considered. and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made by her. The Sol. Meneses must return the amount of P50 to Marquez. Meneses had gotten all of the P75. Meneses contends that Marquez owes her money because he was entitled to the retainer fee (P100) and whatever contingent fees that may be awarded by the court.03). totaling P75.‘s fee of P175 is unconscionable. 16. ‗78  Castillo found out when Licup showed him a certification signed by Taguines that the latter received the amount. It was agreed that Licup will give P500. Marquez retained the services of Atty. the SC disbarred him. Manuel Melo. Atty. Peralta to Atty. In response. Gen. An atty. Meneses to prosecute a claim of P210 against Igdanes. and Taguines said he does not know personally Castillo or his address. Sol. Meneses should return the amount. Suspension of 1 month. Marquez went to see Atty. Meneses should have made an accounting with his client of the amount he received. ordering Igdanes to pay the P210 claim and P75 as attorney‘s fees. It is well-settled that money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client is money held in trust and must be immediately turned over. Rule 16. Meneses to claim P50 of the P75 that the latter got.16. where Castillo was the plaintiff. W/n Melo should be sanctioned for his acts.000 86 LICUANAN v MELO Facts:     Leonila Licuanan won in an ejectment case against Aida Pineda. the amount of P5. 88 CASTILLO v TAGUINES Facts:  Castillo alleged that Atty.  Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property of his client that may come into his possession. Issue: W/N Taguines must be held administratively liable for not delivering the money to Castillo and for ―fooling the complainant‖ by giving a bouncing check. and Taguines will give the amount to Castillo.03 of the same canon provides that a lawyer shall deliver the funds or   Issue:  Held:    87 MARQUEZ v MENESES Facts: Marquez was introduced by Atty. P75. He deserves the severest punishment. After 1 year. Gen. Pineda filed an action for damages (on the ground of besmirched reputation and mental anguish) against Licuanan because Pineda believed that she had already paid her debt by paying to Melo. to Licuanan.01. Licuanan.02.220 received by him on behalf of his client. The agreement was that Marquez was to pay Meneses a fee of P100 whether the case was won or lost. Marquez advanced the amount from time to time. Meneses should return the amount of P 50. in arrears and succeeding. Licuanan never got the payments so she filed an administrative complaint against Pineda before the Chief of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society accusing her of moral turpitude. Marquez claims that Meneses was only entitled to P25 of the amount paid because she had already given the Atty. Melo then gives the rentals to Licuanan. considering the fact that the claim was only for P210. Licuanan. which is disbarment. Issue: W/N Atty. Marquez received a letter from her Page 144 of 203 . is a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance. brother saying that Igdanes had paid the P75 to the sheriff as partial satisfaction and that Atty.LEGAL PROFESSION JUDGMENT Suspended for 1 year and to render an accounting of P170. and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics (16. Meneses for at least 6 months. he should be sanctioned.  Castillo states that Taguines set a date to meet with him but never showed up nor called afterwards. besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. says that Atty.000 representing the balance of P200. The decision of the Justice of the Peace Court was in favor of Marquez. malpractice and gross misconduct in office.  Taguines defense is that although he received the money from Licup. the SC was constrained to find him guilty of deceit. It was Melo who demanded payment from Pineda. Atty. Her counsel in that case was Atty. and the latter only found out in the second week of January ‘79 that Licup had already given the money to Taguines since Dec. The judgment ordered Pineda to pay rentals. Meneses as a prospective client. For this consideration. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice.  No money was given to Castillo. It is highly improbable that Marquez would agree to pay P175 as fees to atty.220). he never bound himself to go out of his way to personally deliver the money to Castillo or his lawyer. Licuanan then files this complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator against Melo for breach of professional ethics. Held: Atty. Castillo had the case against Licup dismissed.  Taguines was the counsel of defendant Licup in the said case.

This settlement was never brought to the attention of the spouses nor were they ever consulted about such.000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to Lemoine‘s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. however.  89 LEMOINE v BALON FACTS:  Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance. Pineda then paid P500 to Decena. Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525. and due to this assurance the spouses signed the REM. Issue:  Held: W/N Decena‘s acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred Page 145 of 203 . he was already asking for 50%.  Balon later claimed that he gave P233. Decena assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality. 5. Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as usurious interest. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully collected. DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation  December 1999. the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his  possession to the payment of his fees. a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts . He can file the necessary action with the proper court to fix the fees Before receiving the check.  Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine‘s claim as well as to negotiate.  Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney‘s lien pending Lemoine‘s payment of his attorney‘s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected.LEGAL PROFESSION property of his client when due or upon demand. Decena drafted a new REM o New contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum o A special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged property in public auction  Spouses never knew the implications of the new REM.4K. encash and receive payments  Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine‘s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer  December 1998.  Taguines is suspended for one year. under the Code of Professional Responsibility.  His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon‘s services as his counsel  Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon successful recovery. (2nd cause of action)  Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K  Decena entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. he proposes a 25% attorney‘s fees. sign. must observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the client‘s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession. compromise. Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350. 1975: Complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez) obtained from Atty.000 which was received by Balon  When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case. In case of disagreement. Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon. Decena then informs them that their debt has soared to P20. the spouses filed this case for disbarment. after receiving the check.  It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon  Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years ISSUE:  W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:   YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC The lawyer‘s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of attorney‘s fees to e charged.  90 MELENDRES v DECENA Facts: (1st cause of action)  Aug. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena acquired their property in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K  Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their property back.000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine.  With shattered hopes and grief in their hearts (andrama!). An advance payment of P50.  Because of their failure to pay the amounts. The spouses paid such usurious interest for 3 months. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage. P1.  Despite the assurance. Reynerio Decena (Decena) a loan of P4K.

Atty Grupo is suspended from practice of law for 1 month and to refund the money  91 JUNIO v GRUPO FACTS:  Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. with more than 30 years in practice. The checks were received by Atty Layag. Grupo then borrowed some of the money for himself to help defray his children‘s educational expenses. constitutes malpractice. who had by then passed away (for P45. yet Atty. As a lawyer. Grupo‘s claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan ISSUE: WoN Atty. as heir of De Guzman demanded the delivery of the checks. Grupo did not redeem the property and has continuously refused to refund the money given. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore. as evidenced by the PN. Decena shall be disbarred The acts of Decena as to the 1st cause of action constitute deception. fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his client. Grupo‘s claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan But in the dispositive portion. As to the contention that no atty.. ( he did not give security for the loan and he refused to pay the amount)And that Atty Grupo did not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of the money. No furhter amounts were remitted.000 to be used in the redemption. All is needed is when a person consults with his atty in his professional capacity to obtain professional advice.000. dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. she knew that it was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Inland Trailways. Grupo…) Atty. Decena also failed to inform the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as downpayment for the settlement of the case. respondent is charged with knowledge of the law. Atty Layag represented the said plaintiffs in that case. what he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor. Lising and Buado. Salvador Grupo for the redemption of a land belonging to her parents.000). Issue: W/n Atty Layag's act of delivering the checks to Gonzales. After discovering that checks have already been issued. And that Atty Grupo did Not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of the money. the agent gave Lising P10.LEGAL PROFESSION    Yes. He claims that his services were just acts of a friend for a friend.. Grupo violated Rule 16? HELD: YES RATIO:  What he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor. the defendant in that case. (he claims that he is willing to pay. sabi he violated… so ayun. Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before entering into a compromise.000 (2) payable to Lising for P30. As to the 2nd cause of action. and that since Junio knew that the mortgage has already expired. issued checks: (1)payable to Atty Layag for P15. (personal request evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio – Atty. Atty. Grupo contends that their families were really very close and intimate with each other – Junio‘s sisters were maids of Atty. the purported agent. as evidenced by the PN. fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his client. Decena‘s failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients give credence to Atty. She gave P25.180 (3) payable to De Guzman. Gonzales. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further contends that he did not ask for any fee. though) IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless the client‘s interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice and suspended him indefinitely. not even charity. Instead he gave the checks to one Marie Paz Gonzales for encashment on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney. Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct Attu. He should know that it was error for    Page 146 of 203 . The court is constrained to      92 BUADO v LAYAG Facts: Herein complainant Lising and her sister Rosita de Guzman ( mother of herein complianat Susana Buado) were the plaintiffs in a civil case which was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. purportedly executed by De Guzman constituting Gonzales as agent.client relationship exists: it is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. Atty Layag did not inform the plaintiffs about the checks. Held: YES.

he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. is obligated to keep his own money separate from his clients and. creditors of HERNANDEZ‘S husband demanded payment of his loans  Fearful of mortgage foreclosures. Several factors warrant a more severe penalty: Considering that Pagatpatan is a seasoned practitioner. care and devotion. his actions are inexcusable. With respect to the check payable to Lising. in his personal account without the knowledge of the Morteras. it was expected of him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity. the Special Power of Attorney ceased to be operative. he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees.  Issue: Should Pagatpatan be held administratively liable? What is the proper penalty? Held: Yes. it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter‘s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. However.00. he entered into a secret agreement with Aguilar where he received P150k as partial payment of the judgment sum. The claim that he need to protect his interests since there were other people claiming the money from the Monteras was not proved.000.000. although he is entitled to a lien over the funds in order to satisfy lawful fees. Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorney‘s fees but did not take any action on Valerina Dalisay‘s case.00 from complainant. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. is bound to account whatever money received for and from them. a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. This money was later deposited.  Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): ―there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case. he is bound to give prompt notice to his clients of such liens and to deliver the funds to them upon demand or when due. o P3. Counsel tried to subvert both law and proper procedure to recover his fees. After judgment was rendered. suspended indefinitely. Pagatpatan was counsel for the Morteras. W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed. When respondent accepted P56. the TV host. subject to further orders by the SC. Initially. HERNANDEZ engaged the legal services of ATTY GO  ATTY GO advised HERNANDEZ to give him land titles of lots in Zamboanga City belonging to her so that he may sell them to enable her to pay the creditors   Issue:  Held:  No. Pagatpatan‘s defense is that the Morteras and their mother owed him money for services he previously rendered the family. From then on. They secured a favorable judgment in which they are to receive P155k. respondent never rendered any legal service. by Pagatpatan. deceit. When De Guzman died. she paid P25T as acceptance fee. and utter contempt of his sworn duty as a lawyer. The penalty of 1-year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the fault done. He should be suspended for 6 months. Pagatpatan failed to observe Canon 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.LEGAL PROFESSION him to rely on a Special Power of Attorney after the death of the principal. He is therefore.00 as appearance fee notwithstanding her payments. HERNANDEZ‘S husband abandoned her and her son  Shortly thereafter. As counsel he: owes candor to his clients.000. she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff: o Additional acceptance fee P90. The Power of Attorney did not cover Lising's case. He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services. Counsel‘s actions were clearly tainted with bad faith.  93 DALISAY v MAURICIO  Facts:     This is the case against ―Batas‖ Mauricio. with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash. But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record. In total. and that he wouldn‘t be paid if he did not do what he did. 95 HERNANDEZ v GO FACTS  Sometime in 1961. De Guzman.  Facts:  The Morteras sued their mother.‖   when a lawyer takes a client‘s cause. Just like any other professional. 94 MORTERA v PAGATPATAN Page 147 of 203 . Allegedly. and 2 other persons—Aguilar and Bradfield—for the rescission of a contract of sale. The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case. Atty Layag should have delivered it directly to Lising. Mauicio refused. Morteras filed an action because Pagatpatan refuses to surrender the money despite the successive Orders of the RTC and CA. Pagatpatan is ordered to return the P150k and is suspended for 2 years.

abused this trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself o ATTY GO is duty bound to render a detailed report to HERNANDEZ on how much he sold the lots and the amounts paid to her creditors but failed to do so In previous cases. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client. A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. The prior case was decided against SMC. In the full discharge of his duties to his client. a dereliction of duty. the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public. Held: The dismissal of the brief was proper. to inform Reontoy of his opinion that he did not think that an appeal would prosper. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18. they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Liberato Ibadlit as her counsel. FOR VIOLATING CANONS 16 AND 17 ATTY GO violated Canon 16 o His acts acquiring for himself HERNANDEZ‘S lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct. the appeal was instantly dismissed. Ibadlit only filed the notice of appeal after the reglementary period for appeal. a grievous wrong. He must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause.03. however. SC says yes."   ISSUE HELD RATIO  97 DE LAINO v CA De Liano vs. De Liano asserts that the CA erred in declaring that the appeal be dismissed on the basis of the lapses in complying with the technical requirements in making of brief. Even if Atty. The CA decided that the Appellant‘s Brief does not contain a Subject Index or a Table of Cases and Authorities. she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell the same o ATTY GO. All appeals are merely rights that arise from statutes. He says that he informed Reontoy‘s brother. De Liano appealed the decision to the CA. He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. This statement was refuted by the testimony of Proculo saying that he was not given such info. Their counsel. Ibadlit received the notice of the decision but he opted not to file an appeal. a forbidden act. Relevant to the topic: Generally. Proculo Tomazar. These technical rules like the inclusion of the ―statement of facts‖ or the ―subject index‖ in the brief are meant to enable the appellate court to have a better grasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal. the Court disbarred and expelled lawyers from the practice of law in similar circumstances. thus. W/n Ibadlit should be sanctioned. Canon 18. HERNANDEZ came to know that ATTY GO did not sell her lots as agreed but instead he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name. regardless of his own personal views. the penalty recommended by the IBP is too light    Issue:  Held:   Reontoy also said that he would never authorized Proculo to represent her to the court or to her lawyer because Proculo was unlettered. depriving her of real property worth millions HERNANDEZ filed a complaint with the IBP IBP: ATTY GO violated Canon 17 and should be suspended for 3 years W/N ATTY GO SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED YES. thus. and that these lapses justify the dismissal of the appeal.   JUDGMENT ATTY GO is disbarred 96 REONTOY v IBADLIT Facts:   Corazon Reontoy lost a decision in a civil case in the RTC with Atty. Obviously. CA – Mendiola Facts: The prior case involves the cancellation of 2 real estate mortgages in favor of San Miguel executed by Tango. De Liano was a senior executive of SMC. ATTY GO persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable consideration ATTY GO also persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale involving the other lots in Zamboanga City which were redeemed by HERNANDEZ when their mortgages fell due In 1974. Issue: W/N the dismissal of the Appeal was proper. Atty. Afable filed an Appellant‘s Brief which failed to comply with the Rules of Court. warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. Tango noticed this flaw of the Brief and immediately moved for the dismiss of De Liano‘s appeal. the negligence of the counsel binds the client. Afable may be said Page 148 of 203 .LEGAL PROFESSION    Then. Ibadlit is suspended for 1 year. willful in character and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment o Such conduct on the part of ATTY GO not only degrades himself but also the honor of the legal profession ATTY GO violated Canon 17 o Records show that HERNANDEZ reposed high degree of trust and confidence in ATTY GO that when she engaged his services. of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

99 SANTUYO v HIDALGO FACTS:  Santuyo purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale which was notarized by Hidalgo and was entered in his notarial register  6 years after the date of notarization. 98 TABAS v MANGIBIN Facts:  A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. As such. Hidalgo should have been more discreet and cautious I the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries. Held: YES. Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of persons appearing before him. Afable. Atty. making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Santuyo had a dispute with Danilo German over the ownership of the land  Germen presented an affidavit of Hidalgo denying the authenticity if his signature on the deed of sale and that it was forged  Santuyo argued that: o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a duly notarized document o They had no access to the dry seal of Hidalgo  Hidalgo on the other hand claimed that: o He was on vacation at the time that the deed was allegedly notarized o An examination of the document will prove that his signature was forged o He would have remembered Santuyo for he requires that the parties exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before he notarize documents  IBP: the signature was really forged but Hidalgo must be suspended for 2 years as a notary public ISSUE:  W/N Hidalgo must be suspended HELD:   YES! The responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive. At the beginning of the preliminary conference. and asked the latter to prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.LEGAL PROFESSION to be SMC‘s counsel. Courts. He even threatened to file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him. spouses appeared without counsel. who was a notary public. Atty. This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again. Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty. administrative agencies. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The deed of mortgage was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.  100 ENDAYA v OCA Facts:   A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. His notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years. Oca was assigned to handle the case. this does not operate in favor of De Liano.  Notarization is invested with public interest. a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and appeared before Mangibin. Afable was clothed with sufficient authority to bind SMC is undisputable.      Issue: W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before him. and that he had no available means of ascertaining their real identities.   Page 149 of 203 . and the public must be able to rely upon an acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorney‘s Office. SMC must be held bound by the actuations of its counsel. That Atty. An answer was prepared by a Mr. Subsequently. Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment. Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain her identity. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. A corporation is an artificial being whose juridical personality is only a fiction created by law and it can only exercise powers and transact its business through its board of directors and its agents. this time to a rural bank Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. It converts a private document into a public one. SMC’s board resolution attests to that. Hidalgo is negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone and should not have relied on somebody else. Ramirez for the spouses.  Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1.

Rule 18. 3. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.LEGAL PROFESSION   At the continuation of the prelim conference. the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the case were not reall parties-in-interest. W/N Oca committed professional misconduct Yes. Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision (liar!). Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. Hence this administrative complaint. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. When complainant Edquibal informed respondent Atty Ferrer that he does not have enough money.  After that. Oca: o In his comment."  De Juan charged Atty Baria with negligence and threats to her person. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing. Atty Ferrer then advised complainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is P4. the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the answer. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law. she asked Atty Baria as to what to do next.000. Edquibal followed up the appealed case. RATIO: 1.  May incident pa re: Raffy Tulfo (pero d na kelangan un. Edquibal engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his sister Delia involving a certain property. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Oca once again failed to submit anything. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel. Atty. The case was appealed to RTC. the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Bakit hindi disbarred? o Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer o Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Baria can be administratively charged? HELD: Yes. iha eh hindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration?" and the secretary of Atty. deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. who worked with BBC offering free legal services to indigents became the counsel of de Juan in the NLRC case against Triple  AAA for illegal dismissal.. he alleges that De Juan pocketed the money that Triple AAA has already paid off. and Atty. respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. 102 EDQUIBAL v FERRER FACTS: Edquibal charged Atty Ferrer with professional misconduct and neglect of duty. RTC reversed the MTC decision.  Atty.  When an adverse NLRC decision was rendered against de Juan. BAria contends that he forewarned his client not to expect too much from him because of his limited legal experience since he was a new lawyer. o The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Baria told de Juan and the husband "wag na tumawag uli dahil galit. Atty ferrer said P2. The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint. In one of the cases. he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold. gusto nya kasuhan ng libel kasi may sinabing bad against him) ISSUE: WoN Atty. the NLRC decision was reversed.. Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty.      Issue:  Held:        101 DE JUAN v BARIA III Page 150 of 203 . Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim. Atty Baria remains counsel of record and whether or not he has valid cause to withdraw from the case. judgment shall be rendered on the case. o SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Atty replied "Paano ba yan. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client. Guess what. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Oca‘s story shows his appalling indifference to his clients‘ cause. The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appelant's brief. o In the IBP investigation. Nonetheless. 2. which made him lose his appeal.03 provides that the negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.000 is sufficient. For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the court. FACTS:  Emma de Juan dwas dismissed by Triple AAA without notice. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper. Also. Upon checking with the clerk of court. Oca failed to submit anything again. Oca once again failed to file anything. Oscar Barria III. Baria accused de Juan that she lied re: her employment. Motion was denied. She asked for the assistance of Banahaw Broadcasting Company (BBC) to search for a lawyer. The new lawyer..

LEGAL PROFESSION
 Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. He claimed that he never agreed to handle the appeal. ISSUE: W/n Atty Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct... HELD: YES. Records show that respondnet was the counsel of record for Edquibal. The resolution of the CA clearly states that the "notice sent to counsel for defendants-appelants requiring him to file appelants brief wihtin 45 days from receipt thereof, was received by him...". However, respondent failed to file the appellants' brief despite receipt of such notice. Sec2 rule 44 of the Rules of CivPro provides that the counsel of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered their counsel in the CA. If it were true that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent Edquibals, why did he not file with the CA a motion to withdraw as their counsel? The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence. All that is required is ordinary diligence expected of a bonus pater familias. Suspended for 3 mos. 103 CUIZON v MACALIN Facts:        Issue:  Held:    The legal services of the Atty Rodolfo Macalino was sought by the Susan Cuizon in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of Dangerous Drug Act. Since they cannot pay, he suggested that he be given possession of their Mitsubishi car. He then offered to buy, and bought it for only P85T. (Too cheap, even if this happened during the early 90‘s). In spite of everything, he still failed to appear in the case of Antolin Cuizon. The Cuizon‘s got another attorney. He (Macalino) was sanctioned by the lower courts, and was fined by the SC for P1000. which he did not pay. He was ordered to be arrested by the NBI, who was not able to serve the warrant against him (allegedly, he no longer resided in his place) The IBP wanted to suspend him for 3 years.   By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer‘s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer‘s obedience to court orders and processes.

104 DE JUAN v BARIA III Facts:     De Juan was an employee of Triple AAA. Based on a performance evaluation she was terminated. De Juan filed a case for illegal termination against the company. Atty Baria III was her counsel. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of De Juan. When the company appealed to the NLRC, the decision was reversed. De Juan blamed Baria III for the reversal of the decision. She said that she only came to know of the reversed decision a month after it was promulgated. And when she asked counsel what to do, the latter said that he did not know how to make a Motion for Reconsideration. And when her husband called the office of the lawyer, the secretary told them not to talk with said counsel anymore. Baria III‘s defense was that he forewarned his clients that he was just new in the profession and that they should not expect much from him. He also claimed that did not fail in informing his clients regarding the development of the case. And when the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, he advised De Juan to get a more experienced lawyer. He also cited that he was lambasted on air by a radio announcer-Raffy Tulfo. And that he received death threats after De Juan‘s husband called their office and gave a warning to his secretary. In sum, Baria III asserts that he did not commit any breach of his oath and that he has vigorously pursued his client‘s cause. He further averred that it was De Juan‘s negligence and folly that caused her to lose the case.

Issue: Whether Baria III committed culpable negligence, that would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for De Juan motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC. Held: Yes. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. A lawyer should carry the case of his client until its termination or until it has become final and executory. A lawyer may only abandon his client and withdraw his services for a reasonable cause and only upon appropriate notice. Baria III did fail to file a motion for reconsideration. His excuse that he did not know how to make one is inexcusable. After his client expressed her desire to file such motion, it is incumbent upon him to familiarize himself with the procedure to carry out such task. Anyway, filing a motion for reconsideration is not that complicated. Though he did inform his client of his lack of experience, this cannot absolve him. A lawyer is expected to be familiar with the rudiments of the law and procedure. It is

W/N Atty. Macalino should be sanctioned. He should be DISBARRED and not just suspended. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion The respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Page 151 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and should exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his client. There was no proper revocation of authority and withdrawal by Baria III. So he remained De Juan‘s counsel in the case. He did not obtain the written consent of his client or the permission of the court to withdraw from the case. Negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable (Canon 18 Rule 3). Baria III abandoned the cause of his client without a just reason. He was warned and fined in the amount of P5k. 105 ROLLON v NAVAL FACTS  ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed against her (Collection of Sum of Money)  After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLON‘S lawyer and required her to pay P8,000 as filing and partial service fee  As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLON‘S SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy  After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement  ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and the P8,000 paid by ROLLON because he has no money  ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City  INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18  IBP BOARD OF GOVERNOR‘S RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8,000 ISSUE REPRIMANDED W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE  deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence. Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite ROLLON‘S repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and had long become final executory. However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case would be acted upon.

JUDGMENT  Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainant‘s eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. 106 MIRAFLOR v HAGAD Facts: 

 

HELD YES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18 RATIO  Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively and competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a client‘s cause. And every case accepted by a lawyer

Nilo Miraflor, with the help of Primo Miraflor, filed a complaint against Insular Lumber Co. Phils. (ILCOPHIL) for illegal dismissal. The Minister of Labor and Employment initially denied the petition but the NLRC reversed the ruling, which was affirmed by the Office of the President (OP). Respondent Atty. Jose Aguirre, as the Executive Labor Arbiter, issued a writ of execution to enforce the decision of the OP. ILCOPHIL, through Atty. Juan Hagad, filed a motion for reconsideration. Aguirre ordered ILCOPHIL to post a bond to stay the execution of the decision and ordered a trial to determine the correct amount of backwages and benefits to be awarded to Miraflor. Eventually, Aguirre lowered the amount adjudged by the OP (from 27k to 14k). Mirfalor now complains to the SC that the respondent-lawyers conspired to thwart the execution of the decision of the OP which may constitute malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of the lawyer‘s oath. W/n Aguirre and Hagad acted properly as lawyers. SC says YES.

Issue:  Held: 

Page 152 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
 Respondent Atty. Hagad can never be faulted for having filed said motion for reconsideration. As counsel for ILCOPHIL, he has the duty to pursue with zeal and dedication the best interests of his client and the filing of the motion for reconsideration was well within the scope of his authority and prerogatives as such counsel. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." With respect to respondent Atty. Aguirre, Jr., his explanation is reasonable and satisfactory. Complainants, except for their unsubstantiated allegations, never offered any satisfactory evidence to warrant the conclusion that Atty. Aguirre, Jr. acted maliciously in allowing ILCOPHIL to file the questioned motion for reconsideration. His explanation that he "merely complied with due process by granting the respondent company ILCOPHIL an opportunity to present evidence relative to its claim that complainant (Nilo Miraflor) had gainful employment during the time he was dismissed" is well taken. As a matter of fact, in allowing said motion for reconsideration, Atty. Aguirre was merely complying with the presidential directive to have a further adjudication on Nilo's salary differentials and other benefits due him. Facts:    This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Montero Pacifica Millare, the mother of complainant, obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case. Co, through Montero as counsel, appealed the decision to the RTC. She neither filed a supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC. Thus the appeal was dismissed. The CA also dismissed Co‘s appeal from the RTC decision for failure to comply with BP Blg. 129 and with the Interim Rules and Guidelines. According to CA, Co should have filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal. After the dismissal, the judgment of the MTC had already become final and executory. However, Co‘s counsel filed four more defective and dilatory petitions before the RTC, CA, and SC for the purpose of delaying the execution of judgment by MTC.

Issue: W/N Millare should be disbarred for violating Canons 12 and 19 Held: Montero is suspended for one year.  Canon 19 requires a lawyer to represent his clients within the bounds of the law. He must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. He must not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.  The appeal from MTC to RTC was sufficient to protect Co‘s interest and fully ventilate her defenses.  Montero is also guilty of forum shopping, considering the number of actions he filed.

107 PEOPLE v PRIETO Facts: Prieto was prosecuted in the People‘s Court for 7 counts of treason. He entered a plea of guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, and made a plea of not guilty on counts 4, 5, 6. Prieto was found guilty on count 4, 1, 2, 3, and 7despite the fact that the prosecutor only presented evidence on count 4. Prieto seeks the reversal of the conviction alleging that the court failed to appoint another counsel de officio to him in "spite of the manifestation of the atty. de officio that he would like to be relieved for obvious reasons." Issue: W/N Prieto was denied the right to counsel. Held: Prieto was not denied the right to counsel. The court places reasonable presumption in favor of the legality and regularity of all the proceedings of the trial court, including the presumption that the accused was not denied the right to have counsel. The fact that the atty. appointed by the trial court to aid Prieto in his defense expressed reluctance to accept the designation (because he did not sympathize with Prieto‘s cause) is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. The statement of the counsel in the court below did not necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to protect Prieto. The court also finds the Prieto is not guilty of counts 1,2, 3, and 7, because of lack of evidence. His guilt in count 4 is maintained and the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua due to aggravating (torture) and mitigating (plea of guilt) circumstances. 108 MILLARE v MONTERO Millare v Montero

109 PHIL LAND v CEBU PORTLAND FACTS: PLASLU asked the Court of Industrial Relations to order Cebu Portland to pay overtime compensation and differentials due to them under the RA 1880 or the 40 Hours a Week Law. The Company argued that the sucurity guards are not under the said law and thery are not entitled to additional compensation CIR: PLASLU are not within the coverage of RA 1880 After 2 years form the decision of the CIR, PLASLU through their new counsel made ot of record that their former counsel was not authorized by them to enter into stipulations of facts. According to PLASLU, the stipulation of their previous attorney which states that "they were required by the company to work for 56 hours a week was due to the nature of thier services and in the interest of public notice" is a legal conclusion and were not authorized by them therefore, PLASLU filed a petition to reopen the case CIR: denied the motion to reopen the case ISSUE: W/N the court can reopen the case after it has long been final and executory

Page 153 of 203

LEGAL PROFESSION
HELD: NO! It has been settled that clients are bound by the acts and even mistakes of counsel in procedural techniques. The facts that were agreed upon were unfavorable to the client does not detract from the binding effect of the stipulation. the condition to reopen a case is: it must be upon grounds not already directly or indirectly litigated and the grounds must not be available to the aprties in the previous proceedings and the reopening must not affect the period already elapsed at the time the order to reopen was issued. 110 CABALLERO v DEIPARINE Caballero v. Deiparine Facts:  There was a stipulation of facts stating the following: o Plaintiffs are the children by the first marriage, defendants (Raga‘s) are the children by the second marriage of Vicenta Bucao. o Vicenta Bucao and Tomas Raga acquired land in Cebu. ¼ of this land was sold to Antonio Caballero (one of the plaintiffs). Land was never transferred thru title. o Later on, Deiparine acquired the whole lot through purchase from Tomas Raga. TCT was issued to Deiparine. The stipulation was only signed by Atty. Guba(for plaintiffs) and Atty. Davide(for respondents). From the stipulation of facts, the CFI rendered decision in favor of the defendants (that Deiparine owns the whole lot). Plaintiffs filed for reconsideration saying that they were never made to participate in the preparation and formation of the stipulation of facts W/N the stipulation of facts is valid The case is remanded to court of origin for further proceedings and the amended complaint should be accepted. It is puzzling why the petitioners‘ signatures were not affixed in the stipulation. The conduct of Atty. Guba in entering into a compromise agreement without the knowledge and consent of his clients is not in keeping with the sworn duty of a lawyer to protect the interest of his clients. It amounts to fraud. The stipulation of facts which was made the basis of the decision was null and void as it contained serious unauthorized admissions against the interest of the plaintiffs who had no hand in its preparation. Attorneys cannot, without special authority, compromise their client‘s litigation. PHIL ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC v FASGI FACTS:  FASGI and PAWI entered into a distributorship contract wherein PAWI obligated itself to ship wheels for FASGI (foreign company)  FASGI paid PAWI the FOB value of the wheels but later found the shipment to be defective and in non-compliance with their stated requirements (non stamping of country of origin, weight load limits, no proper indications and markings on the wheels, not fitted to the automobiles, etc)  FASGI instituted an action against PAWI and FPS for breach of contract and recovery of damages where I  was stipulated that PAWI and FPS would accept the return of not loess than 8,100 wheels after restoring to FASGI the purchase price via 4 irreovable letters of credit.  PAWI was unable to comply with the foregoing agreement alleging that it was due to a restriction by the Central Bank (for approval of the L/C)  PAWI and FASGI undertook a STIPULATION OF JUDGMENT agreeing that if PAWI still failed to undertake its  obligation, FASGI would immediately have a right to apply to the Court for entry of judgment.THis was  executed by the FASGI president and PAWI Counsel (Mr. Thomas Ready).  PAWI still defaulted so FASGI filed with the US District Court of the Central District of California. (case was decided against PAWI to pay)  FASGI filed with the Makati RTC for enforcement of foreign judgment but the latter held that there was unjust enrichment since PAWI was to pay, while FASGI was not ordered to return the wheels. FURTHERMORE, it held that the supplemental settlement agreement were a  NULLITY for having been entered into by Mr. Thomas Ready, counsel for PAWI, without the latter's authorization. ISSUE: WoN the decision is binding against PAWI? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. In this jurisdiction, it is clear that an atty cannot without a client's authorization, settle the action or SM of the litigation even when he honestloy believes that such settlement will best serve his client's best interest. BUT when a client, upon becoming aware of the compromise and the judgment thereon, fails to promptly repudiate the action of his atty, he will not afterwards be heard to complain about it. (PAWI could have sent a disclaimer, and not have waited for more than a year to mention the alleged lack of authority)

  

Issue:  Held:   

111 PHIL WHEELS v FASGI

Page 154 of 203

through his cousel. Judgment was rendered in favor of Manalang. stated the he refused because he was ordered to deduct from his attorney's fees the amount of P2000 representing the amount discounted by counsel of the Phil Racing Club Restaurant together with sheriff legal fees.(PAWI was spared from possibly paying substantial amount of damages and incurring heavy litigation fees. This compromise was allegedly without authority from his clients. She inquired where she bought it. owner of La Bulakena Restaurant. there was open and uninterrupted possession in the concept of an owner). Garcia claims it was lost. there is no dispute that complainants were awarded P6500 for unpaid overtime and separation pay. who later on didn‘t return the ring anymore. And that the ring of Guevarra might just be similar to hers. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands. HELD: YES. As per the case: ―mysterious and ephemeral figure‖. while talking to Consuelo De Garcia. were filed by the oppositors. and by a certain Pacita de los Santos. as the authority to manage the cause. the ultimate source being Aling Petring.LEGAL PROFESSION 2. 30% was agreed to be paid ot respondent as his attorney's fees. In the instant case. in the amount of P6500. after its opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an agreement. Atty Angeles exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defence of their rights. Manalang made several demands upon Atty Angeles to turn over to them the amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of 30%. They brought the ring to Mr. W/N the extra-judicial admission of De Garcia. Rebullida. During which an extra-judicial admission by Garcia was done. in his defense. the pleading contained attachments showing that the land is indeed part of the public domain (court said that counsel probably wanted to prove that despite the public character of the property. Motions to Dismiss (the application). the property appeared to be a part of the public domain. Atty Angeles was their counsel. counsel wants to reverse the decision. 113 GARCIA v CA Facts:  Angelina Guevarra. is binding on her. She claims there that she bought the ring from different persons. But the ring was returned to Garcia. and he concluded that it was indeed the ring that Guevarra bought from him in 1947. Atty Angeles. without authority from his clients. although made by counsel. was rather remote. Atty Angeles compromised the award and was able to collect P5500 only. Counsel‘s admission binds the client. Manalang alleged that they were the complainants in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against their employer. Defendant (De Garcia) is refuted by her own extra-judicial admissions. and was even afforded time to reimburse FASGI) 112 MANALANG v ANGELES  FACTS: This is an administrative case agaisnt Atty Angeles for grave misconduct as a lawyer and he stanes charged with infidelity in the discharge of fiduciary obligations to his clients. For an attorney who acts as counsel of record and is permitted to act as such. the Phil Racing Club Restaurant. Upon examination of the records. Her explanation that her counsel misunderstood her is puerile (This means silly) because the liability to error as to the identity of the vendor and the exchange of the ring with another ring of the same value. herein complainant Manalang. Garcia handed the ring to Guevarra and it fitted her finger. ISSUE: Whether respondent Atty Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds.   Issue: Page 155 of 203 . on the ground that the property was public domain. Director of Forestry. recognized her (Guevarra‘s) ring in the finger of Mrs Garcia. Rizal. Suspended for 6 months. and this includes the authority to make admission for the purpose of the litigation. (Mrs de los Santos‘ was actually a lessee of the land by virtue of a Pasture Lease Agreement) (What‘s funny is that…) When Santiago‘s counsel—the firm of Luna and Manalo—requested that the case be calendared for hearing. A case was filed. should not. However. Aling Petring was just a hoax. Atty Angeles failed to show any such authority.    Apparently. Alleging difficulties in collecting te full amount awarded. So Santiago was ordered to show cause to support his application. Apparently. There was really no Aling Petring. Now.  Issue:  Held:    114 SANTIAGO v DE LOS SANTOS Facts:     Luis Santiago filed an application for registration of a piece of land in San Mateo. where the ring was allegedly bought. but the lawyer refuese and offered to give them only the sum of P2650. be allowed to later disown the arrangement when the terms thereof ultimately would prove to operate against its hopeful expectations. This admission led to the dismissal of the application. A party. Guevarra‘s ring was stolen from her house in February 1952. respondent compromised the award on execution and collected only P5500 from the losing party.

JUDGE NAVARRO was on leave so the Clerk of Court of Branch II entered the following minutes: ―Presiding Judge of this Court being on leave and as prayed by ATTY VICTORIA and ATTY CAPISTRANO* let the pre-trial be transferred to July 3”  On July 3. ET AL praying after notice and hearing that the latter be ordered to vacate the premises  Clerk of Court of Branch II issued a notice of pretrial to ATTY VICTORIA for JOSE VICTORIA and ATTY GONZALES AND ASSOCIATES for EMMANUEL VICTORIA. this petition Main argument of EMMANUEL VICTORIA. an associate in the office of ATTY GONZALES while appearing in another sala of the same court stumbled upon the scheduled reception of evidence of JOSE VICTORIA as ordered by JUDGE PINEDA  EMMANUEL VICTORIA. Even if there would be a full hearing of the case. and adverse possession in the concept of an owner. (Paul Geneve) where the latter purchased the lease rights of Montojima over the property. It should be noted that technicalities should give way (and even aid) to substantial justice. Montojima then entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Paul Geneve Entertainment Corp. application in a given case should be looked into and adopted according to its surrounding circumstances. the whole proceeding cannot stand the test of validity W/N NOTICE TO COUNSEL REGARDING SCHEDULED DATE OF PRE-TRIAL IS NOTICE TO CLIENT NO. presence of parties is a must because one of the purposes of a pre-trial is to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement (which a counsel cannot compromise absent express authorization) so notice to the parties is necessary Records show that since only the counsel for EMMANUEL VICTORIA. the court shall direct the parties AND their attorneys to appear…” The Court interpreting these provisions. In a desperate effort to save the case. and that all proofs submitted by him contrary or inconsistent therewith. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE NOTICE TO THE ISSUE HELD CLIENT RATIO        Generally. otherwise. ET AL stating that the pre-trial will be held on May 29  On May 29. a motion for execution pending appeal was granted    EMMANUEL VICTORIA. The court has adhered to the doctrine that ―an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive to him. of the pre-trial  The case was transferred to the sala of JUDGE PINEDA without knowledge of EMANNUEL VICTORIA. However.LEGAL PROFESSION Can Santiago (more appropriately his counsel) properly call for the reversal of the decision? Held: NO. (Astra) leased its property to Alelie Montojima. peaceful. should be ignored. must BOTH be notified of the same In other proceedings presence of parties is not necessary so notice to counsel operates as notice to client but in a pre-trial. the designated judge. the result would still be the same. ET AL or their lawyer  On Oct 16. it may foster dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice The case at bar involves Section 1 and 2 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Court which state “In any action after the last pleading has been filed. such notification is neither adequate nor sufficient for purposes of a pre-trial Judgment of CA affirmed NOTE *ATTY CAPISTRANO . ET AL was notified of the pre-trial. The lower court is constrained to dismiss the application. Page 156 of 203 . ET AL and commissioned the deputy clerk to receive evidence for JOSE VICTORIA and to submit a report  A few days later.not mentioned but I presume he is an associate of ATTY GONZALES 116 SALONGA v CA Facts:   Astra Realty Development Corp. ET AL filed a verified motion to reconsider and/or set-aside the order holding them in default but the same was denied  On the contrary. counsel tried to rely on procedural doctrines—particularly citing that de los Santos has no interest in the case. neither EMANNUEL VICTORIA. even if such was admitted. ET AL elevated the matter to the CA who reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered JUDGE PINEDA to proceed with the pre-trial Hence. ET AL is that the minutes prepared by the clerk of court merely singles out ATTY CAPISTRANO as having been notified so since no notice was sent to them. notice to counsel operates as notice to the party/parties represented However. JUDGE NAVARRO was still on leave and entered similar minutes noting the notification to ATTY CAPISTRANO as to the new date. that the parties as well as their counsel. uniformly emphasized that the pre-trial is mandatory. 115 PINEDA v CA FACTS  JOSE VICTORIA filed a complaint for recovery of possession of 2 parcels of land in Taguig against EMMANUEL VICTORIA. whether objection is interposed by the party or not…‖ (Justice JBL Reyes in Joe‘s Radio v Alto Electronics). Oct 16. uninterrupted. ET AL nor ATTY CAPISTRANO appeared so JUDGE PINEDA entered a default order against EMMANUEL VICTORIA. The latter tried to open a restaurant but it was not a success. who are required to appear thereat. they still failed to show open.

Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter. however. he suggested that he (along with his company – Solid Intertain) and Paul Geneve enter into a joint venture enterprise. he is merely a surrogate father and there exists no legal relation of step-father and step-daughter) was not averred in the complaint.) It was alleged that one night.     117 PEOPLE v VILLANUEVA Facts: Villanueva was accused of raping his 11 year-old stepdaughter Nia. Villanueva gives an alibi that he could not have raped her and that the semen found on the victim‘s vagina could not have been his (he already had vasectomy). Garlitos for Salonga and Atty. Garlitos constitute extrinsic fraud (see p. Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law. Due process was never denied petitioners Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation because the trial court had given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present their side in all the proceedings before it. Held: Villanueva is not entitled to a new trial. Consequently. The client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had his counsel proceeded differently. Villanueva is still guilty of rape. The Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent acts attributed to petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were in no way shown or alleged to have been caused by private respondents. No corporation under the name Solidisque Inc.LEGAL PROFESSION   Paul Geneve paid Montojima but when it was about to start its business. In his defense. The CA affirmed. W/n Salonga‘s allegation of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process obtain to justify annulment of the default judgment rendered by the RTC. was ever registered as agreed upon in the Securities and Exchange Commission. Atty. Since Salonga had no money. Petitioners George Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation allege that the "inimical and antagonistic acts" of their counsel Atty. The fact that Nia‘s hymen was intact does not negate rape. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. or when its application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality. The idea was to form a new corporation to be named Solidisque Inc. SC says NO. 543 for list of acts). Paul Geneve signed the papers but Dalonga didn‘t. All the documents were prepared by the counsels of both parties (Atty. then there would be no end to suits so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege that the previous counsel had not been diligent. Salonga started operating Metro Disco on the subject property. (The filing of the complaint was brought about by a kiss mark that Nia‘s brother saw on her neck. it was too big. Paul Geneve filed a complaint for specific performance against Salonga and his company. found Villanueva guilty of raping Nia and imposes the death penalty. (According to Nia. as discussed previously. On the other hand. Villanueva alleges that he is entitled to a new trial because of his counsel‘s failure to present his common law wife (Nia‘s mother). There is no question about the credibility of the Nia as a witness. The lower court. The nature of extrinsic fraud. Villanueva attempted to insert his penis. Now comes George Salonga who was interested in buying the lease rights of Paul Geneve. the charge cannot qualify as qualified rape. whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case. Paul Geneve was totally left out. However. holding a knife against Nia‘s neck. What is important is that there was contract between the peis and the labia of the vagina. Issue: W/N Villanueva is entitled to a new trial. Salonga and his counsel failed to appear in the trial dates so he was declared in default and judgment was rendered by the RTC in favor of Paul Geneve. Having possession of the unsigned papers. If this were to be allowed. the Bel-Air Village Homeowner‘s Association filed a complaint for violation of some municipal ordinances. SC said that extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party which is committed outside the trial of the case. In this mandatory review by the SC. it is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. because it is not an element of rape. The trial judge had occasion to determine the demeanor of the witness. He was ordered arrested until he obeys the orders and judgment of the Court. by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. 118 AGUILAR v CA     Issue:  Held:    Page 157 of 203 . threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone of the odious act. necessarily requires that its cause be traceable to some fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial of the case. In fact. Villanueva. The failure of the defense to present Nia‘s mother by reason of the alleged inexperience of his lawyer is not a ground for new trial.) Villanueva contented himself to licking Nia‘s genetalia. Sadili for Paul Geneve). petitioners were declared in default only on the third ex parte motion filed by private respondents. Salonga was also adjudged guilty of civil contempt for his failure to appear in an earlier hearing. It doesn‘t‘ matter if Villanueva‘s [penis did not penetrate. but it would not fit. Onofre G. the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them. because the allegation that the accused is the stepfather (in fact he is not. The error of his defense counsel is neither an error of law nor an irregularity that will merit a new trial. The alibi of Villanueva is also self-serving." None of these exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case.

Cathay won the case (Katay si Legarda). and that 2) acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence. Garlitos. where certain evidence was not presented because of counsel‘s error or incompetence. He cannot lose his liberty because of the gross irresponsibility of his lawyer. hus efforts at defending thier cause is real.  There is no reason to treat the two appellants differently. Salonga did not appear and was held in contempt salonga also asked for 2 motions foe extension of time but no answer was filed becasue of salonga's failure to file an answer. requested a 10day extension to file an answer which was granted. simple negligence would not amount to a deprivation of right to due process. Dean Antonio Coronel. This shows earnest efforts of counsel and petitioner to be heard and lack of intention to cause delay. Unfortunately. Cathay presented evidence ex parte.  In a criminal proceeding. and to indemnify the offended party the amount of P250.  CA should have considered the fact that the appellant‘s brief was already filed and is already in the records of the case. Arandia failed to file petitioner‘s brief on its due date.  Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. salonga was held in default and cited in contempt Salonga is now claiming that he received a copy of the decision only on 10-7 yet a motion for reconsideration was filed on 7-28 ISSUE: W/N the decision must be annulled on the ground of fraud on the part of Salonga's counsel HELD: NO! a decision can be annulle donly on 2 grounds: A. The said rule must only be applied to advance the ends of justice. Cathay made a deposit and downpayment of rentals then filed for specific performance. and the latter entered his appearance in the case and asked an extension of 45 days to submit the appellant‘s brief. Legarda‘s counsel. Makati.000. Arias as his new counsel. Montojima received 1M Bt before PGEC can open the business. Legarda refused to sign the contract. He neither communicated to Aguilar nor withdrew his appearance as counsel. But Dean Coronel failed to file an answer within that period. Atty.     Issue: W/N CA committed GAD when it dismissed Aguilar‘s appeal for failure to file his appellant‘s brief on time. to see all the negligent acts of Atty Garlitos see page 543 1st paragraph. lawyer of Salonga. 119 SALONGA v CA Page 158 of 203 . the homeowners association of Bel-Air filed a complaint against PGEC for violation of some municipal ordinances PGEC and Salonga entered into a JVA wherein the corporation of Salonga and PGEC will form a new corporation. not when the circumstances of the case it becomes a hindrance to justice. although he failed to file a timely answer. CA subsequently denied Aguilar‘s motion to dismiss and his appeal. Service of decision was made on Dean Coronel but he still did not do anything. Atty. is only guilty of simple negligence. Aguilar hired Atty. thru his former counsel.LEGAL PROFESSION Facts:  Aguilar and Salvador were charged with Estafa in an Information filed before the RTC. Their cases rest on the same facts. For some reason. Equal protection of the law demands that persons situated similarly be treated alike. judgment is void for want of due process or jurisdiction and B. (Cathay) and Victoria Legarda entered into a lease agreement for a property in QC owned by Legarda. Salvador was granted an extension of time to file her brief. Aguilar.  Aguilar faces a jail term of 17 yrs and 4 mos to 20 yrs. Held: YES. Inc. this is based on the rule that any acts performed by counsel within the scope of his general authority is deemed as an act of the client. and the brief was admitted even though filed beyond the grace period. it was obtained by fraud there is no extrinsic fraud in the case the negligence of counsel binds the client. 120 LEGARDA v CA *mahaba. On the other hand. Montojima leased this property and opened a restaurant which did not prosper Montojima thereafter entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with Paul Geneve Entertainment Corp (PGEC) with the consent of  New Cathay House. Talo naman sila eh Facts:    FACTS: Astra owned a propert located at Bel-Air Village. Both were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. di ko na sinama mga dissenting. timely appealed to CA. The motion was denied for having been filed out of time. new trial may be granted if the defendant satisfies the court that: 1) he has a good defense.Arandia. Astra under the following term: Montojima will sell all his rights over the property to PGEC for 3M. but the new corporation never existed and PGEC asked for specific performance from Salonga during the scheduled hearing. Aguilar‘s attempts to contact his counsel were futile. Both allegedly conspired in committing the crime of estafa.

NLRC ruled in favor of Atty Cruz. Cathay‘s manager. Counsel is entitled to full recompense for his services He is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. Perpetua Coloma as their counsel. efficiently. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was made on the order of denial (ibang klase ka dean!) So. Atty COloma has good reputation. it is the complainants who. Bank complied with such decision. If indeed Legarda is innocent. it contends that there must be separate mutual agreement prior to the performance of the additional services of the counsel. Legarda still did not lose faith in her counsel. Union opposed the demand. Kahit natalo na sila dahil walang ginagawa si Dean (hindi nga niya sinabihan si Legarda kung ano na nangyari sa kaso nila. then all the more that Cathay is innocent. he himself would not get due. 122 TRADERS ROYAL BANK UNION v NLRC FACTS: Petitioner Union and private respondent Atty Cruz entered into a retainer agreement whereby the former obligated itself to pay the latter a monthly retainer fee of P3. NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the union members. after benefiting from the valuable services of atty COloma. was the highest bidder in the auction. by attempting to impugn the authenticity and genuineness of their written agreement for the payment of atty's fees ISSUE: WoN Atty COloma is entitled to her atty's fees (as agreed upon in their written agreement of contigent fee) HELD: YES RATIO: 1. He is entitled to P10. Atty Coloma failed to expediet the hearing and termination of the case.000 in consideration of the Atty Cruz's undertaking to render the services enumerated in their contract. and later. the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss. notified the union . HELD: YES. Hence this motion for reconsideration of SC decision. Coloma likewise denied that she could have been removed for her failure to comply with her obligations as counsel as she served "faithfully. The union insists that it is not guilty of unjust enrichment because all attorney's fees due to Atty Cruz were covered by the retainer fee of P3.  Atty. was made without cause and without her consent and when she had already won the case for them in the CFI and the CA.  conscientiousness on her part. New lawyer asked for annulment of judgment upon the ground that the old lawyer was negligent in his duties.LEGAL PROFESSION  The QC property was then levied and auctioned off to pay for the judgment debt.. Issue: W/n Atty Cruz is entitled to compensation other than the P3. W/N Legarda can be bound by the gross negligence of her counsel Yes. Coloma intervened in the case to collect her atty's fees and presented a document showing that the complainants promised to pay her a contingent fee of 33 1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages. the court modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of mid year and year-end bonus. 2. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents. mid year and year-end bonuses against their employer Traders Royal Bank (TRB). An attorney is entitiled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and      Issue:  Held:      121 ALBANO v COLOMA FACTS:  Angel Albano alleges that when he and his mom retained the services of Atty. inexcusable and gross negligence of Dean Coronel. thereafter. resulting to their having to procure another lawyer. The SC said that there was unjust enrichment on the part of Cathay because of the reckless. Decision was res ipso final due to failure to appeal the decision. na wala na yung lupa). the TRB management and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney's lien over the award of holiday pay. Atty Cruz. Also. Cabrera. The petition was granted and the sale of the QC property to be set aside. continuously and to the best of her knowledge and capacity".000 retainer fee. Petition was denied. He demanded the payment of 10% of the total award. she cannot be said to have been denied due process of law. Legarda hired a new lawyer.000 which it has been regularly paying to Atty Cruz under their retainer agreement. Dean Coronel then filed a petition for annulment of judgment.  The facts as found by the SolGen in so far as the services of Atty Coloma as counsel for the complainants reveal the utmost diligence and Page 159 of 203 . Legarda did not redeem the property within the 1 year period. tried to renege on their agreement for the payment of the latter's contingent atty's fees by dismissing her as their counsel after she had already won for them in the trial court and the CA.  Atty. Petitioner Union referred to Atty Cruz the claims of its members for Holiday. The SolGen further saight that if there was anyone guilty of bad faith in  this case. Between two innocent parties. Her dismissal. To be entitiled to additional attorney's fees.000. Legarda misjudged and hired the services of Dean Coronel who in the end sort of abandoned her case. SO his reputation as a lawyer must be protected. Original decision is reinstated (Legarda=loser) As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend her interests in due course. On appeal to the SC. accdg to her.

Hence this case. Employees filed an MR asserting that there was inadvertence in placing 60% where it should only be 50%. Ong went to Bacolod (where the case was filed) to find out for himself the status of the case and to seek payment. Grijaldo deliberately withheld the fat from her. Worse. 32 of the employees agreed that Sesbreno would be paid 30% of the backwages as attorney‘s fees and 20% for expenses of litigation. 124 SESBREÑO v CA Facts:  Raul Sesbreño replaced Atty Pacquiao as counsel for 52 employees in a case against the Province of Cebu and Governor Espina for reinstatement to work and backwages. his negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required of every lawyer. Grijaldo (who facilitated the compromise deal) handed over P100T in cash and an P80T check. Lower court agreed with them and fixed attorney‘s fees for Sesbreno at 40% plus the 20% expenses. Goretti Ong. 123 ONG v GRIJALDO Facts:    This is a case for disbarment of Atty. only when the check has been cleared. Later on.3M (representing back salaries. but was made to accept it. Ong initially refused. Ong agreed to a compromise. provided he be paid in cash. Ong filed a number of affidavits by other disinterested persons who complained of Grijaldo‘s mischief. The P3. It is not payment for counsel's execution or performance of the services of the counsel. initially had Grijaldo as his counsel for a BP 22 case. Grijaldo already received the money from Reyesm but he used it to pay for his (Grijaldo‘s) financial obligations.000 which the union pays monthly does not cover the services the counsel actually rendered before the labor arbiter and the NLRC. CA affirmed. the complainant. public policy demands that the contract be disregarded to protect the client. Punta siya ngayon sa Padre Faura…Supreme Court…           Issue: Whether the court acted properly in reducing Sesbreno‘s attorney‘s fees despite a pre-existing contract between the parties. A quasi contract arose between the union and counsel. but they reached a compromised in the amount of P180T. meaning "as much as he deserves". Atty. Grijaldo breached his futy wwhen he failed to inform the complainant of the status of the criminal case. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it accepted and benefited from counsel's services. The P3. It is a settled rule that what a lawyer may charge and receive as attorney‘s fees is always subject to judicial control. This was granted. terminal leave pay. but the case was filed in Bacolod. The measure of compensation should be addressed by the rule of quantum meruit. But the check bounced. When the courts find the amount to be excessive or unreasonable. a compromise was made between the employees and the Province of Cebu whereby said employees waived their right to reinstatement. from the counsel's lawful. RTC granted employees‘ petition. Jose Grijaldo. (bottom part of p 5) (irrelevant) W/N Grijaldo should be disbarred. Reyes. The fact that petitioner union and counsel failed to reach a meeting of the minds with regard to the payment of professional fees for special services will not absolve the client of civil liability for the corresponding remuneration. since it was drawn on the checking account of the opposing party‘s counsel.    she would have not know that the case was already dismissed. gratuity pay) to Sesbreno for the employees as ―Partial Satisfaction of Judgment‖. to protect her interests. It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. but Ong instructed Grijaldo to file it with the court. Cebu released P2. and reasonable amount for attorney‘s fees. Issue:  Held:   Page 160 of 203 . That was the reason why Ong hired a Bacolod-based lawyer. Ong found out that the affidavit was already filed in court and the case was already dismissed. The opposing party owed Ong. This is a gross betrayal of the fiduciary duty: failure to look after the client‘s welfare. Held: Yes. Ong was made to execute an affidavit of desistance. Judgment became final.LEGAL PROFESSION request of his client. And it is also a breach of the trust and confidence which was reposed on him. Grijaldo claims that the check is good.000 was a general retainer. he should have a reasonable compensation for such services. 10 of the employees asserted that they only agreed to give 40% of their back salaries to Sesbreno. Later on. When the time of payment came. And kawawang Sesbreno nabawasan pa lalo ang bayad…CA deemed the award of 20% of the back salaries as the fair. The monthly fee is intended merely as a consideration for the counsel's commitment to render the services. equitable. Yes. he submits himself to the authority of the court and subjects his professional fees to judicial control. When a lawyer takes his oath. Sesbreno was not satisfied by the decision so he went to the CA. As long as the lawyer was in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the client. Were it not for complainant‘s vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case. voluntry and unilateral prosecution of union's cause. His infraction is rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a resident of QC. after many excuses.

the contract is vague and only provides that ATTY MURILLO shall have the option of ―occupying or leasing to any interested party 40% of the properties The ambiguity of said provision should then be resolved against ATTY MURILLO as it was he himself who drafted the contract Moreover. UNLESS the court finds such stipulated amount unreasonable or unconscionable. mortgaged or leased.LEGAL PROFESSION A stipulation on a lawyer‘s compensation in a written contract for professional services ordinarily controls the amount of fees that the contracting lawyer may be allowed. a much higher compensation is allowed in a contingent fee agreement (as in this case) in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. properties and rights which are objects of litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession However. It is only that the courts will fix a reasonable amount. the existence of an unreasonable fee (no matter the degree) does not bar recovery. proceeds of the mortgage or rentals respectively However. with respect to a situation wherein the properties are neither sold. CONTRACT OF SERVICES VAGUE AS TO WHO IS THE OWNER SO MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE LAWYER WHO MADE IT. mortgaged and leased as ATTY MURILLO is entitled to 40% of the purchase price. Though generally. mortgaged or leased. a contract between a lawyer and his client stipulating a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491 because payment of said fee is not made during the pendency of litigation but only after judgment has been rendered Hence. But contingent fee contracts are under the supervision of the court in order that clients may be protected from unjust charges. said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment takes place during the pendency of litigation involving the client‘s property Following that principle. Nevertheless. Considering it‘s a labor case. the Contract of Services entered into by FLORENCIO and ATTY MURILLO having provided for contingent fees is not violative of Article 1491 W/N FLORENCIO IS OWNER OF 40% OF THE NO. ATTY MURILLO will have the option of occupying or leasing to any interested party 40% of the said property  ATTY MURILLO filed a case for FLORENCIO against GREGORIO which ended in a compromise settlement wherein FLORENCIO was declared owner not only of the San Salvador property but also of the Pugahanay property  ATTY MURILLO proceeded to implement the contract by taking possession of 40% of the properties and even installed a tent in the Pugahanay property  FLORENCIO claimed exclusive right over the properties which prompted ATTY MURILLO to file a complaint  LOWER COURT: ATTY MURILLO is owner of 40% of the properties   ISSUE FLORENCIO argued that the contingent fee of 40% is excessive. an award of 50% of back salaries is excessive. CONTINGENT FEES NOT COVERED BY HELD ARTICLE 1491 RATIO    Article 1491 prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase even at a public auction. unfair and unconscionable W/N THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES PROVIDING FOR CONTINGENT FEES VIOLATED ARTICLE 1491 NO. ATTY MURILLO The Court disagrees with the lower court that FLORENCIO is the owner of 40% of the properties for careful scrutiny shows that the parties intended 40% of the value of the properties as ATTY MURILLO‘S contingent fee The provisions are clear in cases where the properties are sold. FLORENCIO sought the assistance of ATTY MURILLO to recover the San Salvador property  FLORENCIO and ATTY MURILLO entered into a Contract for Services wherein o If the property is awarded to FLORENCIO. ATTY MURILLO will be constituted as attorney in fact to sell and convey said property and will be given 40% of the purchase price o If mortgaged. 125 FABILO v IAC FACTS  JUSTINA Fabillo bequeathed to her brother FLORENCIO Fabillo a house in lot in San Salvador St. An attorney‘s fee is unconscionable when it is so disproportionate compared to the value of the services rendered. The 20% award is justified. Leyte (San Salvador property) and to her husband GREGORIO Brioso a lot in Pugahanay. Leyte (Pugahanay property)  FLORENCIO filed a petition for probate of JUSTINA‘S will who approved of the partition placed a reservation on the ownership of the San Salvador property  2 years later. if the parties intended that ATTY MURILLO should become the lawful owner of 40% of the properties in case the same is not sold. ―Quantum Meruit‖ which means ―as much as he deserves‖ is often the court‘s basis for determining the amount. Its validity rests largely on the reasonableness of the stated fees under the circumstances of the case. then they would have clearly and unequivocally stipulated in the contract such ISSUE PROPERTIES HELD RATIO      JUDGMENT Page 161 of 203 . ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the rentals o If the property is just occupied by FLORENCIO. ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the proceeds of the mortgage o If leased.

Rosalina Biascan filed a complaint alleging that she is the administratrix of the estate of her father. The SC held that in withholding such information. Lopez entered his appearance as Maria‘s counsel. Yes. lot in his name (made through a deed of assignment executed by Maria and Atty. Jr. Atty. Atty. Lopez says that the transfer of a portion of the land was valid since it was a payment of his contingent fees. the Court holds that ATTY MURILLO is entitled to P3. 1491 of the Civil Code and can be administratively punished for such violation. Maria Biascan opposed the claim of Rosalina. Lopez argues that due to the absence of a notice of lis pendens on the TCT. Therefore. For the first allegation. while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction. the length of time and effort exerted by ATTY MURILLO. Lopez should have gone over the records. As respondent of Maria. o Submitting to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement" and submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City. Gonzales has violated Art. The fact that complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt respondent from his duty to inform complainant of an important fact pertaining to the land which is subject of their negotiation. Rosalina complained that. Lopez entered his appearance as the counsel of Maria in the opposition. m. o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados. Third act. the Court said that such is a violation of Art. Lopez claims that Maria agreed to give him 35% of the area of the disputed land. 1491. SC suspends him for 6 months. Lopez transgressed Art. to enter into a contract with him for the development of the land involved in a case into a residential subdivision. By acquiring the property in litigation. And although the Code of Professional Responsibility does not anymore contain Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics. they did not sign the original copy but only a photocopy of the original. which properties are the subject of the litigation. the SC pointed out that a lawyer may indeed advance expenses of litigation but such payment should be subject to reimbursement. By registering the land in his name. without the approval of the intestate court. Florencio.000 as reasonable attorney‘s fees (nyek lugi!) 126 BAUTISTA v GONZALES Facts: Angel Bautista filed a complaint against Ramon Gonzales for the following acts: o Accepting a case where he agreed to pay all expenses for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation. is one of the defendants and. Lastly. Suspend – 6 months. because he had knowledge that the land was the subject of the Issue: Held: - - - Page 162 of 203 . m. The lot was in the name of Florencio Biascan. the contingent fee agreement between the Fortunados and Gonzales did not provide for such reimbursement. Lopez). the deed of assignment itself stated that the TCT was registered in Florencio‘s name." the Code still provides that a lawyer should follow the laws of the Phil. the SC held that the original copies of the documents Gonzales submitted were false because they bore the signatures of the Fortunados when. 1491 of the Civil Code. in fact. At all times. When Florencio died. However. acting as counsel for Lopez in another case. - - 127 BIASCAN v LOPEZ Facts: This controversy pertains to a 600 sq. Such contract is against public policy because it gives undue leverage in favor of the lawyer. which states that "[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting. in connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant. o Inducing complainant. Also. A lawyer should never seek to mislead the court by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Illegal. without said case being terminated. m. Atty. W/n Gonzales should be punished for these acts. According to Rosalina. Rosalina had submitted an inventory report which listed the land as part of the estate of the deceased Florencio. In this case. Lopez had actual knowledge that the lot formed part of the estate of Florencio. Such conduct constitutes willful disregard of his solemn duty as a lawyer to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth. the value of the properties subject matter thereof. Issue: W/N the land was a lawful payment of contingent fees. This Court has held that the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. lot. respondent failed to live up to the rigorous standards of ethics of the law profession which place a premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. who was his former client. Atty. Atty. claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados. Lopex caused the registration of 210 sq. the registration was made during the special proceedings regarding the settlement of the estate. while the case was still pending. Atty. In his defense. Atty. Florencio died intestate. he accepted the offer of Maria. When Atty. which prohibits a lawyer from buying/acquiring the property of his clients which is the subject of a pending case.LEGAL PROFESSION Considering the nature of the case. Held: The land cannot be regarded as contingent fees. the Court found that Gonzales did not violate any law because the Fortunados consented to his appearance for Lopez. Second. o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in a case where Eugenio Lopez. At that instant. of the 600 sq.

Just like any other professional. Lizardo won. even exceeding the principal debt which is only P4M.8M and 5% of the preceding obligation for and as attorney‘s fees - - -   Issue:  Held:  ISSUE: .W/N Barons is liable to Phelps Dodge for interest and attorney‘s fees HELD: .00 as appearance fee notwithstanding her payments.  129 BARON’S MARKETING v CA FACTS: .  Mirano‘s land was levied and Lizardo won the bidding. Atty. In total. Art. on credit Under the sales invoice issued by Phelps Dodge.YES! But the amount stated in the sales invoice is reduced from 25% to 10% of the principal amount for attorney‘s fees.1M.5M. morals.1M and 25% of the preceding obligation for and as attorney‘s fees CA: corrected the amount due to Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay P3. the attorney‘s fees and collection fees are manifestly exorbitant. the TV host.000. respondent never rendered any legal service. BUT. or public order. W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed. 25% of the principal and the interest amounts to roughly P2M. with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash. Initially. Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): ―there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case. Allegedly.‖   when a lawyer takes a client‘s cause. The former asked the latter for installment payment but the request was refused An action for collection for sum of money was instituted by Phelps Dodge against Barons with a prayer for attorney‘s fees amounting to 25% pf the amount demanded RTC: ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay P3. He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services. the lawyer of Lizardo. 130 LIZARDO v MONTANO FACTS:  Lizardo instituted a collection case against Eddie Mirano. therefore. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. In real terms.  13 years after the case. He should be suspended for 6 months. o P3. Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorney‘s fees but did not take any action on Valerina Dalisay‘s case.00. it was expected of him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity.000.Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as its dealer of electrical wires and cables Page 163 of 203 . When respondent accepted P56. Barons was given a 60 day credit for the purchase of Phelps Dodge‘s products Barons purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4.00 from complainant. the courts are empowered to reduce such penalty of the same is iniquitous or unconscionable In the case at bar. However. It is settled that as long as such stipulation does not contravene law.  Judgment included 25% of the amount payable as attorney‘s fees. From then on. it is strictly binding. Mauicio refused. No. The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case. a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff: o Additional acceptance fee P90. But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record. it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter‘s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established.LEGAL PROFESSION litigation. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. filed with the trial court (same trial court as in the previous decision) an omnibus motion for payment of his attorney‘s fees. she paid P25T as acceptance fee. care and devotion. there is a stipulation: ―interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts plus 25% on said amount for attorney‘s fees and collections‖ Barons failed to pay Phelps Dodge. 128 DALISAY v MAURICIO Facts:     This is the case against ―Batas‖ Mauricio. the interest alone runs to some P4. Barons is expressly liable as stated in the sales invoice of Phelps Dodge which provides that: ―interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts plus 25% on said amount for attorney‘s fees and collections‖ The attorney‘s fees stated are in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation is aptly called a penal clause. Because the transfer was made during the pendency of the Special Proceedings. 1491 clearly applies. Montano.000. he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees.

Atty.December 1999.When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case.000.000 of the contract price sought to be notarized.) and also Cueto should have inquired first about the reasonableness.The lawyer‘s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of ISSUE:  W/N the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case 13 years after it rendered a final judgment HELD:      No.LEGAL PROFESSION   Without hearing petitioner. RATIO: 1. sign. it retains such jurisdiction until the final termination of the case. compromise. . In the questioned order. as notary public. ALso.000 as notarial fee. Atty. However. the trial court rendered an order that Lizardo pay Montano 25% of the property and/or annotate in the TCT the attorney‘s lien. Jimenez is severely reprimanded. Such variance rendered the order void. and of course. Jimenez demanded P50. 2.000 in cash and issued a check of P20. hence this appeal. encash and receive payments . Jose Jimenez Jr. INJUSTICE or FRAUD".Jimenez still deposited the check. DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully collected. . 1)Cueto already paid more than half of the fee 2) In all probablity. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.000 was exorbitant--> IBP and SC held that is is reasonable recompense (1% of the 5. .Balon later claimed that he gave P233. It loses its jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision A final decision cannot be amended or corrected except for clerical errors. In the case at bar. P1.Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon successful recovery. the reason why Cueto lacked funds was because of Jimenez' son failure to pay (so dapat mas lenient si Jimenez sa delay ng payment sa kanya ng balance) Page 164 of 203 . What the lawyer may do is file an independent action against petitioner for collection.Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years ISSUE: . Cueto filed his own administrative complaint against Jimenez and alleged that he violated Code of Prof Responsibility and Canons of Prof Ethics when he filed BP22 so that Jimenez can recover the balance of his notarial fee. injustice or fraud. . mistakes or misprisions. .000. ISSUE: WoN Jimenez can be held administratively liable? HELD: YES.000 which was received by Balon . there was clearly no imposition. Jimenez filed a BP 22 case against Cueto. Alex Cueto paid P30. Cueto requested Jimenez not to deposit the check for lack of sufficient funds. That is not decreed in the judgment.Engr.Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney‘s lien pending Lemoine‘s payment of his attorney‘s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected.. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case.Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine‘s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer .000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation .His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon‘s services as his counsel . Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525. facts show that they agreed on the amount. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon .. the check bounced (insufficient funds nga!)and the check issued by Jimenez' son was also dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.December 1998. the court ordered Lizardo to pay attorney‘s fees to counsel.Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance. CA affirmed the RTC decision. 132 LEMOINE v BALON FACTS: .Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine‘s claim as well as to negotiate. the court no longer has jurisdiction over the claim for attorney‘s fees. Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon. 131 CUETO v JIMENEZ FACTS: . Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350.000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to Lemoine‘s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. It is highly improper for Jimenez in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against Cueto when the check representing the balance of his notarial fee was dishonored because "A LAWYER SHALL AVOID CONTROVERSIES WITH CLIENTS CONCERNING HIS COMPENSATION AND SHALL RESORT TO JUDICIAL ACTION ONLY TO PREVENY IMPOSITION. Alex Cueto engaged the services of Atty. An advance payment of P50. . being the father of the building of the Construction Agreement to be notarized. Cueto also informed Jimenez that his son had not yet paid his services as general contractor. AS to the contention that P50.W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC .000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine. After notarizing the agreement. In return.

Judge Wislezinus said: ―Ah hindi pwede yan!‖ He orderd the fiscal to file an action for disbarment against Hamilton for professional misconduct. The fact that he did not allow his name to be place by the clerk of court as attorney of record for Andrada (when the papers were filed) can only be considered as proof of lack of good faith with the client to whome he was rendering professional services. Another misconduct was committed by Hamilton when he proposed. Given the failure of the trial court to explicitly state the rationale for the award of attorney‘s fees. The officers above mentioned executed a comprehensive security agreement on the loan. 134 IN RE HAMILTON Facts:   L.   Issue: Is Atty Hamilton guilty of professional misconduct? Held: Yes. counsel cannot be permitted to shield himself behind the privilege. He can file the necessary action with the proper court to fix the fees Before receiving the check. where the alleged client himself is not insisting on the privilege. Joseph of Cebu that he be employed as attorney for S. with a 30% interest rate p. Since the trial court did not state any reason for awarding the attorney‘s fees. But SCC failed to pay the loan. SIHI sent demand letters. to S. and he should be suspended for 6 years.L. he was already asking for 50%. The award of attorney‘s fees is the exception rather than the rule. the same shall be disallowed. The existence of an attorney-client relationship could be established by overt acts. Attorney‘s fees are deleted. obtained a loan from State Investment house (SIHI). By accepting papers relating to the claim. Joseph Lumber Yard. Radio Communications of the Philippines v Rodriguez stated that the reason for the award of the attorneys‘ fees must be stated in the text of the court‘s decision.L. there was no proof that there was an attorney-client relationship between Hamilton and S. notes) from Andrada. Furthermore. The appeal is partially granted. Hamilton entered appearance as attorney of record for Alburo (the defendant in the same case). Hamilton only surrendered the documents received from Andrada when the court ordered him to do so. however.   Page 165 of 203 .L. Joseph was privileged. SCC is questioning the preponderance of evidence (irrelevant) and the amount of attorneys fees awarded.a. and also prepared papers relating to attachment proceedings against the property of Alburo. in a disbarment proceeding. but no payment was made. SIHI presented one witness to prove his claim. Surcharges: 2% per month on the remaining balance.LEGAL PROFESSION attorney‘s fees to e charged. It appeared. Hamilton received various documents (vouchers. He did not offer his services in good faith to his client. A stipulated fee is not necessary to establish the relationship either. the confidential relationship was established. Later on. after receiving the check. the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees. In lieu thereof. Loan amount was P130T. which would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of the award. Hamilton prepared a formal petition for Andrada. No. (and irrelevant) Now. through its chairman and vice president. Porter Hamilton advised and counseled Luciano Andrada in regard to a claim (by Andrada) against Isabelo Alburo. 135 HILADO v DAVID Issue:  Held:    W/N SIHI is entitled to attorney‘s fees. through a letter. But this is of no moment. counsel violated the confidence between him and Andrada. Joseph. On the second misconduct. In case of disagreement. Hamilton‘s defense was that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Andrada—since he was not the attorney of record. Hamilton‘s defense was that the letter (where he made the proposition) was privileged communication so it cannot be used as evidence against him. he proposes a 25% attorney‘s fees. - - -   133 SCC CHEMICALS v CA Facts:         SCC Chemicals Corporation. SCC was finally declared to have waived its right to cross examine. the fees should have been disallowed by the appellate court. \hence it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of fact and law. however. The crossexamination was postponed many times. A lot of challenges were made by SCC on the validity of the document. under the Code of Professional Responsibility. must observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the client‘s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession. Hamilton also counseled with Andrada regarding the subject matter of the suit. a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts . By representing the opposing party in the same case (without the other‘s consent) and by refusing to surrender the documents received from Andrada (until there were court orders).L. under a threat to compel said person to accept his proposition. that Hamilton was not noted as attorney of record for Andrada. As to the claim that the letter to S.

he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm would not handle her case. The failure to object to counsel‘s appearance does not operate as a waiver of the right to ask for counsel‘s disqualification. Delgado et al. When a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. *A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services. The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case. 136 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:   Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara. In keeping with the office practice. Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed. To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the other party (Hilado) in the same case. which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. which he signed without reading.‖. Francisco‘s defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when the latter informed him about the case. PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients During the proceedings. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals. an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have ensued. Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad substituting Ohnick et al. promised. and induce him to act for the client. or charged for. 0033. was counsel for Hilado. Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado. neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. which includes shares of stock in certain corporations PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3rd amended complaint.      Page 166 of 203 . Anong kalokohan yan? o Civil Case No. From such documents. then the professional employment must be regarded as established. The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents submitted by Hilado will not preclude the existence of an attorney-client relationship. From these ultimate facts. and only for the purpose of explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case. David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for disqualification against Francisco. ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders. Concepcion. Since makulit si Francisco. He added that when Hilado left documents in their office. And that the written opinion was made by his assistant. Abello. It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that the former turned over papers to the latter. for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. 0033 – ―RP v. al. Delgado et al. An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to the employment to which it pertains. and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation. The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon). or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of confidence which forms the basis of an attorneyclient relationship. and to permit it be used in the interest of another. Later on. And an information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm. The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was. Eduardo Cojuangco et. Said judge reasoned that no attorney-client relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco. The letter binds and estops him in the same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. and that Hilado‘s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Francisco‘s professional services. petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nomineestockholder    Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado? Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad? Held: The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case (with Francisco‘s signature).LEGAL PROFESSION Facts:      Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilado‘s husband. Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA) ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders As members of the law firm. sought to disqualify Francisco from representing Assad in the case. while Ohnick et al filed an answer for Assad. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional advice from which emerged the relation. this opinion was reached on the basis of papers submitted at his office.

the period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the atty. such is not privileged information. But for the application of the atty. This case is actually an exception to the rule. Besides. and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. the one who filed the perjury case. regarding a crime he is about to commit after the consultation. Held: The confession made by Paredes is not covered by privileged communication. Sansaet was. but the Director of lands subsequently filed for the cansellation of the patent and title on the ground that the land had been reserved as a school site. Atty. asking to be a state witness against Paredes. the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client directed the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. It appears that Paredes applied for a free patent and Certificate of Title over a lot. The alleged falsified documents were documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment and stenographic notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of the perjury charge. the privilege does not attach. the confession made by Paredes to Sansaet were in reference to a crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by Paredes but which he later committed. 138 NGAYAN v TUGADE Facts: -Ngayan asked Tugade to prepare and affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint against Soriano and Leonido as a consequence of the latter‘s entry into complainants‘ dwelling. The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense Roco merely stated that he was acting as nomineestockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering. However. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients. upon motion.-client privilege to apply. In other words. Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court . The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped. in effect. this motion for certiorari W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Yes. sent a letter to the OMB seeking the investigation of the 3 personalities for falsification of public documents. PCGG has no valid cause of action W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients General rule: a client‘s identity should not be shrouded in mystery o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client‘s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer‘s advice o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime Suing the lawyer to force him to disclose the identity of his client in any of these instances is improper and the suit. the OMB denied the request of Atty. may be dismissed on such ground. Having been made for purposes of a future offense. Hence. It can be assumed that there was confidential information made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the falsification case. It is true that by now those crimes had already been committed. Atty. In the present case. However. with respect to a crime already committed at the time of the communication. the fiscal Page 167 of 203 . the purpose of the consultation must be for a lawfule purpose. Issue: W/N the confession made by Paredes to Atty. it is privileged information. Paredes was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan. A distinction must be made between communications relating to past crimes already committed. In a sudden turn of events. Sansaet was the counsel of Paredes. those communications are outside the pale of the atty. But if the client consults the atty. Without the lawful purpose. After some time. if the client seeks the advice of the atty.-client privilege. Gelacio. because Sansaet was the counsel.LEGAL PROFESSION  The ACCRA lawyer‘s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG‘s offer) by the PCGG and the court. for the rule to attach. Ngayan signed the affidavit without thoroughly reading it but she noticed one paragraph which did not mention that Leonido was with Soriano when they both barged into complainant‘s residence. Issue:  Held:   Issue:  Held:       137 PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Honrada was the clerk of court and acting stenographer of the First MCTC. It was initially approved. was privileged communication. is privileged communication. The lower court ruled to nullify the patent and title after finding out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations. to be a state witness on the ground that the confession made by Paredes to Atty.

It is stipulated in the lease agreement that a specified portion of the lease rentals would be paid to Pfleider and the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to the listed creditors of Pfleider . thus enabling the adverse parties to use it as evidence against complainants. Tugade crossed out the said paragraph. -In the hearing for the motion for reinvestigation. -Ngayan discharged Tugade as their counsel and found out that Tugade did not include the name of Leonido in the criminal case filed. Complainant then wrote Justice Davide that she is desisting from pursuing the case because she has found it in her heart to forgive respondent.W/N Palanca committed a breach of fidelity owing form a lawyer to his client HELD: NO! There is no substantial blame against Palanca inasmuch as the latter‘s services were implicitly terminated by Pfleider when he sued his lawyer. -When the omission was remedied by their new counsel. -Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an insurance company. Sec. Also. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against complainant. While the object of the suit is the rescission of the lease contract. She claims that in filing the criminal case. with one paragraph crossed out.Pfleider leased to Palanca an agricultural land. the conflict of interest became incompatible with the mutual confidence and trust essential to every lawyer-client relationship.Pfleider also filed for the disbarment of Palanca on the grounds of: o Palanca did not follow the instructions of Pfleider to settle his estafa case against Matiao in 1965 and o o o the latter also failed to deposit the sum of P5. Atty.. Vitriolo substituted the counsel who just died.Pfleider filed a suit for the rescission of the lease agreement of the ground of alleged default in the payment of rentals of Palanca. and that Ngayan asked him to make the offense more grave to prevent the offense from prescribing. -When Tugade furnished the adverse parties with a copy of the discarded affidavit.(f) Sec. Gaminda. Tugade himself presented an affidavit controverting the discarded affidavit which he prepared for Ngayan. Pfleider delivered the list of creditors to Palanca not because of the professional relation then existing between them. who was a former classmate of Tugade. . A violation thereof would partake more of a private and civil wrong than of a breach of fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client. Vitriolo is a Deputy Executive Director IV of CHED.  Complainant alleged that the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment.20 Rule 138 -Tugade‘s actuations from the beginning show that he was partial to the adverse parties. 139 PFLEIDER v PALANCA FACTS: .  Later on. Atty. -Thus Ngayan charged Tugade for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f). Atty.000 with the court Palanca has fraudulently charged the P5. - - 140 MERCADO v VITRIOLO FACTS:  Rosa F.20. the results of the investigation recommended that Vitriolo is indeed guilty and should be suspended for a month. he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.  Complainant‘s husband filed an annulment case entitled Ruben Mercado v. making it appear that she was married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact she was legally married to Ruben Mercado.000 as part of the lease rental of the Hacienda Asia Palanca also falsely represented having paid one Guintos the sum of P866 for the account of Pfleider when in truth and in fact. but on account of the lease agreement. -Tugade submitted an affidavit containing facts prejudicial to his former client such as the fact that the crime charged by Ngayan had already prescribed. the adverse parties‘ counsel.Gaminda. Mercado (complainant) is a Senior Education Program Specialist of CHED.  Complainant‘s counsel later on died. Such desistance has no bearing. the adverse parties in affidavit which Tugade prepared for Ngayan. Guintos only received P86 The list of creditors which Pfleider has confidentially supplied Palanca was disclosed by Palance in violation of their attorney-client relationship ISSUE: . he betrayed the trust and confidence of his clients in violation of paragraph (e) Sec. .LEGAL PROFESSION -Upon being informed of this omission. Ngayan asked Tugade to make another affidavit and the latter promised to do so. the adverse parties filed a motion for reinvestigation through their counsel. respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential relationship.Palanca is the lawyer of Pfleider. The case was dismissed. Atty. Page 168 of 203 . (falsification of documents: birth certificates of her children. This could be explained by the fact that he was a former classmate of Atty. Rule 138 Rules of Court (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence…and to preserve the secrets of his client… (f) to abstain from all offensive personality. Hacienda Asia in Negros Occidental for a period of 10 years . This constitutes an act of offensive personality against complainants. and also by the fact that he was the lawyer of Leonido‘s brother in an insurance company.against a party or witness… Issue: W/N Tugade must be disciplined for violation of the said Rule HELD: YES.  4 years later. violative of par. Rosa Francisco.20 Rule 138.

(Atty Silapan was ordered 1 year suspension) Page 169 of 203 . It was improper for the respondent to use it against Genato in the foreclosure case because it was not the subject matter of litigation and ATty. Silapan committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to Genato illegal practices and disclosing alleged intention to bribe govt officials in connection with a pending case? HELD: NO. Bacarro then filed a complaint for the annulment of said deed of reconveyance. Notice of said order was not received by Atty Caballero until March 15. Atty Luminarias and Caballero entered their appearance. A lawyer must conduct himself. or without proof that he had been notified of Bacarro's motion for reconsideration. when a copy of the order was served upon Atty Pacana. Essex Silapan .. which subsequently bounced. 1967. The judge of the lower court ordered an amendment to th complaint of Bacarro. The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. Silapan mortgaged his house and lot. When SIlapan failed to pay. Bukidnon to appear before the judge's ofice and then and there coerced and forced. because it was left for the trial courts to decide. sabay silang lawyer tapos naterminate ung employment ni Pacana. even the prosecutor. HELD: March 16. petitioner Bacarro. The statement in the motion for reconsideration to the effect that. Mrs. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetuation of a fraud.When Genato filed a BP 22 case against Atty. A lawyer is not a gun for hire. 1967. Vitriolo is indeed guilty of violating the privilege and confidential relationship of attorney-client relationship HELD:      NO. Genato wanted Atty Silapan to offer bribe money to members of DOJ. He claims that he was compelled by the Municipal Judge of Baungin. when notice was served upon Atty Caballero.) The Court. in said cas as counsel of Bacarro in collaboration with Atty Pacana. This is not a case of substitution. HELD: YES. Silapan's rights because they were pertinent to the foreclosure case HELD: NO.LEGAL PROFESSION ISSUE:  W/N Atty. had the effect of continuig the services of Caballero and dropping Pcana.. Atty. under threat of prosecution and loss said land. insofar as Gaerlan 141 GENATO v SILAPAN FACTS: .) Whether Bacarro could . Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence of facts which the complainant must prove. ISSUE: WoN Atty. (Genato lent Silapan money to purchase a new car. with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. 1966. insofar as the court is concerned and form receipt of copy thereof by Atty Salcedo. . through Atty Caballero. SIlapan refused since such acts are immoral and illegal but also because 'the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the commission of the crime that was charged'. GEnato sought the foreclosure of the mortgage and tried to encash a postdated check issued by Silapan. The judge then issued an order dismissing the complaint. Client may at any time dismiss his attorney. when a copy of said order was served upon Pacana. in this case. On this allegation. A motion for new trial/ reconsideration was filed by Atty Caballero on behalf of Bacarro.. The confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication. SIlapan's professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in that case. and presiding judge. Case dismissed.. (walang substitution. to execute a deed of reconveyance of 1/2 of the land to Gaerlan. Burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege. 142 BACARRO v CA FACTS: Bacarro is the registered owner of a lot located in Cagayan de Oro city. especially in his dealings with his clients. Silapan for his issuance of a bouncing check. without securing his consent.. 1967. Neither did Atty Caballero substitute or try to substitute Atty Pacana.as regards the Court of Gaerlan . The relatioship between Bacarro and Pacana ceased to exist from the filing of the motion for reconsideration/ new trial. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent.Complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against Atty. ISSUE: Whether or not period to appeal from order denyingh motion for new trial/ reconsideration began to run on Nov 14. Motion was denied in an order issued by the judge dated November 14. "after duly relieving his previous counsel moved for the reconsideration of the order. the motion was dismissed. cannot sanction Atty. or on March 16.validly dispense with the services of Pacana. on which date he filed a notice of appeal. Atty Caballero did not substitute Atty Pacana but became one of the attorneys for Bacarro. ISSUE: WoN disclosures were indispensable to protect Atty. 1966. Gaerlan objected to the approval of said notice of appeal. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. upon the ground that the period to appeal should be reckoned from Nov 14.The various criminal and civil cases were not discussed. Silapan. By entering his appearnce. the latter alleged in his answer that during the previous case (criminal case). 1966.. Gaerlan filed a written manifestation inviting attention to the fact that petittoner Bacarro had not complied with said order.

the exculpation he seeks cannot be granted. was ousting the planters and preventing them from claiming their rightful compensation. in his view. During the harvesting. He absolved himself from any blame as. but his explanation came at the end of the month. and that as a token for his hard work. he contacted the parents of the appellants. the agent of the owner of the land hired other people.LEGAL PROFESSION was concerned. in effect. counsel for Bicol Federation—Atty Quirico Fabul—declared that his authority to represent the group has been terminated and that the retainer was in behalf of the individual claimants and not of the Federation. he shoud not withdraw. These planters were also allowed to plant other crops over the land. 144 BICOL FEDERATION v CUYUGAN Facts:  Certain members of the Bicol Federation of Labor were hired by Doña Jacinta Cuyugan to clear her land and plant coconut seedlings on it. (but he is reprimanded) It was not a willful act on his part. ATTY DOMINGO. Such desired arrangement would enable them to    Page 170 of 203 . may be allowed to continue his representation. Bicol Federation of Labor. was removed from his trust by the intestate court‘s order for having squandered cash so being the one (ATTY DOMINGO) who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON. He was then assured that the new lawyer will file the brief. Under the Code of Agrarian Reforms. the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction. Sanglay then reminded them that failure to file the (appellant‘s) brief would mean automatic withdrawal of the appeal. the Agrarian Courts has jurisdiction over issues involving an individual(s) claiming for compensation from a landowner. During the pendency of the action. 143 PEOPLE v CASIMIRO Facts:     Atty. Nonetheless. (the relevant issue) Yes. When the coconut trees bore fruit. Case was remanded to the Agrarian Court. the least that was expected of him was that he would inform the Tribunal of the developments set forth in his explanation and as that he be allowed to withdraw as counsel. in behalf of its individual members. filed an action before the Agrarian court to change their arrangement with the owner from sharing to a lease-hold system. This is one of those rare instances where an attorney. Manuel Sanglay was filed an administrative complaint for his failure to file a brief within the reglementary period for his clients Benjamin Icalla. and considering the policy and objectives of such legislation. This. 145 DOMINGO SR.000 to AQUINO  Both parties appealed  CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI  Copies of the judgment were sent to ATTY UNSON through registered mail  The new administratrix DE LOPEZ alleges the coadministratrix of STA MARIA. To prevent failure or miscarriage of justice and pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court. According to him. It did not wipe out the previous manifestation of negligence on his part. Held: No. Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco. 1972 to explain. the names of the individual claimants should be added to the complaint under the legal representation of Atty Fabul until and unless each individual claimant should otherwise manifest before the court.    Issue: Issue: Was the action by Bicol Federation within the competence of the Agrarian Court? (Ethics iss ue) Can Atty Fabul still represent the claimants despite the dismissal of his services (by Bicol Federation)? Held: Yes. Sanglay was given 10 days from Feb 3. no fault could be attributed to him. Under the circumstances. But the custom in the area was that the planter and the owner should share 50-50 in case the owner would not give monetary payment to the planters. v AQUINO FACTS  Court of First Instance approved money claim of AQUINO against the Estate of Domingo and ordered Administratrix STA MARIA to pay P20. The Agrarian Court dismissed the claim of Bicol Federation solely on the ground that the action was not within its jurisdiction.  have a wider area to cultivate and with the least intervention by the landowner‘s agents. whose authority has been terminated by his client. This fact was used by the defendants (Cuyugans and the agents) as another defense. Atty Fabul can represent the claimants in this case despite the declared termination. the removal of ATTY DOMINGO is in effect the removal of ATTY UNSON as counsel of the estate  DE LOPEZ prays that the clerk of court be directed to serve a copy of the CA judgment on her counsel instead of ATTY UNSON W/N Sanglay is liable for the late filing of the appellant‘s brief. He cannot therefore escape liability. Such a step he did not take until after the Feb 3 resolution. It was mentioned to him that another lawyer whose services presumably were hired by the parents of appellants Icalla and Cinco. the planters were being given half of 1/3 of the harvest.

by operation of law he ceased to engage in private law practice. Moreover. He continued on record in the appellate court and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. Balcoff was not in the office. ATTY UNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate. yun court nagsend ng copy ng decision ng ca kay atty unson pero sabi ng estate hindi valid yun pagsend ng notice kasi hindi na nila lawyer si atty unson at the time notice was served) ISSUE W/N SERVICE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ATTY UNSON WAS VALID HELD YES. 146 AQUINO v BLANCO Facts: 147 WACKWACK GOLF v CA Facts: Arcangel. 26. and atty. Salveron then filed a petition to vacate said writ of execution. al. which the petitioners won. 11. Balcoff et. the lower court rendered judgment in favor of Arcangel. Balcoff thought that Chuidian will be the one to appear instead of him. As a result. with the Chuidian Law Office. Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the estate. As to the contention that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means removal of ATTY UNSON as the estate‘s counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the one who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON. al. the herein respondent Dominga Salveron. no representative from the Chuidian Law Office came. no appearance of new counsel for the estate was ever filed. In addition to that. despite notification. At the hearing of the case. 1947. if at all. was not a notice upon said respondent. while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the estate and for the former administrator when the intestate court granted his motion to withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and assumption of public office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration. and excusable neglect. Mr. Salveron was only informed of the judgment on Mar. Cruz of Balcoff et. Chuidian called Atty. Sorioso. misunderstanding. on behalf of WW. When Attorney Sorioso was appointed to the position of assistant provincial fiscal and therein qualified. Thereafter. a former employee of Wack Wack (WW). Hence.. inasmuch as Balcoff et. WW decided to replace Balcoff et. 1947. al. and as a consequence he became simultaneously disqualified to continue representing his former client. SC says NO. Salveron was represented in that case by Atty. al. ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF DISCHARGE FILED WITH THE COURT MAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD BINDING UPON THE CLIENT Petitioners Santiago Aquiño and Dionisia Aguirre filed a complaint against Dominga Salveron in the CFI. Sorioso was appointed as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on Feb. Atty. Atty. ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to represent the estate as its counsel until the new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should terminate his services which she never did. Despite the appointment. petition is dismissed and ATTY REGINO is ordered to pay treble costs. This was granted by Judge Blanco. Issue: W/N the judgment in favor of Arcangel should be set aside based on misunderstanding. the Chuidian Law Office will send a representative on the hearing day. - Issue: Held: - RATIO Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel. did not make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel. neither WW nor its counsel. the fact that ATTY UNSON‘S services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as administrator. the judgment in the earlier mentioned case was served on Atty. and the period for perfecting an appeal on the part of the latter in reality did not then commence to run but only. moral damages. Atty. for unenjoyed vacation. It follows that since notice and copy of the appellate court‘s decision were served by registered mail on the estate‘s counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the first notice of the postmaster. 1947.LEGAL PROFESSION (In other words. EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT THEIR LAWYER AT THE TIME COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS SENT. So that in contemplation of law the notice of the decision upon him on February 11. declared that he had no authority to turn over the records of the case to Chuidian Law Office. was still representing the WW. As a result. W/n the service of judgment made on Atty. when she acquired knowledge of said decision upon the service on her of the writ of execution on March 26. 1947 when a writ of execution was served on him. JUDGMENT SC: ATTY REGINO (petitioner‘s counsel in this case) is reminded that cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. Balcoff. WW was first represented by Balcoff et. such service was deemed completed and effected and binding upon the client. According to the firm of Chuidian. al. in the above-mentioned case. this was true only as far as the intestate court was concerned. Sorioso constitutes service upon his client. The firm of Chuidian. filed with the CFI a money claim case for overtime services rendered to WW. filed a petition to set aside the judgment on the ground of mistake. Salveron. Chuidian said that. Page 171 of 203 . appeared. When the representative of Chuidian went to the firm of Balcoff to inform the latter of the replacement. Atty. (This is the misunderstanding that was mentioned above. However. Basilio Sorioso. in this case the Estate of Domingo.‘s fees.

and 3) unsatisfied claim for attorney‘s fees. Rustia is objecting saying that he has a lien over the TCT for his professional fees. All that petitioner asserts and exercises is his passive lien of retaining the muniments of title thereto. The transfer of the properties to Antonio and Benigno could not retroact to the time the compromise was originally executed. and papers. -Eventually. In such as case the titles to the property could not be said to be properties of the client.330.LEGAL PROFESSION Held: The judgment should not be set aside. He wanted to have a lien over all funds and documents that he is currently holding for the administrator. Rustia has a valid lien over the documents in his possession Page 172 of 203 . They claimed that the attorney‘s lien must be exercised over the properties belonging to Angela. It was only when Angela later on confirmed the compromise agreement that it became valid. Sec 37 of Rule 138 provides that attorneys cannot be compelled to surrender the documents in his possession without prior proof that his fees has been duly satisfied But the court may require the attorney to deliver the papers in his possession provided that the client files proper security for the attorney‘s compensation 150 RUSTIA v ABETO FACTS:  Atty. Balcoff et. ISSUE:  W/N Atty. besides. The principal cases handled by Ampil were filed in the CFI by Angela‘s husband and son. The domestic court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the case which was to be settled amicably by the compromise agreement had already been dismissed by CFI as affirmed by SC. 148 AMPIL v AGRAVA Facts: -Ampil was the counsel for Angela Perez in several cases.  Jose is asking Matias to surrender 17 titles to various properties of the estate  Probate court granted the prayer of Jose and ordere3d the surrender of the titles  Matias and his counsel Atty. Later on. Held: YES. The lack of coordination and understanding between the two law firms cannot be considered a legal excuse within the ambit of excusable negligence. asking that Angela be placed under guardianship and that a suitable person be appointed to administer her properties. Rustia obeyed the order. which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. Such retention only impedes the corresponding registration and transfer of titles to respondents. because the firm of Chuidian only entered appearance after the date of the hearing mentioned above. Issue: W/N whether Ampil has a right to keep his retaining lien over the said titles until his services are paid for. seeking the court‘s approval of the compromise agreement.  CFI nonetheless still went on with its previous order. This dismissal was affirmed by SC. for which he presented his bill and asserted his retaining lien over the three titles entrusted to him by Angela in the course of his professional employment.  Atty. Rustia to hand over the certificate of a land. Atty. the compromise agreement mentioned above was approved by the Supreme Court. They also argued that the compromise agreement was entered into 8 years before Ampil was discharged as Angela‘s counsel. -Ampil obtained possession of the titles when they still belonged to his client Angela.  When Rustia was relieved as attorney. -Ampil asserts that Angela terminated his services as counsel without just cause and without paying him for his profiessional services. -Petitioner is in no way interfering with the taking possession of the properties and enjoyment of the fruits thereof. Misunderstanding alibi not accepted. Rustia was the counsel of respondent. Benigno and Antonio thus filed a case to obtain the titles held by Ampil. Atty. They concluded that Ampil was therefore bound by the compromise agreement. Antonio and Benigno Perez. Canlas appealed the decision ISSUE:  W/N Atty. The law firm of Balcoff and Cruz was still WW‘s counsel of record. al. Canlas may be compelled to surrender the titles even though he was not yet paid his fees HELD:     NO! An attorney is entitled to retain documents in the case pending settlement of attorney‘s fees. As such counsel of record. he sent a bill for P32. 149 MATUTE v MATUTE FACTS:  Jose Matute filed an action against the administrator Matias Matute. must have known that it is under obligation to protect WW‘s interest until its final release from the professional relationship. -Three elements of attorney‘s retaining lien were met: 1) lawyer-client relationship. the administrator of the intestate estate. Ampil took a position adverse to them by seeking to have the compromise agreement annulled. -A case was later filed by Antonio and Benigno with the domestic court of Manila. the parties submitted to court.  CFI of Manila ordered Atty. The attorney may enforce his lien only over the properties of his client and not against those of his client‘s adversary. And then this case was filed. Milagros Schmid. documents. 2) lawful possession of the client‘s funds. -The situation would be different where title to the property is the very subject in dispute in the case and the court adjudges the client‘s adversary to be rightfully entitled thereto. Rustia filed this case to annul orders of the CFI of Manila in the case of ―Intestate Estate of Antonio de la Riva‖. not over the properties belonging to them in the compromise agreement.

" (eto lang yung sinabi sa case. Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. documents. Inc. . filed a disbarment case against Atty.) Despite due notice. The charging lien was WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS. Trial court granted the counsel's motion for annotation. The general or retaining lien of an attorney is dependent upon the possession and does not attach to anything not in the attorney‘s hands.. 4.. While a client cannot defeat an atty's right to his charging lien by dismissing the case. ISSUE: W/n an attorney's lien extends to land.. the civil cases were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs "in view of the full satisfaction of their claims". There is an obvious necessity for a hearing because the persons who are entitled to or who must pay attys fees have the right to be heard upon the question of propriety or amount. The dismissal neither provided for any money judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds. resold to Herby Commercial.Arturo Alfariz and Associates handled the civil cases of Metrobank. Motion was filed long after they have perfected their appeals. The lawyers filed a motion to fix the atty's fees based on quantum meruit. Naldoza appealed a decision of the POEA. 153 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS v NALDOZA Facts:   Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool.) ISSUE: W/n the trial court retained jurisdiction to grand Ramon Gonzales' Motion to Annotate Attorney's lien on the title of the parcels of land of the estate after the perfection of the appeal of both the petitioners and respondent from the order declaring Ramon Gonzales entitled to attorney' fees. CA affiremed order to Metrobank to pay ALfariz and ASsociates attys fees. Ramon Gonzales filed a motion to annotate attorney's lien. HELD: "We have ruled that an attorney's lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation. applicable.. the general rule is that an atty has no lien on the land 152 DORONILA-TIOSECO v CA FACTS: AS a result of dispute among the heirs of the late Alfonso Doronila and their counsel Ramon Gonzales. terminating the services of his counsel. During the pendency of these suits. so the RD annotated the atty's liens on the TCTs. not pertinent to our lesson): Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaqio Alejandro. 5. ung mga prior cases. Alejandro alleged fraud in the sale. waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse party or compromising his Page 173 of 203 . In the case at bar. which mortgaged the same to Banco de Oro.. praying that his attorney's lien be annotated on the title of parcels of land of the estate which the heirs had inherited.. Both of the parties appealed the decision. action. their former counsel. 3.. Regarding American jurisprudence stating a contrary rule . Javier mortgaged with Metrobank the lots to secure a loan of Bautista?Int'l Hotel Corp. and brought suits against Javier and Metrobank... Metrobank sold lots to Service Leasing. over his claim for attorney's fees.. . Gatchalian assers that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff acts: o Appealing a decision. A charging lien to be enforceable requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment. ISSUE: WoN lawyers are entitled to atty's fees HELD: NO RATIO: 1. The lawyers did not have any knowledge of any of the transfers made by Metrobank. Promo Naldoza. They filed a motion to enter its charging lien (25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties as its attys fees. In line with this. Administrator of the estate opposed the said motion by contending that an attorney's lien does not extend to land and that the proper remedy is attachment. the RTC denied the heirs' Motion to Cancel Attorney's lien and declare Ramon Gonzales entitiled to 10% of the shares of the heirs of the late Doronila. All the civil cases were for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale.the Court held that in the absence of a statute or special agreement providing otherwise. but of the opposing party.ANTECEDAL FACTS (up to you guys kung gusto nyo basahin tong paragraph na toh. and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid. HELD: Trial court has no jurisdiction. Metrobank failed to appear and oppose. knowing that the same was already final and executory   151 METROPOLITAN BANK v CA FACTS: . and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession.Alejandro (plaintiffs) filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice to the earlier order of annotation. The courts may require the attorney to deliver up the papers in his possession provided the client files proper security for the attorney‘s compensation. The lien of respondent is not of a nature which attached to the property in litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a writ of execution. therefore the trial court had no more jurisdiction. this rule cannot find application here as the termination of the cases was not at the instance of the client. 2. and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. with damages.LEGAL PROFESSION HELD:  YES.

the fees were only nominal (P622).00) (for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court. This is an admission of misconduct. Being a member of the Bar.S. Normally. Barrerra refused to signed and asked Laput to just leave the document in order that she may ask someone to interpret it for her. Clearly. client on the pretext that it was needed for the Petition before the Supreme Court. Worse. Clearly. The act of placing the gun on the client‘s lap cannot be interpreted other than as an act of threatening such client.555 was not a part