You are on page 1of 119

CASE 1: In The Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, January 9, 1973 FACTS: In 1970, the Supreme

Court created the Commission on Bar Integration (CBI) to ascertain the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar. In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor). President Marcos signed it and it became RA 6397. In 1972, the CBI submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation to ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the proceedings in Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments of the Board of Consultants and the Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed for such integration. ISSUE/S: WON the integration of the Bar is constitutional. HELD: Yes. The integration of the Bar is constitutional. RATIO: The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines, requiring membership and financial support of every lawyer as sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. It is based on the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of the court. It improves the position of the Bar as an instrument of justice and rule of law. It fosters cohesion among lawyers and ensures the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession. The constitutionality of the Bar Integration hinges on the constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech. As the practice of law is a privilege vested with public interest, it can best discharge its public responsibilities through collective action. Collective action can only be done through an organized body. To compel a lawyer to be a member of an Integrated Bar does not violate his constitutional freedom to associate because integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. Integration only provides an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. Also, an Integrated Bar serves to elevate the educational and ethical standards of the Bar with the goal of improving

the quality of the State‘s legitimate interest. Even assuming that a lawyer is compelled to join the Integrated Bar, it is still a justified compulsion as it is an exercise of the police power of the State in regulating and controlling the legal profession. Also, the inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate it. NOTE: This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly provided for in the case. However, the relation can be seen. Canon 7 provides that ―a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.‖ In using the word ―shall,‖ this Canon makes it mandatory for all lawyers to: (1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and (2) support the activities of the Integrated Bar. In being a member of the Integrated Bar, a lawyer has certain responsibilities, which, if complied with, will uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Therefore, it is neither unlawful to have a Bar Integration nor be a member of an Integrated Bar. CASE 2: In Re: 1989 elections of the IBP FACTS: On June 3, 1989, the IBP held its election however, the winning candidates were not allowed to take their oath of office on July 4, 1989 due to some reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities. The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their written endorsements. The records of the Philippine National Bank show that Sec. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. Of the DENR borrowed a plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol Cabinet Officers for Regional Development Assistant,


Undersecretary Antonio Tria. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty. Drilon and her group. The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June 3, 1989. Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles, a voting delegate, to whom he gave four round-trip tickets from Iligan City to Manila and back. Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters, to be occupied by his staff and the IBP delegates. He paid P150,000 for the hotel bills. The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites. The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the rooms, food, and beverages consumed by the Drilon group, with an unpaid balance of P302,197.30. Atty. Nisce, on the one hand, entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to P216,127.74. In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government, Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he took a leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to vote for or support them, but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the delinquent dues of another, because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made. ISSUE/S: WON the candidates violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through their in campaigning for the election. HELD: Yes. The three candidates employed means that are contrary to the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the said By-Laws.

RATIO: The setting up of campaign headquarters by Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo in five-star hotels; the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein; the island hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member House of Delegates that elects the national officers and regional governors; the formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo or Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the presidential candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket; the printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the employment of uniformed girls and lawyers to distribute their campaign materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and her group; the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine Plaza Hotel; the giving of prepaid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to delegates in exchange for their support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another for some rumored consideration; all these practices made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process. 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, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, 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" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). CASE 3: Santos, Jr. v. Llamas FACTS: On Feb. 8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr. a member of the bar, filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco R. Llamas for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. Santos claimed that Llamas, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data in his pleadings, as the latter only indicates ―IBP Rizal 259060‖ for at least three years already, as show by the pleadings filed by Llamas in various courts in 1995, 1996 and 1997.


On April 18, 1997, Santos filed a certification by the then IBP president of the IBP that respondent‘s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present. On July 7, 1997, Llamas was required to comment on the complaint and in his comment, Llamas alleged that he was exempt from payment of IBP dues under R.A. 7432, Sec. 4, for being a senior citizen since 1992 and that he was engaged only in ―limited‖ practice of law. Llamas, also added, that if despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and if only to show that he never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and refused compliance with such dues, he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges and surcharges and penalties. On Dec. 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months and until he pays his IBP dues. ISSUE/S: WON Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes, Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. RATIO: Llamas violated Canon 7 which states that ―A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.‖ Although Llamas‘ failure to pay his IBP dues may be in good faith, his act of indicating ―IBP RIZAL 259060‖ in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts the he had paid his IBP dues is contrary with the duty of upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Llamas‘ failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of his advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court ruled to impose the penalty of one year suspension upon Llamas from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

CASE 4: Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. Requesting Exemption From Payment of IBP Dues, B.M. No. 1370, May 9, 2005 FACTS: On September 22, 2004, Atty Cecilo Arevalo, Jr. sought the exemption from the payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 in the years between 1977-2005. Atty. Cecilio Arevalo‘s contention is that when he was admitted in the Philippines Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippines Civil Service from 1962 to 1986, and then migrated to and worked in, the USA until his retirement in 2003. He maintained that he cannot be made to pay the IBP dues because, when he is working in the Philippine Civil Service, the Civil Service Law prohibits the practice off one‘s profession while in the Government service, also when he was in the USA the IBP dues cannot extend to him. On November 16, 2004, the IBP submitted its comment, that the membership in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the roll of attorneys as long as he continues to be a member of the IBP; that one of the obligations of a member is the payment of annual dues as determined by the IBP board of governors; the policy of the IBP board of governors of no exemption of payment of annual dues is but an implementation of the Court‘s directives for all members of the IBP to help defray the cost of integration of the Bar. It is maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption, of payment of annual dues as requested by Atty Arevalo, what is allowed is the voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership. What he could have done was to inform the secretary of IBP of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP could have been terminated, thus, reliving him from his obligation to pay dues could have been stopped. On February 25, 2005, in reply to the letter of the IBP, Atty. Arevalo questions the policy of the IBP board of governors of the non-exemption in the payment of annual membership dues of lawyers regardless of whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive practice. Asserting that the said policy is a suffers constitutional infirmities, such as equal protection clause and the due process clause. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Arevalo is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time he was inactive in the practice of law. HELD: NO. The Integration of the Philippines Bar means that official unification of the entire lawyer population, which requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the


Telesforo A. he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A. A. February 21 1992 FACTS: Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code as marriage of exceptional character. Army. Tabang should be considered as unworthy to take the lawyer‘s oath for lack of good moral character. having finished his law studies.A. And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests. CASE 6: Evangeline Leda vs. declared in his application to take the bar that he was ―single‖. practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year. "That previous to the study of law. from Arellano University. asserting he had obtained his A. because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in this Court. they had not yet lived as husband and wife.A. Bar Matter No. under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and in integration of the Philippine Bar.S. that he acted fraudulently in filling out his application. This explanation is not acceptable. and never obtained his A. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|4 . in the following particulars: (a) Diao did not complete his high school training. 1949. for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. RATIO: Diao never obtained his A. 78 was dismissed because Tabang said that it just arose out of misunderstanding between him and Leda. About two years later. A. he entered the service of the U. Tabang. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Trebonian Tabang. Leda blocked him of taking his oath by instituting a complaint. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. 1963 FACTS: Telesforo A. thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. Martinez. that he had the requisite academic qualifications. Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination. Both of them kept their marriage a secret until Tabang finishes his law studies. passed the General Classification Test given therein.Telesforo A. and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath. graduate (19401941) of such college. In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Thus. 2505. CASE 5.practice of law and retention of his name in the Roll of attorneys of the Supreme Court. title from the Arellano University in April. Tabang admitted that he ‗legally married‖ Leda but that the marriage ―was not yet made and declared public‖ so that he could properly take the Bar exams and ensure their future. Atty. Now. which no one is exempt. the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school." (emphasis on "previous"). No.C. Bar Matter No. and upon his return to civilian life. the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education. because our Rules provide.C. After Tabang passed the ba r. ISSUE/S: WON Diao be admitted to the Bar despite his misrepresentation. and later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys. specially. 78. due to confusion. from Quisumbing College. Diao v. he says he was erroneously certified. The fee required by the IBP is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP for the integration of the Philippine Bar to defray the expenses of regulation of the profession. Severino G. No. March 29. 1949. he (Diao) had not completed. which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma. The Court stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court. The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated. in his school records. and (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College. and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education". as a graduate of Quisumbing College.A. it would also have disclosed that he got it in April.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education. HELD: No.A.A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. Diao. 244. before taking up law subjects. and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination. taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. Lawyers. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations.

The investigators urged Mr. would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character. explain to him that the court requires him to reveal the source of his information and of his news item. Parazo before him. and if he need time within which to do this and so that he might even consult the editor and publisher of his paper. Soriano to cite Mr. Only students of one private university in Sampaloc had mimeographed questions on said subject fully one week before the tests. He also believed that when he applied for the Bar. ISSUE/S: WON Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status HELD: Yes. by the authority of the court.01. a public hearing was held on the same day. Jose Dela Cruz with assistance of Mr. if found true. instructed Mr. 1948 authorizing Justice Montemayor to cite Mr. Want Anomaly Probed: One School Favored‖. instituted the present Administrative Case praying Tabang‘s disbarment on grounds of using his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with Leda. Attorney Serrano extensively and LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|5 . Parazo was advised to think it over and consider the consequences. he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law. On October 15. 1948. he was single.―CLAIM LEAK IN LAST BAR TEST‖ followed by another in slightly small letters. Tabang‘s protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to Leda was void from the beginning. and for lack of good moral character. below the required minimum age of twenty-one years old. He contended that he and Leda agreed not to disclose that their marriage was void from the beginning because he wanted to finish his studies and take the bar first. Thereafter. Parazo for questioning. he be accorded a hearing. Justice Padilla. and to warn him that his refusal to make the revelation demanded will be regarded as contempt of court. 1948 in the course of which. RATIO: Tabang‘s declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith. he could be given an extension. He admitted that he was the author of the news item. Tabang is SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders CASE 7: In Re Investigation of Angel Parazo for Alleged Leakage of Questions in Some Subjects in the 1948 Bar Examinations FACTS: The defendant. In September 18. and that he knew the persons who gave him the information was given to him in confidence and his informants did not wish their identities revealed. At the request of his counsel. the investigation of Mr." That false statement. the leakage in some subjects in the recent bar examinations were denounced by some of the law graduates who took part of the test to the Star Reporter. Parazo to reveal the names of his informants so that the Supreme Court may be in the position to start and conduct the necessary investigation in order to verify their charge and complaint and take action against the party or parties responsible for this alleged irregularity. It was found out that the marriage contract was actually void for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code.Leda. but Parazo consistently refused to make the revelation. Justice Montemayor issued a resolution dated October 7. Canon 7. a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter. 1948. a local daily of general publication wrote in the front page of a newspaper where it states in bold letters. Rule 7. if it had been known. Mr. for which he should be made answerable. The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been regularly performed. Angel Parazo. with the consent of the Court first obtained. The students who made the denunciation to the Star Reporter claim that the tests actually given were similar in every respect to those they had seen students of this private university holding around the city. Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. that he wrote up the story in good faith and in a spirit of public service. Parazo was conducted. or the five-year minimum cohabitation before celebration of marriage and that they were both twenty years old when they got married. on which he testified under oath. Because of the seriousness of the matter. Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status. October 15.―Applicants in Uproar. E. are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of merit. in response to this. According to this article. In the meantime. misrepresented himself as single. Tabang cannot assume that his marriage to Leda is void. that before this Court take action upon his refusal to reveal. Parazo appeared before the court but still declined and refused to make the revelation.

to which they allege that this is already a form of harassment or a way of getting back to them. Complainant Venustiano Saburnido is a member of the Philippine National Police stationed at Balingasag. file by spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|6 . section 13 of the Constitution. ISSUE/S: WON the multiple cases file by the respondent lawyer against the petitioners is a ground for his disbarment. while his wife Rosalia is a public school teacher. Consequently. charges of grave threats and acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary against respondent. No. of necessity is imbued with wide and general interest and national importance. possess good moral character. 53. The committee however. in addition to committing acts of dishonesty. the SC takes charge of the admission of members of the Philippine Bar. Misamis Oriental. editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. MTJ-90-486 respondent. complainants also filed three administrative cases against the respondent: (1) A. and the legal departments of the Government.M. (2) A. And one important thing to bear in mind is that the Judiciary. Atty. the court may demand the respondent to reveal the sources of his information. (3) A. Respondent was found guilty on these charges and his retirement benefits were forfeited. The court orders his immediate arrest and confinement in jail for a period of 1 month. and show proficiency in and knowledge of the law by the standard set by this Court by passing the Bar Examinations honestly and in the regular and usual manner.A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. inserted an amendment by adding to the end of section 1 of the clause ―unless the court finds such revelation is demanded by public interest‖. respondent‘s act of filing multiple complaints against herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. in refusing to make the revelation which the Court required of him. MTJ-90-383.M. provincial fiscalships and other prosecuting attorneys. editor. -. from the Supreme Court down to the Justice of the Peace Courts. RATIO: RA No. HELD: No. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness.ably argued the case of his client. CASE 8: Saburnido v. or reporter of any newspaper was absolute that under no circumstances could he be compelled to reveal his source of information or news report. as well as in honesty and fair dealing. Clearly. both in academic preparation and legal training. a decidedly undesirable trait LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. M. Florante Madrono. After sometime the respondent lawyer then filed numerous complaints against the petitioners. Madrono FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent. magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher. Balingasag-Lagonglong. Previous to this administrative case. and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be honest. No. respondent granted and reduced bail in a criminal case without prior notice to the prosecution. The Court finds that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline the respondent. draw exclusively from the Bar to fill their positions. in whose court certain confiscated smuggled goods were deposited. any charge or insinuation of anomaly in the conduct of Bar Examinations. editor or reporter. RATIO: Rule 7. Parazo to reveal the identities of his informants HELD: Yes. allowed other persons to take the goods but did not issue the corresponding memorandum receipts. The Court and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard. ISSUE/S: WON the court can compel Mr. the first section provides that The publisher. invoking the benefits of Republic Act No.03. Complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them. he committed contempt of court. 53 provides immunity to be accorded to a publisher. nor shall he whether in public or private life. Respondent is a former judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Misamis Oriental. No. unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the state. The court is satisfied with that the present case easily comes under the phrase ―interest of the state.‖ Under Article VII. The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession. 92-1-084-RTC.

the two had an affair sometime around 1996 and 1997.whether in a lawyer or another individual. Atty. We see in respondent‘s tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants not the persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge. or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. respondent started to deny the paternity of the child and refused to give any support to the child. On Sept 10. he seeks understanding from the Court. -.A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. amoral attitude of the respondent. Upon petitioner‘s giving birth however. Respondent‘s action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal profession. pointing out that ―men by nature are polygamous. 27. which he passed. During that time. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. and that the same is not only a condition precedent to admission but also a continuing requirement. grounds therefor. following Section 27.‖ ―Rule 7. or other gross misconduct in such office. Xxx CASE 9: Zaguirre v. On May 10. Therefore. the latter had been courting the former and had promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. His illicit relationship with the respondent was prior to his admission to the bar and it would be impossible for respondent not to know that he is required to have good moral character. As to the paternity of the child. SEC. disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser penalty could be given. which is highly censurable and unbecoming of a member of the Bar. grossly immoral conduct. his denial of the affidavit earlier executed by him shows a conduct. HELD: Yes.‖ The Court was not convinced and in fact.03 . He likewise denied having represented himself as single as he was known as a married man with children while working in the NBI. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. However. Moreover. RATIO: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: ―CANON 7 . Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and promised to support. nor should he.A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. Respondent‘s actions amount to gross immoral conduct. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|7 . After due hearing.Eventually. ISSUE/S: WON respondent has committed gross immoral conduct. 1997. CASE 10: Violeta Flores Alitagtag v. Alfredo Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law. He also avers that he signed the said affidavit only to save the petitioner from embarrassment. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. as held by the Court. It constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be suspended. whether in public or private life. Virgilio Garcia LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. herein respondent was held GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. as complainants were instrumental in respondent‘s dismissal from the judiciary. While respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant.‖ and that what happened between them was ―nothing but mutual lust and desire. he denied being the father since petitioner allegedly was seeing other men during that time. and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Castillo FACTS: Petitioner and respondent met while working in the NBI. respondent was preparing for his bar examinations. Respondent claims that he never courted petitioner and that their affair was only mutual lust. respondent was admitted to the Philippine Bar and it was also around the first week of May that petitioner knew about respondent‘s marriage when she was confronted by the wife of the respondent.‖ The court held that siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice. Thus. malpractice. respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly. it is appalled at the reprehensible. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. 1997 respondent issued an affidavit admitting his relationship with the petitioner and that he is the father of her unborn child.A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Virtusio. vs. including suspension and disbarment.000. Virtusio had managed to register the car in her children‘s name and sold the same to a third person. Aside from the guilt of being remiss on the performance of his duties. Mila Virtusio. The demand letters persisted. RATIO: Lawyers are. whether in public or private life. Atty. to buy a house in Quezon City from its developer Stateland Investment Corporation. CASE 11:Mila Virtusio. Her use for personal purposes the money entrusted to her constitutes LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Atty. Atty. A. Atty. For fear of losing the property. Virtusio convinced herein petitioner. his admission of negligence. Virtusio refused to return the money she had misappropriated. 6. nor should he. However. Mila dealt with Stateland directly. Only when Mila threatened to file an action against her did she agree to pay her by executing a deed of sale in Mila‘s favor covering her Mazda car. Virtusio to use her personal checks in paying the seller with Mila reimbursing her.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes. Mila agreed for Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. By engaging in acts that undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes. Mila agreed after some financial settlement to withdraw her complaint against Atty. Atty. Virtusio regarding the matter. But. RATIO: Rule 7. Mila confronted Atty. Mila started receiving letters from Stateland demanding that she make good the dishonored checks that it got. ISSUE/S: Do the actions of Atty. finding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession and ordering his disbarment. discovering that her obligation had come close to P200. a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|8 . HELD: Yes. The respondent reiterates his innocence by denying the authorship and participation in the falsification of the subject deed of donation. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality. Virtusio is guilty by her acts of gross misconduct. Despite the sale. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found no proof as to the participation of the respondent on the falsification of the signature of Cesar Flores on the document. Virtusio guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes upon her the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one year. He however admits his negligence and expresses remorse for his failure to diligently perform his duties as notary public.C. and the latter assured her that she would take care of the problem. Grenalyn Virtusio. plea for compassion and that the fact that this is his first offense. as officers of the court and instruments for the administration of justice. 2002. Under this arrangement.000. September 5. The criminal case filed by the complainant found no reason to indict the respondent as well. Without a doubt.FACTS:This case refers to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent for the Resolution dated Feb. Atty. he was also found guilty of harassing the occupants of the property subject of the donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its services to the property and by posting security guards to intimidate the said occupants. 6753. No. respondent clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects in his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. which prompted Mila to file a replevin case which was decided in the latter‘s favor . Virtusio has admitting misusing the money that Mila has entrusted to her. the Court finds it proper to reinstate him as a member of the bar and suspend him to the practice of law and from his commission as a notary public for three years. Virtusio refused to give up the car. However. Upon demand. Garcia reflect adversely on this fitness to practice law and transgressed Rule 7. Mila gave her a total of P441. The Court finds Atty. 2012 FACTS: Sometime in 1991. Mila and her husband settled their overdue obligation with money borrowed at high interest. Mila filed an estafa case against her apart from the present disbarment case. the totality of the acts of misconduct committed by the respondent. and fair dealing. honesty.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

Rule 7. 757 was instituted in this court on March 18. Macias in his sworn Complaint dated 14 June 1982. Cornejo to Atty. 757). 1931. It should be observed. in this connection. Malig for suspension or disbarment upon grounds of malpractice and violation of the lawyer's oath. in support of his charge. The lawyer owes entire "devotion to the interest of his client. 1935. 1935. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|9 . and its receipt in the same month. Cornejo and charges him with having maliciously instigated the filing of the complaint in the mentioned case (A. 1936 and Atty. otherwise a complaint would be filed against him in this court. Javier comes back against Atty. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. that mutual bickering and unjustifiable recrimination. which was dismissed. a practicing lawyer of Lipa.01 (shall not engage in xxx dishonest. Javier was the respondent in another case (A. Javier before this court of malpractice. But long before these dates. nor shall he. immoral or deceitful conduct) and Rule 7. Benjamin B. Javier was her counsel. Llora in Special Proceedings No. Cornejo FACTS: Silverio Q. to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him. RATIO: We find nothing improper in this letter of Atty. This letter demanded the payment of the remaining balance of P166. for executing harassing tactics against his opposing counsel HELD: No. Malig FACTS: This is an administrative case instituted by complainant Atty. Cornejo to serve the interest of his client. He was also urged to settle the matter for the preservation not only of his good name but also that of the legal profession. Javier. The letter was an extra-judicial demand for the payment of a sum of money which Severina Paz Teodoro had represented to Atty. CASE 13: Manuel Y. whether in public or private life. Batangas. Cornejo. Atty. Macias against respondent Atty. He did not execute harassing tactics. maybe summed up as follows: 1. 70878 of the then Court of First Instance of Manila although Atty. and (b) for having instigated Severina Paz Teodoro to file a complaint against Atty. He [Atty.C. The charge by Atty. Macias vs. It was an honest effort on the part of Atty. the matter would be brought to the attention of this court.dishonest and deceitful conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility under Rule 1. Cornejo in connivance with one Gregorio Tapia. Silverio Cornejo violated Canon 8. It appears that Atty.C. is charged with malpractice (a) for trying to collect from a brother attorney a sum of money by means of threat. No. Benedicto M. legally applied. in which demand was made upon him by Atty. Javier. induced Severina Paz Teodoro to accuse Atty. 757) of the unlawful conversion of a judgment fund amounting to P195 pertaining to his client. flimsy and unfounded. In the same letter. Javier was given 10 days within which to turn over the said P195. Malig] acted as counsel for Rosario M. Javier the return of the amount alleged to be due them. for the delivery of P195 which was the amount collected and received by Javier by virtue of a judgment rendered in a certain case in the CFI of Rizal wherein Severina Paz Teodoro was the judgment creditor and Atty. Macias was still her attorney of record. Prior to the alleged instigation. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Atty. and also advised that upon his failure to remit the amount demanded. save by the rules of law. Severina Paz Teodoro and her son Feliciano Pateña had already been demanding from Atty. it is alleged that the Atty. CASE 12: Javier v. Cornejo intervened as counsel for Atty. Javier had collected and received as judgment fund of his previous client Severina Paz Teodoro. Cornejo as owing to her and which she sought to recover through his professional services.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. No.03. As to second ground. for malpractice knowing fully well that the charges therein alleged were malicious. We find that A. Javier on Dec 2. Benjamin B. refers to a letter dated December 2.50 from the sum which Atty. Javier.C. No. Manuel Y. The letter was not improper. The last demand letter was made on March 23. between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court. Atty. Severina Paz Teodoro. Now. warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and exertion of his utmost learning and ability". Cornejo. clients had already been demanding from Atty Javier the return of the money.

HELD: YES both lawyers are guilty for the acts they did which are unbecoming to the other lawyer. He extorted from Atty.C. Atty. against Antonio Ma. He instituted a patently baseless and malicious action. vs. Castro was not the counsel of record of either party in the said civil case. No. Macias made an unethical solicitation of case-the settlement of the estate of Rosario Legarda de Valdes. Each party here has shown himself to be too ready to believe the other guilty of serious misconduct in the practice of the profession to which they both belong while vehemently asserting his own good faith. and as well their clients. ed. CASE 14: Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao. Castro that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Macias. 73335 (Exhibit "R"). extortion is an unethical act and may well be criminal. Llora.2. Atty. before the Regional Trial Court in Manila for attorney's fees and damage.00 4.) Clearly. Macias into signing: (a) the Waiver (Exhibit "C"). A. and (c) the substitution of counsel in Special Proceeding No. Malig and the late Judge Joel Tiangco with corruption in the lifting of an attachment. No. Macias. 109585. "Harassment" and "intimidation" are other similarly unethical and offensive acts that complainant Macias so freely ascribed to respondent Malig "Corruption" with which complainant in Macias accused both respondent Malig and the deceased Judge Tiangco is an even more deplorable term.000. courtesy and civility rightly demanded of members of the ancient and learned profession of the law. 6. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|10 . The countercharges against Atty. which became G. He maliciously and irresponsibly charged Atty. Atty. the sum of P10.00. ISSUE/S: WON there was condor and fairness towards the other professional colleague. with fraudulent disposition of the latter's properties and salting the proceeds [in] Australia. Malig and his clients.00 from him. Macias. He harassed Atty. respondent Malig was not to be outdone and referred to complainant Macias as "denizen" of a "jungle" who "prey[s] upon his brother lawyer [and] his [own] clients" and likened him to "a baneful snake biting the hand of the client who fed him" The Court would also take judicial notice of the fact that complainant Macias has more than once in the past been rebuked by this Court in relation to his conduct vis-a-vis clients and former clients. 65763 but claimed for Himself the attorney's fees of Atty. Macias to withdraw his appearance in: (a) Special Proceeding No.000. 2. Macias in Civil Case No. with that personal dignity. L-34395 of this Honorable Court. Malig and his clients with having "exacted" and "extorted" from him the sum of P10. Nueva Vizcaya. He did not substitute Atty. Each party here was too anxious and willing to make serious accusations against the other which the exertion of reasonable diligence along with simple courtesy would have shown to be unwarranted by the facts and the records. 6. 70878. He actively assisted the Lloras to dispose of all their properties in the Philippines and remit the proceeds to Australia in fraud of Atty. respondent Atty. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Rosario M. and (b) Civil Case No. (b) the Substitution of Counsel in Civil Case No. Macias are the following: 1. former clients and the rest of the community. Virgil R. Rosalie is the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Bambang. 2005 FACTS: Respondent Atty. 73335 of the then Court of First Instance of Manila. He made an unethical representation of a client. Castro. 6396. Castro went to Atty.R. Macias. Civil case No. 5. October 25. Rosalie informed Atty. 3. He corruptly induced the late Judge Joel Tiangco to lift Atty. The dictionary meaning of "to extort" is "to obtain from an unwilling or reluctant person by physical force. RATIO: The Court is not prepared to condone by passing over subsilentio the misconduct of which complainant and respondent are guilty one vis- a-vis the other.]. the Llora spouses. Each attorney here was too prone to use intemperate and offensive language in describing the professional behavior of the other. 70878 (Exhibit "S"). and he intimidated Atty. 5.000. Macias. 4. Llora and their familyowned corporations. Upon the other hand. Rosalie‘s (complainant) office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case No. Malig in his "Comment with Countercharges" dated 1 September 1982 sought the disbarment of complainant Atty. Macias attachment on a property belonging to the Lloras without notice to Atty. Lawyers must at all times treat each other. We hold that complainant Macias and respondent Malig are both guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the court. He maliciously and irresponsible charged Atty. 3. He maliciously and irresponsibly charged Atty. Complainant Macias insisted that respondent Malig "extorted" P10. Atty. intimidation or the abuse of legal or official authority" (Webster's Third New International [1981. Atty. In turn.

A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary Evidence was also filed. don‘t turn your ire on me!‖) Atty. however. I mean.records to the court of origin.The IBP submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. He is fined in the amount of P10. Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place. Rosalie was shocked at Atty.‖ Atty. ―Who will certify the Court of Appeals‘ Decision. Rosalie‘s window. ―No. Atty Castro returned to the office. and pointed his finger at Atty. he again shouted. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|11 . To this. it‘s in the Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be representing. 784. The Complaint-Affidavit was supported by an Affidavit signed by employees of RTC-Bambang.‖ Atty. Atty. Castro then replied. Sir. December 3. that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. Rosalie replied. adding that respondent personally and humbly asked for forgiveness which she accepted. Castro violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and diminished. and still is. Castro retorted scornfully. No. Alcantara. Sir. eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Atty. Rosalie suffered acute embarrassment at the incident. Atty. ―Sir. The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the latter accepted it. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah!” (―Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client. Rosalie replied. That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office since then. the head and in front of her staff. HELD: Yes. After a few minutes. He thus violated Canon 8 of the CPR. respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court.‖ Atty. Castro angrily declared in Ilocano. Castro then answered. as it happened in her office of which she was. Atty. to notify you of the said requirement.00 with a warning that any similar infraction with be dealt with more severely.‖ Atty. CASE 15: Antonio A. They must act honorably. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. Castro left the office and as he passed by Atty. I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified true copy?‖ Surprised at this outburst. RATIO: Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy. “Kayat mo nga saw-en. A. banging the door on his way out to show his anger. However. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by the people at the adjacent RTC.000. only complainant appeared. ―Then you should have notified me of the said requirement. the Court of Appeals? You mean to say. ―I don‘t even know your client. 5398.‖ Atty. Rosalie responded. Castro‘s words but still managed to reply. “Ukinnan. Castro violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. on day of the hearing. C. it‘s not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals‘ decision. This is not to say. Rosalie and shouted. The CBD-IBP issued an Order requiring respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. ―It is not our duty. you woman!‖) Atty. fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. 2002 LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Mariano Pefianco. Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed the incident. ―You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record of the case?‖ Atty. Sir. In the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No.“Ukinnam nga babai!” (―Vulva of your mother. The hearing for the administrative complaint before the CBD was set. but you never bothered to notify me. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Atty. still enraged. Rosalie filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next hearing date in view of respondent‘s public apology. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards. awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?” (―You mean to say you don‘t care anymore? Is that the way it is?‖) He then turned and left the office. vs.

In the case at bar. Robert Minguez. Atty. Alcantara then went out to attend a hearing. fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues. According to Alcantara. Alcantara confronted Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had no business there. Antonio A. who was sitting nearby. Atty. Robert Minguez. Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault him. what an idiot. Felizardo Del Rosario. Pefianco even took a menacing stance towards him. However. In his Comment and Counter-Complaint. he tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him. The affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm complainant‘s allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at him and Atty. but when he came back he heard Pefianco saying "Atty. pointed his finger at him and repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorney‘s Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. the complaint was dismissed by the said office. moved him and prompted him to take up her defense.FACTS: On May 18. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty.‖ RATIO: The Court agrees with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP that respondent Atty. Alcantara. Complainant Alcantara also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Even so. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Alcantara filed a complaint against Atty. whose husband had been murdered. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on the complainant. the Chief of the Probation Office. Pepin Marfil and Mr. "Gago ka!" Prior to the filing of the present complaint. He claimed that two security guards also came. a woman approached them. and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. To avoid any scene with Atty. respondent Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy." Pefianco upon seeing Alcantara. Atty. fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. arrived and shouted at him to get out of the PAO. Pefianco resented this and started hurling invectives at Alcantara. but the latter insisted on his view about the case. Pefianco. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Atty. Pefianco should be reprimanded for his actions in the said case. saw the woman in tears. HELD: Yes. however. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the PAO. tried to pacify Atty. 2000. respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against complainant. Respondent Pefianco claimed that while talking with Atty. the incumbent District Public Attorney of the PAO in San Jose. They must act honorably. Antique. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Pepin Joey Marfil. At this point. Atty. He said that he resented the fact that complainant Alcantara had ordered a employee to put a sign outside prohibiting "standbys" from hanging round in the PAO. Alcantara was surprised by the sudden outburst and advised him to cool off but. ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty. stood up and shouted at Atty. Pefianco. Salvani. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take Pefianco out of the office. Salvani and his client. Salvani concerning the woman‘s case Alcantara. Atty. Ramon Salvani III. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. saying "Why do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. and Alcantara ordered them to take him out of the office. to no avail Atty. with his bodyguard. Antique. The incident caused a commotion in the office. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman. Mariano Pefianco. Alcantara went inside his office. Pefianco said that it was Alcantara who moved to punch him and shout at him. The Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him but also to give any explanation for his actions. Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations. the guards were able to fend off Pefianco‘s blow and Alcantara was not harmed. Contrary to complainant‘s claims. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|12 . but before they could do so." Atty. "Gago ka!" Fortunately. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent. Pefianco continued to scold Atty. Atty. respondent‘s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO. The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in question.

Inting and Erico B. Mariano Pefianco was found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and. About three months after the execution of the SPA. 3149. Likong vs. No. offensive. in his professional dealings. alleging that in all the motions. The deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until her loan is fully paid. substituted by Carmen Tiongco because the former is now dead. 1994 FACTS: Complainant Cerina B. CASE 16: Yared v. being also one of the counsels of the defendants. Marciana Deguma. The Supreme Court noticed and commented that Carmen has failed to comply with the principle of judicial hierarchy and that she should have filed the petition in the CA first. he was fined in the amount ofP1. In the compromise agreement.C. With the language that he employed. Cerina informed the post office that she was revoking the SPA. Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from the US government as a widow of a US pensioner. Cerina likewise executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get her pension checks from the post office.‖ Jose Tiongco alleged that Atty. he obviously violated Canon 8-A Rule 8. A. Lim that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement. or menacing language before the courts.000. Aumentado appeared for Cerina. (b) she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer. the Supreme Court also noticed the improper and unethical language employed by Jose Tiangco. considering it was his first offense. deception and some other form of LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Yap filed a complaint for injunction against Cerina. advise and signature of any of her two lawyers as she was advised by Atty. He also violated Rule 11. They likewise entered into a compromise agreement without the participation of Cerina's counsel. both written or oral. in his pleadings and motions filed both in SC and lower court. The SC also cited Romero vs Valle.‖ He further described Atty. Atty. she was prevented from seeking assistance. ―a rambunctious wreastler-type female of 52 who does not wear a dress which is not red. and in any event respondent already took care of everything. Cerina filed a complaint for disbarment. Lim. which does not bear the signatures of Cerina's counsel.‖ Jose Tiongco was merely warned. his arguments. to allow the Yap to withdraw the pension checks. Roland B. Atty. and Jose Tiongco were opposing parties to a property in litigation. Jose Tiongco. (c) respondent was assisting her anyway. even the title of the case. it was not mentioned whether Jose Tiongco is a lawyer or not. ―although allowed some latitude of remarks or comment in furtherance of the cause he upholds. should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. Respondent Alexander H. Ilarde FACTS: Estrella Yared. Alexander H.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more severely. Carmen directly filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court because Judge Ilarde of the RTC ordered the cancellation of annotation of notices of lis pendens. She alleged that she was prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud.‖ ISSUE/S: W/N Jose Tiongco. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|13 . violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. use languages which is abusive. (e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time. Deguma as ―an unmarried maiden of certain age‖ and a ―love-crazed female Apache who is ready to skin the defendant alive for not being a bastard‖ and a ―horned spinster and man -hungry virago and female bull of an Amazon.01 which states that a lawyer shall not.‖ He also stated that Atty. or otherwise improper. Deguma is using PAO as a ―marriage bureau for her own benefit. Then. an unmarried mestizo who lives with Carmen. offensive. However. Likong executed a deed of assignment assigning to Geesnell L.‖ CASE 17: Cerina B. Deguma does that ―to please a nd tenderize and sweeten towards her own self the readily available Carmelo Tiongco.03 which says that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. Cerina and Yap filed a joint motion. August 17. and who stampedes into the court room like a mad fury and who speaks slang English to conceal her faulty grammar. who was also a counsel for the private respondents. it was stated that complainant Cerina admitted an obligation to Yap and that they agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly installments. there‘s one sentence which addressed him ―Atty. He described the counsel of the petitioner. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys. Note: In the first part of the case.Atty. (d) she had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign.

Barandon filed against him.mendacity practiced on her by Atty. fraudulently or without authority. Ferrer asked Atty. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document without bothering to check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court and. Lim who. 3. Lim saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. failed to consider that a notarized document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven otherwise. Bonifacio T. threatened Atty. offensive. On December 19. Ferrer for the following offenses: 1. A. ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur. Atty. 2010 FACTS: On January 11. Lim is guilty of misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Department of Justice. Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. 2001 complainant Atty. HELD: Yes. Atty. or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Undoubtedly. vs. "Laban kung laban. Lim states that he first instructed Cerina to notify her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned her since she could not pay his attorney's fees. Atty. and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon saying.Instead. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. without fear or favor. Lim prevented Cerina from informing her lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the complaint. Atty. 1994. Lim even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Lim was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year for violating Rule 8. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory language. and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to Cerina. Edwin Z.02 — A lawyer shall not. 2000 Atty. assumed to represent complainant and connived in her defeat. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|14 . at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start of hearing. When Atty. even assuming that she was really abandoned by her counsel. CASE 18: Atty. patayan kung patayan. as plaintiff‘s counsel in Civil Case 7040.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ferrer. Lim's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 8. On November 22. Atty. The compromise agreement prepared by respondent increased Cerina‘s debt to Yap and the terms contained therein are grossly prejudicial to Cerina. directly or indirectly. umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur. Bonifacio T.C. Barandon. Atty. to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. constituting malpractice and grave misconduct. 5. Lim argued that Cerina‘s counsel had abandoned her and it was upon her request that he made the compromise agreement. and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. it is the right of any lawyer. yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte. encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer. The latter was not even a signatory to the document. Barandon was not yet a lawyer nor was assigned in Camarines Norte." 4. with gross ignorance of the law. 2000. filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive. Lim informed the trial court of the alleged abandonment of Cerina by her counsel. Ferrer.. evidently drunk. March 26. Atty. hindi kayo taga-rito. Edwin Z. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems. a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness. Sr. RATIO: Atty. In October 2000. kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. suspension from the practice of law. No. The Court had warned Atty. Barandon. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged falsification of public document when the document allegedly falsified was a notarized document executed on February 23. Atty. Neither is there any showing that Atty. Barandon declined. Jr. 5768. Atty. at a date when Atty. Jr. Ferrer. 2. however. There is no showing that Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act. Atty.

He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. The IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner did not erred in finding respondent Atty. in Rule 8. v. and on November 6. – A lawyer shall not.01. the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. WON the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. plaintiffs and counsel were present together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the proceedings of the case while counsel. the defendant Spouses Alvaran. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Atty. use language which is abusive. 1996. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Inc. The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures. On August 16. 1996. Though a lawyer‘s language may be forceful and emphatic. it should always be dignified and respectful. misbehavior. an incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title before respondent Judge Dolores S. hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court. On November 5. filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. the Code provides: Rule 8.. filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens. 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case 01-809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. CASE 19: Bugaring. Moreover. Atty.01. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.Atty. Atty. RATIO: Under theCanon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. which was opposed by the defendants. nor shall he.01 FACTS: On December 5. Ferrer‘s display of improper attitude. ACCORDINGLY. 1996. Rexie Efren Bugaring was making manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite.03. On July 19. 1996. arrogance. Español of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. Ferrer‘s actions do not measure up to this Canon. 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. offensive or otherwise improper. the newly appointed counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders. Ferrer. petitioner. filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and Motion for Contempt of Court. Edwin Z.. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. in his professional dealings. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. WON if in the affirmative. the Court AFFIRMS the May 22.ISSUE/S: 1. petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve. The trial court issued an order on February 27. and Cavite. All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession. however. – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law. Barandon authored the same. whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. HELD: No. Rule 7. During the hearing of this case. Before the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order. Atty.03 of the Code provides: Rule 7. 1996. Espanol CPR 8. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|15 . Sr. was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. et al. Specifically. Imus. before the public and the court. whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified. Diosdado Concepcion. from the practice of law for one year effective upon his receipt of this Decision. 2.

2003 FACTS: Atty. such as: 'that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of certiorari in the appellate Courts. petitioner filed a petition before the Court of Appeals praying for the annulment of the Order. annoying and sarcastic towards the court. The appellate court committed error in the affirmation of the trial court order RATIO: Behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time he was making representations in behalf of the other party. Atty. the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly proceeding. Barzaga has not yet finished with his manifestation. Notwithstanding the flimsy explanation given. he would speak up anytime he felt like doing so. Chiong. Thus. at times impertinent. Reyes as co-defendant in the civil case. was defiant of the court's system for an orderly proceeding. which Xu knew fully well was baseless. and consequently. to the due administrative of justice. Chiong. When the respondent. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure. 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. and too argumentative.' and other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the Court. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|16 . Reyes vs. Atty. The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing held on December 5. and that was the reason why the cameraman was in tow with him and the plaintiffs. because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing the estafa case. that he was going to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being antagonistic to his client. that he knows better the Rules of Court. Atty. Xu. As Atty. No. it was obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant. Atty. and obstructed the administration of justice. A. Indeed. Thus. the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentary evidence marked to the extent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court showed disrespect to said counsel and the court. fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues. at which point. Ramon P. the case was allowed to be called again. 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 Ethics which obliges a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already perorating despite the fact that Atty. While claiming that he was listening. Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the Court. July 1. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt and order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him under detention. the counsel sent out the cameraman after the Court took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are open to the public and that it being a court of record and since its permission was not sought. Atty. Reyes was impleaded. considering that the Motion has so many ramifications and the issues are complicated. 5148. ISSUE/S: WON the appellate court committed error in affirming the assailed order of the trial court HELD: Yes. filed a complaint for estafa against Pan. orders. in a business venture that went awry. such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court.C. To clear his name in the legal circle and the general public. Atty. in open court. The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Chiong. Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him. Burgaring started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. a Chinese-Taiwanese. 1996. Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there appointed Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu. the Court declared him out of order. who was represented by respondent Atty. Victoriano T. On the second call. At this point. Chiong argued that he had shown no disrespect in impleading Atty. CASE 20: Atty. to the extent of being disrespectful. Reyes. According to Atty. and mandates of the court. the irregularities committed by Prosecutor LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. through Atty. He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation.he admitted that they came from a function. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written pleading for his client.

respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Laput found out in the records of the proceedings that another lawyer had entered appearance (and in writing. Atty. dated Feb 5). without prior notice to Atty. Laput as counsel. Finally. Atty. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client. respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Atty. HELD: Yes. Weeks later. In so doing. a client (named Nieves Rillas Vda. Atty. prepared two (2) pleadings for the Court. on Feb. if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. but was later modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. asked her to sign documents (one including ‗Revocation of Po wers of Attorney‘). the client refused to sign these and instructed Atty. Laput.Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ―a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. Commissioner of the IBP held that Atty. The amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen complainant‘s allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. they should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies. and these documents were sent to corporations and other offices belonging to the estate of the client. Atty. the client herself had filed a pleading asking the Court to approve the discharge of Atty. As a lawyer. However. Laput and." It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu. Now. Laput had already withdrawn. Laput.F. Patalinghug (1962) FACTS: In 1952. It is also alleged that the two lawyers brought the client to their office. Moreover. Patalinghug (one of the respondents). In defense. 1955) for his client.Salanga in the criminal investigation and complainant‘s connivance therein were discovered only after the institution of the collection suit. contemplating to end the proceedings soon. Laput complains before the SC that the two lawyers‘ (Patalinghug and Remotigue) conduct were unethical and improper. Subsequently. damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture. If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga‘s resolution. that constituted the unethical act. Patalinghug‘s appearance in Court. not to harass them. Chiong had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga. Casiano voluntarily asked the Court to relieve him as counsel. Atty. Casiano Laput (petitioner) to handle the case regarding the testation of the estate of the client‘s deceased husband. In 1955. the filing of the civil case had no justification. He also alleged that the two lawyers intrigued him. 5. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|17 . he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. Atty. the client already lost confidence in Atty. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. namely: Atty. Remotigue entered his appearance (in writing. Francisco E. Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga‘s decision to file an information for estafa. prompting the client to lose her trust. it was the entering of Atty. Atty. Remotigue argued that when he entered his appearance. on January 11. Laput v. Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Laput not to file these in Court. Barrera. The Civil case was for the "collection of a sum of money.‖ Respondent‘s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law. fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues. Meanwhile. by that time. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. and hence concluded that the purpose of the dissemination of the documents was to embarrass him. Laput alleged that they did it with malice. Remotigue & Atty. Patalinghug said that when he entered his appearance. Only then (on Feb 7) that the other lawyer. CASE 21: Atty. and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Fortunato P. Laput alleged that the two lawyers well knew that no such powers of attorney was granted to him by client. Thus. desiring to be the new counsels of Mrs. Casiano U. de Barrera) hired Atty. Atty.

prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. and (2) that the client no longer trusted Atty. charging the client and Atty. On 24 September 2002. it is the client‘s fault that Atty. m. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|18 . all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her relationship with Victor).g. Atty. Garcia filed a complaint and charged Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court. Laput is true. LOPEZ FACTS: Petitioner Wilfredo Garcia was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento. Laput was not informed. Zenaida. amounting to perjury and prayed that the respondent be suspended or disbarred. He even filed cases with the City Fiscal of Cebu. On 19 September 2002. when Remotigue entered his own. but these were dismissed. withdrawal from the bank accounts (PNB and BPI) and dividend checks from the properties are being delivered to Atty. Garcia had not withdrawn from the case therefore he was surprised by what Lopez did. He asserted that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. The court finds no irregularity in the conduct of the two lawyers. With respect to the alleged document (Revocation of the Powers of Attorney) allegedly prepared by Atty. With respect to Atty. Bulacan. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376. Also.397 sq. he cannot be found guilty of any unethical conduct because it was already two days after Atty. directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate of title. Patalinghug and Atty. and therefore. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to Garcia who had worked on the case from the very beginning (i. upon referral by the Supreme Court. The court recognizes that Atty. In fact. Laput because she found out that the lawyer had been doing things unauthorized by her. made the following findings: (1) that the claim of Atty. Lopez claimed that he was merely representing the heirs Zenaida and Wilson Ku since they availed of his services. Patalinghug regarding the client‘s pleading to discharge Atty. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. Laput withdrew his appearance. Wilson. Branch 15. ISSUE/S: WON the conduct of Atty.The Solicitor General. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court. The decision became final and executory and the RTC.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. Alfredo. Laput‘s pride was hurt and felt that he was intrigued (pictured as a dishonest lawyer). 05-M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos. It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarviña (Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarviña). Garcia presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarviña and Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of Lopez and that they recognized Garcia as their only counsel of record. RATIO: What happened cannot be considered as ‗case-grabbing‘. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately. The LRA failed to comply. Remotigue were unethical and unprofessional to warrant disciplinary action HELD: No. Laput cannot claim that Atty. Jeanette and Geneva. the RTC decision was upheld. applicant in LRC Case No. Atty. The only purpose is to protect the interests of the client. in an order dated 21 February 2002. CASE 22: GARCIA v. e. Respondent Beniamino Lopez filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement because he claimed to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento. the inquiry revealed that there was no malice on the part of the lawyer. Laput is estopped by his own actions –he filed his voluntary withdrawal from the proceedings and the motion he made for the payment of his attorney‘s fees amounted to acquiescence (reluctant acceptance but without protest). misrepresentation. Remotigue. a written contract was executed so as to set the amount of fees for the legal services. Patalinghug was unprofessional. Patalinghug. Patalinghug with Libel and Falsification. Laput instead of the client. The investigation by the Sol-Gen revealed that it was the client herself that sought the services of the two lawyers. They allegedly did not have a lawyer a day before a scheduled hearing therefore Lopez executed an entry of appearance with motion for postponement.e. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. tract of land. ISSUE: WON Lopez violated rule 8.

W. however. made an arrangement with the defendant Ney. a subscription of the names of any other persons.W. This order." Since that time the defendant Bosque has not personally appeared in the courts. had his authorization and constitutes a substantial attempt to engage in practice. and by implication prohibits. but with the words "Ney & Bosque — C. Bosque. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ. nor was it aided by the too obvious subterfuge of the addition of the individual name of a licensed attorney. the office of attorney being originally one of agency We do not. the power of the courts is restricted to punishment for acts so defined. amounted to an assertion of his right and purpose. and September 15. We refuse to recognize as a practice any signature of names appended to pleadings or other papers in an action other than those specified in the statute. directly or indirectly. The paper was headed "Law Office — Ney & Bosque. HELD : YES. RATIO:Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure describes contempt as follows: 1. to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. and any hope on his part of ultimately reversing it furnished no excuse for its violation. however. while in force. Even had he been entitled under the statute to practice law without any license from the court and without an application to it. must be obeyed. ISSUE/S: WON the defendants should be punished for contempt. order. and he thereupon instituted this proceeding. Spanish law plays an important part in the equipment of a lawyer in the Archipelago. to carry on business together. The papers in question were irregular and were properly rejected. whether agents or otherwise. on the 2nd day of October. 1905. Juan G. Independent of statutory provisions. and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. a practicing attorney. Ney. encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer. The only order that the defendant Bosque can have disobeyed is the one denying him the right to practice law. CASE 23 : US vs. 2. or command of a court. or injunction granted by a court or judge.RATIO: Canon 8 provides that A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. standing on a different footing from the law of other foreign countries. therefore a signature containing the name of one neither a party nor an attorney was not a compliance with this section.jurisconsulto español — C. not effectively qualified by the addition that he would devote himself to consultation and office work relating to Spanish law. was directly binding upon him. Regarding the first requisite. Section 102 of the Code of Civil procedure. provides that every pleading must be subscribed by the party or his attorney. Where the law defines contempt. yet its order made on his own petition. and except when the papers from the office were signed not with the firm name alone nor with any designation of the firm as attorneys. however.W. does not permit. without fear or favor. The illegality in this instance was aggravated by the fact that one of the agents so named was a person residing in these Islands to whom this court had expressly denied admission to the bar. it is the right of any lawyer. Consequently the conduct of the defendant Bosque amounts to disobedience of an order made in a proceeding to which he was a party.The defendants disclaim any intentional contempt." On May 1. a foreigner is not by reason of his status disqualified from practicing law. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions. Rule 8. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|19 . 1906. A signature by agents amounts to a signing by non-qualified attorneys. advise without practicing law. Ney. and defend their acts as being within the law. sending out a circular signed "Ney & Bosque. this court refused to consider petitions so singed with the names of the defendants and the practice being repeated. abogado americano. A mandate of the court. no direct order or command of this court has been disobeyed or resisted by the defendant Ney. mean to discountenance the use of a suitable firm designation by partners. C. all of whom have been duly admitted to practice. 1906. process. abogado. Ney and Juan Garcia Bosque FACTS: In 1904 defendant Bosque. notwithstanding proceedings taken for its review. The fact stated on the circular that he was a Spanish lawyer did not amount to a disclaimer of his professional character in the Islands. The irregular signature to papers. though affixed by his associate. Moreover the firm circular in setting forth the establishment of an office for the general practice of law in all the courts of the Islands. fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues. ordered the papers sent to the Attorney-General to take appropriate action thereon. in regard to which a skilled person might as a calling." stating that they had established an office for the general practice of law in all the courts of the Islands and that Bosque would devote himself especially to consultation and office work relating to Spanish law. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.02 states that A lawyer shall not. judgment.

to clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence. In the hearing. CFI). G. he authorized the filing of a motion for the revision of his papers for 1925 based on an alleged mistake in the computation of his grades. It would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court. CASE 25: Spouses Suarez v. the Canons apply to him as he engages in unlawful practice of law. but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion. September 22. granted this motion. assist in the unauthorized practice of law. 1999 FACTS: Andres Culanag assumed the name of ―Filemon A. and for the improper signature of the pleadings he was chiefly and personally responsible. He appeared as counsel for petitioners spouses Suarez. Culanag admitted that he was not a real lawyer and he was the same ―Filemon Mananga‖ in a court case (Filemon Manangan v. Bosque is obviously not answerable. The court. CASE 24: In re Felipe Del Rosario FACTS:Felipe del Rosario was a candidate in the bar examination who failed for the second time in 1925. Though he is not a lawyer bound by the Canons provided in the Code of Professional Responsibility.) Canon 9 provides that ―a lawyer shall not. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. respondent Salazar filed a ―Motion to Expunge All Pleadings by Atty.Under the second requisite. He is sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment. The conviction of Juan Villaflor demonstrates that Felipe del Rosario has no legal right to his attorney's certificate and to admit Felipe del Rosario again to the bar examination would be tantamount to a declaration of professional purity is impossible to believe. The two were subsequently charged with falsification. A day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.‖ ISSUE/S: WON Culanag is guilty of indirect contempt of the court. ISSUE/S: WON Felipe Del Rosario should be allowed to practice law HELD: No. Del Rosario pleaded not guilty. but with justices dissenting. CASE 26: Aguirre v Rana FACTS: Edwin L. Then on March 29. acting in good faith. Hence.R. RATIO: (This case did not explicitly explained how Canon 9 applies to it but the relation can be seen and made. In the offense of Bosque in holding himself out as a general practitioner Ney participated. and then to permit him to hold himself out as a duly authorized member of the bar RATIO:The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law. Manangan‖ and misrepresented himself to be an attorney-at-law. and admitted Felipe del Rosario to the bar. Filemon Mananga with Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court and To Dismiss the Petition. the defendant Ney. No. 1927. Moreover we regret to add that his persistent and rash disregard of the rulings of the court has not commended him to our indulgence. On the other hand. After the investigation of bar examination matters conducted by the city fiscal. Villaflor pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced correspondingly. directly or indirectly.‖ Culanag is not a lawyer. and yet hold guiltless the man who repeatedly wrote it. and at the conclusion of the trial was acquitted for lack of evidence. 139281. inasmuch as he was not an officer of the court. HELD: Yes. as an admitted attorney. representing himself to be one and counseling for parties constitute unauthorized practice of law. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|20 . a former employee of the court and Felipe del Rosario for falsifying some documents to make it appear that Del Rosario actually passed the 1925 bar exams. an act Canon 9 prohibits. He presented himself for the succeeding bar examination in 1926 and again failed to obtain the required rating. Arsenio Salazar. therefore. Culanag is guilty of indirect contempt of the court. under this subdivision. while the offensive character of certain papers recently filed by him forbids us from presuming on the hope of his voluntarily conforming to the customary standard of members of the bar. The acquittal of Felipe del Rosario upon the criminal charge is not relevant to the proceedings. a criminal charge was lodged in the CFI of Manila against Juan Villaflor. The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one who demands it. It is impossible to say that the signature itself was a violation of the law. is liable if his conduct amounted to misbehavior..

Marasigan to give him a copy oh the complaint in order that he may comment thereon. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. George Bunan.‖ RATIO: Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that ―A LAWYER SHALL NOT.‖ All these happened even before respondent took the lawyer‘s oath. Erly D.. Alawi accused Alauya of usurpation of the title ―attorney‖ which only regular member of the Philippine Bar properly use. ―Free Postage-P. Marasigan to require an explanation from him and the second. 25. being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon. 18. the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4 th Judicial Shari‘a District in Marawi City. Edwin L. ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. and to the Chief. Alawi filed with the Supreme Court. In this pleading. before he took the lawyer‘s oath. and the Vice-President of the Credit & Collection Group of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. The first. violation of law. Aguirre charged Rana with unauthorized practice of law. Ashary Alauya. Rana signed as ―counsel for George Bunan. DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.D. Assistant Division Clerk of Court. Ltd. On Jan.‖ Alauya was not a full-fledged member of the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Through Alawi‘s agency. 26. rendering the contract void ab initio and asking for cancellation of his housing loan. Alauya addressed letters to the President of Villarosa & Co. 14 May 2001. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|21 . were classmates and used to be friends. Masbate. 1996.B. HELD: Yes. Clearly. a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also ―retained‖ respondent as her counsel. Rana represented himself as ―counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate. Masbate. Aguirre alleges that Rana. Rana is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body. a letter to the Head of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Alauya is justified in using the title ―attorney?‖ HELD: No. and grave misrepresentation. Of Davao City and respondent. Alauya is not justified in using the title ―attorney. 15. Rana violated the code by practicing law without having been fully admitted to the Philippine Bar. Marasigan. Aguirre further alleges that Rana filed with the MBEC a pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. justifying the use of the title ―attorney‖ due to the term ―counsellor‖. questioned the authority of Atty. 1995.‖. which were used by Alauya. CASE 27: Alawi v. ISSUE/S: WON Rana violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by practicing law without having the authority to do so. a sales representative of E. the notice of resolution in this case was signed by Atty. and in connection with the sale. grave examinees as members of the Philippine Bar. On the same date. Alauya also wrote on Jan. Alauya FACTS: Complainant. alleging that his consent was vitiated by the sales representative. requesting Atty. Finance Division of the Supreme Court to stop the deductions from his salary in relation to the loan in question. Hao informed the MBEC that ―Atty. 1996. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party. Rana engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine Bar. Alauya then submitted his comment. Alauya then submitted two letter subsequently.‖ and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. a verified complaint to which she appended a copy of the letter and envelope bearing the type written words. appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon. a contract was executed for the purchase on instalment by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to the Alawi‘s firm. On Dec. being confusingly similar to the given to local legislators. complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Villarosa & Partners Co. The Supreme Court resolved to order Alauya to comment on the complaint.‖ On 14 May 2001. while not yet a lawyer. As such. Alawi. Aguirre claims that Rana is a municipal government employee. Sophia Alawi. Ratio: Records show that Rana appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001.

CASE 29: W.‖ The title ―attorney‖ is reserv ed to those who. W. As the lower court aptly said: "the duty to compute the period to appeal is a duty that devolves upon the attorney which he cannot and should not delegate unto an employee because it concerns a question of study of the law and its application. This act is hardly prudent or wise. the Secretary reopened the case and ordered a formal investigation of the whole controversy to give the parties "ample opportunity to formally present their respective sides of the controversy and be given their 'day in court'". a petition for certiorari was filed. 1960 FACTS:On September 11. said clerk being of the impression that the prescriptive period to appeal in certiorari cases is also 30 days like in ordinary civil actions instead of 15 days as provided in Section 17 of Rule 41 ISSUE/S: WON the Supreme Court may grant the motion for excusable negligence of the counsel‘s clerk HELD: No. Marcelino Villafuerte y Rañola. that in the face of this attitude of Eco. No. G. Felipe Eco was given a period of ninety days to conduct a voluntary investigation by the Supreme Court On September 6. Rañola FACTS: The purpose of the suit filed by the plaintiff. it was found that portions of the area released from the forest zone were under occupancy by some 80 oppositors. Felipe Eco‘s counsel delegated the computation of the period of filing an appeal within which the appropriate pleading. the Director of Forestry recommended cancellation of Eco's certificate of private woodland and the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources approved the recommendation. have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing. L-16731. notwithstanding the repeated demands made upon the defendant. the latter had not paid his debt nor the interest thereon. 1957. and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.A lso the Supreme Court said that the said land was actually occupied by Tigman Lumber Co. That by the said instrument duly executed the defendant bound and pledged himself to pay to the plaintiff. therefore. praying for setting aside of the decision on the ground of excusable negligence. exhibited under letter A and B. the payment of which is secured by a mortgage on the real properties set out in the two notarial documents evidencing the debt. reinvestigation. and inscribed in the property registry of the Province of Tayabas. the Supreme Court rendered judgment finding that Felipe Eco who obtained from the bureau of forestry a certificate of private wood-land registration a possessory information title covering 700 hectares but which it was made to appear in the sketch a total 1200 hectares of land. Juan De G. that. Alauya was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for the excessively intemperate. as a first cause of action. The Supreme Court holds that the dismissal of the appeal was in order because of Felipe eco‘s adamant stand not to submit to the formal investigation and clear indication of this attitude is shown by his failure to appear at the investigation. objections and counterobjections between the parties. 1958.W. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|22 . March 30. be considered excusable. is the collection of various sums owed by the defendant. The plaintiff further prayed that an order be issued directing the delivery to the plaintiff of the properties CASE 28: Felipe Eco vs. Robinson v. that petitioner Eco refused to submit to this. that likewise. W. Rodriguez. protested and filed a petition for reconsideration which was apparently granted because the Director of Forestry suspended the operation of Eco's certificate. and for usurping the title of ―attorney. insulting or virulent language. that after a series of protests and counter-protests. orders and decisions rendered by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural resources and director of forestry claiming that the said director and secretary committed a grave ause of discretion in suspending his certificate. Marcelino Villafuerte Y. The alleged negligence consisted of the erroneous computation by counsel's clerk of the period within which an appeal may be made. which Felipe Eco sought annulment of the proceeding. and this Court considers this to be a delicate matter that should not be delegated" the negligence here cannot. Robinson. The complaint further alleged. That Tigman Lumber Co. the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations.‖ issued a decision. another licensee. Felipe Eco filed a motion for excusable negligence for relief under Rule 38. that upon the appeal of Eco. On April 30 1958.Philippine Bar and may only practice law before the Shari‘a Bar and is referred to as ―counsellor.R. insisting that it was not necessary. However.

A Motion for Reconsideration was then filed by Guballa seeking the lifting of the order of default.R. the plaintiff's attorneys in this suit. and therefore. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. notwithstanding the presence of Attorney Agustin Alvarez. Mercado & Associates. Said Motion for Reconsideration was signed by Ponciano Mercado. nor did the latter intervene therein and that the said power of attorney had no true reason for existence. was allowed to present his evidence ex parte. who prepared his Answer to the Complaint in the lower court. Because Guballa and counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. was present. During the hearing of the case. another member of the law firm. The Hon. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|23 . et. After the motion was denied. of the law firm Vida. and that all the said mortgages on the properties therein mentioned were founded on a supposed power of attorney said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. The Defendant denies the execution of Special power of attorney. CASE 30: Jose Guballa vs. a complaint for damages was filed by Forteza against Guballa with the Court of First Instance in Bulacan. Guballa alleged that his rights had not been adequately protected and his properties are in danger of being confiscated and/or levied upon without due process of law.L. as no positive detriment was caused to the defendant. Eduardo P. although such intervention is in no manner permitted by the law of procedure. notwithstanding the fact that Attorney Agustin Alvares. However. Cohn & Williams. As a consequence. Jr. that he did not give his consent to all of to any one of the mortgages alleged in the complaint. Guballa. the acts performed in the course of some of the proceedings under the direction of Jose Moreno Lacalle are not subject to annulment. the judge should have sustained such objection and should have excluded Lacalle and not permitted him to address questions to the plaintiff's witnesses. even though the said answers may have been evoked by questions addressed by a person not authorized by law. an employee of Messrs. Haussermann. the reopening of the case for the presentation of his evidence and the setting aside of the decision. on objection being made to his present at the hearing of the case. Vida. although CA affirmed the decision in toto. to authorize the striking out to the answers given by the witnesses interrogated by Lacalle. L46537 July 29. Enriquez. Guballa was treated as in default and Forteza Jr. An answer was filed on behalf of Guballa by Irineo W. despite due notice. for the reason that the said Lacalle did not have the capacity and qualifications of a lawyer admitted under oath to practice his profession before the courts of these Islands. A decision was thereafter rendered by the trial court in favor of Forteza Jr. through Atty. Caguioa. Cohn & Williams. in order that he might administer them during the course of this suit and until they should ultimately be sold. it was not authorized by any law. Haussermann. No. ISSUE/S: WON delegation of work of a lawyer to a non-lawyer is proper. even though the questions addressed by Lacalle to the plaintiff's witnesses and the presentation of documents of various kinds exhibited at the trial be stricken out for the reason that they were made by a person who was neither a party to the suit nor counsel for the plaintiff. HELD: It is not proper. But it is not detrimental to this case. filed a petition for Relief from Judgment on ground that Irineo W.described in the complaint. was improperly admitted. RATIO: With regard to the first two alleged errors. it is unquestionable that the intervention of the said law clerk and employee of Messrs. designated in substitution of the said Haussermann. and the answers thereto.. is not a member of the Philippine Bar. who represented the plaintiff. based upon any positive prohibition of the law. relative to Jose Moreno Lacalle being permitted to address questions to some of the witnesses during the hearing of the case. Cohn & Williams as the plaintiff's representative in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. G. fraudulent. and there is much less reason for rejecting the cross-questions addressed to the same witnesses by the defendant's attorney. yet we do not find any reason. addressed questions to some of the witnesses and was permitted.. al. which power of attorney was fictitious. null and void. Notwithstanding this. Santos II. Case was appealed.. false. that it was not executed by the defendant. Jr. 1977 FACTS: Guballa is an operator of a public utility vehicle which was involved in an accident resulting to injuries by Domingo Forteza. Isabelo V. the plaintiff's attorneys in this suit. Motion for Reconsideration was filed and was denied. Vida Jr. Judge Caguioa denied petition and said that it is a dilatory tactic by Guballa and his counsel.

David and Tan Tek Beng. David is guilty of malpractice HELD: Yes. a non-lawyer. Fernandez and Felisberto Javier. representing attorney‘s fees on contingent basis such amounts equivalent to 25% thereof which agreement is evidenced by a Note‖. 1962. CASE 32: Tan Tek Beng v. Rule 138. only 10 of the 48 complainant labourers appeared and testified. That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession. Respondents BISCOM appealed to the directly to the SC but it was dismissed. The agreement went sour due to allegations of double-cross from both sides. Atty. Guballa was duly represented by bona fide members of the Bar in seeking a reversal of the judgment for being contrary to law and jurisprudence and the existence of valid. i. based upon a division of service or responsibility. Guballa's rights had been amply protected in the proceedings before the trial and appellate courts as he was subsequently assisted by counsel.for unfair labor practices against BISCOM and Fraternal Labor Organization. At the hearing." The union president is not the attorney for the laborers. Rules of Court. Carbonell‘s lien of 5%. David and in exchange thereof. He may seek compensation only as such president. Atty. except with another lawyer. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. and this Petition must be denied for lack of merit. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. RATIO: Judge Caguioa‘s forthright denial of the Petition for Relief to frustrate a dilatory maneuver is well-taken. David before the Supreme Court but did not seek the enforcement of their agreement. CASE 31: Amalgamated Laborer’s Association v. Atty. 1963 a ―Notice of Attorney‘s Lien. that he ―had actually rendered legal services to the laborer‘s ―have voluntarily agreed to give him. 1956. David FACTS: In 1970. legal and justifiable defenses. 27. Such a contract the court emphatically rejects. ISSUE/S: WON IT MAY BE STIPULATED THAT THE UNION PRESIDENT MAY SHARE IN THE ATTORNEY‘S FEES. Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief of Guballa. and that the 25% attorney‘s fees so contracted is reasonable and proper taking into consideration the length of services he rendered the nature of the work actually performed by him. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term ―malpractice‖. The alleged fact that the person who represented Guballa at the initial stage of the litigation. Atty. Amalgamated Laborer‘s Association lodged a complaint in the CIR.ISSUE/S: WON Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief of Guballa HELD: Yes. It says: "No division of fees for legal services is proper. not a business. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorney‘s fees collected as the latter‘s commission. Carbonell disputed this claim and even said the verbal agreement entered into by the Union and its officers is that the 30% Lawyer‘s Fees shall be divided equally by him. CIR rendered a judgement which provides that petitioners be reinstated to their former positions with full back wages and benefits. Florentino Arceo and 47 others together with their union. David also agreed not to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without the latter‘s consent..‖ He further explained that it was supposed to be 30% but Arsenio Reyes requested him to 25% to satisfy Atty. CIR FACTS: On May 30. David and Tan Tek Beng is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is ―the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. Fernandez(respondent) filed on July 15. Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. RATIO: The agreement between Atty.‖ He alleged that he had been an attorney of record for the laborer‘s CIR Case since the inception of the preliminary hearings of said case up to the SC. HELD: No. Atty. On November 13. the Union‘s president. 25% of the Attorney‘s Fees was awarded solely to Atty. ―The lawyer may not seek or LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Atty. the filing of an Answer and the pretrial proceedings. Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. either personally or through paid agents or brokers‖ Sec. It cannot be justified. as chief counsel‖.e. turned out to be not a member of the Bar did not amount to a denial of petitioner's day in court. An agreement whereby a union president is allowed to share in attorneys' fees is immoral. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|24 . entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. Meanwhile. Fernandez RATIO: Canon 34 of Legal Ethics condemns this arrangement in terms clear and explicit.

Subsequent MRs were also denied for lack of merit. The court finds no supervening event nor any meritorious reason to disturb the amount of backwages awarded to the private respondents. There was no hard or solid proof that respondents had indeed made an unconditional offer or reinstatement. petitioner Juan Armamento. ISSUE/S: WON the manifestation issued by petitioner has merit. This led to the series of petitions and motions and other actions filed by the petitioner and caused the resetting of the public sale for 6 times. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The petitioners were not able to present evidence to support their argument on Art 160 of the Civil Code. The NLRC also affirmed the same computation report which was again opposed by the petitioner for the same reason (manifestation).‖ He further alleged that the run of private respondent‘s backwages should have stopped on the date of issuance of said manifestation.obtain employment by him or through others for to do so would be unprofessional‖. except with another lawyer. Well settled is the rule that findings of fact of labor officials are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence. the Labor Arbiter rendered decision in private respondents‘ favor ordering the then respondent to reinstate the complainants to their former positions along with backwages. Sometime in August 1988. On the agreement to divide the attorney‘s fees.500 per month along with a P10 a day as contribution for the maintainance of the taxis. the Supreme Court noted: No division of fees for legal services is proper. private respondents were terminated from employment and their accumulated deposits were not returned. A lawyer‘s relation to his client should be personal. Thus. 1988. Ricardo Hermoso FACTS:This case originated from the civil case filed by the respondent Ricardo Hermoso against the petitioner Damaso Perez and Gregorio Subong for the recovery of unpaid purchases of leather materials used in his shoemaking business. which intervenes between client and lawyer. the owner and operator of Five J Taxi. as in this case CASE 34: Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez and Damaso Perez (petitionersdefendants) vs. David shall not deal with clients supplied by Beng directly: The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law agency. he filed a written manifestation before the Labor Arbiter stating inter alia that: ―I am unconditionally accepting complainants back to work and they can report to work anytime during office hours. . Gregorio Lantin. the respondent sheriff of Manila levied upon 3. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|25 . On August 23. based upon a division of service or responsibility.‖ CASE 33: Five J Taxi v. The Labor Arbiter then referred the case to the Research and Information Unit for review and possible recomputation. . 1988. RATIO: The petitioners' position on the cut-off period for the reckoning of private respondents' backwages had thoroughly been passed upon and consistently been rejected by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter after repeated reviews of the case. ISSUE/S: Should the counsel be held liable for abetting the filing of his clients? HELD: Yes. The counsel is therefore ordered to pay for the treble costs assessed against the petitioners. Hon. On the agreement that Atty. He alleged that as early as December 13.573 shares of common stock registered in the name of Damaso Perez with the Republic Bank. NLRC FACTS: In 1983. hired private respondents Dominador Sibayan and Jose Salcedo as taxi drivers where they both earned an average of P4. . Herein petitioner Juan Armamento opposed the computation report of the Research and Information Unit regarding the rewards due the private respondents amounting to P79. both the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of the said P10 from their salaries. personal or corporate. 260. The defendants and their counsel did nothing despite due notice to them. A judgment was rendered ordering them to pay the said sum. The latter made a computation report. and the responsibility should be direct to the client. HELD: No. A lawyer‘s responsibilities and qualifications are individual. which was completely adopted by the Labor Arbiter. 1961. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. On October 24. which have repeatedly been computed by the Research Unit of the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner moved to quash the information. No. Thereafter. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|26 .A. PHHC and Navarrio. it is not unreasonable to assume that his deficiency in the mode of expression contributed to the inaccuracy of his statements. on behalf of his client. The succeeding student regent. Atty. That thereafter. 8249. HELD: No. Moreover. 2003. As well as that before the Daquis and Navarro filed a writ of possession. On September 4. after due investigation. In the court‘s resolution of the aforementioned case.R. enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction (Crimes Committed by Public Officers). Serana discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. and De Guzman. Sandiganbayan. L-35113. she also argued that it was President Estrada and not the government that was LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person. 1975 FACTS: In a petition for certiorari filed with this Court on behalf of Eugenio Cuaresma. Bugayong. Daquis. When in fact. RATIO: Every member of the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with the Court is the very essence of honorable membership. Some of the actions were filed. Cuaresma refused. And that thereafter. March 25. G. Directo included the following categorical allegations: That Cuaresma had no knowledge of the existence of the civil case between the respondents.A. The renovation failed to materialize. al FACTS: Hannah Eunice D. Estrada on Dec 21. the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions. wherein the judge in that case gave due course to the complaint. judging from his awkwardly worded petition and even his compliance is quite indicative of either carelessness or lack of proficiency in the handling of the English language. Cuaresma and the other inhabitants of the lot in question were given 30 days to vacate the same.RATIO: We feel compelled to observe that during the protracted litigation below. found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. as amended by R. have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. A mere disclaimer of intent certainly cannot exculpate him. Serana was a senior student of the UP-Cebu. It was one of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Hall. She added that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student regent. No. Marcelo Daquis. at some stages alternatingly. 2000. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. On July 3. al. Sheclaimed that R. Atty. in violation of his right to due process. (OSRFI). Serana. 2000). President gave P15 M to OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. she was not a public officer since she merely represented her peers. although in the spirit of charity and forbearance. with her siblings and relatives.. far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice. the judge ordered the demolition of Cuaresma‘s house and was given only 3 days from the issuance of the order to remove his house or face demolition. No. but despite the notice. ―it had been an honest one‖ and that he had no intent on his part in misleading this Honorable Court. She was appointed by then Pres. Serana for estafa. in Atty. Directo‘s allegation that his client had no knowledge of the existence of the civil case and required him to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. in which estafa is not included. in her capacity as UP student regent. known to be a government scholar. CASE 36: Serana v. Moreover. filed a motion for intervention but which was denied. a penalty of REPRIMAND would suffice. consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. Directo. 2000-Dec 31. 3019. The petitioners and their counsel. in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity. CASE 35:Eugenio Cuaresma vs. Cuaresma was fully aware of the existence of the said civil case. That Cuaresma was never given a day in court. et. Secretary General of the alliance of student councils within UP. for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. only to be abandoned or withdrawn. Directo‘s assertion of good faith can exculpate him from any wrongdoing that he may have committed. abetted by their counsel. et.As a student regent. Inc. registered with the SEC of the Office of the Student Regent Foundation. the Ombudsman. absence the intent to cause any confusion. it declared that there was no truth in Atty. which was extended another 30 days. Directo‘s explanation he professes that if there were any mistake committed. to serve a one-year term (Jan 1. 1999 as a student regent.

Serana filed a motion for reconsideration. as amended. 2000.D. Mamauag.‖ We admonish Serana‘s counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation.D. Serana was compensated. The Ombudsman opposed the motion. namely.She had no power or authority to receive monies or funds. R. Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer's oath. 3019 that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges against her. as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty.‖ thus. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in not dimissing the case despite the fact that it has no jurisdiction over the offense charged against Serana HELD: No.duped. Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (P.A. due to heavy traffic.m. Young vs. Compensation has been interpreted to include allowances. Ceasar G."2 Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered. it came from Estrada.D. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan has not committed a grave abuse of its discretion in not dismissing the case against Serana.". Such power was vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole. P. Branch 27. However. defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while R. 1606 clearly contains the catch-all phrase ―in relation to office. which was again amended on February 5. the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila.02 of the Rules stating that ―a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent. not from the coffers of the government. specifically Rule 10.) No. CASE 37: Walter T. Serana was a public officer. 8249 further modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. No. he is now under detention. 2000. No. Assuming that she received the P15M. 2000. It is P. in turn. 1978. Miguelito Nazareno V. Respondents filed their respective comments. No. RATIO: Her claim has no basis in law. Respondent Susa. Ceasar G. No.1486. violation of the three-day notice rule. 8249. they filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Batuegas FACTS: On December 29. Walter T. Atty. the two statutes differ in that P. complainant learned that he surrendered only on December 14. 1997 by R. Branch 27.A. 2000. based on the concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility. No. P. the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant.D. deals not with the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals. Rogelio M. In fact. Jr. 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects.D. Then.A.1861. No. R. integrity. 3019 erroneously cited by petitioner. calendared the motion on December 15.7975 made succeeding amendments to P.A. they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a. pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.A. 00-187627 for Murder. as counsel for accused. They argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. It was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and employees. alleging that the "accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts. Section 4 of R. entitled "People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana. P. declaring that on December 13. As such. Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No.D. A lawyer‘s conduct before the court should be characterized by candor and fairness. the certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14. We urge Serana‘s counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. as amended. Batuegas.A. respondents Batuegas and Llantino.D. loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people.1606. promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. 1978. Compensation is not an essential part of public office.1606 promulgated on December 10.D. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|27 . hence. The Sandiganbayan was created by P. filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. No. 1606 was later amended by P. rather than R. Young filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Section 4 of R. On December 13. the next day. 2000. 1606. Llantino and Franklin Q. As a member of the BOR. as amended. 3019. as it now stands. No. she had the general powers of administration and exercised the corporate powers of UP. amended by P. 1606. 1606 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Then they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. but was denied. 1486 was. No. No.A. defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their penalties. No.D. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. and the failure to attach the Certificate of Detention.D. Marcos on June 11.

Marcelino Adorable. together with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 9. 4(2) of the Rules of Court. whether in his professional or private capacity. Sec. motions and orders. HELD: YES. remained unacted upon by said court until the motion for reconstitution was filed. for the claimants and appellees. No. fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar. sent to him by said court. Attorney Manuel F. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|28 . on the other hand. they are guilty of falsehood. 2000 was authorized by the presiding judge and. Zamora. HELD: Yes. instead of taking advantage of Peñaranda's ignorance of what really happened in the Court of Appeals. at the time he filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26. pleadings. respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Thus. al. including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. 1946 FACTS: At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case. 1942.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.Evidently. Moreover. 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."He 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. exhibits. respondent Susa argues in his comment that he was no longer in court when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. was under the impression that the case. and that said records be remanded to the lower court for execution of the decision. Teofila A. et. However. ISSUE/S: WON the respondent lawyers are guilty of falsehood. and the printed brief of Peñaranda who. 1942. The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct. 1946. filing to said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9. claimantappellant Miguel Peñaranda presented copies of several papers. Nevertheless. ATTY. 1946. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. They violated their oath when they resorted to deception. the inclusion of the Motion in the court's calendar on December 15. they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing thereof. 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. On June 25. thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. probity. to save Peñaranda the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.. which shows him to be wanting in moral character. the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule 15. RATIO: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Obviously. and good demeanor. was not entitled to any notice. they contend that complainant. A. in honesty. was done by respondent Susa in faithful performance of his ministerial duty. received the said Motion and noticed that it was set for hearing on December 15. as private prosecutor.For his part. 2000 and the Certificate of Detention was not attached. they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. Ms. his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. record on appeal.C. Peñaranda's attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the records be declared reconstituted. informed the court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals. Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora. thus. such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. Clerk III. Zamora acted in accordance with the Code of Professional Responsibility. CASE 38: Director of Lands vs. The courts. As regards the lack of notice of hearing. Zamora acted in accordance with the Code of Professional Responsibility. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. which was pending decision in the Court of Appeals when the war broke out. ISSUE/S: WON ATTY. the presiding judge instructed her to receive the Motion subject to the presentation of the Certificate of Detention before the hearing. Peña. acting under the highest standards of truthfulness. 8197 October 2.

C. HELD: Yes. 1975. ―If I shall be given another chance to continue handling the case. 1942. Angel G. after due hearing. The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation. He further admitted that the filing of the motion with the facts so stated ―might have caused some delay‖. but justifies such act by stating that ―such filing was prompted by some circumstances which we can consider as inevitable and unavoidable at the moment. Aquino failed to perform duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court in force at the time said acts were committed. and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. on December 22. signing his name as counsel for Victorino Flores and indicating the address of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office in Sampaloc. 1571 September 23. Respondent Aquino admitted that he only included such statement ―in order to give more ‗force‘‖ to the Urgent Motion for Postponement. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|29 . RATIO: The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just. His case was assigned to Atty. fair play and nobility as becoming a deserving member of the bar. Afurong vs. Afurong filed a complaint with the Court for disbarment against Atty. the petition was dismissed for having been filed out of time. Respondent Atty. 1975. The decision in the complaint for ejectment had reached finality and execution of such decision was being effected. report and recommendation. Aquino subsequently filed with the CFI of Manila a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. he decided to file a motion to postpone the pre-trial conference of the case. Zamora showed truthfulness. He also conceded that. for there was nothing more to be done in the proceedings and the same was declared closed and terminated. not wanting to remove the case from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office by appearing as private counsel for the petitioner and still unable to wait for his reinstatement which he was informed was forthcoming. Aquino. Such LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Atty. he indicated therein that he had to attend the hearing of another case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.‖ The court declared respondent guilty for making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. 1975. It was transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and disposition as provided in the Revised Rules of Court. be sent to the lower court for execution. he was no longer connected with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Atty. an employee of said office at the time. Aquino filed with the City Court of Manila a Petition for Relief from Judgment with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order. he admitted that at the time of the pre-trial on December 12. I promise that this mistake shall never be repeated. Afurong which has already reached finality. Atty. Angel G. Atty. CASE 39: Paraluman B. and misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino. Thus. Aquino for filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision. Notwithstanding the fact that he was separated from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office on October 1. for he was included as one of the employees purged. 1975. However. 1999 FACTS: Victorino Flores sought the assistance of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office regarding a complaint for ejectment filed by Paraluman B. promulgated on September 9.RATIO: The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Atty. 1975. 1975. a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court stated that a decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedings case. Furthermore. Angel G. Angel G. Atty. Aquino stated therein that he would be unable to attend the pre-trial conference on December 12. Manila. Atty. in order to give more ‗force‘ to the motion for postponement. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment. A. Aquino filed on December 11. However. He reasoned. as his office address. and that there was no hearing in connection with the case on December 12. Respondent Aquino denied the allegations contending that such acts had been done without malice. Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the same day as the pre-trial on December 12. committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement. 1975 because he needed to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the same day and hour. This resolution is being adopted not without making of record that the considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar. an Urgent Motion for Postponement. ISSUE/S: WON Atty.‖ He adds. No. Aquino should be punished/sanctioned for his actions in the said case. However.

Jr. During the hearing. Atty. Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. Florido FACTS: Natasha Florido and Atty.act violates the Canons of Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. Atty. The SC held that he is presumed to have participated in the fabrication of the Resolution.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. to impede. and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. By doing so. First. such means only as are consistent with truth and honor. It is worthy to note that the lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for conduct tending. That he was awaiting reinstatement to the same position at the time does not remove the fact that he was misrepresenting himself to the court. The IBP governors modified it and recommended a 6-year suspension from the practice of law. Doubting this to be true. they are estranged and living separately from each other. Second. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner. Natasha called up her lawyer but was informed that he had not received any Resolution. CASE 41: Re: Letter Of The Up Law Faculty Entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement By The Faculty Of The University Of The Philippines College Of Law On The Allegations Of Plagiarism And Misrepresentation In The Supreme Court. Attys. (the "Malaya Lolas"). H. Natasha filed a complaint alleging that James violated his oath by manufacturing. Natasha then agreed to allow the kids to sleep with James for one night on the condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City.01 and Rule 10. James went to Natasha‘s residence in Tanjay City. The counsel for Vinuya. The court found Atty. She was alarmed so she sought the assistance of Tanjay City Police. Rule 10. et al. she refused to give the custody of their children to James. James did not appear and petition for habeas corpus was dismissed. suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of the children. James Florido are married and have children. No. 10-10-4-SC. In case at bar. Aquino guilty of malpractice and suspendedhim from the practice of law for six (6) months. James Florido violated Canon 10. In the early morning of the following day. this is belied by the fact that he used and presented the spurious Resolution several times. obstruct. et al. when he sought the help of PNP of Tanjay to recover the custody of the children from Natasha. 2011 FACTS: For disposition of the Court are the various submissions of the 37 respondent law professors in response to the Resolution directing them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Romel Regalado Bagares filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration where they LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. flaunting. March 8. This was referred to the IBP-CBD and they recommended that James be suspended from the practice of law for 3 years. directly or indirectly. while Natasha and her children were at the ABC Learning Center. Natasha asked James for the original copy of the alleged Resolution but James only provided a photocopy of it. Their children are in the custody of Natasha. James filed with RTC a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children pursuant to the alleged Resolution issued by the CA.M. Atty. The ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo in Vinuya. He could have delegated the case to another lawyer in the same office. ISSUE/S: W/N James can be held liable administratively for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of CA HELD: Yes. v. he has violated his duty to employ. One day. CASE 40:Florido v. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|30 . Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office. and Atty. in his petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Executive Secretary was promulgated. Aquino stated false allegations in his motion for postponement which delayed the execution of a valid decision. Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their children be given to him pursuant to a Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which granted his motion for temporary child custody. A month after. She took the children. He threatened to forcefully take them away with the help of his companions whom he claimed to be agents of NBI. Although he claimed that he acted in good faith. Harry L. He was suspended for 2 years. for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him. she rushed to the hotel where James and the kids stayed before she learned that he has plans of taking the kids to Bacolod. in violation of Section 3 (d). Roque. or degrade the administration of justice. accompanied by armed men. James. and using a spurious CA Resolution. However." A.

RATIO: CANON 10 . but which reflects as signatories the names of thirty-seven (37) members of the faculty with the notation "(SGD. However.posited their charge of plagiarism claiming that "in this controversy. The Ethics Committee was given a copy of the signed UP Law Faculty Statement that showed on the signature pages the names of the full roster of the UP Law Faculty. Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II) by claiming that it is but expected in "live" public manifestos with dynamic and evolving pages as more and more signatories add their imprimatur thereto. or expressed their desire to be signatories to. fairness and good faith to the court. Indubitable from the actual signed copy of the Statement was that only 37 of the 81 faculty members appeared to have signed the same. or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Restoring Integrity I. the Statement was formally submitted to this Court at a specific point in time and it should reflect accurately its signatories at that point. Rules 10. a dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement. for the consideration of the Court en banc. To begin with. HELD: Yes. Dean Leonen has not offered any explanation why he deviated from this practice with his submission to the Court of Restoring Integrity II. Miguel R. submitted Restoring Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted" signature pages. there were no differences between the two. He believes that he had not committed any violation of Canon 10 for he did not mislead nor misrepresent to the Court the contents of the Statement or the identities of the UP Law faculty members who agreed with. Rule 10. Armovit signed the Statement although his name was not included among the signatories in the previous copies submitted to the Court. since the Statement‘s persuasive authority mainly depends on the reputation and stature of the persons who have endorsed the same. There was nothing to prevent the dean from submitting Restoring Integrity I to this Court even with its blanks and unsigned portions. Roque. The value of the Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies precisely in the identities of the persons who have signed it. or the text of a decision or authority. "Restoring Integrity I" bears the entire roster of the faculty of the UP College of Law in its signing pages. In due consideration of Dean Leonen‘s professed good intentions. Restoring Integrity I. the Court deems it sufficient to admonish the former for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required under Canon 10. Dean Leonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrity II was not a true and faithful reproduction of the actual signed copy. the Court said that live public manifesto or not. He attempts to downplay the discrepancies in the signature pages of the two versions of the Statement (i. Dean Leonen deliberately chose to submit to this Court the facsimile that did not contain the actual signatures and his silence on the reason therefor is in LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.e. the 37 actual signatories to the Statement did not include former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente V. because looking at the text or the body. Dean Leonen was directed to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10 for submitting. according to Dean Leonen‘s account. It also appeared that Atty. to the Court and. It would turn out. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|31 . 81 faculty members in all. Yet. that there were errors in the retyping of the signature pages due to lapses of his unnamed staff. the language or the argument of opposing counsel.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Mendoza as represented in the previous copies of the Statement submitted by Dean Leonen and Atty. the Statement.A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper.. instead. Dean Leonen‘s predicament is the fact that he did not from the beginning submit the signed copy.)". A statement entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" was submitted by Dean Leonen to the Court. In his Compliance. the evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but also of twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition. and the actual signatures of the thirty-seven (37) faculty members subject of the Show Cause Resolution while "Restoring Integrity II" does not bear any actual physical signature. ISSUE/S: WON Dean Leonen violated Canon 10.A lawyer owes candor.02 . or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment.

Balbuena deliberately made it appear that the quoted portions were LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Balbuena. both public school teachers. and Esbel Chua and Ruben Magluyoan. with his reputation for perfection and stringent standards of intellectual honesty. what he had was only hearsay information that the former intended to sign the Statement. with the court.P.02 of the CPR. Hon. They then conclude that since the election offense in question is punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years. moreover.R. On 25 August 1997. it is cognizable by Municipal Trial Courts.. Acting Presiding Judge.A. Noynay. vs. as presiding judge of Branch 23. 129 as amended by R. and orders inconsistent with its provisions are deemed repealed or modified accordingly. decrees. Respondent Judge violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Contrary to Dean Leonen‘s proposition. Regional Trial Court. The Court is surprised that someone like Dean Leonen. G. Yes. the petitioner filed this special civil action. Moreover. Tomas B. then Dean Leonen should have just resigned himself to the signatures that he was able to secure. Act No. 7691 expressly provides that all laws. The Court held that If Atty. Atty. RATIO: Counsel for petitioner. Branch 23. Yes. 7691 in arguing that the Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide election offenses" because pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code. a public school principal. but ALBERTO NALDOZA. WON respondent judge violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct HELD: 1. respondent Judge Tomas B. In the case of Justice Mendoza. Atty. 132365. 7691 has divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment. Private respondents maintain that R. The two motions for reconsideration separately filed by the COMELEC Regional Director of Region VIII and by the COMELEC itself through its Legal Department having been denied by the public respondent in the Order of 17 October 1997. ISSUE/S: 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 2. 7691. No. in both the motion for reconsideration and the petition. No. Noynay. 2. that is precisely tantamount to making it appear to the Court that a person or persons participated in an act when such person or persons did not. Petitioner violated Canon 10.itself a display of lack of candor. Balbuena was diligent enough. 1998 FACTS: In its Minute Resolution No. Jose P. the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed six years of imprisonment. R. If Dean Leonen was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness in his dealings with the Court. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|32 . Jr. Blg. al. If it was truly impossible to secure some signatures. CASE 42: Commission On Elections. the court sees no reason why he could not have waited until all the professors who indicated their desire to sign the Statement had in fact signed before transmitting the Statement to the Court as a duly signed document. must be admonished for his utter carelessness in his reference to the case against Judge Juan Lavilles. he would have known that the correct name of the complainant in the case referred to is neither Alberto Naldeza as indicated in the motion for reconsideration nor Alberto alone as stated in the petition. the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to file an information for violation of Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code against private respondents Diosdada Amor.A. such as that of Justice Mendoza who had to leave for abroad. In the motion for Reconsideration he filed. No. motu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law Department to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court on the ground that pursuant to Section 32 of B. Worse. 96-3076 of 29 October 1996.. the case was not reported in volume 245 of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) as falsely represented in the paragraph 16 of the petition. for having engaged in partisan political activities. could proffer the explanation that there was no misrepresentation when he allowed at least one person to be indicated as having actually signed the Statement when all he had was a verbal communication of an intent to sign. The COMELEC authorized its Regional Director in Region VIII to handle the prosecution of the cases. Director IV of petitioner's Law Department. It contends that public respondent "has erroneously misconstrued the provisions of Rep. July 9.A. et. but in volume 254 of the SCRA. WON petitioner violated Canon 10.

and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the Companies). Balbuena is ADMONISHED to be more careful in the discharge of his duty to the court as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility. value or amount thereof: Provided. as any.A. as such acting president.. the quoted portion is just a part of the memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision. and he was soon receiving P900 a month. The Insular Life Assurance Co.. they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof It is obvious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B. they might be replaced. Enaje was hired on or about February 19. 129. of his duty to be studious of the principles of law. nature. 1958 the Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga. and was likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of Justice. The complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1) interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action. in a circular issued in his name and signed by him. the Metropolitan Trial Courts. by warning them that if they did not return to work on or before June 2.. the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department. Jose P. On the other hand. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction. and (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine.. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Court. No. and. FGU Insurances Group CPR 10. further. Thereafter. or. however. Blg. to no avail.01. or P600 more than he was receiving from the FFW. and paid overtime. the instant petition is GRANTED. Ltd. Employees Association-NATU. That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence.. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. — Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. as well as other judges. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. provides as follows: Sec. A-1439 and A1442 to A-1449 are SET ASIDE. It is thus an opportune time. 32. The truth is. Employees Association-NATU v.P. to be faithful to the law. CASE 43: The Insular Life Assurance Co. by sending out individual letters to them urging them to abandon their strike and return to work. Garcia. irrespective of kind. under Section 32 of B.2 FACTS: The Insular Life Assurance Co. entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co. Noynay of 25 August 1997 and 17 October 1997 in Criminal Cases Nos.. Canon 3: A Judge should perform official duties honestly. tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). and with impartiality and diligence adjudicative responsibilities. our own words. Blg.. ADMONISHED to faithfully comply with Canons 4 and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Rule 3. On May 20. Ltd. free coffee and movies. to remind him. with a promise of comfortable cots.P. including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon. Atty. and to maintain professional competence. 7691. 1957 as personnel manager of the Companies. subsequently. the latter was formerly the secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life Building Employees Association. Respondent Judge is DIRECTED to try and decide said cases with purposeful dispatch and. as amended. and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. Rule 10. Municipal Trial Courts. FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU. On July administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself. 129 as amended by Section 2 of R. Ltd. 1958. put a little differently. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|33 .findings or rulings. Ltd. 1958 the CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies under Republic Act 875. while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). and (2) discriminating against the members of LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The challenged orders of public respondent Judge Tomas B. and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU (hereinafter referred to as the Unions). Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia.

however. Mallari wittingly adopted his aforedescribed worthless and vexatious legal maneuvers for no other purpose except to delay the full enforcement of the writ of possession. 7802 which has already been resolved with finality by the Supreme Court. rendered on August 17. that as a non-redeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn both the extrajudicial foreclosure and the ex parte issuance of the writ of LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. as well as lawyers and litigants.000. This was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc in a resolution promulgated on October 20. and to have the unhampered possession of the foreclosed property. rendering unassailable both the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale. 1965 a decision dismissing the Unions' complaint for lack of merit. through Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez.the Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership and degree of participation in the strike.000. Imperial. On August 4. it is the bounden duty of courts. Petitioner. On August 31.000. "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. as well as be saved precious time in finding out whether the citations are correct.2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. The RTC decided in his favor. Yet. RATIO: Be that as it may. GSIS finally commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against him because he had meanwhile made no further payments. we must articulate our firm view that in citing this Court's decisions and rulings. to the detriment of other courts. there is a salient and salutary reason why they should do this. partly because of the Mallari‘s request for an extension of time within which to vacate the properties. despite knowing. HELD: Yes. 1965 the Unions seasonably filed their motion for reconsideration of the said decision. 157659. judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. 1066) that "[O]nly the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction. appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation. ISSUE/S: WON there was a violated made in the Canon 10. This is because the decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which reads. 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Mallari obtained two loans totaling P34. Mallari. But if inferior courts and members of the bar meticulously discharge their duty to check and recheck their citations of authorities culled not only from this Court's decisions but from other sources and make certain that they are verbatim reproductions down to the last word and punctuation mark.00 from GSIS. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|34 . he paid GSIS about ten years after contracting the obligations only P10. the petitioner did not voluntarily vacate the properties. No. ISSUE/S: WON Mallari was guilty of misconduct for dilatory tactics to stall the execution of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. which reversed the RTC. GSIS appealed the adverse decision to the CA. stating special defenses therein. When elevated to the SC. Mallari sued GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga to enjoin them from proceeding against him. G.00 and P20. After trial on the merits. and asking for the dismissal of the complaint. CA decision became final and executory. lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. but instead filed a motion quash the writ of execution and commenced a second case against GSIS and the provincial sheriff. vs. and their supporting memorandum on September 10. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts. the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning. et al. However. being himself a lawyer. There was a violation made." are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. What followed thereafter was the series of inordinate moves of the Mallari to delay the efforts of GSIS to recover on the debt. The sheriff failed to serve the writ of exectution on Mallari. Indeed. et al. the Court of Industrial Relations. He mortgaged two parcels of land registered under his and his wife‘s names. 1958 the Companies filed their answer denying all the material allegations of the complaint.00 a few months after. Government Service Insurance System And The Provincial Sheriff Of Pampanga. We said in no uncertain terms in Miranda. (77 Phil. It is noted that GSIS acceded to the request. 1965.R. ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted. the Court affirmed CA‘s decision. 1965. January 25. vs. nullifying the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale." Thus. take their bearings. CASE 44: Eligio P.

when Atty. Atty. Pimentel to receive copies of all court documents pertinent to the cases he handles. Pimentel. It argued that it was only on October 21. Also. cannot be excused because this is his duty. Energy Corp. Pimentel. Sec. it was returned to the court with a note that Atty. Such is required for legal counsels. 1985 that they knew of the decision (the one sent to the address of Atty. Rule 13 of the [Old] Rules of Court designates Atty. Rule 13. the counsel of Vill Transport. it continues to argue that because their legal counsel was not served a copy of the decision. but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster. the SC categorically stated that the requirement of conclusive proof of LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. and that the enforcement of the dulyissued writ of possession could not be delayed. Court of Appeals. ISSUE/S: WON the failure of Atty. Vill Transport filed an urgent motion for reconsideration and manifested to the court an intention to appeal the decision ordering Vill Transport to pay for damages.03. However. Vill Transport admits the negligence on the part of its counsel. the present appeal. It held that Atty. the same rule cannot be applied. is excusable HELD: It is not excusable. Pimentel on June 7). arguing that they were deprived of their right to appeal. Also. 1985. This is negligence on his part. Pimentel had moved out without leaving a forwarding address. Inc. unless the court otherwise provides. 8. Court of Appeals.‖ Atty. Vill Transport was found guilty of breach of contract (with Energy Corp. he failed to notify the court of his new address. they invoke their right to due process. and the same was granted on September 19. and his failure to inform the court of changes in his address. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any failure on the part of the counsel is binding upon his client. A month later. by which he was enjoined as a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure and xxx not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. the five-day period for appeal the court observed in this case cannot be valid.execution cum writ of possession. Energy Corp. The procedure he did not observe is provided for in the [Old] Rules of Court. However. However. However. This is negligence on the part of Atty. Without waiting for the MR to be resolved by the lower court.. v. opposed this MR. and the decision of the lower court finding Vill Transport guilty of breach of contract shall be immediately executory. the court decision was sent via registered mail to the address of Atty. Dela Cruz).) and was ordered to pay damages. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of five (5) days after mailing. RATIO: Atty. 8: ―Sec. Pimentel moved out. It requires him to ‗observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice‘. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|35 . but the court cannot tolerate this error. Completeness of service — Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Petition is dismissed.03. It is unfortunate for Vill Transport to lose the case due to the negligence of its counsel. He thus deliberately abused court procedures and processes. In one case (Dela Cruz v. in accordance with the Rules of Court. Pimentel was duty-bound to notify the court of any change of address and his failure to do so could not be excused. Pimentel had his address recorded with the Court so that the latter may serve him official documents there. On June 7. in order to enable himself to obstruct and stifle the fair and quick administration of justice in favor of mortgagee and purchaser GSIS. on the other hand. The Energy Corporation. Amante Pimentel (Mandaluyong). Hence. and they did not receive a copy of the writ of execution. 1985. motioned the court for a writ of execution of the decision. Pimentel violated Rule 10. in Antonio vs. to which all court documents shall be sent. service shall take effect at the expiration of such time. and the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC of Makati (1991) FACTS: In a civil case. Vill Transport filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals. argues that Sec. 8. This was denied by the CA. Pimentel to inform the Court of the change in his address. which is recorded in the court." CASE 45: Vill Transport Service. Energy Corp. with the element of negligence present in this case. the Supreme Court adopted the more stringent rule of requiring not only that the notice of the registered mail be sent but that it should also be delivered to and received by the addressee. to have the first judgment set aside. Three months after. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His conduct contravened Rule 10.

Concordia B. Villalon further claims he could not refuse the request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed was the ―oppressed party‖ in the transaction. The 1999 suit was re-filed but was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and prescription. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. in her certificate of non-forum shopping.03. says that he inserted in defense of his client's right only such remedies as were authorized by law. The Court cannot tolerate the negligence and ineptitude of lawyers who wantonly jeopardize the interests of their clients. Six years later. on the other hand.‖ To tolerate this negligence will be injurious to the administration of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court‘s processes. asserts that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of AlRasheed. In this disbarment case. Garcia seeks the disbarment of Atty. The service at the old address should be considered valid. He denied that he was forum shopping as Al-Rasheed. He should so arrange matters that official and judicial communications sent by mail will reach him promptly and should he fail to do so. the notice was sent to the lawyer's given address but did not reach him because he had moved therefrom without informing the court of his new location. RATIO: A lawyer‘s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the ex pense of truth and justice. Despite repeated verbal and written demands.receipt of the registry notice "presupposes that the notice is sent to the correct address as indicated in the records of the court. Francisco FACTS : Concordia B. The case was dismissed for improper venue. On March 9. In 1993. It does not apply where. 1964. commenced various suits before different courts to thwart Garcia's right to regain her property and that all these proceedings were decided against Lee. must suffer the consequence of his negligence. Lee refused to vacate after the expiration of the lease. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|36 . Francisco. Garcia and her husband Godofredo. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed repeatedly sued Petitioner Pablo Olivares for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Paranaque. and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede. disclosed the two previous cases involving the same cause of action which had been filed and dismissed. 1964. VILLALON FACTS: Respondent Atty.‘s client. A subsequent petition for review on certiorari was also denied. thus violating the proscription against forum-shopping. AlRasheed through Villalon sought for a review of the order for dismissing but the Court of Appeals denied such. ISSUE: WON Villalon violated Rule 10. Atty. The proceedings stemmed from the said lease contract and involved the same issues and parties. as in the case at bar. the Dionisio spouses. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. in his comment. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. and Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leashed a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years beginning May 1. A six-month suspension is the penalty but it can no longer be imposed because of the death of Villalon in 27 September 2006 therefore it renders this disciplinary case moot and academic. the complainant claims that Lee's counsel. CASE 46: OLIVARES v. on 1 July 1999 an action for breach of contract with damages was filed but was also dismissed for failure to prosecute. a case was filed for an action for damages and prohibition with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. there will be non-termination of cases. not only he but his client as well. CASE 47: Concordia B. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or wilful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts. Villalon. Garcia v. Respondent. Arsenio Villalon Jr. obstruct and degrade justice. Lee claimed that he had an option to extend the lease for another 5 years and the right of pre-emption over the property. Crisanto L. Crisanto L. respondent Francisco.

asserts that under Sec 13. stating that: (1) the petition was denied wholly on the basis of technicality. He does not deny the authenticity of the statement as it has been published. Sotto 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. HELD : YES. He alleged that the court committed a reversible error. not only as a punishment for his misconduct but also as a warning to other lawyers who may be influenced by his example. Atty. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court For this serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. or intended to attack the honesty or integrity of any one. Vicente Sotto was required to reason why he should not be punished for contempt in connection with his written statement of the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Angel Parazo's case. An attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts. who he thinks. to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney. The respondent was aware of this fact when he wilfully resorted to the gambits summarized above. ISSUE/S: WON Sotto is guilty for contempt of court hence punished HELD: Yes. He also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. He then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. he was disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. the court denied the Motion for Reconsideration with finality.ISSUE/S : WON respondent violated the Lawyer‘s Oath to not delay any man for money or malice. and although his answer was filed after the expiration of the period of time given him the said answer was admitted. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. Mario Fortes challenged the court‘s decision in a case filed by his client. he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct. and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. as he should have expected. the Supreme Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens. and has to be promulgated by Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive. Court of Appeals FACTS: Atty. practice. RATIO: As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. and procedure. He filed the instant petition but the court denied it because he failed to prove his allegation. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|37 . erroneously decided Parazo‘s case. (2) the denial did not consider the fraud sought to be stopped. and it can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law. and (3) the court disregarded the purpose of judicial proceedings. continuously seeking relief that was consistently denied. which confers upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. Sotto is fined PHP 1. CASE 48: In Re Vicente Sotto for Contempt of Court FACTS: Atty. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Vicente Sotto is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court. which was published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in the locality.000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and he is also required to show cause why he should not be disbarred. he is hereby SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR from the practice of law and from the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges appurtenant to membership of the Philippine bar. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice. He nevertheless. he deserves to be sanctioned. that of seeking the truth in upholding the fake and falsified OCT of the Tuazons. Article VIII of the Constitution. Jr. but he has not attacked. petitioner Aguido Lacson. RATIO:The cause of the respondent's client is obviously without merit. Sotto was given ten days besides the five days originally given to him to file his answer. In a Resolution. Accordingly. CASE 49: Lacson v. Sotto is found guilty for knowingly publishing false imputations against the members of the court.

The court then directed Fortes to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court and liable for misconduct for his apparent malicious and unfounded accusation that the court did not read the petition and for suppressing from the petition‘s body the final decision of Lacson‘s case. Fortes admitted the charge but explained that it was his first time to file a petition of such nature and his enthusiasm got the best of him. On the other hand, the court said that Fortes should know, or ought to know, the nature, character and scope of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Fortes should have been candid enough in the petition for review to disclose in its body the fact that the case he handled was actually a petition to annul a decision. The court considered that the suppression of the antecedents must have been deliberate since Fortes must have known that a voluntary disclosure would be fatal to Lacson‘s cause. The court found Fortes did an immeasurable disservice to the court by putting it into dishonor, disrespect, and public contempt, diminishing public confidence or promoting distrust in the court, and assailing the integrity of its members. ISSUE/S: WON Fortes failed to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to its judicial officers. HELD: Yes. Fortes failed to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to its judicial officers. He is ordered to pay a fine and warned that a commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. RATIO: Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ―a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.‖ In the case of Salcedo v. Hernandez, the court held that a lawyer is duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court and defend its integrity not only because he is conferred with a privilege of being a priest of justice but also because in doing so, he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice. He helps in preventing anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent, which is the source of disorder that undermines the foundation of judicial power.

The court recognizes that a lawyer, in defending the cause and rights of his clients, has the duty to do so with all fervor and energy. However, this is not enough reason for him to resort to intimidation or proceed without propriety and respect the dignity of the courts requires. The respect of the courts is required of lawyers because it guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty, this institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. In the case of Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel , the court held that a lawyer is an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice and he has the duty to preserve faith in the courts. He has the sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of justice. Fortes‘ argument that it was his first time to file such a petition is not an excuse. It should even give him more reason to demonstrate utmost candor and respect for the court. A client‘s cause does not permit a lawyer to cross the line between liberty and license as a lawyer‘s duty is not only to his client but also with the courts. CASE 50: Spouses Tiongco v The Honorable Severino C. Aguilar FACTS: On 26 September 1994, this Court required ATTY. JOSE B. TIONGCO, as counsel for the petitioners, to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for the violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility considering the language that he used in describing the actions and omissions of the judge that handled his case. Atty. Tiongco likewise alleged that the Court did not bother reading the pleadings of his petition saying: ". . . Truly, it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition and the annexes attached thereto and hold that the same has "failed to sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering the questioned judgment". . . Atty. Tiongco went on further alleging that: ―If the undersigned has called anyone a "liar" "thief" "perfidious" and "blasphemer" it is because he is in fact a liar, thief, perfidious and blasphemer; "this Honorable First Division, however, forget, that the undersigned also called him a "robber" , a "rotten manipulator" and "abetter" of graft and shady deals; On the other hand, if the undersigned called anybody "cross-eyed," it must be because he is indeed cross-eyed — particularly when he sees but five letters in an


eight letter-word; Indeed, it must be a lousy Code of Professional Responsibility and therefore stands in dire need of amendment which punishes lawyer who truthfully expose incompetent and corrupt judges before this Honorable Supreme Court; It is therefore, respectfully submitted, that for all his pains, the undersigned does not deserve or is entitled to the honors of being dealt with administratively or otherwise.‖ ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Tiongco violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through the use of disrespectful words in his briefs. HELD: Yes. Atty Tiongco, in view of his unfounded and malicious insinuation, violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RATIO: CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. In using in the petition in this case intemperate and scurrilous words and phrases against the respondent judge which are obviously uncalled for and entirely irrelevant to the petition and whose glaring falsity is easily demonstrated by the respondent judge's decision if favor of Atty. Tiongco and his wife in their case for recovery of possession and damages, and by the dismissal of the instant petition for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion, Atty. Tiongco has equally shown his disrespect to and contempt for the respondent judge, thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and eventually, in the judiciary, or sowing mistrust in the administration of justice. CASE 51: BOQUIREN v. DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ FACTS: Herein complainant, Atty. Felixberto Boquiren was the plaintiff‘s counsel in a certain civil case, where herein respondents, Atty. Saturnino Bactad, was defendant‘s counsel, and Judge Emperatriz del Rosario -Cruz and Atty. Melinda Gatdula, were the judge and clerk of court, respectively of the MTC where the said civil case was docketed. Judge Cruz dismissed the civil case due to plaintiff‘s lack of cause of action which Atty. Boquiren, seasonably appealed to the RTC. On July 5, 1993, Atty. Boquiren filed an administrative complaint against Judge Cruz and Atty. Gatdula for misconduct, partiality, serious nonfeasance, culpable dereliction of duty and ignorance of the law in relation to the aforementioned civil case. Atty. Bactad was also charged with false representation and employing scheme to defeat the

application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, alleging Atty. Bactad‘s claim and false representation that a motion to dismiss is an allowable pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Proceedings. On Jan. 26, 1994, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice to the refilling of an administrative case in the proper time since there is already an appeal pending with the RTC in relation to the aforementioned civil case wherein relief is available. Atty. Boquiren filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court on March 2, 1994. Atty. Boquiren filed another motion for reconsideration dated March 26, 1994. Both motions for reconsideration filed by Atty. Boquiren contained certain words which tend to undermine the integrity of the Court. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Boquiren is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes, Atty. Boquiren is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. RATIO: Atty. Boquiren violated Canon 11 which states that ― A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.‖ It appears that the words used by Atty. Boquiren are aimed at seriously undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court. Atty. Boquiren is ordered to explain within 5 days from receipt of the Resolution why he should not be cited in contempt and/or subject to disciplinary action. CASE 52: Socorro Abella Soriano, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100633, August 28, 2001 FACTS: Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes pleaded that they were employed by Socorro as manager and administrative assistant of her property and real estate in 1968. As payment for their services, in 1973, 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. In the same building, another unit was occupied by the spouses which was improved and converted by them into a pub and restaurant. For the use of the premises, the token amount of P1500 monthly was imposed. On October 17, 1988, Socorro gave Deogracias and Rosalina notice to vacate the said two units. Deogracias and Rosalina owned two commercial lots with improvements. On May 28, 1968, they becameindebted to Socorro in the


amount of P638,635.36. The parties agreed to pay for the debt by selling the two lots for P2.5M. While looking for a buyer, Deogracias and Rosalina conveyed the property to Socorro by way of first mortgage. A deed of absolute sale was executed in place of a real estate mortgage. 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. On October 28, 1988, the spouses paid the filing fee and legal research. On November 29, 1988, Socorro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: the first cause of action was barred by the pendency of an ejectment case between the same parties over the same parties; the second cause of action was premature On December 8, 1988, the Carmelite Sisters on behalf of their benefactress filed with the trial court an urgent ex-parte motion for restraining order. 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. On December 16, 1988, the Trial Court denied the motion. On January 16, 1989, Socorro, through counsel, filed a motion to inhibit Judge Naval; while still a law practitioner and politician, he was a frequent customer of the restaurant of the spouses and was a good friend of his; he was also a good friend of the attorney of the spouses, Trial Court denied motion to inhibit ISSUE/S: WON the Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to inhibit HELD: No. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides only the following grounds for the disqualification of judges- No judge or judicial officershall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, ispeculiarly interested as heir, legatee, creditor orotherwise, or in which he is related to either partywithin the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, orto counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which hehas been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee orcounsel, or in which he has presided in any inferiorcourt when his ruling or decision is the subject ofreview, without the written consent of all parties ininterest signed by them and entered upon the record.A judge may, in his exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or validreasons other than those mentioned above. A litigant may not demand that a judge inhibit himself. Specially so in this case where there is a finding of fact that ―respondent judge has not as yet crossed the line that divides partiality from impartiality. Besides, the test

for determining the propriety of the denial of a motion to inhibit is whether the movant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial. In this case, there was no such deprivation. In a string of cases, the Supreme Court has said that bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice CASE 53: Re: Letter Dated February 21, 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda. FACTS:Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, who identified himself as ―member, Philippine Bar‖, expressed his frustrations over the unfavorable outcome of and the manner by which the Court resolved cases filed by him. Atty. Sorreda wrote a letter to the SC Chief Justice after the dismissal of a case filed by him, expressing his frustrations about the decision, the letter contains the following: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the manner the Court comported itself in the aforesaid case is totally execrable and atrocious, entirely unworthy of the majesty and office of the highest tribunal of the land. It is the action not of men of reason or those who believe in the rule of law, but rather of bullies and tyrants from whom “might is right.” I say, shame on the High Court, for shoving down a hapless suitor’s throat a ruling which, from all appearances, it could not justify. The SC required Atty. Sorreda to show cause why he should not be properly disciplined ―for degrading, insulting and dishonoring the Supreme Court by using vile, offensive, intemperate and contemptuous derogatory language against it‖. Then, Atty. Sorreda wrote two more letters to the court, arguing for the propriety of his action and practically lecturing the Court on his concepts of Legal and Judicial Ethics and Constitutional Law. ISSUE/S: WON responsibility. Atty. Sorreda violated the Code of professional

HELD: Yes, heis found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. He is hereby indefinitely


Sebastian is liable for contempt due to the derogatory things that he said HELD: Yes. Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|41 . They wish to exhaust all the means within out power in order that this error may be corrected by the very court which has committed it.Atty. ridicule. resort to the press publicly to denounce. RATIO: Counsel should conduct himself towards the judges who try his cases with that courtesy all have a right to expect. Francisco. Sebastian to answer why he should not be punished. Sebastian are plainly contemptuous and disrespectful. the Court is duty-bound ―to act to preserve its honor and dignity … and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession‖. it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice. Sebastian failed to observe this. As an officer of the court. sometimes. He also said that it is only ―a statement of fact and of their wish. Sorreda has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and constructive criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the municipality of Tiaong. this does not give him the unbridled license to insult and malign the Court and bring it into disrepute. Counsel's disavowal of any offensive intent is of no avail. because they should not want that some citizen. and reference to the recent killing of two employees is but a covert threat upon the members of the Court. that his client petitioner Paragas prays for a reconsideration of the resolution the Court has given on ground that it ―constitutes a violation of the most important right in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Philippines. must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one‘s irrational obsession to demean. July 30. Atty. acting as counsel de parte for petitioner Rosauro Paragas. the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the victim. is entitled to criticize the rulings of this Court. as he has a right to do. Hernandez FACTS: Atty. Free expression. Against such an assault. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. to armed force and to the ways of the cave-men! We do not want Verzosa and Reyes repeated again and again. ―when the laws and the rules are violated. the victims. Here. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. But. who represents the petitioner inserted a paragraph in his motion for reconsideration stating that denying the motion for reconsideration. No. Sorreda.‖ Considering that the foregoing expressions are derogatory to the dignity of the Court. a culpable violation which is a ground for impeachment‖ He also mentioned in his written motion. for it is a well-known and established rule that defamatory words are to be taken in the ordinary meaning attached to them by impartial observers. G. resort to armed force and to the ways of the cavemen. Civility among members of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it. The expressions contained in the written motion of Atty. That based on observation. Sebastian said that he did not intend to file an impeachment against the Justices and that it is a ―herculean‖ task which only exceptional men can do. Tayabas. as a citizen and as an officer of the court. Sebastian. when the laws and the rules are violated. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. the victims resort.R.‖ He finally contended that he is just against repetition of these acts of subversion and hate. and because it is their utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed with error. killed in the premises of the Supreme Court and in those of the City Hall of Manila.SUSPENDED as a member of the Bar and is prohibited from engaging in the practice of law until otherwise ordered by this Court. Jeremias T. Tayabas. Atty. stated in his written motion. CASE 54: Rosauro Paragas vs. L-24438. degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates. sometimes. to which his client‘s success is wholly subordinate. after all. certainly. That such threats and disrespectful language contained in a pleading filed in Courts are constitutive of direct contempt. Atty Sebastian is liable for contempt due to the derogatory things that he said. particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong. the Court required Atty. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum. 1965 FACTS: Atty. Fernando A. Cruz. CASE 55: Salcedo v. RATIO: Atty.

On the very same day. 1975 and required the respondents to make a [return] of the writ not later than the aforesaid date. the petition alleged that he was not set free. Warden of Makati FACTS: Petitioner in the case at bar. Ana has not filed the amended information for homicide. The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. the reason being that on November 19. in the very same case where your petitioner was convicted and for which he served sentence. Salvador N.. 1975. Sta. It may result in the long run in making of lawyers weak exponents of their clients' causes. informed the movant (respondent Asst. and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts require. the last day of the prison term imposed upon him. Neither petitioner nor his counsel. respectfully manifests that he has already been released from confinement. he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice. 1975. Beltran. Atty. RATIO: As a member of the bar and an officer of the court. That period of confinement he had duly served by November 10. It was later amended to one of serious physical injuries. Atty. respondent Judge Reynaldo P. Respect for the courts can better be obtained by following a calm and impartial course from the bench than by an attempt to compel respect for the judiciary by chastising a lawyer for a too vigorous or injudicious exposition of his side of a case. 1971.honorable court and of each and every member thereof in the eyes of the public. which the affected party and his thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust. Francisco is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and defend its integrity. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|42 . 15289. 1975. Sta. 1975. J. jealous of the interests of their clients and unafraid of any court. should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable. But. The court required Atty. On the date of trial. 1975. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Francisco can be held in contempt HELD: Yes. a 'Motion to Order the Warden to Hold the Release of Manuel de Gracia (your petitioner)' alleging as a ground that the 'father of the victim. the present petition for habeas corpus has become moot and academic. increase the proselytes of " sakdalism" and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice. ISSUE/S: WON the petitioner‘s counsel. "respondent Assistant Provincial Fiscal Marciano P. Beltran violated Rule 11. December 12.. It is to such lesser offense that on September 10. Ana. not the People of the Philippines). but it is not. according to him it is not contempt to tell the truth. Salvador N.. Judge Honrado stated that the Petitioner is already released due to the fact that Trial Fiscal Sta. considering that he had been under detention since July 18. this Court issued the following resolution: "The Court [issued] the writ of habeas corpus returnable to this Court on Friday. giving him a period of 10 days for that purpose. and the two aforesaid wardens appeared. in defending the cause and rights of his client. but also because in doing so. Criminal Case No. at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous decisions like these. De Gracia was charged for frustrated homicide to which he pleaded not guilty. said institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Fiscal. CASE 56: De Garcia v. Dissenting Opinion Malcolm. Honrado imposed upon him the penalty of four months and one day of arrests mayor without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege not a right of being what he is now.01. December 16. 1971. he entered a plea of guilty. was present. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. There was this manifestation though: '[Petitioner thru counsel. respondent Assistant Provincial Fiscal Marciano P. It is right and plausible that an attorney. This notwithstanding. Jr. for which reason the present petition has been rendered moot and academic . Gilberts Valenzuela. On the morning Deeember 17. Ana filed with the respondent Judge. and the courts will do well tolerantly to overlook occasional intemperate language soon to be regretted by the lawyer which affects in no way the outcome of a case. high or low. Francisco reiterated them several times contending that they did not constitute contempt because. Without such guaranty. that the victim in the above-entitled case died and for this reason the undersigned will file an amended information. It was also stated that in view of the petitioner‘s release. On December 8.: Human sensitiveness to an attorney's unjust aspersions on judicial character may induce too drastic action. He is ordered to pay a fine of P200 within the period of 10 days and was reprimanded. In his answer. The Philippines needs lawyers of independent thought and courageous bearing. Francisco to show cause why he should not be found guilty of contempt.

extended a loan amounting to Php 1 Million. a lapse explicable. acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. therefore. RATIO: It would appear. CASE 57: Paredes-Garcia vs. petitioner filed her explanation and further averred that she has never been late in court and that she has never been fined nor ordered to explain for tardiness in any hearing. This was also paid in due to time. the respondent Judge disregarded the requirements of due process in contempt proceedings and. Due to financial constraints. In due time. respondent Court of Appeals should be required to justify its decision which completely disregarded the basic laws on obligations and contracts. This is one positive step in ridding our courts of law of incompetent and dishonest magistrates especially members of a superior court of appellate jurisdiction. That disposes of this petition.00. Petitioner then filed for reconsideration but was later denied by the respondent judge. that with the release of petitioner. petitioner and prosecutor arrived late. an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Acme Shoe Rubber and Plastic Corp. On April 11. This sanction was grounded on her inappropriate dealings with the court personnel and the judge. which in a way is considered to be a show of disrespect to the courts. deliberation and due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of the individual. CASE 58: Acme Shoe Rubber and Plastic Corp." ISSUE/S: Should the counsel be held liable for the said statements made in their reply to the comment? LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. the counsel stated in his ―One Final Word‖: "In simply quoting in toto the patently erroneous decision of the trial court. executed a chattel mortgage in favour of private respondent Producers Bank of the Philippines. as well as the clear provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law and well-settled jurisprudence of this Honorable Court. Subsequently they obtained another loan totalling Php 2. On 1984. Salvador N.. Respondent judge then ordered petitioner to explain within 72 hours why she arrived late to court. On April 12. that in the event that its explanation is wholly unacceptable. On their reply to the respondent‘s comment on his petition. RATIO: The court held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.01: A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. The mortgage stood by way of security for petitioner‘s corporate loan of Php 3 Million. It suffices to call his attention to such failing by way of guidance for his future actuations as a member of the bar. the matter had indeed become moot and academic. Beltran should have appeared in court hearing. Rule 11. Thus. the lone was not settled and the bank initiated an action for extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage with the Sheriff of Caloocan. this Honorable Court should impose appropriate sanctions on the erring justices. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|43 . In the present case. CA FACTS: The petitioner. Thereafter. It must be used with caution restraint. Makati City where respondent is assigned as presiding judge. this petition. the bank yet again. upon hearing of Criminal Cases. therefore. In finding the petitioner guilty of the aforementioned acts and imposing upon her the penalty of a fine without granting her an opportunity to answer the imputed falsehood and improprieties and an opportunity to be heard. respondent judge issued an order citing the petitioner in contempt of court and directed her to pay within 72 hours a penalty in the amount of P100. by his comparative inexperience and paucity of practice before this Tribunal. However. ISSUE/S: WON petitioner was correctly cited in contempt by respondent judge. the president and general manager of copetitioner. the lawyer did not even bother to attend the hearing. the said loan was paid by the petitioner. Beltran who did not even take the trouble of appearing in Court on the very day his own petition was reset for hearing. was deputized at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City and assigned at the Regional Trial Court (RTC). judiciousness. except for one final note. Producers Bank of the Philippines and Regional Sheriff of Caloocan City FACTS:Petitioner Chua Pac. it may be assumed. Respondent judge failed to observe the rule of conduct in the exercise of the power to punish the petitioner for contempt of court. this power is not limitless. They also appealed to the Court of Appeals but it only affirmed ―in all respects‖ the decision of the trial court. vs CA. 1996.HELD: Yes. HELD: No. Branch 58.7 Million. The petitioner filed an action for injunction but this was dismissed by the said RTC and held the corporation bound by the stipulations of their chattel mortgage. There was a lapse in judicial propriety by counsel Salvador N. 1995.

WON Sotto‘s charges against the adverse litigants cannot be considered in the present case for they are not the offended parties in the same. He did limit his slurs to the Chief Justice and Justice Castro.' This respectful attitude towards the court is to be observed. he attacks the petitioners in that case (including the Executive Secretary) of having made wild. De los Angeles. There is the not too well concealed effort on the part of a losing litigant‘s attorney to downgrade the court. He filed for a motion to inhibit the Chief Justice and a justice from judging the case.‖ Atty. democratic tribunal. it offends the court in which it is made. 1970 FACTS: After a decision adverse to respondent MacArthur International Minerals Co. Inc. Santiago a style that undermines and degrades the administration of justice. Atty. There shall be no doubt in the power of the Court to punish Atty. et. a fire broke out in the premises of Tapia at San Francisco del Monte. RATIO:"(L)awyers x x x 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. L-27072. Sotto for contempt under the circumstances. No. Quezon City. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Vicente Santiago and Jose Beltran Sotto (both members of the Bar) were brought to this Court with the suggestion of disciplinary action. HELD: 1. counsel for petitioners.R. RATIO: (1) Atty. Such language is not protected. He questions the ―u njudicial favoritism‖ for the petitioners of that case by the Court. It is Sotto‘s duty as a member of the Bar ―to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness. De LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. among them the British Co. it surfaces the of feeling of contempt towards a litigant. `not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office. Cloribel. A lawyer is an officer of this court. Further averring that their proposition is corrupt on its face and lays bare the immoral arrogant attitude of the petitioners. (2) A lawyer‘s language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.' 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. ISSUE/S: 1.HELD: Atty. Atty. v. is admonished to be circumspect in dealing with the courts. al. Sotto. pleading all who have received favors from any of those connected to the petitioners of that cse to inhibit themselves. The Court finds the language he used that is not expected from an officer of the courts. in his statements in his memoranda. He depicts the judicial authorities as acting like messengers of God and that their judgment would seem to be ordained by the Almighty. he is. Santiago justifies his language stating that it was necessary for the defense of his client.Yes. The Court finds in the language of Atty. an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. disrespectful statements purportedly made by its counsels. No. al. Being holders of fire insurance policies from different companies. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|44 . 1970. G. Francisco Sotto. Inc. and having failed to secure extrajudicial settlement of their claims. He is guilty of contempt. Santiago‘s accusations has no basis in fact and in law.'" CASE 59: Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. 2. he pictures petitioners as ―vulturous executives.‖ CASE 60: British Co. but the whole court. Atty.‖ and goes on to describe the court as ―civilized. in his third motion for reconsideration. FACTS:On June 12. Discipline and self-restraint on the part of the bar even under adverse conditions are necessary for the orderly administration of justice... January 9. 2. et. Santiago is guilty of contempt of court. Counsel‘s words are intended to create an atmosphere of distrust. WON Santiago‘s language in his pleadings can be equated to contempt.. ―like the court itself.‖ only to later question the soundness of said decision of the same tribunal. they filed corresponding civil actions in the CFI of QC. A client‘s cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. All were assigned to Hon. Santiago. false and ridiculous statements in a desperate attempt to prejudice the courts against his client. Even further declaring that the petitioners in that case were opportunistically changing their claims and stories from case to case.

British and Cibeles were served summons in separate civil cases with different dates. According to Atty. RATIO: The contention of British and Cibeles that they were erroneously declared in default has no merit. to lift the order of default. Felix has maintained his candor and good behavior before the Court. when according to him there was none HELD: No. unverified and unaccompanied by any affidavit of merit. counsel would have more time because of the holidays. it is settled that parties and counsel should not assume that courts are bound to grant the time they ask for compliance with the rules. With respect to British. he found in the delivery neither his motion for extension to file answer nor the joint answer they had filed with Cibeles. Motions to lift orders of default may be filed only before judgment. 000 for Cibeles. the instant petition was filed with this Court on July 2. The counsel for British and Cibeles asked for an extension of their answers due to events. Rules of Court and pursuant to the decisions of the SC. He did not maintain it.1971. British and Cibeles filed a joint "Petition for Relief from Judgment".Los Angeles. Felix. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Besides. but His Honor ruled that precisely. Such lack of candor bordering on conscious misstatements of fact which has actually misled the Court calls for at least an appropriate explanation from counsel LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. two days late. The period of 30 days within which to interpose an appeal from these decisions rendered by this Court commenced on May 25. he filed a joint motion. together with the writ of preliminary injunction was served on the respondents. the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp paid to respondent Sheriff P294.its answer jointly filed with Cibeles on April 22. Particularly. when it is considered that counsel has never pretended that he had actually made inquiries and asked the proper personnel of the court about them. but all paid were returned to the respective banks by virtue of the writ of preliminary injunction. De Los Angeles. with regard to the orders and notice of default delivered to them. and therefore. considering that before then he had filed motions for extension followed by the joint answer. 1971. They are by law now final. 1971. considering that there was the Holy Week to take into account. De Los Angeles found it to be "sufficient in form and substance" and ordered the respondents "to answer the same within a period of 15 days from receipt. As regards Cibeles. completed after the expiration of 5 days from the date of 1st notice. whereas the judgments in question were rendered on April 28. its answer admittedly due on April 13. 1971. Pursuant to the writs issued under this order. British and Cibeles are entitled to their immediate execution. and it is not disputed that its motion for extension was filed on April 19th. was undoubtedly out of time. asked him to set it for hearing anew and told him that it was always his practice to give parties a chance to present evidence. On the same day that the petition for relief was set for hearing. the fact that counsel received the order of extension by mail only on April 26. Felix. which he would naturally have done. Hon. 1971. as matter of right. no appeal from these decisions was taken by the defendants. that he was not notified of the motion to declare his clients in default is not against the rules. 1971. It was served summons on April 2. Jr. Likewise. this Court can no longer set aside its order dated April 24. after reading in the presence of undersigned counsel that Joint Motion. due to a delayed filing of answer. and petitioners' joint motion was filed only on May 26. Counsel only makes reference to the joint answer he had filed on behalf of the British and Cibeles but. Hon. for he had no right to such notice. Counsel suggests that he was not given enough time. Certifications for proof of service have been presented. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|45 . A party who by inaction or negligence allows himself to be declared in default offends the rule requiring him to answer the summons without unnecessary delay to the end that the issues may be duly joined and the litigation be expeditiously terminated. dated May 25. there can be no question that even its motion for extension to file its answer filed out of time. 1971 to June 23. but on June 22. 1971 and summons. 1971. but before its execution. respondent judge issued an order cancelling this notice for the reason that "for failure of defendants to comply with the requirement imposed by Sec 3 of Rule 18. but only the orders of default. 1971 and expired after June 23. 1971. showing that the orders and copies of decisions were delivered by the postmaster. Tapia filed separate motions in two cases praying that the petitioner be declared in default. Two days later. 1971 the day after the 5th day from May 19. 1971. unappealable and. and although it asked for an extension of 15 days it was given only 5 days ending April 19. 1971. From May 25. advising him that the motion had been set for hearing. neither the motion itself nor the joint answer is supported by any corresponding oath. is no reason for him to complain. A notice was received by Atty. 1971. 750 for British and the First National City Bank of New York the sum of P75. Judgments were released for service to petitioner‘s counsel.

Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which also denied his appeal in a minute resolution. in an open and public hearing. more often than not. (b) the clear intent and spirit of the Resolution dated September 22. 1992 Resolution directing respondents to maintain the status quo. RATIO: The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. by restoring the status quo ante contemplated by the aforesaid resolution" ISSUE/S: WON the counsel for the petitioners use of abusive words towards the other counsel is a ground for a disbarment case. Almacen called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. February 18. 1992. Secretary Juan Flavier FACTS: On November 11. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted ―to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . respondent Secretary refuses to hold in abeyance the implementation of petitioners' preventive suspension. . the use of impassioned language in pleadings. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer‘s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. Eventually. The use of abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at the same time a disrespect to the dignity of the court of justice. who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. 1992. his client was made to pay P120. RATIO: we take cognizance of the intemperate language used by counsel for private respondents hurled against petitioners and their counsel (Consolidated: (1) Comment on Private Respondent" "Urgent Motions. it is a ground for disbarment. On November 13. CASE 62: In re Almacen. 1970 FACTS: Atty. HELD: Yes. his motion was denied. (c) respondent Secretary's acts in refusing to hold in abeyance implementation of petitioners' preventive suspension and in tolerating and approving the acts of Dr. 000 without knowing the reasons why and that he became ―one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. L-27654.CASE 61: Brigida S. Abueva. must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. prosecutor and Judge. Buenaseda vs. the status quo obtaining the time of the filing of the instant petition. 1992 is to hold in abeyance the implementation of petitioners' preventive suspension. petitioners filed a "Manifestation and Supplement to 'Motion to Direct Respondent Secretary of Health to Comply with 22 September 1992 Resolution'. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer‘s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice. ISSUE/S: WON Almacen should be disciplined. both oral or written. 1992. are in violation of the Resolution dated September 22. HELD: Yes. and (3) Reply to Private Respondent's Comment and Supplemental Comment.. alleging that: (a) "despite the issuance of the September 22. etc. but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 1992 immediately. and (d) therefore. creates more heat than light. but also deaf and dumb. the OIC appointed to replace petitioner Buenaseda. rendered judgment against his client.‖ He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is ―the complainant.‖ The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen‘s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. Hence. A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause. the Solicitor General submitted its Comment dated November 10. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. The trial court.‖ Almacen was however unapologetic. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|46 . . The language of a lawyer. respondent Secretary should be directed to comply with the Resolution dated September 22. Besides. He was suspended indefinitely. (2) Adoption of OSG's Comment. 1992.‖ He also stated ―that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. after due hearing. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide ―only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.

The IBP conducted its investigation based on the tape of the incident at the courtroom and the transcript of stenographic notes of the matter stating that both parties merely reiterated what they alleged in their submitted pleadings. contemptuous. Atty. "Judge. as well as of the judiciary. I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort Battung out of the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time. both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. Judge Baculi did not like that I just submit the Motion for Reconsideration without oral argument because he wanted to have an occasion to just humiliate me and to make appear to the public that I am a negligent lawyer. he should have known that for a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal. Battung should be HELD: Yes. No. that such is insolent. the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for. essentially saying that it was Judge Baculi who disrespected him. Respondent Atty. Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the courtroom. Atty. For one thing. and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. It is true that a lawyer. 2011 FACTS: On July 24. a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional. apparently waiting for him.facts and parties involved. While other cases were being heard. September 28. the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals‘ opinion. Battung shouted. mumbling. ISSUE/S: WON the respondent Atty. Atty. Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment with the Commission on Discipline of the IBP against the respondent. On Almacen‘s attack against the Supreme Court. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|47 . he continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Atty. "Then cite me!" Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100. Baculi vs. the Atty. After his hearings. A. "Judge. making it an impression to the litigants and the public that as if I am a negligent. "I am not afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. 8920. Atty. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall abstain from LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. Atty. and irresponsible lawyer. but of sound judicial discretion. 2008. As a veteran lawyer.C. during the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration of a civil case in the MTC of Tuguegarao City.‖ It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right. grossly disrespectful and derogatory against this Court as well as its individual members. Melchor Battung violated Rule 11. Melchor reprimanded for his actions in the said case. and so there is no need to fully explain the court‘s denial.03. Battung then left. Battung. I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on shouting. Melchor Battung was shouting while arguing his motion. Almacen‘s criticism is misplaced. has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which he did). and the independence of the bar. The presiding Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead. He stated that ―I only told Judge Rene Baculi I will file Gross ignorance of the Law against him once inside the court room when he was lambasting me. but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). In the case at bar. Melchor A. Battung re-entered the courtroom and shouted. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. CASE 63: Judge Rene B. when he said: you justify your negligence before this court. has always been encouraged by the courts. alleging that the latter violated Canons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be reprimanded. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the building. Battung filed his Answer. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide. Judge Baculi went out and saw Battung at the hall of the courthouse.00. incompetent. Battung again shouted in a threatening tone. Battung asked that the case against him be dismissed.‖ According to Battung ―it was Judge Baculi who disrespected me.‖ Respondent Battung claims that he was provoked by the presiding judge that is why he shouted back at him. Battung shouted at the top of his voice. Atty.

Battung. He is sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. and before the litigating public. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Atty. and court personnel. in front of many witnesses. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Gonzalez was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Gonzalez‘ counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising the following issues: ISSUE/S: LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Gonzalez FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. The Supreme Court rendered decision in favor of Zaldivar and ordered Gonzalez to cease and desist from investigating. even if true. His actions were plainly disrespectful to Judge Baculi and to the court. and the court that he represents. Zaldivar filed before the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari. demean and disrespect a judge. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Court notes that the Battung continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him for contempt. The Court agrees with the IBP‘s finding with exception only to the suspension. This behavior. Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases.‖ Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. Battung‘s violations were no less serious as they were committed in the courtroom in the course of judicial proceedings where the respondent was acting as an officer of the court. after initially leaving the court.03. to the point of being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system itself. but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted. What the he should have done was to file an action before the Office of the Court Administrator if he believed that Judge Baculi did not act according to the norms of judicial conduct. Atty. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter. the Supreme Court held that Gonzalez is guilty of contempt of court. He likewise violated Rule 11. Respondent Battung‘s argument that Judge Baculi provoked him to shout should not be given due consideration since the he should not have shouted at the presiding judge. as an officer of the court. the position and the stature of Judge Baculi. the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations. CASE 64: Zaldivar v. [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.‖ RATIO: According to the IBP. and brought to disrepute by Atty. by doing so. an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute. he returned to the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. Respondent Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside the courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels. Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal information against Zaldivar. De Zuzuarregui. Incompetence is a matter that. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|48 . particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to the courts. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he stated that the ―rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court. he created the impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. without this guarantee. stature and position in our justice system. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. cannot be allowed. After hearing his side. Battung was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Litigants and counsels. A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter‘s role. In the case at bar.. Thus. Atty. ―it is the duty of a lawyer.03 of Canon 11 that provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. Melchor A.scandalous. These actions were not only against the person. The Court cited Roxas v. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi‘s competence and in his ability to decide cases. He even came back to harass Judge Baculi. Battung violated Rule 11. for which he was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule. In fact. Jr. The IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. must be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court.

2. Go vs. The SC held that there is no need to refer the case to the OSG because the Court itself has initiated the case against Gonzalez. Javier on October 20. No. 1999. Prior to this receipt. The SC explained that human intent can only be shown by examining one‘s acts and statements. WON the Supreme Court erred in punishing Gonzalez for contempt for out of court publications 6. Indefinite suspension has the effect of placing the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands. Atty. obstruct or degrade the administration of justice while the ―clear and present danger rule‖ is a method of marking out the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly in certain contexts. Looyuko. petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration a day after the period to file had lapsed and the RTC has already ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution against petitioner. No. No. G. However. No. who was still counsel of record as far as the RTC was concerned. giving petitioner until November 4. visible tendency rule and not clear and present danger shall be applied. Zeus C. directly or indirectly. Abrogar. The SC held that the clear and present danger test is not the only test which is recognized and is applicable to courts. Go. Jr. Javier. Gonzalez‘ disclaimer of intent to attack the Court cannot prevail over the plain import of what he did say and do. Caneda. No.‖ The word ―in facie curiae‖ is not equivalent of direct contempt. The SC held that the text he cites is not applicable in Philippine courts. WON the imposition of indefinite suspension against Gonzalez constitutes cruel. The sanction has the effect of giving Gonzalez the chance to purge himself in his own good time. The SC explained that the ―visible tendency rule‖ penalizes any improper conduct tending. CASE 65: Jimmy T. 3. Javier through a Notice of Termination filed with the RTC on November 5. Go formally released Atty. Respondent‘s counsel asked the SC to follow what he presented as alleged modern trends in UK and US concerning the law of contempt. 1999 within which to file his appeal or motion for reconsideration. Rather. In addition to this. Go was represented by counsel. Rules 139 talks about the referral of SC to IBP or OSG while Rule 139(b) states that reference to IBP and/or OSG is not mandatory. 4. The RTC found Go and Looyuko jointly and severally liable and the decision was received by Atty. the RTC and the CA held that the reglamentary period to file the appeal began to run when Atty. Petitioner thereafter goes on to state the basis for his accusations against everyone connected to the case: 1) Looyuko had withdrawn his appeal. The SC did not err in not referring the case to IBP or OSG. WON the Supreme Court erred in applying the visible tendency rule rather than the clear and present danger rule in disciplinary and contempt charges 4. The SC held that Gonzalez is guilty of both ―contempt of court in facie curiae and gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the bar. invoking this test would not dissolve the problem because the statements made by Gonzalez are of such nature as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. Jr. the SC said that there is no need for further investigation of facts in the present case because it was not disputed by Gonzalez that he uttered or wrote certain statements attributed to him. Gregorio D. received a copy of the decision on October 20. Caneda. Gonzalez cannot negate the clear import of his acts and statements by simply pleading a secret intent or state of mind incompatible with his acts or statements. Hon. No. Hence. degrading. or inhuman punishment. 2006 FACTS: Respondent International Exchange Bank (Bank) filed a Complaint before the RTC for Collection of a Sum of Money against Petitioner Jimmy T.R. Atty. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The SC also noted that it did not impose punishment for Gonzalez‘ acts under direct contempt. 1999. HELD (In its entirety. 6. filed a Motion for Reconsideration. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|49 . Ronald E. 5. 145213 March 28. Also. WON the Supreme Court erred to charge Gonzalez under Rule 139 (b) and not 139 of the Revised Rules of Court 3.. the court used the term to signify a ―frontal assault‖ upon the integrity of the Court and the entire judicial system.1. Hence. Go and Alberto T. WON the Supreme Court erred in holding that intent is irrelevant in charges of misconduct 5. Motion for Reconsideration was denied) 1. No. however. now represented by Atty. Javier. the relationship had apparently turned sour for counsel and client. to impede. 1999 by petitioner‘s new counsel. WON the Supreme Court erred in charging Gonzalez with indirect contempt and convicting him of direct contempt 2.

HELD: Yes. ISSUE/S: WON Petitioner Jimmy T. and (2) the Order dated November 22. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 1991 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. or for a total of seventeen (17) months. A lawyer should submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. HELD: Yes. The Court is also dismayed that such baseless attacks were assisted by counsel. the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts. RATIO: The Court disagrees with the first Part of petitioner's basic argument. In particular. CASE 66: Bonifacio Sanz Maceda vs. which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. Gregorio D. G. 1993 FACTS: Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. ISSUE/S: WON the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC‘s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts. they are clearly unsubstantiated and disrespectful to a member of the Bench. Jr. July and August. Petitioner‘s particular attack against an RTC Judge is a serious accusation that erodes trust and confidence in our judicial system. and. April 22. Furthermore.2) Atty. Respondent Abiera further alleged that petitioner similarly falsified his certificates of service for the months of February.. Caneda. 1989. and the months beginning January up to September 1990. are STRICTLY WARNED not to make disrespectful statements against a Judge without basis in the records or the evidence. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. petitioner knew that no decision had been rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. This Court will not hesitate to sanction persons who recklessly and nonchalantly impute ill motives that are nothing more than unfounded speculations. whether taken together or separately. Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Antique. should have known better than to permit the irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Caneda. Abiera of the Public Attorney's Office alleged that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated February 6. Go and Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|50 . Jr. On the other hand. Caneda. are plainly unjustified as they fail to even remotely show the existence of a grand conspiracy against petitioner. Go and Atty. In his affidavit-complaint dated April 18." when in truth and in fact. 4) Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite petitioner for contempt that was filed by the Bank. petitioner contends that he had been granted by this Court an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the aforementioned cases. Javier neglected his case and continued to represent Looyuko in other cases. Atty. Under Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme Court filed by petitioner. Vasquez. 1998. There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. Allowing such statements to be made is against a lawyer‘s oath of office and goes against the Code of Professional Responsibility. et.Petitioner Jimmy T. Flaminiano. respondent Napoleon A. seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: (1) the Order dated September 18. Jr. 3) Atty. May. June. Flaminiano conformed to the writ of execution. all in 1989. who is an officer of the court. Sandiganbayan. acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Petitioner also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs. Gregorio D.R. al. For all their derogatory implication. Ombudsman Conrado M. 5) Judge Abrogar was once an assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal Atty. RATIO: Rule 11. The above ―suspicious‖ circumstances enumerated. April. 1951 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and other controverting evidences. he shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the records or by evidence. since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties.04. 102781. by certifying "that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31. No.

to appear in court on September 20. the RTC of Surigao City. and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act. as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavitcomplaint. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused. Bagabuyo CPR 11. Consequently. as one of the three branches of government.Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section 1. Branch 30. respondent appealed from the Orders dated November 12. the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties. Respondent Atty. the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. In fine. WHEREFORE. it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws. in an Order dated August 30. The Court agrees with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service. Napoleon A. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Rogelio Z. and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. 2003 to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degraded the court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation. without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. 2003. the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. By virtue of this power. Abiera and to refer the same to this Court for appropriate action. Branch 29. section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. Case No. declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. 2003. 3 for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|51 . The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution. 2002. In October.5 FACTS: Crim. objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of murder. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court. RTC of Surigao City. Mark Francisco of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent posted the required bond and was released from the custody of the law. was not subject to bail under Sec. it was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason. directed respondent and the writer of the article. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November 12. Buyser. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo. Judge Buyser described the evidence for the prosecution as not strong. where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties. 2002. the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load. Article VIII. However. then Senior State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case. Under 11. He appealed the indirect contempt order to the CA. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. 4. which motion was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10. In an Order dated March 14. but sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused only for homicide. as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination. or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter. declared in open court in the presence of respondent that he was inhibiting himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation of respondent that he lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Thus. punishable with reclusion perpetua. to submit its records. The Ombudsman is hereby directed to dismiss the complaint filed by public respondent Atty. 2003. to the Court of Appeals (CA). No other branch of government may intrude into this power. In an Order dated August 21. Judge Buyser. The said Order stated that contrary to the statements in the article. Moreover. in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. 2002 and February 10. from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary. CASE 67: Re: Suspension of Atty. 2002. the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. 2003.

instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the same property and asserting the same rights. Montano 2006. ISSUE/S: WON violated and be suspended from the practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. is duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. As a responsible member of the bar. the trial court reversed itself and declared that the sale was in fact an equitable mortgage.05 of Canon 11 HELD: Yes. Carmelito A. Montano is guilty of forum shopping and therefore administratively liable HELD: Yes. Case No. No. 2006 FACTS: Complainant John Siy Lim was the defendant in a civil case for reformation of contract. Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled. the same causes of action and relief prayed for as that of first civil case. The aggrieved party elevated the matter to this Court which affirmed the Court of Appeals. RATIO: The trial court concluded that respondent. as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out . which appeared in the August 18. Atty. RTC ruled in favor of Lim. Respondent Atty. maintenance of physical possession which the trial court denied. Case No. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12. Montano filed a Notice of Appearanceas counsel of Tuazon (the losing party) He filed. Montano. 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Lim appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which reversed the ruling of the RTC.02 of Canon 13.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only. 5144 was still pending in court. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior case for reformation and quieting of title. and should not promote distrust in the administration of justice. The subject of the dispute was a 650-square meter conjugal lot. quieting of title. in behalf of his client. either simultaneously or successively. which were made while Crim." deserves scant consideration. 5653. which states that "a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. On motion for reconsideration. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Montano filed the complaint in out of malice. pointing out that it involves "the same parties. 2002 allowing the accused in Crim. His allegation that he "was not the original counsel of his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent case for nullity of TCT. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. he should have explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his clients‘ rights. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. and declared that the deed of sale was an absolute and unconditional conveyance of subject property by the plaintiff in favor of such defendant. By his own admission. Respondent's statements in the article. he was aware that first civil case was already final and executory when he filed the second case. a "Motion to Comply to Decision without Writ‖ and a Complaintfor nullity of TCT and other documents. The respondent is found guilty for contempt of court. February 27. specifically Rule 11. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|52 . Lim alleged that Atty. however.Despite the citation of indirect contempt." Rule 11. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. respondent presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS." CASE 68: John Siy Lim vs. A. 5144 to be released on bail.C. also violated Rule 13." Respondent violated Rule 11. and again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial court's disposition in the proceedings. reconveyance. This prompted the Lim to file the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty.

they appealed. CASE 69: MARIBETH CORDOVA and CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA v. This in itself is already a clear indication that the acts of the judges are valid and legal. Sabio in this. However. They hired Atty. runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. on the ground that they have a pending appeal. Montano should have realized that the ruling of the Court in Tuazon v. as required by the [old] Rules of Court. impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyer‘s duty. As LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Salvador Sabio as their legal counsel. Sabio‘s act constitutes violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: 1. former Presiding Judge of Branch 54. Yes No explanation was made by him nor did he invoke any authority of law or jurisprudence. to support his theory that execution should not issue where the adverse party is not served a copy of the order even where the grant thereof had become a matter of right. and in good faith. WON Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of the present charges against the judges. Atty. RATIO: (1) Upon review of the rules of court. arguing that the writ of execution is not valid and illegal according to the Rules of Court. in violation of the doctrine of res judicata. (1995) FACTS: Maribeth Cordova‘s mother was involved in an ejectment case. since decidedly there is none. When the mother died. the CA. HON. On this ground. the Regional and Appellate Courts upheld the decision of the MTC. Bacolod City. et. BETHEL KATALBAS-MOSCARDON. Sabio could not have known that. RTC. It was too manifest that a lawyer like Atty. Atty. Sabio averred that he was not given a copy of the court order (writ of execution). the present case charges the Judges Labayen and Moscardon with manifest partiality and breach of judicial trust. Court of Appeals effectively determined with finality the rights and obligations of the parties under the questioned deed of sale. and this was illegal. It must be noted that the administrative complaint was filed only after the Court of Appeals had rendered a decision. In his response to the show-cause order. Sabio persisted in instituting these baseless charges to their proven prejudice. and was resorted to as a last-ditch effort and a face-saving recourse of counsel. despite their appeal. Bacolod City. The Court finds that the actions of the impleaded judges are correct and in accordance with law and existing rules of court. at the very least. Sabio to show cause why he should not be disciplined for violation of the CPR. arguing that while the party had appealed. particularly Rules 1. Any conduct which tends to delay. it is clear that the judges acted in conformity with the rules. Sabio appealed the decision to the RTC and later on. thru Atty. Yet. When the municipal trial court rendered a decision adverse to them (ordering their ejectment and the payment of rental fee until they vacate it). so the same could not take effect. the petitioners in that case motioned for the issuance of the writ of execution. he asserted that the writ of execution was issued pending appeal despite the filing of a supersedeas bond and the payment of advance rentals. they did not file a supersedeas bond [a kind of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until the appeal is over] or made a deposit every month of the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land from which they are ordered ejected. LABAYEN. and constituted the charged violations by the impleaded judges. ill-conceived and malicious. Branch 54. they (present petitioners) became the party in interest. Cordova. 6th Judicial Region.Atty. RTC. 6th Judicial Region. That bad faith attended the filing of this administrative charge was unwittingly disclosed by the allegations of Atty. Sabio is suspended for six months.03. Sabio instigated the filing of the groundless accusations against the impleaded judges. which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|53 . It is now alleged that Atty. Yes. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter. 2. The inescapable conclusion is that the filing of the present complaint was. ISSUES: 1. WON Atty. HON. EMMA C. Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Hence. and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess in jurisdiction. In his answer.02 and 1. the court proceeded with the execution of judgment. However. Presiding Judge. The Court in this case required Atty.

Abra which ordered Respondent Eustaquio Montero‘s client. like filing of dilatory motions. Montero filed numerous cases in hopes of getting a favorable decision for Co. Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises which is the subject of the ejectment case. under which this case had been assigned in our syllabus). Branch 16. CV No. the administration of justice (in relation to Canon 12). It was received by her husband. 624 which is a petition for certiorari. repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgement. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|54 . Abra (2) CA-G. RTC of Manila. presiding judge of Branch 16 of RTC Manila. The present administrative charge seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of the impleaded judges. She failed to submit her DTR/bundy card for December 2004. however. 2005. on July 4. 11690 which is an action for the annulment of decisions and/or reformation or novation of decisions filed with the CA (4) G. prohibition. the judicial personnel and the court which they represent. Neither did she file an application for leave. Joyas. No. Atty.correctly observed by the Bar Confidant. the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent a telegram to Atty. Pacifica Millare obtained a favorable judgement from the MTC. (1) Civil Case No. CASE 71:Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Atty. caused the service of a letter to Atty. Clerk of Court of Court V. Abra with the RTC. 17040 which is an appeal and/or review by certiorari filed with the CA as well (6) SP Civil Action No. Edwin Joyas. but she did not comply. FACTS : Atty. in flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice. (2) As an officer of the court. On May 23. Joyas informed the OCA that she already notified Judge Manahan of her application for retirement effective at the close of office hours of November 15. 344 which is an appeal from the decision rendered in civil case no. Manahan. in the guise of upholding their rights but actually to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders and consequently obstruct the desirable norms and course of justice. Sabio. the OCA Leave Division. The rights of Co as Montero‘s client were fully protected and her defenses were properly ventilated when Montero filed an appeal from the MTC to the RTC but Montero thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the execution of judgement by the MTC adverse to Co. the Employees Welfare and Benefits Division LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.R. Thereafter.R. Atty. Joyas requiring her to explain her unauthorized absences in writing. Sabio thus deserves to be punished for instigating the filing of an administrative complaint by his clients.02 and 1.R. 86084 which is a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court (5) CA-G. SP No. Marilyn B. mandamus with preliminary issuance of prohibitory order filed with the RTC of Abra. 2004. SP No. (Note: The Court charged Sabio with violations of rules 1. Montero FACTS: Petitioner Rodolfo Millare‘s mother. 844 of the MTC of Bangued. CASE 70: Millare v. 2005. not to impede or pervert. 2005. but the statement in Ratio #2 is the most related with Canon 12. ISSUE:WON Montero violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:Yes. Abra (3) CA-G. Joyas requiring her to submit her DTRs/bundy cards and/or leave applications.03. Bangued. Upon verification. Lawyers should not be filing totally baseless and unfounded charges against judges and court personnel in a vain attempt to escape the consequences of their own negligence or in an effort to transgress the lawful orders of the court. On April 1. Atty. It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process. In a letter dated July 11. RATIO:Canon 12 of the CPR provides that a lawyer is required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.R. Joyas‘ daily time record (DTR)/bundy card for November 2004 showed that she was on unauthorized leave from the 15 th to the 30th of that month. 11404 which is an appeal from the decision of the RTC. thru Judge Carmelita S. it is apparent that complainants decided to institute the present case only on the advice and/or upon the urging of Atty. a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in. 2005.

petitioners as appellants received notice through their counsel Benjamin M. It impedes the dispensation of justice which is the essential function of the courts. Joyas failed to do when she went on prolonged unauthorized leave and effectively abandoned her office. filed a motion to withdraw as counsel because he was employed as technical assistant in the Supreme Court. On June 25. correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. under civil service rules. in particular. Atty. One who delays justice. petitioners' counsel. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. New counsel Tayco filed no comment whatsoever. August 9 being a Sunday). The prejudice caused by a court employee‘s prolonged unauthorized absence is both great and grave. 1970 (the last day of the reglementary period. He should not only help achieve these ends but should also avoid any unethical or improper practice that will impede.It was only then that Tayco apparently stirred from almost a year of inaction and filed a motion dated July 13. integrity. Thus. It is his duty to promote the objectives of courts – the speedy. Marilyn Joyas was in violation of canon 12. By going on AWOL. HELD : YES. Joyas be dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant. This Atty. Said new counsel. 1970. On August 10. efficient. 1970 his appearance with the appellate court. 2004. the appellate court received respondents-appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal dated August 5. Thus. The conduct and behavior of all court personnel are circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. et. A court employee who goes on absence without leave (AWOL) for a prolonged period of time disrupts the normal function of the organization. Joyas grossly disregarded and neglected the duties of her office. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|55 . filed on August 18. Atty.6 His or her conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of public service. impartial. and for the service and the public at large.7 It contravenes a public servant‘s duty to serve the public with utmost degree of responsibility. 1970. Atty. Esdras F. Joyas failed to complete the requirements in support of her application for retirement. v CA. 1970. Valente to submit the appellants' brief within the reglementary forty-five day period to expire on August 9. Joyas should be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls on account of her continued unauthorized absence since November 15. A lawyer is an officer of the court. On June 25. Tayco to comment on the dismissal motion. al.informed the OCA that Atty. the OCA recommended that Atty. 1971 for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that he as new counsel had not received the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Valente and Atty. et al. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. with a prayer that appellants' newly engaged counsel be given sufficient time to file their brief. 1971 or after the lapse of more than eleven without appellants having filed their brief at all.8 It also manifests disrespect for his or her superiors and colleagues. 1970. Valente filed his manifestation alleging inter alia that he had not received a copy of the dismissal motion and could not comment thereon and submitting the signed conformity of his clients to his withdrawal and reiterating his prayer for the court to grant his withdrawal and to grant appellants sufficient time to file their brief. the appellate court's special sixth divisionissued its resolution granting the dismissal motion and dismissing the appeal on the ground stated by appellees in their motion that appellants had failed to file their brief within the reglementary 45-day period. 1970 for appellants' failure to file their brief within the reglementary period. the appellate court required both counsels of appellants. On August 27. Valente. Atty. RATIO: CANON 12 – A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. She failed to adhere to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those in government service. Tayco. FACTS: The case originated in the Antique CFI where after due trial judgment was rendered in favor of respondents-plaintiffs upholding their action for quieting of title with recovery of possession and damages. denies justice. Atty. Petitioners-defendants appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of Appeals. obstruct or prevent their realization as he is charged with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient dispensation of justice. On September 12. CASE 72: Antonio Villasis. loyalty and efficiency. in general. Joyas was aggravated by the fact that she is a member of the bar. The non-feasance of Atty.

Court of Appeals. Mauricia argued that: (1) the lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the segregation because it was not decreed in its judgment which had long become final and executory. No. Mauricia questioned this order in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. one of the children. Licerio Nique. (3) the extrajudicial settlement referred in the order was not discussed in the lower court decision. private respondent. Laurencia. 1970. the court was merely performing its job of making sure that the execution of a final judgment conforms to the decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision. G. allegedly purchased some of her siblings‘ shares. Petitioner Mauricia Alejandrino. Meanwhile. 1970 to expire on August 10. also purchased some of the siblings‘ shares. CASE 73: Mauricia Alejandrino v. 1970 after the period for filing brief had already expired on August 10. However. RATIO: The notice to file the brief had been received on June 25. During all this period and even during the three months that followed when he filed two motions for reconsideration. Nique filed a motion for the segregation of the portion of the property the court granted to him as owner. later questioned the sale in an action for quieting of title and damages against Nique (Civil Case 1).01 which requires a lawyer to be adequately prepared HELD: Yes. (2) partition cannot be effected because Nique is also a defendant in Civil Case 1. Mauricia offered to deposit with the court the redemption price of the area Nique purchased. However. 1998 FACTS: Late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos left their 6 children a lot in Cebu. 1970. a third party. Hence. A new counsel who accepts a case in midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover . this petition. One sibling. she cannot be bound by it as LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The said lot was to be divided equally among their children. Even going by new counsel Tayco's mistaken notion that he was entitled to a new notice to file brief. the appellate court's resolution requiring his comment on the motion to dismiss appeal for failure to file appellant's brief was tantamount to such notice and he should then have prepared and filed the brief within forty-five days thereafter. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|56 . he presented no earnest of prosecuting the appeal by at least filing the brief even at that late date but contented himself with a perfunctory prayer in his motion that "appellants be allowed to file their brief. 114151. and even if it were. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and stated that in issuing the questioned order. Tayco filed a second motion for reconsideration still without having filed appellants. which the appellate court denied ISSUE/S: WON new counsel violatedRule 12. The trial court issued an order for the segregation. Petitioners-appellants have shown no valid and justifiable reason for their inexplicable failure to file their brief and have only themselves to blame for their counsel's utter inaction and grow indifference and neglect in not having filed their brief for a year since receipt of due notice to file the same. September 17." The appellate court committed no error therefore in dismissing the appeal. Mauricia filed a complaint for redemption and recovery of property with damages against Nique in the RTC (Civil Case 2).R. pointing out "Attorney Tayco's appearance was entered on August 18. The RTC ruled in favor of Nique and declared him as the rightful owner. 1971 or until almost eleven months after the expiration of the reglementary period on August 10. The appellate court did not dismiss the appeal for failure of appellants to file brief until one year later as per its resolution of June 25. Mauricia then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. She alleged that Nique neither notified her of his purchase of the undivided lot nor give her the preemptive right to buy the area as co-owner of the same lot. The appellate court gave appellants all the time and opportunity to duly prosecute their appeal by filing their brief in the interval to no avail. Laurencia appealed to the Court of Appeals but she later withdrew the case. The appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration. But he never filed the appellants' brief during the interval of almost 11 months that the appellate court took before it finally dismissed the appeal.notice to file brief. brief. the estate of the Alejandrino spouses was not settled in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court. It asked both counsels to comment on the dismissal motion but withdrawing counsel Valente claimed he could not file any comment as he had not received the motion while new counsel Tayco ignored the court's resolution and filed no comment and filed no brief. However. 1970.

The fourth element is not present in this case. Certiorari is available only if there is no appeal or other plain. Mauricia is not guilty of forum shopping. ISSUE/S: WON Mauricia is guilty of forum shopping HELD: No. assailing the very same orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990.she was not a party litigant in the civil case. the following must be present: (1) a decision on the merits. BPI. subject matter and causes of action. CASE 74: Chemphil Export and Import Corporation v Court of Appeals FACTS: On September 25. prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On 26 March 1993. and (4) the two actions involve identical parties.1990. PCIB resorted to forum shopping in filing for a separate petition for certiorari. Civil Case 1 is an action for quieting of title and damages while Civil Case 2 is for redemption and recovery of properties. the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals both rendered their decisions adverse to the consortium on Dec 19. collecting and enforcing any purported obligations which Dynetics and Garcia might have undertaken in said agreement. (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction. Garcia filed a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against the PISO. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying due course to and dismissing PCIB's petition for certiorari on grounds that PCIB violated the rule against forum-shopping and that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by respondent Regional Trial Court in issuing its assailed orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990. however. For res judicata to apply. had filed a civil action for redemption and recovery of properties with damages pending in the RTC. (3) the decision is final. There is no law prohibiting this act. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.‖ This is the prohibition against forum shopping. seeking judicial declaration. Nique commented that even if Mauricia was not a party litigant in Civil Case 1. PCIB cannot hide behind the subterfuge that Supreme Court Circular 2891 was not yet in force when it filed the certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals. He added that the instant petition was filed in violation of Circular No. Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is not difficult to understand. On 6 April 1990. In a series of proceedings. thereby implying that the same counsel merely wanted to prevail in the second case after having failed to do so in the first. who was also Laurencia‘s counsel in Civil Case 1. that Laurencia executed an affidavit consenting to the appearance of her counsel in any case that Mauricia might file against Nique.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ―a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Hence. 28-91 on forum shopping because Mauricia‘s counsel in Civil Case 2. in instituting a separate petition for certiorari. Nique‘s argument on forum shopping is anchored on the fact that counsel for both Mauricia and Laurencia in those two cases is one and the same. the PCIB separately filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. 1984. Ratio: PCIB's contention that it did not join the consortium because it "honestly believed that certiorari was the more efficacious and speedy relief available under the circumstances. LBP. PCIB and RCBC or the consortium. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|57 . 1989 and Mar 5. and Antonio M. PCIB's motion for reconsideration was denied on 11 January 1994 ISSUE/S: WON PCIB resorted to forum shopping Held: Yes. construction and interpretation of the validity of the surety agreement that Dynetics and Garcia had entered into with the consortium and to perpetually enjoin the latter from claiming. Inc. While the subject matter may be the same property of the Alejandrino spouses. Dynetics. likewise. The rule against forum-shopping has long been established. The parties are not identical because Mauricia was not impleaded in Civil Case 1. she is estopped from questioning the decision of said case because she knew that the case existed. PCIB has deliberately resorted to forum-shopping. RATIO: Rule 12. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Supreme Court Circular 28-91 merely formalized the prohibition and provided the appropriate penalties against transgressors. The records show. the causes of action are different.

3. CSA then appealed the dismissal of the petition to the CA. CSA was scheduled to conduct review classes however DVA denied all the vehicles going to the campus from entering and required a regular DVA sticker before being allowed to enter the premises. 13. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|58 . CSA filed a petition for ―Declaratory Relief and Damages with Preliminary Injunction‖ with the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. both actions must involve the same transactions. On Sept. Identity of parties. same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action. The requisites of litis pendentia not having occurred in the two cases filed by CSA shows that there was no violation on the part of CSA of the anti forum-shopping rule under Rule 12. which in turn negates the violation of the anti forum-shopping rule. regardless of which party is successful. 1988 CSA proposed that it be assessed as its permanent membership dues an amount equivalent to 50% of the village dues collectible from the residents of the village to which DVA agreed. On Sept. ISSUE/S: WON CSA violated the anti forum-shopping rule HELD: No. In 1992. DVA sent CSA an assessment amounting to P550. 9. petitioner Dasmarinas Village Association (DVA) inquired from Colegio San Agustin if it was interested in becoming a ―special member‖ with the corresponding responsibility of paying membership dues. 5. Requisites 2 & 3 are not present in this case. CSA filed another complaint against DVA for ―injunction and damages‖ with the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. 2. On June 24. or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. In 1975. forumshopping exists where the elements litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. 94-2062. 95 -1396. the reliefs being founded on the same facts. as well as an amended petition for the determination of the proper amount that it should pay as ―membership dues‖ and to enjoin DVA from implementing its unreasonable security policy. On Sept. CSA did not violate the anti forum-shopping rule. DVA also prohibited access to some of the gates of the village to vehicles bearing CSA stickers and implemented a security measure barring the entry of these vehicles after 6:00pm. The requisites of litis pendentia are: 1. CASE 75: Dasmarinas Village Association v. 21. On Dec. 1995. Forum-shopping or the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases. DVA informed CSA that it was increasing membership dues by 25% to which the latter agreed. one in favor of CEIC and the other in favor of the consortium/Jaime Gonzales. Thereafter. to which the latter agreed. DVA filed its motion to dismiss which was granted by the RTC. would amount to res judicata in the other case. such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case. 1994. subject matter and issues. of seeking another opinion in another forum. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.000 with the notation ―No Discount for 1992‖ to which the latter protested for being contrary to the aforementioned agreement between the parties. 25. On Sept. While the appeal was pending another incident arose between the two parties. 1995. It has also been aptly described as deplorable because it adds to the congestion of the already heavily burdened dockets of courts. We cannot over-emphasize its ill-effects. In this regard. It constitutes improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. RATIO: For forum-shopping to exist. Court of Appeals FACTS: Since 1969. DVA moved for the dismissal of the second complaint on the ground of violating the anti forum-shopping rule.It alarms us to realize that we have to constantly repeat our warning against forum-shopping.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1994. one of which is aptly demonstrated in the case at bench where we are confronted with two divisions of the Court of Appeals issuing contradictory decisions. 1995. private respondent Colegio San Agustin (CSA) has operated a school within the premises of Dasmarinas Village and was exempt from paying village dues. Both parties complied with this agreement from 1988 to 1991. has been characterized as an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the Courts and abusing their processes.

March 29. The latter case was filed by Vicente Luy and his daughter Vonette Luy. 1972 of the petition at bar for review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing petitioner's petition for mandamus filed with said court to compel the Manila court of first instance to allow petitioner's proposed appeal from its adverse judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint. 97238. Q-89-2357 in 1989 when exactly the same issues were already before Branch 79 in Civil Case No. the Hon. Q-892357. Court of Appeals. 1973.A. 1973 counsel again asked for still another 15-day extension stating that "due to the pressure of urgent professional work and daily trial engagements of the undersigned counsel. No. Culture and Sports Two separate petitions for mandamus with prayers for preliminary mandatory injunction were eventually filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Respondents filed on February 8. acts of misbehavior. Because the parents of the Children refused to pay the 15% tuition fee increase granted to Grace Christian School by the Ministry of Education. March 14. The first case docketed as Civil Case No. Luy with forum shopping contending that the first case he filed with others should take precedence over Civil Case No. Achacoso.. Cotram. the Court per its resolution of December 22. Nera. The counsel explained to the Court that the reason for the extensions was because of finances. Inc. ISSUE/S: WON Vicente Luy and his daughter were engaging in forum shopping HELD: Yes..Petitioner Julia L. On June 13. 1973 a motion for leave to file reply within 15 days from notice alleging that there was need for such reply "in order that this Honorable Court may be fully and completely informed of the nature of the controversy which gave rise to the instant petition.. Garrido. Q-51039). and a refusal to dialogue with the school administration led the school authorities to believe that it would be best for all concerned if these children enrolled in other schools. Tan. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|59 . lawyers and litigants alike are warned to be more candid with courts of justice and not engage in forum shopping through deliberate splitting of actions or appeals in the hope that even as one case is dismissed. he has not had sufficient material time to complete the preparation of petitioners reply. The Court deplored the action of Vicente Luy and his counsel for filing Civil Case No. Q51039. Q-51039 filed by. Capital Life Assurance Corp. Q-51039 was assigned to Branch 79 of the court. 1973 and notice of such leave was served on counsel on February 27. FACTS:Upon the filing on December 15. Judge Tirso Velasco ordered the petitioners to comply with the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction or he would act on the motion for contempt. et. viz. Julia Tan and James Tan opposed this order stating that Judge Legaspi had just denied the similar motion for contempt in the other case (Civil Case No.CASE 76: Julia L.. CASE 77: Francisco A.R. Pending any amendment of the Rules or a circular remedying this problem. who were also petitioners in Civil Case No. S. July 15. v. among others. On the last day for filing of the reply. Rodrigo M. Mr. in his own behalf and in behalf of Capital Insurance & Surety Co." The Court granted such leave per its resolution of February 23. 1973 counsel asked for an additional 15 days averring that "due to the pressure of urgent professional work and daily trial engagements of the undersigned counsel during the original period granted. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 1973 an extensive eighteen page comment and petitioner's counsel. Q-89-2357 and was assigned to Branch 88. G. 1991 FACTS:This case arose from the refusal of the petitioners to admit and enroll certain students for the school year 1987-1988 because heated controversies. Tan is an 84 year old widow who is the Principal of Grace Christian High School offering both elementary and secondary courses while petitioner James L. the petitioners again charged Mr. filed on February 12. This results not only in unnecessarily clogging the heavily burdened dockets of our courts but also in the unseemly sight of two Branches of the same trial court and two Divisions of the Court of Appeals issuing contradictory decisions –– one in favor of the school and the other in favor of the students and their parents. al. ISSUE/S: WON counsel violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. vs. another would still be open. Luy in 1987. In this opposition. Tan is the Administrative Consultant of the school. Joaquin G. Court of Appeals. 1972 required respondents to comment thereon. The second case which led to the present petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 1989.

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exertevery effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. 1973 of their comments on the petition showing its lack of merit. After careful consideration of the records of the case. Acting on his Motion for extension. the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Ford. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make an appeallee‘s brief for Ford. 1995 FACTS: Ford engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence.HELD: Yes. The case went to the Supreme Court for Decision. Daitol never filed the appellee's brief with the CA. Daitol alleged. Thereafter. CA dismissed the appeal. RATIO: In failing to file the appellee's brief on behalf of his client. Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.04. After due trial RTC ordered Bergonia to vacate the premises and to surrender possession thereof to the Paraynos. Ford vs. which had already been extended twice. Ford filed a complaint against Daitol before IBP and a complaint of disciplinary action before the Court. Ford allegedly terminated his services due to "various difficulties and misunderstanding" between them. Nera. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|60 . Atty. that before he could finish the draft of the appellee's brief. After trial. Daitol who had assured him that he was preparing the appellee's brief. CA had issued resolution that the case was filed without a brief. as well as the Paraynos. in his response to the complaint against him. Ford was aggrieved by this and worried that this may prejudice him in the case. PCIB thereupon appealed said judgment to the Court of Appeals ("CA"). The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel for complainant. the RTC of Urdaneta ruled in favour of the Parayno. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Merrera is found guilty for violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and is Suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.00 as attorney's fees to Atty. Atty.C. Daitol in a case against the Philippine Commercial International Bank ("PCIB") in the Regional Trial Court. the Paraynos instituted a civil case to recover its possession. If indeed he was not in a financial position to advance the necessary expenses for preparing and submitting the reply. the Court is disposed to be lenient in this instance. Atty. 3736 November 16. as counsel. however. 1997. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Since the disputed land was still in the possession of the complainant. A. No. Ford denied this allegation stating that he had already advanced an amount of P600. the CA granted him until March 17. Rodrigo M. 1998. he again filed an Urgent Second Motion for extension to file brief. the deadline. Even before the extension had lapsed. the court finds that the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper. lapsed without his filing the appellant‘s brief. CASE 79: Bergonia v. Atty. CASE 78: Craig L. Daitol to have been remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel of Ford. His inaction unduly delayed the Court's prompt disposition of the case after the filing by respondents on February 8. the Court hereby administers a reprimand on Atty. Eventually. Considering. Daitol was particularly faulted for his failure to secure a written discharge from Ford before considering himself relieved of his duty to file the appellee's brief. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make an appellee‘s brief for Ford HELD: Yes. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the decision became final and executory. Escolastico Daitol. the CA again granted the motion. received a Notice of File Brief on December 17. Merrera FACTS: Arsenia Bergonia filed a case for the quieting of title against her niece Josephine Bergonia. RATIO:Counsel's explanation is far from satisfactory. Despite several inquiries by Ford about the status of the brief and reminders from him to file the same. Respondent. After PCIB had filed its appellant's brief. complainant appealed the RTC judgement to the CA. the CA directed Ford to file his appellee's brief. Atty. After due trial. Merrerra is guilty of inexcusable negligence HELD: Yes. then he could have filed timely the necessary manifestation that he was foregoing the filing of such reply on petitioner's behalf. respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12. that counsel's record shows no previous infractions on his part since his admission to the Philippine Bar in 1953.

‖ HELD: No. Petitioners' lawyer. obstruct or prevent their realization. Mary Jean . GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|61 . working six (6) days a week and receiving an average monthly wage of P180. Respondents rested their case as early as September 1992. memoranda or briefs. In the place of his e m p l o y me n t h e w a s m a d e to i n h a l e d a n ge r o u s f u me s a s th e a t m o s p h e r e w a s polluted with poisonous chemical dusts.RATIO: Rule 12. 1996 or for a period of three years. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Isidra and Estanislao . In giving petitioners more than ample time to complete their presentation of evidence and in granting their Motions for Postponement. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. CASE 80: Edrial v. Arbitria was employed by the MPC since February 4. 1993. Workmen’s Compensation Commission FACTS: WCC considered a complaint filed against it by Mario Abitria for compensation. The motion will thus be regarded as a means of preventing the judgment from attaining finality and execution and of enabling the movant to trifle with procedure and mock the administration of justice. correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Quilat-Quilat FACTS: Respondents Pedro. counsel presented only two witnesses. Without this implied trust. the trial judge finally and correctly refused to go along. The CA ruled that petitioners were given "more than enough time" to complete their presentation of evidence. For the benefit of the bench and bar. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. the judge was accommodating them more than they actually deserved." CASE 81: Manila Pest Control vs. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede. Sometime in July 1966. ISSUE/S: WON the CA erred in denying the petitioners prayer due to their ―inexcusable delay. memoranda or briefs.. he began to experience symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis. efficient.00 as labourer. charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Mauro Jr.03). In granting the request. Moreover.filed an action for recovery of a parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios. A motion for reconsideration was filed praying he be allowed to present evidence on his behalf however. From that day until April 26. Rosalind. the motion for extension will be deemed to be a mere ruse to delay or thwart the appealed decision. The CA dismissed petitioners' appeal because. in issuing the questioned Orders.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall not. worth repeating is the CA's reminder to petitioners' counsel of his duty to his client and to the court: "Being an officer of the court a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes (Rule 12. at his own request. Like the court itself.and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. animals and insects. The counsel of Manila Pest Control failed to appear at the hearing. impartial.all surnamed Quilat-Quilat -. the court acts on the presumption that the applicant has a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the period allowed. was allowed to start presenting evidence only on April 12. Gabriela. 1956. this was denied. Marylene. 6315 and raffled to Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. he is an instrument to advance its ends-the speedy. Idelfonso. But enough was enough. H e w a s assigned in the Research Division which conducted research on rat traps and other matters regarding extermination of pests. shall not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so (Rule 12. It was submitted for decision after he and a physician had testified. they should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers. when they attempted to delay the trial some more. RATIO: Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable. while the claimant was soldering. the trial judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.04). The trial judge was in fact liberal in granting petitioners' Motions for Postponement. The working condition of his place of work w a s a l s o warm and h u mi d in vi e w of th e p r o d u c ts being m a n u f a c tu r e d b y th e respondent. He was not extended any protective device and he was also made to lift heavy objects in the painting and the soldering.all surnamed Edrial -." A lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and with a genuine intent to file the required pleading within the extended period.

The respondent argued that the circumstances of their cases should allow them to be exempted from the said rule. Camacho who was handling the case. which could not thereafter reach the stage of finality calling for a writ of execution. even had the records of the case. Guzman to deliver the said decision to Atty. The motion for reconsideration was consequently denied.An effort was made to serve petitioner with a copy of the decision. Camacho. It would conclude. These series of actions originated from extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property by the Manila Banking Corporation because of the petitioners‘ failure to pay their loan of Php 600. This resulted to the parties entering into a compromise agreement. rather it was just an accommodation for the more liberal terms of payment for the petitioners. Corpuz misused the processes of the Court to delay the delivery of justice. Manuel Corpuz. of judgment which is more than 5 years old. 4. according to Atty. Felix Tuazon of the Quezon Institute whose diagnosis was pulmonary tuberculosis. Camacho was madeper his instruction. Camacho and denying the knowledgeof it when in fact and in truth the delivery of the decision to Atty. Corpuz. WCC explained via the affidavit of Mr. to delay if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable. Corpuz. on March 10. if there were no such attempt to mislead. if not to create one. the petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale of the property before the RTC instead of redeeming the property. 1967. It is one thing to exert to the utmost one‘s ability to protect the interest of one‘s client and it is another thing to take advantage of any unforeseen turn of events. a MR of the aforesaid order was filed with the averment that petitioner was not aware of any decision rendered in the case as no copy of the same had theretofore been furnished to its counsel. 2001 in the RTC an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. and Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|62 . On May 30 1983. No settlement was reached by the parties however during the deferment period. A year and 4 months later. Atty. CASE 82: Spouses Aguilar vs the Manila Banking Corporation FACTS:This is a case regarding how the execution of a final judgment was forestalled by the perpetual dilatory tactics employed by the litigant. On June 14.000. that such effort‘sfailure was due to the conduct of its own counsel. Atty. 1967 to deliver a copy of the decision. Manuel Camacho but care of petitioner‘s counsel. The petitioners filed their Opposition claiming that Section 6. The respondent filed again for a Motion to Recall the Court‘s Order claiming that their obligation was novated by the Letter. 3. when as in this case.Camacho. the oblige is a necessitous and povertystricken man suffering from a dreaded disease. 2. HELD: Yes. However. especially so.Because of his spitting of blood or hemoptysis. The following are the procedural antecedents: 1. the petitioners were still unable to pay. The RTC denied the said Motion. Atty. RATIO: Atty. who was without any connection with Atty. Corpuz is impugning the delivery of the decision to Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the said decision alleging that he was no longer handling the case. therefore. The respondents contend however that the said letter did not novate the obligation. Camacho since it was alreadyAtty. Camacho. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court bars the execution. Guzman that when he went to the office of Atty. he went to consult Dr. The respondents prayed then for the resolution of pending incidents. Corpuz instead instructed Mr. Corpuz refused to receive the copy of the decision of the WCC and he is nowimpugning the delivery of the decision to Atty. The decision of the WCC was then sent to Atty. The doctor testified that the nature of work of the claimant involving strenuous physical exertion and other factors of work such as the lowering of his resistance inview of the enormous inhalation of chemical fumes. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. There is no reason why the decision would have been served on some other counsel if there were no such misinformation. by mere motions. MPC contends that the one ―officially furnished‖ with a copy of such decision was not its counsel. The petitioner filed a Manifestation praying for the deferment of the enforcement of the execution because according to them. the petitioners failed to pay the balance and the respondent filed for a motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to enforce the earlier decision. but Atty. that it had not received a copy of a decision. a plea for execution was granted on behalf of the Arbiria and subsequently the City Sherriff of Manila levied on the petitioner‘s properties.00. and makes a blatant mockery of justice. that unfortunately afflicts so many of our countrymen. The petitioners filed on March 6. 1967. they have a pending proposal for the settlement of their debt. It was then alleged in the petition that on April 11. specifically because it was the petitioners who caused the delay 5.

the fiscal having prosecuted him previous to this trial. RATIO:The Court reminds the counsel of the duty of the lawyers who. then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit.R. L-6294 February 10. condemns.ISSUE/S: Did the counsel abuse the judicial process and should be held liable? HELD: the court cannot countenance. Uy Teng Piao FACTS: On September 9. The other parcel of land was subsequently resold by the bank for P2. CASE 83: The United States vs. Subsequently. ISSUE/S: WON Ballena violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (which was not existing at the time) by inducing Barruga to make false testimony. The court ordered Uy Teng Piao to deposit the amount with the clerk of the court within 3 months from the date of the judgment. stood witness for herein defendant Leoncio Ballena. 8274. 1911 FACTS: Ana Ramirez was charged with the crime of perjury. wherein she testified under oath before the fiscal. Bailon. plus 10% of the sum amount for attorney's fees and costs. He is insisting that the testimony given by Barruga in that perjury case was immaterial to the issues involved therein. the bank sold said property to Mariano Santos for P8. The basis of the prosecution was the false testimony given by Ana in a certain criminal case. However. during the trial of said case she testified that her husband died of illness.700. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client. the present case is an instance where the due process routine vigorously pursued by the petitioners is but clear. because the account of Uy Teng Piao was credited with the sum of P11. On the same date. G. at the time he was making his investigation into the cause of death of Ana‘s husband. and in fact. The bank credited Uy Teng Piao with the full amount. while the witness is still under examination. Ballena was duly tried and found guilty wherein from this judgment he is appealing. PNB secured from Uy Teng Piao a waiver of his right to redeem the property described in TCT No.cut devise meant to perpetually forestall execution of an otherwise final and executory decision. Leoncio Ballena. must see to it that the orderly administration must not be unduly impeded. as officers of the court. CASE 84: PNB V. 600. on the merit or lack of merit of his case. and was consequently found guilty thereof. which she refused for he was a married man. Señor Bailon. Uy Teng Piao failed to comply with the order of the court. rather than traverse the incontrovertible. attempted to rape her daughter and asked for the hand of the girl in marriage. RATIO: Rule 12. its primacy is indisputable. 7264 and 8274 should be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment. 1925. Under the latter‘s instigation. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client.A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial. 300. as it appears on record that he was the enemy of the fiscal at that time. that the accused in that case caused the death of her husband by means of blows inflicted by him. Without a doubt.05 . HELD: Yes. 000 respectively. the CFI of Manila rendered a judgment in favor of PNB and against Uy Teng Piao in a civil case for the sum of P17. the fiscal (Bailon) filed an information in the CFI against Ballena charging him with the crime of subornation of perjury. On February 11. the outrageous abuse of judicial process by the petitioners and their counsel. and temper his client's propensity to litigate. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Barruga admitted that Ballena strongly insisted that she make it appear that the fiscal committed those acts as it would be the only way to save her daughter from imprisonment. During the trial of this perjury case. and the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the two parcels of land at public auction to PNB for P300 and P1. the 2 mortgaged properties described in TCT Nos. In case of his failure to do so. ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client. The defendant not only willingly and willfully induced the witness to swear falsely. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless. Aside from clogging the court dockets. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|63 . but he did so maliciously. 1924. 1924. No. the strategy is deplorable a common course resorted to by losing litigants in the hope of evading manifest obligations. Barruga testified that the fiscal. 232. Estefania Barruga.42 with interest at 7% from June 1. Ana‘s mother.

83 and 88 sought to eject the squatters from the aforementioned farm. If it be conceded that there was such an understanding between Pecson and Uy Teng Piao. Uy Teng Piao alleged that he waived his right to redeem the land described in the TCT of the first parcel of land.600 and credited the Uy Teng Piao with the full amount of the resale was a sufficient consideration for the execution of defendant's waiver of his right to redeem. Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics:When a lawyer is a witness for his client. Uy Teng Piao waived his right to redeem the land in Calle Ronquillo. Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove that there was an agreement. in due course. WON the appearance of one of the lawyers of PNB as a witness is recognized HELD: 1. He must not testify as a witness for his client.33. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney. The defendants in the mentioned civil cases were. the acting municipal judge of which was the Honorable Vicente Galicia (who was at the same time the regular judge of the municipal court of Bayugan. Agusan del Bur. Irineo L. he answered that he did not know. Mascarinas of Manila was the owner of d farm located in Esperanza. 23 April and 01 June. that is. There is no mention as to such an agreement on the part of the bank. 574. Except when essential to the ends of justice. asked when Pecson had spoken to him about the matter. and that herein complainant Lantoria was the manager and supervisor of said farm. It appears that the complaint in Civil Case Nos. 000 resold it for P8. in consideration of an understanding between him and the bank that it would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. ISSUE/S: 1. he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. except as to merely formal matters. 1930. 1974.The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance of P11. declared in default. The fact that the bank after having bought the land for P1. It was on this ground that the trial court absolved Uy Teng Piao from the complaint. complainant filed with this Court the present administrative case against respondent Bunyi. it is not shown that Pecson was authorized to make any such agreement for the bank. a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client. predicated mainly on the above-quoted three (3) letters dated 04 March. It only provides the land in Calle Ronquillo. 600. If Pecson had made any such agreement as Uy Teng Piao claims. CASE 85: Cesar L. Atty. Lantoria vs. he replied that he did not remember. on 11 April 1977. because his friend (Mariano Santos) was interested in buying it. Constancia M. Agusan del Sur. The alleged agreement rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of the defendant. No. There is no merit in the contention that since the bank accepted the benefit of the waiver it cannot now repudiate the alleged agreement. a Chinese business man. None. because a friend of his wished to purchase it and was willing to pay P8. although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause. such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like. or his deposition if he was not residing in Manila at the time of the trial.These cases were assigned to the Municipal Court of Esperanza. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|64 . Bunyi FACTS: Bunyi alleged that Mrs. he would have required Uy Teng Piao. The bank ought to have presented Pecson as a witness. Agusan del Sur). and that they should withdraw from the active management of the case. Only the board of directors or the persons empowered by the board of directors could bind the bank by such an agreement. the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary. to waive his right to redeem both parcels of land. 2. with interest at 7% per annum from August 1. One of the attorneys for PNB testified that Uy Teng Piao renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land in Calle Ronquillo. and the bank agreed to credit Uy Teng Piao with the full amount of the sale. When asked on cross-examination if Pecson was not in Iloilo at the time of the execution of Uy Teng Piao's waiver of his right to redeem. WON there is an agreement between Uy Teng Piao and the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment 2. unless it is necessary as provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility RATIO:Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part of the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment. Three years after. 81. Complainant contends that respondent won the said three (3) cases because to (respondent) was the one who unethically prepared LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Uy Teng Piao's testimony as to the alleged agreement is very uncertain. and that he would have insisted upon some evidence of the agreement in writing. receiving as such a monthly allowance.

it came from the under-standing between the Judge and the complainant who. subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided. HELD: YES there was an attempt from the lawyer. He himself knew that Judge Galicia asked for help in the drafting of said decisions as at any rate they were judgments by default. Furthermore. had demonstrated so much interest to eject at once the squatters from the farm he was entrusted to manage. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (which were enforced at the time respondent committed the acts admitted by him). this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case. deserves suspension from the practice of law. without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the judge's station. the acts of respondent nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the Court. Antonio C. that the decisions in question be drafted or prepared for Judge Galicia. 81. Clearly. which read: CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence. Hon. cultivating familiarity with judges. CASE 86: Domingo V. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special personal consideration or favor. the defendants lost their standing in court when they were declared in default for failure to file their answers and to appear at the place and time set for hearing. Instead.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to. respondent violated Canon No. who considered such preparation as a big help to him. both of Agusan del Sur.R. 13 and Rule 13. RATIO: e. The said letter of June 1. because he was at that time holding two (2) salas — one as being the regular Municipal Judge of Bayugan and the other. that if ever the same was written by the Respondent. which provides as follows: 3. the intention to draft or prepare the decisions in question was never spawned by the Respondent. With the admission by respondent of the existence of the letters upon which the present administrative complaint is based.the decisions rendered therein. nor seek opportunity for. as the acting Judge of Esperanza. Rule 13. uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties. Austria vs. 1967 FACTS: Respondent Judge Masaquel rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs (one of them is Domingo Austria) the owners of the three parcels of land in question located at San Carlos and Bayambang in the province LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between bench and bar. is self-explanatory and speaks for itself. ISSUE/S: WON there was an attempt from the lawyer to influence the court. by way of disciplinary action. Attempts to exert personal influence on the court Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge. and that he even asked for an apology from the Court.01. In the new Code of Professional Responsibility a lawyer's attempt to influence the court is rebuked. the remaining issue to be resolved is the effect of the acts complained of on respondent's duty both as a lawyer and an officer of the Court. it was due to the insistence of the Complainant thru his several letters received. or gives the appearance of influencing the court. A self-respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty. and 88. Masaquel. The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft decisions in Civil Case Nos. Although nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court judge's consent to the said preparation for a favor or consideration. and which he in fact prepared. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|65 . G. L22536 August 31. No. from his several letters. with many pending cases and it was to the benefit of the Complainant that the early disposition of the cases involved would not suffer inconsiderable delay. the Complainant's conclusion that the said decisions were lutong macao is purely non-sense as it is without any factual or legal basis. 83. 1974. for whatever effects such letters may have had on his duty as a lawyer. the respondent himself having admitted that the letters in question truly exist. and that the preparation by respondent of said decisions warranted disciplinary action against him. as shown in Canon No. We find merit in the recommendation of the Solicitor General that respondent. But. Therefore.

which prayer was granted by Judge Masaquel. Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. Mariano C. Judge Masaquel granted the said motion. counsel for Austria and his co-plaintiffs. accordingly. And then the petitioner became aware of the fact that his adversary. Judge called Domingo Austria. It was when Atty. Moreover. is the duty of doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of the Judge. said motion was granted by respondent Judge in spite of the vigorous objection of counsel for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs. the defendant Pedro Bravo. paid the fine of P50. Austria is not guilty of direct contempt of court. pursuant to the provision of the second paragraph of Section 1 of the said Rule 137. but upon the filing of a bond by Bravo for the nonappointment of a receiver. He filed this instant petition for certiorari before this Court. however. Atty.00 under protest. The hearing on the retrial was finally set. Macaraeg to approach the Judge in chambers and to ask him to disqualify himself from trying this case because defendant's lawyer. much less insulting or offensive to the respondent Judge or to the court. 1930CARLO LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. HELD: No. July 24. CASE 87: In re Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo. RATIO: When the petitioner requested respondent Judge to inhibit himself from further trying the case upon the ground that the counsel for the opposite party was the former associate of the respondent Judge. was counsel for a party in the case being tried by him. Atty. had been boasting in San Carlos that he was sure to win his case because of his new lawyer. second only to the duty of rendering a just decision. Domingo Austria answered both in the affirmative. Atty. Sicat took over as new counsel for defendant that the latter was given back the properties. when the same counsel for defendant filed a motion for a new trial. Sicat. Sicat filed a motion for new trial. and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Atty. which was later on granted by Judge Masaquel. rejected the request because.00. saw Judge Masaquel in his chamber and verbally transmitted to him the request of Austria that he (the Judge) inhibit himself from further hearing the case upon the ground that the new counsel for the defendant. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|66 . a former assistant or associate of Judge Masaquel. Pending the approval of the defendant's amended record on appeal. Judge Masaquel declared said plaintiff Domingo Austria in direct contempt of court and he was ordered to pay a fine of P50. Judge Masaquel. the fact that Atty. Atty. Austria was also asked if he has lost faith in the sense of fairness and justice of the Presiding Judge of this Court simply because of Judge Masaquel‘s former association with the defendant's lawyer. Through Atty. if he so decides. when the latter was still in the practice of law before his appointment to the bench. Sicat. entered his appearance as the new counsel for defendant Pedro Bravo. the order receivership was set aside.of Pangasinan. according to him. Daniel Macaraeg. The respondent Judge had decided the case in favor of petitioner and his co-plaintiffs. the sheriff placed them in possession of the lands located at San Carlos. admittedly his former associate. ISSUE/S: WON Domingo Austria should be held in direct contempt of court. was his former associate. may constitute a just or valid reason for him to voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case on a retrial. Bravo then filed a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment.00. The plaintiffs filed a motion for the immediate execution of the judgment — which motion was granted by respondent Judge Masaquel and. petitioner did so because he was impelled by a justifiable apprehension which can occur in the mind of a litigant who sees what seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary. Mariano C. and inquired from the latter if it was true that he asked his lawyer Atty.000. Austria had asked for the appointment of a receiver over the parcel of land located at Bayambang. Before the opening of the court's session. Sikat. Pedro Bravo was ordered to vacate the lands and pay the plaintiffs damages only with respect to the land located at Bayambang. While it is true that respondent Judge may not be compelled to disqualify himself. and that upon plaintiffs' timely motion and filing of bond they were already placed in possession of the lands in question pending appeal. Again. Sicat. Petitioner Domingo Austria. and that the petitioner made his request in a manner that was not disrespectful. Sicat was formerly associated with the said Judge. upon the plaintiffs' having posted a surety bond in the sum of P2. upon a motion to stay the execution of the judgment which was filed by said counsel and was granted by respondent Judge over the opposition of petitioner's counsel. the reason for the request of his inhibition is not one of the grounds for disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules of Court.

Said complaint was referred to the Attorney-General for investigation. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|67 . Regarding this account. A certain portion of the article gives an account of the evidence of the different witnesses involved." In so far as this resolution relates to the suspension or removal of Judges of First Instance. or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by the courts. proceeded to the municipality of Capiz. the complainant attorney alleged that the facts contained were "false. However. for the very article published by them indicates that the hearing was held behind closed doors and that the information of the reporter was obtained from outside the screen and from comments in social circles. shall be considered confidential in nature until the final disposition of the matter." The Attorney-General likewise stated that the newspaper report "does not contain a fair and true account of the facts disclosed at the investigation. Province of Capiz. and it is the order of the court that they be punished for such contempt by the payment of a nominal sum CASE 88: Cruz v. it came about that the testimony was mutilated and that the report reflected upon the action of the complainant to his possible disadvantage. said to be an employee in the office of the Judge under investigation. ISSUE/S: WON Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo can be held in contempt by the SC for their actions in the said case. obstruct. to take the testimony of certain witnesses. RATIO: The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the Supreme Court. The right of legitimate publicity must be scrupulously recognized and care taken at all times to avoid impinging upon it. with the object undoubtedly. or proceedings in camera. in administrative cases concerning the removal and suspension of judges as it is in any other class of judicial proceedings. on April 29. this court will not hesitate to exercise its undoubted power to punish for contempt. report. embarass. and untrue" and that "said report took sides with the respondent judge and expressed an opinion as to the merits of the same. a resolution dated January 27. creating a wrong impression in the mind of the public and tending to influence improperly the action of this court in the said pending matter. 1930. it finds support in section 173 of the Administrative Code. as is customary in cases of that nature. and all proceedings looking to the suspension or removal of judges of first instance. Said investigation was to be conducted secretly. Salva LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. In the case at bar. At the time of its publication." Under the circumstances. malicious. or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice." The reason for the adoption of such a rule is readily explainable and consists in the practice of litigants and others making vindictive and malicious charges against lawyers and Judges of First Instance. indeed to safeguard their very existence. the Court stated that respondents ignorance of the said controlling resolution is no excuse. Then in writing up the investigation. embarrass or impede the course of the present investigation. which are ruinous to the reputations of the respondent lawyers and judges. and recommendation. and pursuant to said designation. It is as necessary to maintain respect for the courts. a newspaper named El Pueblo published in Iloilo and edited by Severino Lozano. Hence. authorizing the SC to conduct inquiries into the conduct of Judges of First Instance "and to adopt such rules of procedure in that regard as it may deem proper. HELD: Yes. In a clear case where it is necessary. printed an account of the investigation written by Anastacio Quevedo.FACTS: A complaint was made to a judge of First Instance. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor-General was designated to conduct the investigation of the charges. Severino Lazano and Anastacio Quevedo are guilty of contempt of court. It was accordingly thought best to keep such matters secret for the good of the administration of justice until the final outcome of the proceedings could be ascertained. in order to dispose of judicial business unhampered by publication which reasonably tend to impair the impartiality of verdicts. 1922 was in force which provided "That all proceedings looking to the suspension or disbarment of lawyers. the right of legitimate publicity must be scrupulously recognized and care taken at all times to avoid impinging upon it. as for example the secrets of the jury room. The power of the SC extends to administrative proceedings as well as to suits at law cannot be doubted. The rule is well established that the newspaper publications tending to impede. to influence the action of the investigator and the public in general and to obstruct. It is also regarded as an interference with the work of the courts to publish any matters which their policy requires should be kept private. The rule is otherwise after the cause is ended. the observations of the Attorney-General must necessarily be accepted as true.

CASE 89: Eduardo L. Salva was publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation which is considered and found to be contempt of court. for violation of the Articles of War. Louisiana. G. the SC believed that he indeed made a request of reinvestigation. His actuations went well beyond the bounds of prudence. Martelino. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|68 . He committed what was regard a grievous error and poor judgment. 1969 which states that "The Jabidah [code name of the training operations] issue was bound to come up in the course of the election campaign. questioned the jurisdiction of the committee to conduct the investigation considering that the case was pending appeal in SC. was such as to unduly influence the members of the court-martial." and that Senator Magsaysay.FACTS: Manuel Monroy was killed in 1953 and a number of persons were accused of such killing. The way Salva conducted the investigation is reprehensible. There were reporters everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures. Dowd. following the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident which had come to be referred to as the "Corregidor massacre". Baizas. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The counsel of the defendants wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case on the basis of the affidavits and confessions obtained by the investigator of Malacanang which was made available to him. The investigation was made not in Salva‘s office but in the session hall of the Municipal Trial Court to accommodate a big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case which was conducted by the intelligence agents of the Philippine Constabulary and investigators of Malacanang. However." The petitioners argue that the case had received such an amount of publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential election as to imperil his right to a fair trial. Microphones were installed. he would not conduct the investigation. The opposition could not possibly ignore an issue that is heavily loaded against the administration. the Supreme Court was interested in the manner to which the investigation headed by Salva was conducted. Maxwell. Major Eduardo Martelino. coupled with the fact that it became an issue against the administration in the 1969 elections. opposition Vice President candidate. and good taste. ISSUE: W/N Salva violated Rule 13. In their answer." In addition the petitioners cite in this Court a Manila Times editorial of August 26. al.R. vs. Salva contended that he subpoenaed Cruz et al because of their request to do so and that were it not for his request. They all appealed. Although Cruz denied having made such request. Pending the appeal. HELD: Yes. no proof has been presented showing that the court-martial's president's fairness and impartiality have been impaired. These persons were found guilty sentenced to the penalty of death. discretion. ISSUE/S: WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial. Atty. Estes v. L-30894. and the officers and men under him. At the hearing. had gone to Corregidor and "found bullet shells. petitioner Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial. 1969 issue of the Daily Mirror and cited other news reports to the effect that "coffins are being prepared for the President (of the Philippines) in Jolo." that according to Senator Aquino "massacre victims were given sea burial. The result of the reinvestigation also points to the convicted persons as the real killers of Monroy. The petitioner's counsel referred to a news item appearing in the July 29. In support of their contention they invoke the rulings of the United States Supreme Court in Irvin v. as a result of the alleged shooting of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor. Rideau vs. Texas. March 25. et. The petitioners further allege that the adverse publicity given in the mass media to the Corregidor incident. and Shepard v. Salva subpoenaed Cruz to appear at his office for the investigation. Jose Alejandro. Salva formed a committee composed of himself as the chairman and two assistant city attorneys. including members of the press. He publicized and sensationalized the case. of the AFP. No. alias Abdul Latif Martelino. 1970 FACTS: This case presents another aspect of the court-martial proceedings against the petitioner. counsel of Cruz. the respondents as members of the general court-martial assert that despite the publicity which the case had received.

R. The interview was seen and heard on television by 24. No. which involved elements of publicity. who was accused of the murder of his wife Marilyn. says that the use of television in the instant case was "without injustice to the person immediately concerned. Florida. If publicity during the proceeding threatens the fairness of the trial. If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all.. Estes.". the trial of the petitioners was being held under circumstances which did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of procedure which have come to be identified with due process.HELD: No. cartoons and pictures was unleashed against him during the six or seven months preceding his trial.000 people." Thus. and in the killing of one of them. the Court voided a televised criminal trial for being inherently a denial of due process. the Supreme Court found that shortly after the petitioner's arrest in connection with six murders committed. In the earlier case of Shepherd v. But where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial. was similarly given "trial by publicity. the celebrated murder case of Sam Sheppard. a moving picture film was taken of him in an "interview" with the sheriff. however. An examination of the cases cited. Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have subsided. for instance. a new trial should be ordered. was conveyed by the press to the jury." Irvin marks the first time a state conviction was struck down solely on the ground of prejudicial publicity. there is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom. it was not of the petitioners but of the Government. unseen. even granting the existence of "massive" and "prejudicial" publicity.02 . suspect in the robbery of a bank and in the kidnapping of three of its employees. the reversal of the conviction was based solely on racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. The "interview. by postponing the trial of the petitioner until calmer times have returned. Of course. Indeed. the petitioner. In Rideau. CASE 90: Magsalang vs. In the case at bar. and here just such a statement unsworn to. G. the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. The spate of publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners. In the third case. the judge should continue the case until the threat abates. the Court thinks that the suspension of the courtmartial proceedings has accomplished the purpose sought by the petitioners' challenge for cause. People. In Irvin.A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. At all events.. the prosecutor and police officials issued press releases stating that the petitioner had confessed to the six murders and that "a barrage of newspaper headlines articles. the day after his arrest. the newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom. RATIO: Rule 13. since the petitioners here do not contend that the respondents have been unduly influenced but simply that they might be by the "barrage" of publicity." consisted of interrogation by the sheriff and admission by Rideau that he had perpetrated the bank robbery. The Court held that from the unfair and prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors. uncross-examined and uncontradicted. "It is hard to imagine a more prejudicial influence than a press release by the officer of the court charged with defendants' custody stating that they had confessed. The atmosphere has since been cleared and the publicity surrounding the Corregidor incident has so far abated that the court believes that the trial may now be resumed in tranquility. the spate of publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim trainees. The state . L-37679 May 14. His lawyers promptly moved for a change of venue but their motion was denied and Rideau was convicted and sentenced to death to the spectacle of Rideau personally confessing in detail to the crimes with which he was later to be charged. or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|69 . In Sheppard. will show that they are widely disparate from this case in a fundamental sense. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 1990 WRONG CASE ATA TONG BINIGAY NI ATTY. kidnapping and murder.

(Yung case na nilagay ko, MAGLASANG vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990) FACTS: On June 22, 1989, a petition for certiorari entitled "Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs. People of the Philippines, Presiding Judge, Ernesto B. Templado (San Carlos City Court) Negros Occidental," was filed by registered mail with the Court. Due to non-compliance with the requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, specifically the nonpayment of P316.50 for 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 denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court dismissed the petition on July 26, 1989. On September 9, 1989, Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano, as counsel of the petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the petition. This time, the amount of P316.50 was remitted and the Court was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision, and also the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his membership dues. The motion for reconsideration did not contain the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Thus, in a Resolution dated October 18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was denied "with FINALITY." Three months later, or on January 22, 1990 to be exact, the Court received from Atty. Castellano a copy of a complaint dated December 19, 1989, filed with the Office of the President of the Philippines whereby Khalyxto Perez Maglasang, through his lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant, 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." The complaint was signed by Atty. Castellano "for the complainant" with the conformity of one Calixto B. Maglasang, allegedly the father of accused-complainant Khalyxto. By reason of the strong and intemperate language of the complaint and its improper filing with the Office of the President, which, as he should know as a lawyer, has no jurisdiction to discipline, much more, remove, Justices of the Supreme Court, on February 7, 1990, Atty. Castellano was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct.

ISSUE/S: WON, Atty. Castellano, petitioner‘s lawyer, is guilty of violation of Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04; 13.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes. RATIO: It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Atty. Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court's Second Division, but simply because of his inexcusable negligence and incompetence. Atty. Castellano, however, seeks to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to the Court, in the hope of salvaging his reputation before his client. Unfortunately, the means by which Atty. Castellano hoped to pass the buck so to speak, are grossly improper. As an officer of the Court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to keep the confidence of his client. CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. RULE 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menancing language or behavior before the courts. RULE 11.04 — A lawyer should not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have materiality to the case. RULE 13.03 – A lawyer shall not brook nor invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings. The Court held that in filing the "complaint" against the justices of the Court's Second Division, even the most basic tenet of our government system — the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches has — been lost on Atty. Castellano. The Court therefore take this occasion to once again remind all and sundry that "the Supreme Court is supreme — the third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust.'" Consequently, and owing to the foregoing, not even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts.


Finally, Atty. 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, concerned as Respondents (sic)" is but a last minute effort to sanitize his clearly unfounded and irresponsible accusation. 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 in claiming that a contempt order is used as a weapon by judges and justices against practicing lawyers, however, reveals all too plainly that he was not honestly motivated in his criticism. Rather, 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. WHEREFORE, Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano is found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT and IMPROPER CONDUCT as a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court, and is hereby ordered to PAY within fifteen (15) days from and after the finality of this Resolution a fine of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos, or SUFFER ten (10) days imprisonment in the municipal jail of Calatrava, Negros Occidental in case he fails to pay the fine seasonably, and SUSPENDED from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for six (6) months as soon as this Resolution becomes final, with a WARNING that a repetition of any misconduct on his part will be dealt with more severely. CASE 91: PEOPLE v. GAUDENCIO INGCO CPR 14.02 FACTS: Respondent Alfredo R. Barrios, a member of the Philippine Bar, who was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused in this case, Gaudencio Ingco, sentenced to death on September 28, 1970 for the crime of rape with homicide, was required in a resolution of this Court on September 9, 1971 to show cause within ten days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having filed fifteen days late a motion for the extension of time for submitting the brief for appellant Ingco. The explanation came in a manifestation of September 16, 1971. It was therein stated that respondent "was then busy with the preparation of the brief of one Benjamin Apelo pending in the Court of Appeals; that while he had made studies in preparation for the brief in this case, during such period he had to appear before courts in Manila, Quezon City, Pasay City, Bulacan and Pampanga; and that likewise he did file, on July 27, 1971, motions for extension in the aforesaid case of Benjamin Apelo with the Court of Appeals, which motions were duly granted. He would impress on

this Court then that he was misled into assuming that he had also likewise taken the necessary steps to file a motion for extension of time for the submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the resolution from the Court of Appeals granting him such extension. ISSUE/S: WON violated the Canon 14.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. The respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility RATIO: Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent did offer. By his own confession, he was woefully negligent. Considering that the accused is fighting for his life, the least that could be expected of a counsel de oficio is awareness of the period within which he was required to file appellant's brief. The mere fact that according to him his practice was extensive, requiring his appearance in courts in Manila and environs as well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga, should not have lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility. What is worse is that by sheer inattention, he would confuse the proceedings in a matter pending before the Court of Appeals with this present case. Such grave neglect of duty is deserving of severe condemnation. It is clearly unworthy of membership in the Bar which requires dedication and zeal in the defense of his client's rights, a duty even more exacting when one is counsel de oficio. On such an occasion, the honor and respect to which the legal profession is entitled demand the strictest accountability of one called upon to defend an impoverished litigant. He who falls in his obligation then has manifested a diminished capacity to be enrolled in its ranks. CASE 92: The United States vs. Calixto Laranja, G.R. No. 6789, February 16, 1912 FACTS: Calixto and four or five companions went to the house of one Candoy one night and that a quarrel and fight ensued there which resulted in the death of Candoy and Ando. Criminal complaints were filed against appellant Calixto and one Iyon, charging them with the crime of homicide. When the case against Calixto was called, a certain agreement with reference to admitting the testimony taken in the case against Iyon was entered into by counsel for the defendant and the provincial fiscal. This agreement, was as follows:


Counsel de oficio, Mr. Lozano, stated that he would submit the case and it was within the knowledge of the court, that he had been present all during the trial, assisting the fiscal in the case against Iyon and that Laranja had been present and heard all the testimony in the case against Iyon, and that he was willing for the record in the case against Iyon to be used in the trial of this case. The fiscal agreed to this, and the defendant, after being sworn, went upon the stand. The case was submitted upon the testimony of the appellant and that taken in the case against Iyon. Counsel for the defendant now insists that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony taken in the Iyon case. On the other hand, the Attorney-General insists that no such error was committed for the reason, as he says, that the defendant waived his right to be confronted with and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Lozano could legally represent Calixto t in the court below. HELD: It must be borne in mind that Atty. Lozano was appointed by the court to represent Calixto.This method is followed in order to divide the work equally among the attorneys, and we see no objection to such a method. But generally, the attorney appointed is not selected by the defendant, who is given no choice in the matter. The defendant must accept whosoever is designated. In defending Calixto (the defendant), it was the duty of attorney to show, if it could be done, that Candoy was the aggressor and not Calixto. The record in the Iyon case shows that there was no attempt on the part of Attorney Lozano to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the defendant in that case from the viewpoint of the defense in the case at bar. The record does not disclose whether Mr. Lozano was appointed to represent this appellant before or after the trial of Iyon. If he was appointed before that trial, he did not, as we have said, develop by cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses in that case against Iyon the theory of self-defense which was the plea of this defendant.

Again, if the lawyer had been appointed before the trial of Iyon, he could have consulted with Calixto and obtained from him all the facts about how the killing occurred, and the defense of this appellant. If the attorney was appointed after the Iyon case was closed, he would have had no reason, of course, for developing the testimony in the case against Iyon which would have aided the defense of the appellant. Viewed from any standpoint, there was an opportunity for the attorney to have acted in double capacity. The appearance of such injustice to clients must be avoided. Courts will give approval in no agree to the conduct of Mr. Lozano. He should have called the attention of the trial court to these facts, and the court would then no doubt have relieved him as attorney de oficio for the appellant. Public policy prohibits him from defending the appellant under these circumstances; the reason for this prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of confidence and trust in the very highest degree. An attorney becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's cause. He learns from his client the weak points of the case as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered scared and guarded with great care. We believe there are sufficient reasons in this case under the facts and circumstances as presented to hold that Mr. Lozano was disqualified and could not legally represent the defendant in the court below. The judgment appealed from must be set aside and a new trial ordered. CASE 93: People v. Felipe Malunsing, et. al., and Manuel Villegas (1975) FACTS: There was a hearing for the crime of murder, with several accused, including Manuel Villegas, the appellant in this case. They were all found guilty of murder. However, Manuel Villegas claims that his constitutional right to be heard by counsel was violated. He now seeks reversal of the decision convicting him for murder. Manuel had a counsel de officio: Atty. Geronimo Pajarito. At the opening of the trial, Atty. Pajarito manifested to the court that client Manuel had told him that he had his own lawyer. There was an admission that he did appear for him in the preliminary investigation but only because there was no other counsel. When the court asked Manuel if he had informed Atty. Pajarito of his change of mind, Manuel answered in the negative. The trial


it is not enough that. Pajarito. ―I think I know the case. Only in such way there could be an intelligent defense for the accused. but the Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated only in 1988.court then said that it was appointing Atty. Pajarito simply said. Manuel did not understand what was going on. It was unintended. In the process of serving breakfast to the respondents.‖ By the virtue of the crime that was committed. Atty. Manuel is uneducated. in our syllabus). Pajarito. they can proceed with the trial. this time. conspiring. Therefore on the following day. on the part of the trial court. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|73 . The court did not even bother to see to it that Manuel is substantially receiving his right to counsel. Instead of conferring with the accused. one who would discharge his task in a much more diligent and conscientious manner and would not readily assume that he need not bother himself unduly with familiarizing himself further with all aspects of the case. The court also asked Atty. The trial judge forthwith dictated and promulgated his decision in open court and all 4 respondents were sentenced to death. Second. Note: The court did not impose any disciplinary action on Atty. Atty.‖ He did not even availed of the opportunity to confer with the client. of course. Pajarito. in order to secure the accused‘s right to counsel. and orders a re-trial. Pajarito HELD: Yes. Pajarito just blithely inform the judge that he was already fully prepared for his exacting responsibility. Pajarito as Manuel‘s counsel de was also observed that when the respondents entered the plea of guilty. it was violated. confederating and acting together and each armed with improvised deadly weapons did then and there wilfully. However. the court proceeded with the trial. in the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa the accused/respondents George Daeng. the trial judge addressed them that he understands that the respondents are confused and not ready to plead guilty therefore giving them 24 hours for ―sole searching. When the court rendered a decision. CASE 94: PEOPLE v. Pajarito if he wanted an hour or so to confer with Manuel. Conrado Bautista. because perhaps he had lost confidence in Atty. ISSUE/S: WON the constitutional right of Manuel as accused was violated because of the conduct of his counsel de officio. while then unarmed and unable to defend himself from the attack launched by the respondents and as a result Beltran died instantly. because this case was decided in 1975. it noted that it was only Manuel who did not present any witness nor took the witness stand for himself. and why did he not testify on the witness stand. the trial court rendered the decision without requiring the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. It was alleged in the present petition for review of the decision that during the trial. with direct orders to make sure that all the safeguards and protection an accused is entitled to be made available to Manuel RATIO: First. the Solicitor General found that the records do not show that it was explained to the respondents the full import and meaning of their plea of guilty not did it conduct any inquiry to remove all reasonable possibility that said respondents might have entered their plea of guilty improvidently or without clear and precise understanding of the exact nature of the charge preferred against them and the import of an inevitable conviction thereof. The court also made no reference to Canon 14. but the result could not rightly be distinguished from pure travesty. on the part of Atty. the 4 respondents pleaded guilty assisted by their counsel de oficio. unlawfully and feloniously assault and wound therewith one Basilio Beltran. another convicted prisoner serving final sentence in the same institution. and as such. but simply ordered a new trial. Gerardo Abubin and Rolando Castillo while the confined at the said institutiion. Manuel is therefore entitled to a new trial where he can be duly represented either by a counsel of his choice or by one appointed de officio. On 28 June 1971 the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge but before the trial was adjourned to another date. Manuel had manifested that he wanted a lawyer of his own choice. DAENG FACTS:On or about 13 December 1970. In the review of this case on automatic appeal. it was only Manuel who did not present witnesses or evidence. a counsel de officio was appointed.‖ So. inflicting upon Beltran multiple stab wounds. The court has decided to set aside the lower court‘s decision finding him guilty of murder. nor did the court inquire why of all the accused. there is no respect for the right of the accused to be heard by counsel when he (Pajarito) said ―I think I know the case.02 (under which this case was assigned. there is no alternative except to impose death penalty which is the maximum penalty.

soldiers. Judge Muñoz Palma. Arcangel had lost interest in the progress of their claims and when they finally asked for the return of their papers six years later. remained as counsel of record since he did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellant‘s counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds. RATIO: ―The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges. and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. 00375-76. ISSUE/S:WON the conviction should be set aside HELD: Yes. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. He commenced discharging his duties. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. Arcangel admitted having received the documents from complainants but argued that it was for photostating purposes only. Climaco FACTS : Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. March 22. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|74 . Williams CA G. His failure to immediately return them was due to complainants Blanza and Pasion's refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photostating costs which LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. they noticed that since then. something which the rule does not envision. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. The lawyer involved not being among them. Rafael C.the accused also stands to suffer because the overburned counsel would have too little time to spare for his de oficio cases and also would be inordinately eager to finish such cases in order to collect his fees within the earliest possible time. Judge denied the motion. However. and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte.presentation of evidence. L-2809. Agustin Arcangel FACTS: Blanza and Pasion complain that way back in April. The case is remanded to the court of origin for a new arraignment of the respondents.R.C. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. The right of an accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest importance. Atty. respondent Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands. both P. because the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. ISSUE/S: WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election Registrar. a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Ledesma v. 1950) The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a counsel de officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs. et al. vs. L15325. Holgado. RATIO: Courts are cautioned for frequent appointment of the same attorney for counsel de oficio for two basic reasons: (1) it is unfair to the attorney concerned. Nos. August 31. Hon. Daban) Moreover. or other officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. 1930) CASE 96: Antonio Blanza. CASE 95: Adelino H. 1963) To avoid any frustration thereof. and is not a mere trade. Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz. 1955. especially in the case of an indigent was also found that the counsel de oficio was appointed to at least three criminal cases where the respondent‘s plea of not guilty is changed to guilty. they handed over to him the pertinent documents and also attached their signatures on blank papers. Arcangel refused to surrender them. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal. 1964. considering the burden of his regular practice that he should be saddled with too many de ofio cases (2) the compensation provided for by section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court might be considered by som e lawyers as a regular source of income. On November 6. Negros Occidental. and for this purpose. HELD : No. On October 13. February 28.

04 wherein a lawyer must inform the client on status of case HELD: The court is compelled to dismiss the charges against respondent Arcangel for being legally insufficient because of the affidavit of Mrs.prevented him from withdrawing said documents from the photostat service. (2) Rule 15. respondent Atty. (3) lack of transparency in the administration and distribution of the remaining balance of the P42M allotment under the 1992 MOA. consent or ratification. UST faculty members went on strike and UST dismissed 16 officers and directors from office. and (4) Rule 20. et. ISSUE/S: WON Arcangel violated Rule 18.05 of Canon 15. this should serve as a reminder to Atty. UST and the Union executed a memorandum agreement (1992 MOA) to settle the salary increases and other benefits for the period of June 1991 to May 1993. and P2M to satisfy the remaining obligations under the 1986 CBA). who are Union members. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. Blanza pardoning respondent and because of the non appearance of Complainant Pasion nor her counsel to substantiate her charges in the hearing set RATIO: The courtcannot but advise against his actuations as a member of the bar. 4763.03 of Canon 16. v.01. In July 1997. In 1990. in a legal sense. In November 1996. Eduardo J. Marino‘s attorney‘s fees (P4. The UST administration and the Union also entered into a compromise agreement. Gamilla. Both complaints prayed for the expulsion of the Union officers and directors (led by Atty. Upon their refusal to co-operate. Gil Y. and hope. However. The CBA expired in 1988.01 and 1. on December 13. and (4) Atty. The court ordered their reinstatement with back wages. as president of the UST Faculty Union (Union). In 1992. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|75 . Marino was one of these officers. Complainants. for only P2M when they could have received more than P9M. In 1989. Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen profession require of him. accusing him of: (1) compromising their entitlements under the 1986 CBA without their knowledge. and (4) refusing to remit and account the P4. The P2M allotted for the remaining obligations was deferred. Nonetheless. Complainants accused Atty.2M denominated as attorney‘s fees. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he had already advanced the expenses himself and turned over. The agreement provided that: (1) the benefits accruing from June 1991 to October 1992 would be taken from the P42M allotment which UST would release directly to the faculty members. complainants filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. for six long years on their pension claims. with the other officers and directors. especially when he volunteers his professional services.02 and 16. 1961. with other union officers. (3) the P2M agreed upon the 1990 compromise agreement would be taken from the P42M allotment. respondent Arcangel should have terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. 16. Marino. Marino Jr. Marino) for the failure to account for the P42M allotment. questioned the alleged lack of transparency in the management and disbursement of the monetary benefits among the Union officers and directors. (2) UST would then cede the remaining amount to the Union to disburse to cover the benefits from November 1992 to May 1993. al. 2003 FACTS: In 1986. they initiated a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director (NCR-DOLE). A. His conduct must be par excellence. Labor Secretary Ruben Torres prescribed the terms and conditions of a 5-year CBA between UST and the Union. where it was agreed that the former would pay P7M to the latter (P5M for the back wages and other claims.02 of Canon 1.2M) would be taken from the P42M allotment. of the Code of Professional Responsibility. March 20. Atty. P42M was allotted for the settlement. (3) Rules 16. their respective photostats and the photostat service receipt to the fiscal. Atty. they initiated another complaint with the same office.C No. entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the UST management for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35M. the documents. he is necessarily a leader of the community. In October 1995. CASE 97: Dr. Marino for violating: (1) Rules 1. retroactive to 1988. As a man of law. looked up to as a model citizen. Arcangel has not lived up to that ideal standard. (2) failing to account for the P7M he.. It was unnecessary to have complainants Blanza and Pasion wait.04 of Canon 20. And although the court decided he not be reprimanded. only the P5M allotted for the back wages was immediately paid. Marino. received under the 1990 compromise agreement.

the court believes that Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. the Regional Director issued an Order for the expulsion of Atty. the faculty members of UST. A lawyer or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management. both of which found the complaint meritorious and suspended Atty. the explanations for respondent's actions were disclosed only years after LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Marino omitted that basic sense of fidelity to steer clear of situations that put his loyalty and devotion to his client. a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding against a party even with the client's consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments.2M among the faculty members. He failed to avoid conflict of interests: First. among other laws found in the Code of Professional Responsibility. open to question. when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president. IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro issued a Report and the IBP Board of Governors released a Resolution. it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts. but also directed the distribution of the P4. Atty. when he obtained P4. He is reprimanded for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon repetition of the same act."In the same manner. The rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing oneself in positions that ordinarily excite conflict between self-interest and integrity. fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. Atty. he was duty bound to protect and advance the interest of union members and the bargaining unit above his own. In September 2002. In the case at bar. A lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client. As the lawyer and president of the Union. and also the reasons for reducing the claim of the faculty members from more than P9M to only P2M. In May 1999. or worse. Atty.In March 1998. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest as one of the dismissed employees of UST complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him and the other dismissed union officers and directors. In March 2000. and second. RATIO: Canon 15 provides that ―a lawyer shall observe candor. Marino ought to have disclosed to the members of the Union his interest in the compromise agreement as one of the dismissed union officers seeking compensation for the claim of back wages and other forms of damages. seemingly or otherwise at the expense of the faculty members. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|76 . although there was an adequate accounting for the disbursement of the funds the Union received through the series of agreements with the UST management. Marino from the practice of law until he can give the detailed accounting of the questioned remittances. Atty.‖ Canon 15 requires a lawyer to have a bigger dose of service-oriented conscience and a little less of self-interest. actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. The decision is appealed to the Supreme Court. Necessarily. HELD: Yes. among other laws found in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is "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 .2M as attorney‘s fees without full disclosure of the circumstances justifying such claim. As the record shows. Mariano had ethical lapses in his transactions. the court referred the disbarment complaint to the IBP for investigation. union attorney and interested party (being one of the dismissed employees seeking restitution). the detailed Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner Navarro and the IBP Resolution lifted Atty. Marino violated Canon 15. report and recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Marino violated Canon 15. Marino‘s suspension for sufficiently accounting for the funds. Marino and the other officers and directors. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking compensation from UST for their illegal dismissal. the Bureau of Labor Relations set aside the Order because there was full and adequate accounting of the P42M allotment. Mariano had a conflict of interest when he also acted as concurrent lawyer and president of the Union in forging the compromise agreement.

He should have voluntarily turned over the reins of legal representation to another lawyer who could have acted on the matter with a deep sense of impartiality over the several claims against UST and an unfettered commitment to the cause of the faculty members. upon learning of respondent's appearance against them in the cadastral proceeding. filed a petition on behalf of the heirs of Carlos. CASE 98: Generosa Buted Et Al v Atty. Dionisia and Francisco all surnamed Abadilla. Hernando is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Harold M. seeking the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of complainant spouses over the lot. It is founded on principles of public policy. Complainant spouses. Harold M. HELD: Yes.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. CASE 99: Tiana v. Hernando represented conflicting interests and thus has violated Rule 15. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. particularly only after the instant complaint for disbarment was filed against him. RATIO: The mere fact that respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should have precluded respondent from acting or appearing as counsel for the other side in the subsequent petition for cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the spouses Generosa and Benito Bolisay. Amado Ocampo for disbarment.the consummation of the compromise agreement. In 1972. On 23 February 1974. and having availed himself of any confidential information relating to Lot 9439-B. respondent was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and a certain Angela Buted. but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. complainant Tiana. When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple named Luis Sy and Elena Sy against Benito Bolisay as one of the defendants. against Atty. Respondent ultimately succeeded in defending Luciana Abadilla's claim of exclusive ownership over Lot 9439-B. respondent withdrew his appearance from that partition case. when the accounting should have been forthcoming either before or during the settlement of the labor case against the management of UST. without the consent of the heirs of Luciana Abadilla and complainant spouses. It appears that Luciana Abadilla sold the lot to Benito Bolisay and a new Transfer Certificate of Title over the lot was issued in the name of complainant spouses. on good taste. respondent Hernando admitted his involvement in the cadastral case as counsel for the Abadillas but denied having seen or taken hold of the controversial Transfer Certificate of Title. 9439-B. 10. one Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock sued Tiana for ejectment to which Atty. Involved in said partition case was a parcel of land Identified as Lot 9439-B. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|77 . respondent Hernando. Harold M Hernando FACTS: In an action for partition instituted by Generosa as compulsory heir of the deceased Teofilo Buted. 1981 and Aug. Ocampo appeared as LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 1981 two separate complaints were filed by Maria Tiana and the Angel Spouses respectively. Equally important. claims that Atty.01 and Rule 15. Atty. Hernando however claims that he rendered his services to Benito Bolisay free of charge. Atty. Marino should have unambiguously divulged and made clear to his client the compelling probability of conflict of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct. Carlos. With regards to the first case. The absence of monetary consideration does not exempt the lawyer from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a conflict of interest exists. When Luciana died. manifested their disapproval thereof in a letter dated 30 July 1974. Ocampo FACTS: On July 14. At the hearing before the Office of the Solicitor General and in his Answer. Ocampo was her ―retaining counsel‖ in all her legal problems as early as 1966. Dionisia and Francisco were Luciana's registered co-owners in the original certificate of title covering Lot No. since respondent and the other union officers and directors were to get for themselves a lion's share of the compromise as they ultimately did. 2 the latter retained the services of respondent Atty. Respondent avers that the relationship between himself and Benito Bolisay as regards this case was terminated on 4 December 1969.

counsel for both parties. Salunat. ―A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The Angel spouses then bought another parcel of land. July 1. was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Later he learned that his opponents retained Respondent lawyer as their counsel and one Turqueza charged complainant with abuse of authority. Ernesto Salunat is guilty of conflict of interest HELD: Yes. Case No. Saniata Liwliwa V. accordingly. Blaylock in the first case. vs. both in favour of Blaylock.‖ The act of Ocampo of representing both Tiana and Blaylock in the first case and again representing the Angel spouses and Blaylock in the second cases constitutes a violation of Rule 15. of which he is the Managing Partner. To do so would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests. Ocampo allegedly made the Angel spouses sign two or more documents which. Seares. which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility?‖ CASE 101: Robert Victor G. the complainants the Angel Spouses allege that sometime in 1972. Atty. Ocampo prepared the answer in the said ejectment case and made Tiana sign a Compromise Agreement without the latter reading it. RATIO: Under Rule 15. ran for position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores. Atty. Ernesto Salunat admits that the ASSA Law Firm. Ernesto S. The spouses then learned because of a complaint against them that the two documents were a Real Estate Mortgage and a Promissory Note. Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent lawyer again filed the protest ibn the RTC and was dismissed for being time barred and on ground of forum shopping. After due deliberation on the wisdom of this doctrine. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest. – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.03 against conflict of interest. 9058. Two years after. Yet. The test of the conflict of interest in disciplinary cases against a lawyer is whether or not 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. then respondent lawyer filed a protest in the RTC on behalf of complainant but was dismissed for being ―Fatally Defective‖. Seares Jr. to which Ocampo again prepared the Deed of Sale. the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. In other jurisdictions. they sold their house in favour of the same Mrs. Complainant ran again for the same position on May 2010 and won. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual corporate officials. 2012 FACTS:Respondent Atty. of which complainants were members. Gonzales-Azalte is the former lawyer of complainant Seares Jr. Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interests? HELD: Yes. A. and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed.03. GonzalesAlzate. respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases. 5804. he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. et. The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon us. al. Ernesto Salunat was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Benedicto Hornilla contend that Atty.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. CASE 100: Benedicto Hornilla. we are sufficiently convinced that ―a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same c orporation‘s board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. Atty. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 2003 FACTS: An SEC Case was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Rule15. Adm. for the amount of P70. were made parts of the sale transaction. Ocampo is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Jr. Abra in May 2007 and lost. Tiana was shocked when she received an order to vacate the property subject of the ejectment suit. November 14.C. With regards to the second case. No. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|78 . vs. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Ocampo acted as their counsel and prepared the Deed of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver of Rights Over a Lot.000. Atty.

Atty. Marcelino Cabucana‘s law firm and r enders him liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility. asserts that Atty. Jr. Jr. DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE. Saniata Liwliwa V. for prosecuting him. To constitute the violation. Marcelino Cabucana represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses. we wonder why he would denounce her only after nearly five years have passed. Gonzales filed a complaint and alleged that Atty. Jr. Respondent lawyer‘s representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares. the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the start that Atty. Representing conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney‘s new engagement would require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional relation. Jr. Jr. but Turqueza‘s complaint involved Seares. No. We see no trace of professional negligence or incompetence on the part of Atty. herein Atty. Hence. Gonzales-Alzate is unfounded and devoid of substance. Edmar Cabacuna who appeared and represented Gonzales in her civil case. Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner. we doubt the sincerity of the charge of professional negligence and incompetence.‖ a ―Comment on the Court‘s Dismissal of the Protest Ad Cautelam‖ and a ―Motion to Withdraw Cash Deposit. While law firm above-mentioned was still representing Gonzales. and the charge is thereby weakened all the more. simple coercion and unjust vexation. The motivation for the charge becomes suspect. Jr. After which. Jr. Jr. Atty.oppression and grave misconduct and Respondent lawyer represents Turqueza as counsel. Her engagement by Seares. He said that the civil case filed by Gonzales where Atty. Atty. 6836. nor invited the suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney. Marcelino averred that it was his brother. Marc elino‘s brother served as LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. related only to the election protest in 2007. grave threats. Jr. Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass. grave oral defamation. Gonzales won the case. she was represented by the law firm CABUCANA. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares.C. Gonzales-Alzate for utter lack of merit. been prejudiced by Atty. as his former attorney. January 23. There is no question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another. in her legal representation of Turqueza in the latter‘s administrative charge against Seares. Abra in 2010. Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest.‘s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores.‘s protest. And admonishes Seares jr. Marcelino Cabucana should be disbarred from the practice of law since his acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between Gonzales and Atty. CABUCANA. Had Seares. Gonzales-Alzate in her handling of Seares. 2006 FACTS: Gonzales filed a petition before the IBP alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before the MTC. The foregoing notwithstanding. Gonzales-Alzate‘s negligent and incompetent handling of his election protest. failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in connection with the judgment above which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff with this Court. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon 15. Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales and they harassed and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint before the Supreme Court. RATIO: The complaint against Atty. especially because she even filed in his behalf a ―Motion for Reconsideration. and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him. Seares. HELD: No. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|79 . that could be used against Seares. with Atty. Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco. her former client. the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against Atty. Marcelino Cabucana. Jr. A. CASE 102: Leticia Gonzales vs. ISSUE/S: WON Respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. for filing a malicious complaint. There was no indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information during her previous engagement by Seares. he prays that she should be disbarred.‖.

PCGG set the ff. CIC. Petitioners were included in 3rd Amended Complaint for having plotted. schemed. and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Eduardo Cojuangco. Roco having promised he‘ll reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in PCGG Case # 33. but also to avoid t he appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. shares & its institutionalization through presidential directives of the coconut monopoly.. precedent for the exclusion of petitioners: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients. petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies included in CC No. and in keeping with the office practice. & more than 20 other coconut levy funded corps. 0033. nor had he undertaken to reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners and herein private respondent Raul S. ACCRA lawyers acted as nomineesstockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings. Marcelino is Fined and given a Stern Warning. Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law Offices. Marcelino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. the members of the law firm delivered to its client documents which substantiate the client's equity holdings. (b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship. which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. Petitioners then filed their "Comment &/or Opposition" w/ Counter-Motion that PCGG exclude them as parties-defendants like Roco. who had separated from ACCRA law firm. In the course of their dealings with their clients. It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. devised.. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client‘s confidence. filed a separate answer denying the allegations in the complaint implicating him in the alleged ill-gotten wealth.consel is different from the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the Gatcheco spouses. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. the members of the law firm acquire information relative to the assets of clients as well as their personal and business circumstances. through the Presidential Commission on Good Gov‘t (PCGG) against Eduardo M. 33. The representation of opposing clients in said cases. to wit: Rule 15. ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its clients and in the performance of these services. ACCRA Investments Corp. 33 as partydefendant. Concepcion. for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. Sandiganbayan FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines instituted a Complaint before the Sandiganbayan (SB). As members of the ACCRA Law Firm. Roco didn‘t refute petitioners' contention that he did actually not reveal the identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. at the very least. who all were then partners of the law firm Angara. Roco. COCOMARK. 33 (CC No. RATIO: The Court finds Atty. including the acquisition of San Miguel Corp. during said proceedings. Through insidious means & machinations. However. Atty. UNICOM. through the use of coconut levy funds. CASE 103: Regala v. Cojuangco. petitioners alleged that their participation in the acts w/ w/c their co-defendants are charged. though unrelated. the financial & corporate framework & structures that led to establishment of UCPB. as one of the principal defendants.3% of the total outstanding capital stock of UCPB. invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow. in PCGG Case No. 0033) entitled "RP vs. Consequently. conspired & confederated w/each other in setting up. constitutes conflict of interests or. PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit 3rd Amended Complaint" & "3rd Amended Complaint" w/c excluded Roco from the complaint in PCGG Case No. In their answer to the Expanded Amended Complaint. Jr. became the holder of roughly 3. et al. Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Marcelino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. Marcelino guilty of violating Rule 15. was in furtherance of legitimate lawyering Petitioner Paraja Hayudini. PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco of the same conditions precedent. COCOLIFE. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|80 . which includes shares of stocks in the named corps.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Abello.

Under this premise. The protection of confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship is one. the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. and it has since been an accepted firmament in the profession. The general rule is. "A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent is. by revealing the client's name.‖ ACCRA lawyers filed MFR w/c was denied. due process considerations require that the opposing party should. Concurring Opinion: The legal profession. It exists upon the thesis that. To be sure. SB gravely abused its discretion in not considering petitioners & Roco similarly situated &. the client's name is privileged. the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. as when.e. It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (Sec. he is questioned as to such confidential communication or advice. in the ultimate analysis. nor are the documents it required (deeds of assignment) protected. no more than mere tests of vigor that have made and will make that rule endure. as a general rule. Dissening Opinion The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a cause to exclude a party. Hence. the existence and identity of the client. refutes petitioners' contention. an exalted position in the proper dispensation of justice. 2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners from revealing the identity of their client(s) and the other information requested by the PCGG. the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. his identity is privileged. SB denied the exclusion of petitioners. when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer as witness. Davide. J. is still the noblest of professions. a client's identity should not be shrouded in mystery. the resolution by the Sandiganbayan was annulled and set aside RATIO: As a matter of public policy. The reasons advanced for the general rule are well established. It held.In a Resolution. i. however.. he filed a separate petition for certiorari. thus. 3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless. for their refusal to comply w/ the conditions required by PCGG. alleging that the revelation of the identity of the client is not w/in the ambit of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. ―ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse themselves from the consequences of their acts until they have begun to establish the basis for recognizing the privilege. ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for certiorari. through its counsel. Third. deserving equal treatment. principles have evolved that would help ensure its effective ministration. likewise. 1) Client identity is privileged 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. it so occupies. under the facts of this case. assailing SB‘s resolution on essentially same grounds averred by petitioners... The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client. the rule is not without its pitfalls. because they are evidence of nominee status. J. namely: SB gravely abused its discretion in subjecting petitioners to the strict application of the law of agency. In time. ISSUE/S: WON Attorney-Client privilege prohibits petitioner from revealing the identity of their clients and other information requested by the PCGG HELD: Yes. Rules of Court) and may only be invoked at the appropriate time. Finally. despite all the unrestrained calumny hurled against it. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|81 . know his adversary. through subpoenae duces tecum or LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. SB gravely abused its discretion in not requiring that dropping of partydefendants be based on reasonable & just grounds. Second. or is being otherwise judicially coerced to produce. Petitioner Hayudini. filed his own MFR w/c was also denied thus. and demands against it may be strong. the general rule in our jurisdiction is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. qualified by some important exception. w/ due consideration to constitutional rts of petitioners PCGG. Rule 130. 24. as it should. but these problems are.SB gravely abused its discretion in not holding that. It allows the lawyer and the client to institutionalize a unique relationship based on full trust and confidence essential in a justice system that works on the basis of substantive and procedural due process. in an orderly society that is opposed to all forms of anarchy. having taken the witness stand. First. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces. the privilege begins to exists only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. Vitug.

and affords the essential security in. Dissenting Opinion: The attorney-client privilege can never be used as a shield to commit a crime or a fraud.1992. the relation of attorney and client. but under certain circumstances it might become the duty of the attorney to do so. that Mrs. complainant filed other charges against respondent that are pending before or decided upon by other tribunals including a libel LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Plaintiff then moves to dismiss the case between her and defendant. 22 N. it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. to preserve the secrets of his client. RATIO:To constitute professional employment. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite party‘s retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received by him from his first client. The respondent on the other hand. but such prohibition is necessarily implied in the injunctions above quoted.R. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. CASE 105: Mercado vs. Consequently. "information so received is sacred to the employment to which it pertains. that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she submitted at his office.) In fact the prohibition derives validity from sources higher than written laws and rules.A. gave him papers for the case and other information relevant thereto. in the interest of the adverse party. 252. J. L." and "to permit it to be used in the interest of another. (In re De la Rosa. He also informed the RTC that he has been appointed as counsel for the complainant. Section 19 (e) of Rule 127 imposes upon an attorney the duty "to maintain inviolate the confidence. is a Deputy Executive Director of CHED.otherwise. The interests of public justice require that no such shield from merited exposure shall be interposed to protect a person who takes counsel how he can safely commit a crime. Complainant‘s husband filed a Civil Case for the annulment of their marriage with the RTC of Pasig. The relation of attorney and client cannot exist for the purpose of counsel in concocting crimes. ISSUE/S: WON an attorney-client relationship was established between her and defendant. 27 Phil. Atty. neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had.. or. is to strike at the element of confidence which lies at the basis of.‖ Atty. Puno. Hilado‘s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Atty. It also appears that respondent filed criminal cases against complainant for allegedly falsifying the birth certificates of her children. David FACTS: Petitoner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had a attorney-client relationship with her when. which was dismissed by the TC and the dismissal thereof was final and executory on July 15. were turned by her. Communications to an attorney having for their object the commission of a crime "partake the nature of a conspiracy.. Francisco then appeared as counsel for the defendant and plaintiff did not object to it until four (4) months later. HELD: Yes. personal and private in character. This would not vary the situation even if we should discard Mrs. Francisco‘s Professional services. M." There is no law or provision in the Rules of Court prohibiting attorneys in express terms from acting on behalf of both parties to a controversy whose interests are opposed to each other. 1917B. respondent entered his appearance before the trial court as collaborating counsel for complainant. and it is not only lawful to divulge such communications." Case 104: Hilado v. and at every peril to himself. promised. ―That respondent‘s law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the merit of her case. the counsel of complainant died and on February 1994.. As has been aptly said in In re Merron. or charged for. In August 1992 however. Hilado‘s statement that papers. letters or other documents containing the same privileged matter." It was argued that only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to attorney Agrava and that. no secret communication was transmitted to him by the plaintiff. before trial of the case she went to the defendants counsel. worse still. although she was not able to pay him legal fees. this being so. Office of Programs and Standards. Virtolo FACTS: Herein complainant is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards Development Division. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|82 . 378. 258..

All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. issued a desistance letter and explicitly forgives respondent. then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. which is of paramount importance to the administration of justice. The hearings were set but complainant failed to attend both. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|83 . ISSUE/S: WON respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case against his former client. the Court referred the AM to the IBP for investigation. upon learning of the punishment. to Ceasar‘s Palace. The first half of the 100. Having settled this account of the petitioner‘s brother. and should be disbarred. a well-known casino in Las Vegas. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. The RTC decided adversely to the petitioner. he was a consultant and agent of the Caesar‘s Palace and is therefore representing conflicting interests. Thus. 2000. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that at the time when he was rendering services to the them. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. 6713 also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and employees before the SB. The petitioner contends that there was no lawyer-client relationship existing between them and their engagement was merely informal. HELD: No.A. the said indebtedness was answered by Ramon Sy. 2003. the preservation and protection of that relation will encourage a client to entrust his legal problems to an attorney. the private respondent sent several demand letters to the petitioner for the balance of Php50. His services were reportedly contracted for php 100. Dewey Dee.00. The private respondent filed for the reconsideration of the said decision by the RTC with the Court LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.000. CASE 106: Donald Dee vs CA and Amelito Mutuc FACTS: The petitioner and his father went to the residence of the respondent to seek the latter‘s advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of the petitioner‘s brother.000php that was given by the petitioners were not attorney‘s fees but were just pocket money.00 as attorney‘s fees. respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyerclient relationship. in filing the criminal case for falsification. However. complainant. and the violation of R. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The RTC then reconsidered its decision. the Board approved the report of investigating commissioner and finding the respondent guilty for violating the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest.suit. Because of the respondent‘s work. the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. the communication must have been transmitted by a client to his attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice. He brought to the Casino the letter of Ramon Sy owning the said debt.000. This prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action against respondent claiming that. Respondent maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against complainant does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel. but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights or obligations. Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for falsification of public document disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. Furthermore. The petitioner ignored the letter and this caused the respondent to file a complaint against the petitioner in the RTC of Makati. RATIO: The Court held that in engaging the services of an attorney. The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be intended for mere information. In February 9. administrative case for dishonesty and grave misconduct. On June 21. The relation is of such delicate.

In his pleading. counsel for Choa. the Judge Chiongson was being biased due to such next-door relationship. the latter is bound his just fees. Quiroz‘s motive was to unduly influence the course of the appeal in the criminal case of his client by injecting in the mind of the appellate judge. He must give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his client‘s case with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and legal processes. Ramon Sy. Thus. True. Choa. Quiroz to show cause why he no disciplinary action be taken against him. since the latter.M. or unlawful suit. a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. false.05) The time of an officer of a court should not be wasted in answering or defending groundless complaints. an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending positions. (Rule 15. and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. he must do so only within the bounds of law. 1996 FACTS: In a previous case.of Appeals and the said court reversed the decision of the RTC. Hence. that he was only raising the matter to show that indeed. Atty. was not the debtor. as verifications revealed. vs. However. the petition. being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of said parties. Chiongson. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|84 . Any criticism against a judge made in the guise of an administrative complaint which is clearly unfounded and impelled by ulterior motive will not excuse the lawyer responsible therefor under his duty of fidelity to the court. The Court interjected that Atty. HELD: No. CASE 108: MERCADO V. which was more of a motion for reconsideration (and must be noted that such filing of the same was filed beyond the reglementary period was denied forthwith). Quiroz‘s assertion that it was in his ―honest belief‖ that his client‘s had a cause of action may excuse the same from administrative sanction. something was definitely wrong with the appealed decision because the pontente thereof is now facing a serious administrative complaint. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. that indeed. RATIO: While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court. may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences. full devotion to his genuine interest. Atty. CASE 107: Alfonso C. 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 in good faith trying to serve and represent the interests of his client. he asserts that he never had the intention to sue or prosecute under any groundless. and such defense only as he believes to be debatable under the law. filed a complaint against respondent judge for allegedly his bias towards Choa‘s wife who was his neighbor. A. Generally. as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. MTJ95-1063 August 9. ISSUE/S: Is the respondent not entitled to receive the other half of his renumeration because he was representing conflicting interests. Judge Roberto S. Quiroz. every minute of it is precious and must be reserved for the enhancement of public service. No. and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him be just. that he assisted the complainant in the honest belief that the latter really had a cause of action against the Judge Chiongson. RATIO:It is 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 the petitioners. 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 casino was a creditor but that fact was not contested or opposed by Dewey Dee. from whom payment was ultimately and correctly exacted. HELD: Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained. A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties since a mutual lawyer. private respondent's role therein was not ethically or legally indefensible. The Court dismissed the complaint and directed Atty. Quiroz is hereby FINED. with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions.

to comment on the letter and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. Spouses filed a 2nd motion for reconsideration but was denied for being prohibited. Later on. When they failed to pay the loan. they filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the trial court's Decision granting SBC's counterclaim. Justice Dacudao investigated the case and found Mercado guilty of improper conduct tending to bring the authority and the administration of justice by the Court into disrespect when he openly belittled. Davide. with Atty. being the highest bidder. 2004. to visit her children. and on the loan and of the interest until fully paid as penalty. among others. On October 18. 2001. spouses Teofilo and Agnes Mercado obtained a loan of P35M from the Security Bank Corporation. Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|85 .06 of CPR. intereston the loan until fully paid. Their counsel and the ponente were very close to each other. It was also very suspicious that after a few days after the conversation. Mercados filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. They have pointed out his act of calling their counsel. In its decision. the scheduled execution sale was conducted and the property was sold to SBC. Villanueva has violated Canon 15. Moreover. respondent foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially. RATIO: As for Atty. To secure the loan. the trial court issued a writ of possession in favor of the bank. while stating this. however.S.‖ However. He manifested that he only stated what Atty. Mercado referred to Justice Conchita Carpio Morales as Justice Gutierrez.FACTS: On April 22. 1993. Mercado and Atty. particularly the Chief Justice. has not acted with bad faith/malice ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. while Justice Dacudao did not categorically state that he (Atty. Spouses filed with the trial court an urgent motion to quash the notices of levy and the sheriff‘s sale but it was denied. Villanueva denied it. he (Atty. Jose P. Villanueva. percentage of P35M until fully paid as interest. During its pendency. the trial court declared that the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage is void and awarded petitioners P2M by way of moral damages and attorney's fees. 169833. which Atty. Villanueva told him. Jose P. degraded. leaving the case to the care of one of his Associates. The spouses filed with the RTC a complaint for declaration of nullity of extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the grounds of lack of notice and non-compliance with the publication requirement. Jose Teofilo T. Few days thereafter. stating the inconsistencies of the trial in granting and denying their petition. as well as the correlation between their trip in London and the ponente‘s trip in US. spouses Mercado alleged. Villanueva are declared GUILTY of indirect contempt of court. he and his family left for London. and embarrassed the Highest Court of the land. claiming that their failure to appeal from the Decision of the trial court was due to their former counsel's gross negligence. Undaunted.Before the receipt of the Resolution. In the same Decision.A. SBC sold the spouses‘ property to a corporation and got a permit to demolish 4 buildings erected in their property from the Forbes Park Association. Pablo G. The spouses did not appeal When the decision became final and upon the SBC's motion. The CA dismissed the petition. He revealed the information previously stated by Mercado. the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff was registered in the Registry of Deeds. Villanueva. denying their petition on the basis of SBC‘s unsubstantiated ‗Comment‘. bragging that she is ―a very very good. the trial court granted the counterclaim and awarded SBC: amount of the loan covered by the Real Estate Mortgage. Hence . Jr. Villanueva‘s mother. even if the case is still pending and Motion for Reconsideration with the Supreme Court has not yet been filed. Villanueva) told Mercado that Chief Justice Davide LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Mercado. the trial court issued an order of execution. In their petition. Macapagal. Atty. the court ordered Mercado to personally appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. SBC filed a notice of appeal but it was dismissed by the trial court for its failure to pay the appeal fee. that they were denied their right to due process. CJ Davide required Mercado‘s lawyer. the ponente herself left for the U. they executed in favor of respondent bank a real estate mortgage over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. He further manifested that during the wake of Atty. On May 23. stating the influence of a member of the Judiciary to the approval and dismissal of a petition the case at bar HELD: Yes. Villanueva) pointed to Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez. The buyer already paid the property because SBC told him that the ponente already had a go-signal to sell the property. close and long time friend of his. petitioner Mercado wrote Chief Justice Hilario G. Villanueva had stated that the ponente informed him that she has to deny their petition on the same ground because of the pressure from the Chief Justice to favor SBC. appeared before the Third Division and swore to the truth of the letter he wrote. all the improvements in our property were totally demolished by a construction company. On the scheduled date. his new counsel.

Atty. Valdes became the business consultant. the Caval Realty Corporation. Villanueva that he and Justice Gutierrez have known each other since 1964 and that Justice Gutierrez was in the wake of his mother.‖ Further. Carlos J. On March 29.In this case the atty. and that the ponente would be at the wake of his mother. respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow. VALDES dates back to the '50s during their school days in De La Salle and the Philippine Law School. 1For lack of funds. This prompted him to hurl unfounded. Villanueva was the one who told him the name of the ponente. Villanueva also revealed the name of the ponente. that he and the ponente have known each other since 1964. Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence in Moran Street. and that when petitioner attended the wake of Atty. Nakpil vs. respondent's law firm. RATIO: Respondent is a CPA-lawyer who is actively practicing both professions. He is the senior partner of his law and accounting firms which carry his name. On March 9. When Jose Nakpil died on July 8. CASE 109: Imelda A. Villanueva‘s mother. when his petition was dismissed twice. the ponente. the reason why the petition was dismissed for the second time. He is charged for allowing his accounting firm to represent two creditors of the estate and. He alleged that his accounting firm merely prepared the list of claims of the creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN. In the case at bar. 1979.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that. He emphasized that there was no allegation that the claims were fraudulent or excessive and that the failure of respondent's law firm to object to these claims damaged the estate. The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings. 1973. Valdes & Associates. that Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition of his case. close and long time friend‖ of the ponente. at the same LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Villanueva told him that he and the ponente are very close. Title was then issued in Atty. Not only that. The undersigned investigator is fully convinced that it was only through Atty. ― A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official. lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils. and disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente. he requested respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. However. Complainant was appointed as administratrix of the estate. malicious. complainant sought to recover the Moran property by filing with the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Baguio City an action for reconveyance with damages against respondent and his corporation. Inc. ISSUE/S: WON there was conflict of interest and WON the IBP has jurisdiction since he was acting as accountant not a lawyer. however. respondent insisted that complainant cannot hold him liable for representing the interests of both the estate and the claimants without showing that his action prejudiced the estate. It was the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer house. Villanueva that Justice Gutierrez. He reiterated that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for he acted not as lawyer. we are inclined to believe that Atty.07 provides that ―a lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Atty. Atty. In 1965. Valdes FACTS: The friendship of JOSE NAKPIL and respondent CARLOS J. Baguio City. It appears that respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose's estate. but as accountant for both the estate and its claimants. he was told by Atty. Moreover. Their closeness extended to their families and Atty. HELD: YES there was cconflict of interest and he is liable. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or known the name of the ponente in the case. it was admitted by Atty.exerted ―tremendous pressure‖ on the ponente. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in trust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. He averred that his law firm did not oppose these claims as they were legitimate and not because they were prepared by his accounting firm. respondent claimed absolute ownership over the property and denied that a trust was created over it.‘s accounting firm also handles the affairs of the Nakpils. Carlos J. respondent transferred his title to the Moran property to his company.‖ In informing Mercado that he was ―a very very good. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|86 . In defense. Mercado‘s expectation crumbled. handled the proceeding for the settlement of Jose's estate. was coming. 1978. Valdes name. Villanueva gave such information to Mercado. tribunal or legislative body. complainant IMELDA NAKPIL. On February 13. Enrique Chan. Rule 15. complainant is not charging respondent with breach of ethics for being the common accountant of the estate and the two creditors. Carlos J. Their claims were not defended by his accounting or law firm but by Atty. 1976. Rule 15. These admissions tend to strengthen the allegations of petitioner that Atty. He urged that it is not per se anomalous for respondent's accounting firm to act as accountant for the estate and its creditors.

honesty. Salubre. on behalf of Dhaliwal. Dahiwal vs. as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character.00 both payable to the order of FilEstate Inc. Thus. Atty. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.631. IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting with modification the Commission's Report and Recommendation. August 1.188. Dhaliwal informed the HLURB through a letter that Atty.94 and P 253. It also found respondent to have submitted a false and fabricated piece of documentary evidence. (Fil-Estate). adverse to complainant. RATIO: Atty. finding the case for delivery of title and damages premature as there was no evidence of full payment of the purchase price. 9390. MTJ-00-1336. the Motion for Reconsideration. Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion for reconsideration. even if it pertains to his private activities. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. HELD: Yes. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct. that: ―A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. but not used for the purpose.000. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Inc. complainant Dhaliwal‘s daughter and son -in-law withdrew P 342. Dumaguing explained that he has friends at the BPI Family Bank and that is where he maintains an account. Abelardo B. Dhaliwal made demands upon Atty. A. Thus. Dumaguing. Dumaguing is in violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states. Even granting that respondent's misconduct refers to his accountancy practice. allowing his law firm to represent the estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented. Atty. Dumaguing in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land from FilEstate Development. respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to observe candor. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it not proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it. HLURB promulgated its Decision.In the case at bar. fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his clients. The Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Dumaguing did not comply. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. CASE 110: Emilia O. In his defense. Dumaguing withdrew the two manager's checks that were previously consigned. "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. Dumaguing purchased two manager's checks in the amounts of P 58. Dumaguing to return and account to her the amounts previously consigned with the HLURB. filed with the HLURB a complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate. a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Dumaguing was no longer representing her. They then proceeded to BPI Family Bank Malcolm Square Branch where Atty. The Commission recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Dumaguing." CASE 111: Sevilla vs. He violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. No. among others. Thereafter. such as payment for the balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land as in the present case. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.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. should be immediately returned. A. Atty. No. Atty. Dumaguing.00 from the PNB and handed the cash over to Atty. Atty. Dumaguing. Atty. it would not prevent this Court from disciplining him as a member of the Bar. 2012 FACTS: Complainant Dhaliwal engaged the services of respondent Atty.C. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|87 . probity or good demeanor. The act is a breach of professional ethics and undesirable as it placed respondent's and his law firm's loyalty under a cloud of doubt. Dhaliwal prays that Atty. Dumaguing be disbarred.‖ Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose. When asked why the manager's checks were not purchased at PNB. Atty. Upon the instruction of Atty.time. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.M. December 19. 2000 LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. These manager's checks were subsequently consigned with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) after Dhaliwal‘s request to suspend payments to Fil -Estate had been granted. After a week.

“The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary. Salubro claims that this amount is not for the repurchase of the said property considering that the value of the property subject in the said case is P200. He cited the case he handled with the complainants in 1990 and 1991. Salubre violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty.000. the Sevillas turnedover to the Atty. Respondent Judge Ismael L.FACTS: Petra Sevilla and Sancho Sevilla hired Atty. Atty. it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. Salbure promising to pay the said amount with interest on a certain date however. Panabo.‘ Furthermore. 1990. he paid the amount due without interest. Atty. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation.00 for litigation expenses and appearance fee in the above-mentioned cases which he (respondent) deposited in his name with the Family Savings Bank. Since he failed to pay the full amount. As noted earlier. Salubre answered that that the amount he received from complainant was in payment of his appearance fee and other litigation expenses. However. Rule 16. through counsel. The Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the OCA with exception to the amount of the fine. it was not fulfilled stating that his loan with the PNB. Davao. Ismael L. 1995. Upon Atty. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ‗a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Salubre the amount of P45. the trial court ordered the dismissal of the said criminal case of Estafa. Salubre as legal counsel in a civil case for Repurchase and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction against Shem J. Sometime in the middle part of 1990.The Sevillas. The OCA opined that although the complaint focuses on acts of respondent prior to his appointment as judge of the MTC.000. report and recommendation. Atty. To avoid embarrassment. Sevilla spouses filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. on November 4. Ismael L. Jr. 1997 both checks were dishonoured on the ground "account closed". It i s designed ‗to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from being done for the protection of the client. Uy.01 of the Code also states LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. the said amount was withdrawn from the said bank. respondent paid the amount demanded and eventually complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance on August 9. However. complainants filed a case of Estafa before the RTC. the Salubre deposited the money in his name with the Family Savings Bank in Panabo. 1995. upon the advice of Atty. Salubre. On August 1.00 to be consigned with the trial court as repurchase money. Thomas C. Davao Province. Alfarero et. Tagum Branch was still being processed. complainant caused him to sign a receipt which stated that the purpose thereof is for the repurchase of the property subject of the case she filed against Shem Alfarero. Section 6 of the Rules of Court. complainant paid him the amount of P45. This was followed by a series of promises and pleas for extension to pay. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|88 . The Court cited Judge Adoracion G. HELD: Yes. He issued two checks regarding the said amount due. Without the consent of the Sevilla spouses. The obligation was not extinguished by his appointment as a Judge.. sent a demand letter asking Salubre to make good the value of his two checks within five days from receipt of the letter. misappropriated and used by Salubre for his own purposes and benefit. Salubre‘s assumption of office as judge of the MTC.‘ Thus.00. Ismael L. respondent finally returned the funds to his client but only after the latter sued him for estafa.‖ RATIO: The OCA found the contention of respondent to be without merit. Several promissory notes as well as pleas for extension were initiated by Atty. Instead of consigning the said amount. he once again asked for an extension based on the same ground and promised to pay before he assumes his post as judge of the MTC. Atty. The OCA recommended that respondent Salubre be allowed to file his Comment. Respondent Atty. Salubre should be disbarred for his actions in the case at bar. to wit. The Court recommends that it should be increased. Angeles vs.000. willful failure to pay a debt. 1999 with the assistance of her counsel. On December 26. Salubre is liable for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to return the funds of his client (complainant herein) upon demand. Salubre charging him with violations of Cannons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Later. Salubre assumed office as judge of the MTC on August 1. al. the charges falls as one of the serious charges in Rule 140.

She violated Art 1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits lawyers from acquiring assignment property and rights which may be subject of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|89 . 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 and. Josephine should have not caused the execution of the deed since a case was still pending before CA covering the same land. when in truth there were none so received by the seller HELD 1. Granting for the sake of argument that Antonio did convey the land as attorney‘s fee. Even his personal behaviour in his everyday life should be beyond reproach. WON Atty. wife of Atty. Money of the client 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 circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him. Subsequently. The case was handled by Atty. Henerido Eduarte. However. Though the acts complained of were prior to his appointment as a Judge. Yes. Henerido Eduarte was appointed as RTC judge. Josephine as attorney‘s fees and she had no knowledge of the deeds of absolute sale executed in favor of her children.that ‗a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. more so." In case at bar. Salubre is hereby found guilty of violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to return and immediately deliver the funds of his former client. Josephine Eduarte. Antonia. CASE 112: ORDONIO VS EDUARTE FACTS: Antonia Ulibari filed with RTC for annulment of a document against her children. 2. Hence. Antonia conveyed some parcels of her land to her children in the form of deeds of absolute sale. instead of properly saying his piece regarding the matter he bombarded complainant with a long line of promises in the hope that complainant would eventually allow the matter to be left unsettled.‘ The Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit: "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. All the titles and lands subject to the deeds of absolute sale and deeds of conveyance were in the name of Antonia. Atty. Josephine and Atty. The prohibition applies when a lawyer has not paid money for it and the property was merely assigned to him in consideration of legal services rendered at a time when the property is still subject of a pending case. appealed to CA. ISSUE/S: 1. Respondent did not even squarely address the veracity of the letters he sent to complainant and offer an explanation why his contention now is different from the contents of those letters. his former client. it is trite to emphasize that the Code of Judicial Ethics no less mandates that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety. stating that she never conveyed parcel of land to Atty. While the appeal was pending in the CA. However. Respondent‘s contention that the money he received from complainant was actually the latter‘s payment for his appearance fee and other litigation expenses should have been made known to complainant at the earliest time when the demand was made. now as Judge. Josephine admitted that Antonia did not actually sell parcels of land to her children and that she utilized the form of deed of sale because it was the most convenient and appropriate document to effect LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Sevilla upon demand and was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P20. What is evident from the record is the fact that respondent misappropriated the money entrusted to him by his client (complainant herein) while he was still in trial practice. respondent Judge Ismael L. The case of Ulibari was then transferred to Atty. I t is clear from Antonia‘s affidavit and deposition that she never conveyed the said land to her lawyer as attorney‘s fees. Only one of the children. the appointment of the respondent as Judge of the MTC is not a valid reason for respondent not to properly address and comply with the demand of complainant. The IBPCBD recommended one-year suspension from the practice of law. prepared and notarized by Atty. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Antonia Ulibari. Yes. Atty. Dominga filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Josephine Eduarte.000. to pay and settle forthwith the amount he had received in trust from the latter. Josephine on the basis of an affidavit executed by her mother. Henerido Eduarte. Josephine violated any law in preparing and notarizing the deeds of absolute sale in making it appear that there were considerations therefor. WON Antonia was defrauded into signing the Deed of Conveyance 2. Henerido as their attorney‘s fees. Antonia also conveyed 20 hectares of land to Atty. Atty. Dominga Ordonio. Petra M. Nothing in the numerous communications which respondent judge sent to complainant would indicate that he had really exerted efforts to explain the real story as he claimed it to be.

1491. dated November 11. Licuanan with the Office of the Court Administrator on 5 February 1982 against respondent. either in person of through the mediation of another: xxx xxx xxx (5) Justices. HELD: Yes because the sale was made when Domingo was counsel of Francisco in a land registration case involving the property in dispute. appealed to the CA. even at a public auction. who was her counsel in an ejectment case filed against her tenant. May 29. as decreed by Article 1491 of the Civil Code. from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction. 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. judges. open and continuous possession since time immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question. CASE 113: Domingo D. No. 1981. prosecuting attorneys. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. She violated part of her oath as a lawyer that she shall not do any falsehood. Domingo Rubias the land. Melo. Militante.' ISSUE/S: WONthe contract of sale between Domingo and Francisco over the property was void. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase. alleging that respondent. through another counsel. Aida Pineda. Defendant Isaias Batiller argued that he andhis predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual. 1973 FACTS: Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in Iloilo and filed an application for the registration of the title of the land. as alleged in the complaint. Pending the disposal of the appeal. In his Comment on the complaint. Article 1491 of our Civil Code prohibits certain persons. L-35702. Francisco Militante. by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property. The CA confirmed the decision of CFI dismissing the application for registration. The CFI heard the land registration case and dismissed the application for registration. and lawyers. the property in dispute which was the subject matter of the land registration case filed in the CFI of Iloilo. for which unprofessional conduct LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.01. G.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.R. much less did he report to her the receipt of said amounts. Rubias vs. Atty. Isiaias Batilier. Atty. which case was brought on appeal in which Domingo was the counsel of Francisco Militante. acquired knowledge of the payment and had demanded the same. Manuel L. The deed of sale executed by him in favor of Domingo at a time when Domingo was concededly his counsel of record in the land registration case involving the very land in dispute was properly declared inexistent and void by the lower court. this prohibition includes the act of acquiring an assignment and shall apply tolawyers. RATIO: CANON 16 ." among which are prosecuting attorneys. Manuel L. February 9. but explained that he kept this matter from the complainant for the purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals.A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. clerks of superior and inferior courts. Overall holding: Suspension of 6 months for having violated Art 1491 of the Civil Code another 6 months for violation of lawyer‘s oath and Rule 10. Melo. the complainant herein. failed to remit to her the rentals collected by respondent on different dates over a twelve-month period. She violated Rule 10. Batiller claims that Domingo could not have acquired any interest in the property in dispute as the contract he had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void. 1491 of the Civil Code which reads: 'ART. for breach of professional ethics.transfer of parcels of land. Invoking Arts. It was only after approximately a year from actual receipt that respondent turned over his collections to complainant after the latter. respondent admitted having received the payment of rentals from complainant's tenant. CASE 114: Leonila J. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|90 . Total of one year suspension. Licuanan vs. Batiller 's counsel filed a motion to dismiss Domingo's complaint alleging that the latterbought from his father-in-law.M. Militante sold to the plaintiff. A. 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. 2361. No. ISSUE/S: WON there was unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent in accounting for the funds collected by him for his former client. 1989 FACTS: An affidavit-complaint. was filed by Leonila J.

He deserves the severest punishment. He has shown himself unfit for the confidence and trust which should characterize an attorney-client relationship and the practice of law. Respondent told her that if she withdraws all her money in the bank. pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. 1978 and succeeding months thereafter. 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. the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent. Respondent's unprofessional actuations considered. 1985. Respondent then advised complainant to deposit the money with Union Bank where he was working.000. is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance.01 of the CPR.000. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000. He also urged her to deposit the money in his name to prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same.01 FACTS: The records show that in January 1985. respondent has breached the trust reposed in him by his client. by his professional misconduct. She withdrew P588. On May 21. and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made by her. the complainant herein. CASE 115: Rayos-Ombac v. malpractice and gross misconduct in office. Atty. Atty. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice. On January 22. as Licuanan's attorney. complainant made a demand on respondent to return the P588. The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period.00 with Union Bank under the name of his wife in trust for seven beneficiaries. Acting on respondent's suggestion. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|91 . depriving her of its use. complainant preterminated all her time deposits with the Philippine National Bank on January 18. Under paragraph 11 of the Canons of Legal Ethics. WHEREFORE. he is obligated to report promptly the money of client that has come to his possession and should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purpose without his client's consent. It is undisputed that the relation of attorney and client existed between Licuanan and Melo at the time the incident in question took place. Respondent told her that he has renewed LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. we are constrained to find him guilty of deceit. HELD: Yes. respondent failed to observe his oath of office. and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. respondent induced complainant who was then 85 years old to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust them to him for safekeeping. the amount of P5. Melo.00 received by him on behalf of his client. under his oath. complainant was further compelled to engage the services of another counsel in order to recover the amount rightfully due her but which respondent had unjustifiedly withheld from her. In the instant case. from the practice of law. they will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and his other heirs will be precluded from inheriting part of it. The Court finds the foregoing findings well considered and adopt the same but differ with the recommendation. His name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. 1985. 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. RATIO: After investigation.00. as violation of Canon 16.00 plus interest. 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. Manuel L. 1985. Complainant heeded the advice of respondent. 1985. including his son.respondent should be disciplined. the Solicitor General submitted the following Findings and Recommendation: A lawyer. Indeed. respondent. respondent deposited the amount of P588. 1979. The records disclose that on August 8.220. obtained judgment in Licuanan's favor against Aida Pineda whereby the latter was directed by the City Court of Manila to pay Licuanan all her monthly rentals from October. respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 16. The maturity date of the time deposit was May 22. Rayos CPR 16. Under Canon 16.

He claims that he gave periodic status reports on the result of his work. Complainant acceded to respondent's proposal as she was already old and was in dire need of money. If the respondent had indeed returned the documents sometime in the middle of July 2006. It is a lawyer‘s duty to properly account for the money he received from the client. he should have held this money in trust. and later refused to return the same despite demand. as well as his oath as an attorney when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against Valdez before the IBP.000. respondent's deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the legal profession. Valdez argues that he did not abandon his client. CASE 116: Torben B.00 to be paid on installment. failed to return the money on June 25.01 for failing to account for all money or property collected or received for or from Overgaard. But he failed to present any receipt or certification from Collado that the payment was received. CASE 117: Fermina Legaspi Darpy. Godwin R. Respondent's wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw the disbarment case she filed against him. 1985. But he failed to do both. 1985.00 to two intelligence operatives. Valdez violated Canon 16. Lydia Legaspi and Agripino Legaspi v. Overgaard vs. ignored the complainant‘s request for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his care.If indeed the respondent told the client that he would pay P300. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character.01 for failing to account for all money or property collected or received for or from Overgaard. as he claims in his Motion for Reconsideration. There was no proof presented.the deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount including interest on June 25. Atty. Atty. Ramon Chaves Legaspi (Atty. he must immediately return the same.00 paid to him upon the complainant‘s demand. Valdez violated Canon 16. HELD: Atty. their brother who is LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he would have attached a received copy of the accounting to his Motion for Reconsideration. nor did he receive an accounting of the money he paid to Atty. On August 16. Valdez.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement. where the clients are one of the six parties considered as legal heirs. It was his duty to secure a receipt for the payment of this amount on behalf of his client. respondent informed complainant that he could only return P400. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of P900. No. and rejected the complainant‘s demands for the return of the money paid to him. however. Atty. that he returned the documents in connection with the case. Valdez. he would have presented a receipt to prove such turnover of documents.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|92 . A. for brevity) for the intestate proceedings of a relative.000. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession. Respondent.000. The party of the client include Fermina and one Vivencio. ISSUE/S: WON violated Canon 16. for brevity) hired the services of their cousin. September 30. Ramon Chaves Legaspi (1975) FACTS: Fermina Legaspi Daroy and other of her co-petitioners (clients. and that he rendered an accounting of the money that he actually received.C. Indeed. but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession. and he was under an obligation to make an accounting. 1985. Since the respondent was not able either to present an accounting of the P900. HELD: Yes. or to provide a sufficient and plausible explanation for where such amount was spent.000. 7902. the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal services. The respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility RATIO: Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Overgaard declared that he did not receive the documents being demanded from the respondent. And if the respondent had indeed rendered an accounting of the money that was paid to him. Ramon. 2008 FACTS: Torben Overgaard engaged the services of respondent Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him.

who is abroad). but later on. His manufactured defenses. Ramon was allegedly bragging that nothing will happen to this case. on Dec 7. exacting and confidential character. The fact that a lawyer LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The clients (represented by Atty. 1969. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them (Aya vs. In view of that special relationship. he had sold his jeep. which they successfully delivered to their clients. Ramon. 1969. On Dec 9. Ramon to their father on Nov 28. Bigornia). thus causing this proceeding to drag on for a long time. Sugamo‖ telling them not to proceed to CDO because their checks will be ready ‗on Thursday or Friday yet‘. but Atty. Ramon. telling them that he hopes for understanding. but Atty. Ramon made several demands for the delivery of the amount. The truth is. then Atty. the father allegedly got the share. 1969. Hence. but he continuously broke his promises to do so. After all these. ISSUE/S: WON the conduct of Atty. allegedly agreed that P700 will be deducted from the 4k to cover the expenses which was to cover expenses involved in the litigation. the clients received a note from Atty. Ramon‘s version of the story is this: he admitted receiving the amount but allegedly ‗wired‘ (sent a telegram) to the clients‘ father to talk about the ―proper disposal‖ of the cash. He asks for a few more days until the buyer had delivered the complete amount. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|93 . No proof was presented with regard to this. but the clients came to know about it thru a letter sent by Atty. 11 and 32. an amount of P2. [Old] Canons of Legal Ethics). Ramon. Ramon did not appear in any of the proceedings. go to Cagayan de Oro city on Dec 10 to get the money. the remaining P3. the client filed this complain for disbarment on March 13. they received another note. The first letter informed them that the money had been deposited in the bank and that they may withdraw it on December 8. A lawyer. under his oath is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. Ramon constitutes breach of trust (Note: the clients charged him of malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of 4k. that the administrator of the property will be authorized to sell it. on the afternoon of the same day. at 9am. "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.476 was allegedly left with Atty. demonstrate his unworthiness to remain as a member of the noble profession of law. However. malpractice and professional misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of his clients. The father supposedly went to see him a day after and at their meeting. However. He allegedly gave the P412 share of the father. Ramon is guilty of deceit. Atty. He now claims he had paid 2k and that only P476 was left with him. 2d 105). RATIO: Note that the Court did not specifically cite a Canon from the CPR because this case was decided in 1975 while the CPR was promulgated only in 1988. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust (Pars. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession. Ramon received the amount of P4. but the buyer was not yet able to fully pay him. then their father. clients received a note from one ―Atty. Jur. It is also claimed that the father told him to keep the share of one of the clients (Vivencio. and the Sol-Gen referred the case to the City Fiscal. "The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate.300 will be divided into six: four of the clients. this time telling them not to proceed to the bank and instead. It was also alleged that according to an agreement. and seeks his disbarment) HELD: Yes. They even pleaded the Court for immediate action because Atty. Atty. 1970. The client of Atty. and the lawyers of the five other parties were able to get their shares as well. and the proceeds will be equally divided to the parties. Ramon) along with the five other parties considered to succeed their relative who died intestate came to an agreement that the coconut land they will inherit is to be divided into six equal parts. Ramon did not present any receipt to prove it. they were not able to get the money because a day before.abroad. Atty. and the clients ‗refused consistently to receive‘ the balance because they wanted the full 4k. He even signed a receipt. that the money is now in his custody. The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith" (7 Am. that he previously had a case where he had to use their own money.000 from the deputy provincial sheriff on October 20. but there was no receipt presented to prove this. that in order to repay the amount he used. his lack of candor and his repeated failure to appear at the investigation conducted by the City Fiscal and at the hearings scheduled by the SC. The property was subsequently sold.

Squatters. Ricafort failed to comply therefore it indicates his high degree of irresponsibility.000 and does not justify the misappropriation or breach of trust committed. Father Federico Escaler.000 was for deposit to the bank account and the P2. ISSUE/S: WON Ricafort violated rule 16.000 Ricafort asked for was never used for a bond because no bond was required of that case therefore he merely pocketed the said amount. through Father Escaler gave permission to Congressman Luis R. Ricafort is undoubtedly guilty of deceit.02 a lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. however. It bears emphasis that a lawyer. Congressman Taruc then advised the squatters to form an organization and choose a leader authorized to negotiate with Father Escaler. its incompleteness and lapses manifest the incompetence of Atty. Taruc to build on the reserved site a house for his residence and a training center for the Christian Social Movement. Instead of depositing the money. CASE 119: Quilban v. That document. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|94 . with Bernabe Martin as President. which include him as an heir to the estate." (In Re: Bamberger). Also. he obviously acted in bad faith because he admitted receiving the cash more than a month earlier. CASE 118: Businos v. complainants' documentary evidence refutes his prevarications. He also submitted an alleged copy of the agreement executed by and among the parties. settled in the area since 1965 or 1966.743 square meters as a possible development site. Ricafort FACTS:Petitioner Lourdes Businos entrusted Respondent Francisco Ricafort with money for deposit in the bank account of Businos‘ husband. the squatters formed the "Samahang Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala". sold a land to the Quezon City Government as the site for the Quezon City General Hospital but reserved an area of 2.000 is the amount Ricafort asked as a bond for civil case no. He is obliged to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession. but it could not be explained how Vivencio was able to sign it when he was abroad during its execution.has a lien (a right to keep possession of property belonging to another person until a debt owed by that person is discharged) 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. When he wrote the letter to the father of the clients. is an indication that he does not know the facts of his own case and that he had no scruples in trying to mislead and deceive the Court. which is attached with the complaint and which he admitted in his answer. as well as the succeeding letters. That meeting never happened. The truth is. Ricafort converted the money to his own personal use and despite several demands. but it was not explained why his name appears there. with whom he connived to obtain the sale to the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The sum of the money is P32. But instead of working for the welfare of the Samahan. he did not send any wire (message) to the father of the clients asking for a meeting. malpractice and gross misconduct therefore the court resolves to disbar him.000.02 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:Yes. the Colegio. In 1970. a realtor. RATIO:According to Rule 16. It was also allegedly signed by Vivencio. However. Businos is then constrained to file a criminal case for estafa and a disbarment case against Ricafort. he failed to return the same to Businos. the P2. Robinol FACTS: The Colegio de San Jose. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust. distortions and fabrications. through its administrator. P30. That document has no connection with the P4. Congressman Taruc suggested to Father Escaler the idea of donating or selling the land cheap to the squatters. By converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent and for collecting P2000 to be used as a bond which is not required. Despite of numerous summons to comment on the complaint. Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for personal purposes without his clien t‘s consent. under his oath pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. Martin went to one Maximo Rivera. That the respondent in his testimony and memorandum forgot that note (the one telling them to withdraw the cash from the bank at 9am). Of this amount. 5814 when no such bond is required. Ramon and the notary public. Following that advice. He was tempted to concoct a story as to his alleged payments to the father because the latter is dead and could not refute him.

To prosecute the appeal in the CAl. When queried.00 per family with which to pay for the land only to be deprived of the same by one who.65 ordered paid by the Court of Appeals. the sum of P2. since he has not committed any misconduct imputed to him by Atty. P2. transfer of title etc. The prevailing price of the land in the vicinity then was P1 00 to P1 20 per square meter. Robinol. After the CA had rendered a Decision favorable to his clients and he had received the latter's funds.000. The land was ultimately sold to Rivera at a cheap price of PI5 per square meter or a total consideration of P41. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|95 . His clients were mere squatters who could barely eke out an existence. 2. Santiago R. They had painstakingly raised their respective quotas of P2.65. with the warning that a more severe penalty will be imposed for a repetition of the same or similar act. They then approached Atty.970. Robinol had no right to unilaterally appropriate his clients' money not only because he is bound by a written agreement but also because. heartlessly took advantage of them. WON Atty. Luis Agawan. after having seen the color of money.exclusion of the other Samaban members. Atty. be dismissed. 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 P50.00 as attorney's fees on.00 and P2. the sum of P68.000.500. Anacleto R. it turned out that the motion for intervention had already been dismissed. which he alleges to be the monetary value of that area.. or a total of P75. YES 2.00 from each head of family.00.961.000.00. 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. In 1972. Robinol. the five officers of the Samahan collected. Atty. on 31 May 1979 the amounts of P1. the sum of P75. been guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct that make him unworthy to continue in the practice of the profession. Robinol by the officers. et.00 was turned over to Atty. WON Atty. Firstly. Montemayor should be disbarred HELD 1. Montemayor who agreed to be their counsel. Robinol was also to be given by the members a part of the land. Robinol with that fact.00. Robinol has.Atty. After almost a year. to terminate his services as Atty. Robinol had delayed paying for their land notwithstanding the Decision of the Court of Appeals in their favor.500. That the case against Atty. and that he be ordered to return to the plaintiffs. On 14 November 1978. NO RATIO: Atty. Court referred administrative cases to the Sol. 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.500. Plaintiffs later on decided to change their counsel. who recommended: 1. . Santiago R. conveyance. suddenly. issued the proper receipts prepared by Atty. His clients had lost confidence in him for he had obviously engaged in dilatory tactics to the detriment of their interests. That Atty. ISSUE/S 1. Montemayor. The CFI. To raise the amount of P41. Gen. little by little. dismissed the case. which the officers discovered to have no basis at all.030. What was initially a verbal commitment on the land sharing was confirmed in writing. he is bereft of any legal right to retain his clients' funds intended for a specific purpose-the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. subject matter of the case.500. Atty. After confronting Atty. tect. the five officers discovered that no payment had been made to Rivers. it was highly unjust for him to have done so.00 respectively. al. Robinol be suspended for three months for refusing to deliver the funds of the plaintiffs in his possession. Robinol should be suspended 2. Robinol for which the latter was paid P2. The Treasurer.961. and on 2 June 1979. the Samahan members hired as their counsel Atty. there was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel. equal to the portion that would pertain to each of them. Robinol. in fact. the latter gave other excuses. Secondly. however. Father Escaler had been made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters on the property. Certainly. the Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.000. documentation. which he was duty-bound to pro. Atty. thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed the case against Rivera. even if there were no valid ground. However. On 18 May 1979. plus expenses for ejectment of the non-plaintiffs occupying the property.00. under the circumstances.

ISSUE/S: WON respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500.00 it gave him. engaged the services of respondent Leovigildo H. therefore. b) that he be ordered to return the P500. received the total sum of P75. 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. The University eventually terminated respondent‘s services. he must return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand. They died without leaving a will. Arellano University alleged that it gave Atty Mijares III all the documents the latter needed to finish his work and was given P500. for prosecution with respect to his shady dealing with Deputy Chairman Lacuna however the IBP Board of Governors modified it to indefinite suspension. otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have misappropriated the same in violation of the trust reposed on him. Purita Reyes. Canon 16. the same is absolutely without merit.00 and all the pertinent documents to the University. In so far as Atty. In its complaint for disbarment.01 and 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes on him the penalty of disbarment. Atty Leovigildo H.01 and 16. When he made himself scarce. Rules 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and meted out the penalty of disbarment. Rules 16. in fact. is the conclusion that Atty. 1958 between the City of Manila and the University. 000. 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. Rule 18. Rule 15. and c) that Mijares‘ sworn statement that formed part of his Answer be endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation and. The University requested respondent for copies of the MMDA approval but he unreasonably failed to comply despite repeated demands. 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. Montemayor is concerned." Respondent Mijares III informed the University that he already completed Phase I of the titling of the property. 000.00 that the University entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the titling of a property that it claimed HELD: Yes. Rule 15. November 22. Inc.purchase of land. 000. Inevitable. In this case. He stands obliged to return the money immediately to their rightful owners. Mijares III FACTS: Complainant Arellano University. In so far as the complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Their land was then expropriated when the Bancasi Airport was constructed.01 and 16. Commissioner Funa recommended a) that Mijares be held guilty of violating Rules 1.00 on top of his attorney‘s fees. Atty. An expropriation compensation amounting to about P2. As a mere trustee of said money or property.There is no doubt that clients are free to change their counsel in a pending case at any time (Section 26. Rules of Court) and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance.02.4M was to be paid to LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. meaning that he succeeded in getting the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to approve it. AC No 4808. And that he had. Rule 138. he is guilty of violation of Rules 1. RATIO: Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property his client may have entrusted to him.The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that complainants' evidence on this is the more credible. CASE 120: Arellano University vs.02. for loss of trust and confidence.03. Canon 15. the plaintiffs in the civil suit below decided to change their lawyer.000-00. if warranted. supposedly to cover the expenses for "facilitation and processing.01 and 1. and Canon 18. . Rule 18. therefore. 000. Canon 16.05. Robinol. Montemayor is concerned. If not used.05. 2011 FACTS: Petra Durban and Paz Durban were sisters who had jointly owned a parcel of land in Butuan City. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|96 . Robinol has rendered himself unfit to continue in the practice of law. A lawyer‘s conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics CASE 121: Teresita Bayonla v. Mijares III for securing a certificate of title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel that the University had been occupying. and Canon 18. The property was the subject of a Deed of Exchange dated October 1. Robinol against Atty.03. he must hold them separate from that of his own and make sure that they are used for their intended purpose. Canon 15. Atty. That act was well within their prerogative. the University was prompted to withdraw all the cases it had entrusted to him and demand the return of the P500.

03 provides that ―a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bayonla and her uncle would each receive the amount of P84. with a warning that a similar offense will be dealt with more severly.67. Reyes violated Rule 16. report and recommendation. Atty. the equivalent of 40% of Bayonla‘s share. Atty. Mateo San Juan in a cadastral LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. petitioner Teresita Bayonla. Severa Ventura and her husband. Reyes refused to do so. Ruste FACTS: Melchor E. Tabada and Bayonla engaged the legal services of Atty. Purita Reyes to collect their share in the expropriation compensation. They all agreed that Atty. IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro recommended against Atty.119. and (3) remit said shares. However. Alfredo Tabada. In November 1993. Paz‘s son.their heirs. and Tabada‘s nephew. Unless Atty. Melchor E. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|97 . This obligation includes the prompt reporting and accounting of the money collected by the lawyer by reason of a favorable judgment to his client.‖ This Rule demands that the lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.00. deceit. the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended the final resolution of the case.The unjustified withholding of money belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the lawyer. Reyes actually delivered to her only P79. Reyes moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Atty. Reyes argued that they all agreed that she would receive 40% of whatever amount the heirs would receive.000. he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements. Ruste. giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.67. On the other hand. In June 1998. In a Resolution.582.00 out of the first release. Atty. Hence. Reyes being entitled to P82. Reyes with gross dishonesty. and prescribes on a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith. she was to be suspended from the practice of law. Reyes should have given the heirs a breakdown of whatever amount she received or would come to her knowledge as their counsel in accordance with Rule 16. Reyes is guilty of violating Canon 16. Her total share from the two releases was P205. Navarro said that as counsel of the heirs. A lawyer is obliged to render an accounting of all the property and money she has collected for her client.852.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Reyes had the chance to rectify her errors but she failed to do so. the court referred the complaint to the IBP for investigation. Despite demands by Bayonla and despite the orders from the IBP Board of Governors for her to remit the shortage. Based on the records. as counsel.03. Reyes had neither rendered an accounting nor remityed the amount to Bayonla. In May 2010.44 as attorney‘s fees. Atty. subject to the lawyer‘s lien over the funds. Reyes would have 10% of whatever amount they will collect as her attorney‘s fees. and the amount of P121. She added that she even incurred travel and other expenses in collecting such share.[19] which was short by P44. the net share of Bayonla was P123.11 out of the second release. She continuously failed to deliver the right amount to Bayonla despite repeated demands. Reyes. appeared for and represented. HELD: Yes. Atty. giving notice promptly thereafter to the client.582.971.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.388. This is appropriate considering that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary. Bayonla charged Atty. Atty. The money collected by Atty. the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Navarro‘s report. Reyes had collected P1M. Yet. In August 2002. the IBP Board of Governors informed the court that Atty. Reyes as the lawyer of Bayonla was unquestionably money held in trust to be immediately turned over to the client. By not delivering Bayonla‘s share despite her demand. In April 1999. CASE 122: In Re Atty. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. Reyes to: (1) render an accounting or inventory of the collected shares. She then filed a motion for reinvestigation but it was also denied. Reyes did all these. RATIO: Canon 16. Atty. were the compulsory heirs.11. Navarro then required Atty. Reyes is guilty violating Canon 16. Atty. She is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. conversion and breach of trust. (2) have the heirs confirm it. or the lawyer‘s option to apply so much of the funds as may be necessary to satisfy the lawful fees and disbursements. With Atty.

000. 1930. the respondent acted as counsel for the complainant and his wife when the latter laid claim of ownership. Ruste engineered the machination that led him to acquire his client‘s property.proceeding and there was no agreement the respondent and his said clients as to the amount of his fees. the respondent executed another deed of sale. eleven-twentieth of said lot having been eventually adjudicated to the wife. the spouses purportedly leased a part of said lot to Ruste for P100. Gonzales filed a motion to dismiss. On May 16. On Oct 10. 1976. on December 20. that is. 1933. the complainant and his wife executed on Sept. In accordance with Ruste‘s request. claiming that the long delay in the resolution of the complaint against him constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases. whereby the said spouses. Bautista alleged that Gonzales committed certain acts. 1930.50. whereby in consideration of P100. The property being thus in suit. HELD: Yes. of their share in said lot No. and so he asked them to execute in his favor a contract of lease. Gonzales FACTS: On May 19. the respondent notified the complainant and his wife in writing that the said house still belonged to the respondent. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. On April 11. The Solicitor General filed a comment on the motion to dismiss on Aug. 1989. Gonzales with malpractice. On Mar 21. 3764 in order that he may be able to borrow or raise said sum of P25. and also a deed of sale. and on Mar 28. for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation. Gonzales is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. including court fees. in fact and in truth. and requires said spouses to pay. Ruste violated Rule 16. RATIO: In July. neither of the consideration mentioned in said contracts of lease and sale were ever receive by them. 3764. CASE 123: Bautista v. Gonzales be suspended for six months. 1933. 3764. gross misconduct and violation of lawyer‘s oath. The Court then resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General on March 16. 1988. although. which lease was cancelled and superseded by a deed of sale executed on the same date. After making the payments. among others. whereby in consideration of P370 he sold and transferred to Ong Chua said undivided eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in lot No. 1931. but they had no money to pay. the Solicitor General submitted his report and recommendation that Atty. during pendency of said cadastral case.50. Complainant Angel L. the sum of P40.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by raising the fund due him through machinations similar to lending/borrowing. and thereafter a monthly rental of P1. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|98 . Ruste again demanded of the complainant and his wife as additional fees the sum of P25. On September 22. Gonzales filed an answer. representing ten months' rental in arrears. but that they paid to him upon demand on different occasions the sums of 30 and P25 as attorney's fees. whereby in consideration of P1. 3764 excluding the house and its lot. in consideration of P1.000. explaining that the delay was due to the numerous requests for postponement of scheduled hearings by both parites. they leased to him their coconut and banana plantation in lot No. 1983. his acquisition thereof by the deed of sale. Exhibit B. whereby in consideration of the same amount of P370 paid to him by the same Ong Chua. 1989. 16. 1930. Melchor E. and a contract of sale. On Sept. ISSUE/S: WON Melchor E. 1988. accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients. On Jan. 1931. 29. the Court required the Solicitor General to submit his report and recommendation within 30 days upon receipt of notice. occupied by the complainant and his wife. to pay all expenses. 1976. the respondent executed a deed of sale. him. 22. which the respondent was waging on behalf of his clients. Ruste did not turn over to the complainant and his wife the P370 paid by Ong Chua. Gonzales is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes. deceit. the Fortunados. conveyed eleven-twentieth of the same land in favor of Ruste. 3764 for a term of five years. Bautista charged respondent Ramon A. Severa Ventura. denying all the allegations against him. however. a contract of lease. constitutes malpractice. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he sold and transferred to the latter the same undivided eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in lot No. Atty. 8. they sold and transferred to him their undivided eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in said lot No .

CASE 125: Ma. they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan.04 which states that ― A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client‘s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. March 11. The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate. A lawyer is dutybound to observe candor. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. 2003 FACTS:Ruby Barnachea engaged the legal services of Atty. Edwin Quiocho denied that complainant contracted his legal services. Atty. Edwin T. Quicho. the parties "impliedly agreed" that respondent would handle their case. therefore. CASE 124: Ruby Mae Barnachea vs. Edwin Quiocho violated Rule 16. taxes and fees for the cancellation and transfer of TCT No. No. with the interest of his client. Ruby Barnachea demanded that Atty. Desperate and at a loss on what to do. representation.000.04. After such introduction. he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. Gonzales for committing serious misconduct. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153.‖ The act of Gonzales paying all the expenses of the litigation in consideration of 50% of the amount of the property in litigation is contrary with Canon 16. fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. Atty. the complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared. Gonzales violated Canon 16. communication. directly or indirectly. although Atty.04 HELD: Yes. Edwin Quiocho claimed that said checks were intended to cover actual and incidental expenses for transportation. Later. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|99 . when in the interest of justice. Humberto V. Edwin Quiocho to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property previously owned by her sister. 334411 under the name of complainant and not for legal services. Atty. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except. 5925. Edwin Quiocho failed to secure title over the property in favor of complainant. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them. and haphazardly composed 3 petition for annulment of judgment. Edwin Quiocho refund to her the legal fees and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him.C. in turn. necessary services. Pagalunan. The Court resolved to impose the penalty of suspension for 6 months from the practice of law upon the respondent Atty. Libertad SJ Cantiller v.1987. Complainant alleges that respondent 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). despite the lapse of almost two months. However.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge. the presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship. making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. Cantiller paid Potenciano P2. A. Potenciano FACTS: Complainant lost an ejectment case and was issued to vacate the rented premises. However. Atty. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. The profession. Atty. Atty. introduced them to herein respondent. 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. poorly conceived. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Edwin Quiocho failed to comply with said demands. respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him. demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way. In the afternoon of October 9. Edwin Quiocho admitted having received the two checks from complainant. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client‘s rights is champertous and violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client. on the matter. However. exacting and confidential character. In this case.RATIO: Atty. Ruby Barnachea was able to pay respondent for legal fees.

R. contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order. As a consequence. during such period he had to appear before courts in Manila. CASE 126: People vs. Despite such prior knowledge. Gaudencio Ingco. Thus.Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. complainant lodged this administrative complaint against herein respondent. who was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused in this case. Considering that the Ingco was fighting for his life. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and urgency of filing the new complaint. this letter was never answered and the money was never returned. Barrios said that he "was then busy with the preparation of the brief of one Benjamin Apelo pending in the Court of Appeals.000. 55118 on October 30.00) allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another one thousand pesos (P 1. What is worse is that by sheer inattention. Thus. 1987. complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of the total amount of eleven thousand pesos (P 11. At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. Gaudencio Ingco. 1971 FACTS: Respondent Alfredo R. Sometime thereafter. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. RATIO: By his own confession. The mere fact that according to him his practice was extensive. on December 23. withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. RATIO: When a lawyer takes a client's cause. 55210. requiring his appearance in courts in Manila and environs as well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga. it came to complainant's knowledge that there was really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P l0. she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Pasay City. Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No.‖ He said that he was misled into assuming that he had also likewise taken the necessary steps to file a motion for extension of time for the submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the resolution from the Court of Appeals granting him such extension. Barrios. No. respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10. Such grave neglect of duty is deserving of severe LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. Potenciano to 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. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. ISSUE/S: WON Barrios is liable for filing late the motion for extension HELD: Yes. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|100 . 55118.00) to cover the expenses of the suit. 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. Bulacan and Pampanga. he was woefully negligent. 6046 was eventually enforced and executed. the least that could be expected of a counsel de oficio is awareness of the period within which he was required to file appellant's brief. ISSUE/S: WON Responsibility. sentenced to death for the crime of rape with homicide. respondent informed complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession of the apartment. Hence. G. was required in a resolution of this Court to show cause on why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having filed fifteen days late a motion for the extension of time for submitting the brief for appellant Ingco.1987.000. However.00) which the former earlier gave to the latter. no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained. After further inquiry. this Court finds Atty. For this purpose. Quezon City. respondent.000. L-32994. Humberto V. respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact. Respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. should not have lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility. Barrios is liable for filing late the motion for extension HELD: Yes. he would confuse the proceedings in a matter pending before the Court of Appeals with this present case. that while he had made studies in preparation for the brief in this case.000.00) relative to Civil Case No. October 29. a member of the Philippine Bar. the order to vacate in Civil Case No.

and Trinidad Nordista were the President. granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. 20. a duty even more exacting when one is counsel de oficio. Vice-President. This partially could be explained by the fact that respondent is the former classmate of the adv erse party‘s counsel and the fact that the respondent is the lawyer of the brother of Robert in an insurance company. Fojas Facts: Complainants Veronica Santiago. Tugade as their counsel. Branch 172. Atty. Subsequently. the respondent still did not file the complainants' answer in CASE 127: Ngayan v. it reconsidered the order of dismissal. and Auditor. respectively. In the meantime. The trial court. Ngayan told his omission and in front of her. reinstated the case. ISSUE/S: WON there was betrayal of confidence between Atty. respectively. Benjamin Hontiveros. Socorro Manas. alleged that they asked the respondent. he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. The court tend to believe that Atty. Atty. Metro Manila. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador. the Ngayans HELD: Yes. Tugade was partial to the adverse party as he even tried to dissuade the complainants from filing the charges aginst Robert leonido. Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. v. Treasurer. SP No. Upon Salvador's motion for reconsideration. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|101 . 25834. Benjamin Hontiveros. The latter then commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint (NCR-OD-M90-10-050) to declare illegal his expulsion from the union. Tugade and his clients. Atty. complainants claim that the respondent furnished the adverse parties in a certain criminal case with a copy of a discarded affidavit. the respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari. Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied. It is clearly unworthy of membership in the Bar which requires dedication and zeal in the defense of his client's rights. thus enabling them to use it as evidence against the complainants. Ma. a complaint against the complainants herein for actual. since what was involved was an intra-union issue cognizable by the DOLE. Later. the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res judicataby virtue of the final decision of the Med-Arbiter in NCR-OD-M-90-10-050 and (2) lack of jurisdiction. however. and Auditor. Treasurer. the complainants.condemnation. Ma. Atty. CASE 128: Santiago et al. she noticed a paragraph which did not mention Robert was with Rowena when they entered the Ngayan‘s residence. and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Tugade FACTS: The Ngayans. and Trinidad Nordista were the President. and required the complainants herein to file their answer within a non extendible period of fifteen days from notice. complainants filed motions to discharge the Atty. This constitutes betrayal of trust and confidence of his former clients. per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong. the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case. RATIO: In the case at bar. Complainants Veronica Santiago. Tugade crossed out the paragraph she complained about and promised to make another affidavit. Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter‘s unauthorized entry into the complainants dwelling. of the FEUFA. Complainant averred that the motion was filed by the respondent‘s former classmate and that Atty. under Articles 19. Socorro Manas. Tugade was suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. moral. The Ngayans made a follow up about the omission in the document and found out that the name of Roberto was not included in the charge. Vice-President. Mrs. This motion having been denied. Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Roberto in an insurance company. The latter then commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint (NCR-OD-M90-10-050) to declare illegal his expulsion from the union. Since the omission was remedied by their new counsel and the case was filed in court. Tugade to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to be filed against Mrs. Mrs. As the complainants' counsel. Ngayan allegedly signed the document without reading it carefully and after signing. which was later referred to the Court of Appeals and docketed therein as CAG. Instead of filing an answer. and 21 of the Civil Code. of the FEUFA. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador.R.

San Carlos City. Saldavia manifested that he was submitting the case for decision but invoking the plea of guilt of the accused as a mitigating circumstance. when advising his client. Rogelio then continued the search and the second encounter with the accused yielded an answer that Virginia is in the sugarcane field. 57. If indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein. Prior to the next hearing. Atty. ISSUE/S: WON justice was rendered in accordance with the plea of guilty. father of Virginia arrived home and upon learning from his daughter that Paulino is with Virginia." To reach the place. Saldavia moved that the hearing be reset as he was not feeling well. at around 10:00 in the morning.Civil Case No. Hence. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: (A lawyer. Rule 116. when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. 3. the judge was informed that the accused had escaped detention. He is liable for inexcusable negligence. and Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte. Upon the doctor‘s autopsy. Rogelio. Florentino Saldavia.) CASE 129: People vs. Paulino Sevilleno y Villanueva alias Tamayowent to Barangay Guadalupe. HELD: Yes.000. in failing to file for the complaints an answer in Civil Case No. On 19 November 1996. also PAO was appointed as counsel de oficio. He then invited Virginia to accompany him to Sitio Guindali-an "to see (a) beta show. The accused was recaptured and Atty. The accused was represented by Atty. 3526-V-91. Saldavia again moved for postponement and the hearing was reset to 3 December 1996 on which date. Thus the trial court ordered the PAO to provide a counsel de oficio for him. At around 11:00 in the same morning. Residents of the locale immediately nabbed Paulino and delivered him to the police authorities. the complainants were declared in default. The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court. the accused entered a plea of guilty. especially where he is an ignorant person with little or no education. Rogelio immediately looked for them. HELD: No. accused manifested that he had no counsel. The hearing for the presentation of evidence was reset several times and on October 10 1995. Accompanied by police officers. Sevilleno FACTS: On 22 July 1995. ISSUE/S: WON the respondent committed a culpable negligence. He brought with him bread and ice candy for his 9-year old and 8year old nieces. of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. but to no avail. Paulino and Virginia passed through the sugarcane fields. On 6 March 1997 the Regional Trial Court-Br. San Carlos City. 3526-V-91 was in fact a "losing cause" for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal. the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea. RATIO: The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|102 . On 28 August 1996. shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case. Virginia and Norma. not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. Rule 15. both surnamed Baquia.05. instead of presenting evidence. Paulino denied although Rogelio noticed the wounds and scratches on Paulino. RATIO: Under Sec. upon plaintiff Salvador's motion. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. 3526-V-91. he should have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Atty. he concluded that Virginia was raped and strangled to death. Vic Agravante of the Public Attorney‘s Office and upon arraignment. as would warrant disciplinary action. Atty. Rogelio did not find his daughter but he bumped into the accused and upon questioning where his daughter was. neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case. rendered its decision finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to death and to pay the heirs of Virginia Baquia P50. In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense.00 plus costs. the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information. they saw the corpse of Virginia and circumstances show that her killing was attended by rape. the date set for the presentation of the evidence for the defense.

including the trial court. is actually beyond question as this Court had declared in a per curiam Resolution dated June 10. Agravante did not take time to explain to his client the nature of the crime of which he was charged and the gravity of the consequences of his plea. Instead. ISSUE/S: Was her counsel negligent of the case? If he was. Instead. definite and unconditional plea of guilty by the accused must be accepted by trial courts. Pabalinas sought to be relieved of his responsibilities as counsel deoficiowhich. docketed as Civil Case No. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityrequires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication.accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning. petitioner's case. In the instant case. however guilty he might have been found to be after trial. Q-43811 in the court a quo. again counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he received a copy of the adverse judgment of the appellate court. Petitioner entered into a leased agreement with the respondent thru its representative. Atty. She should be bound by the decision because neither Cathay nor Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of Legarda‘s LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he did not do anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. In the full discharge of his duties to his client. the trial court did not bother to explain the essential elements of the crime of rape with homicide with which the accused was charged. to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. The Court finds that the negligence of counsel in this case appears to be so gross and inexcusable. Roberto Cabrera. agreed that the accused would be tried in absentia. He allowed the judgment to lapse and become final. Atty. he has miserably failed in his duty to exercise his utmost learning and ability in maintaining his client's cause. that after petitioner gave said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by asking him to file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate court. Danilo Pabalinas and Florentino Saldavia. Respondent deposited the down payment but petitioner failed and refused to execute and sign the same despite demands of the respondent. Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for specific performance. unfortunately. 1992. competence and diligence. Atty. 1993. Petitioner engaged the services of the counsel to handle her case. but of reckless and gross negligence. After one year redemption period expired w/out the petitioner redeeming the property and the sheriff issued a final deed of sale. which suspension order was renewed for another six (6) months in another Resolution dated March 31. RATIO: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client. In the succeeding hearings. But her counsel failed to take any action for the case. In the instant case. much less uphold. petitioner prevailed upon her counsel to seek the appropriate relief. The gross negligence of the late Dean Coronal in handling. The court found that Attys. 34 where Coronel was meted a six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law. the trial judge informed the parties that the accused had escaped from detention. So the property was sold by the sheriff thru public auction. the fundamental rights of the accused. nay mishandling. Respondent suffered damages due to the delay in the renovation and opening of its restaurant business. at this juncture. Pabalinas was supposed to assist the accused ably but miserably failed. Jr. Vic Agravante. the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect. should she be bound by such negligence? HELD: Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this case. full significance and consequences of his plea. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. were remiss in their duties as defenders of the accused. of the property for a period of five years that the rental is 25K per month with 5% escalation per year. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events. New Cathay House FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land and the improvements thereon. and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. When the case was called and appearances noted. the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public. CASE 130: Victoria Legarda vs CA. they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de oficioto the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno. regardless of his own personal views. warmth and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. he readily agreed to the accused pleading guilty to a capital offense. Then. He should present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his client's cause. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|103 . This was compounded by the fact. Only a clear. so much so that his client was deprived of her property without due process of law. the court also granted. It was then that the prosecution and the defense. all of PAO. It is not only a case of simple negligence as found by the appellate court.

and Rosario Joaquin. Delos Reyes and after she had threatened him with estafa. Mallari (respondent) to handle his defense in the RTC where he was charged for violating B. Atty. Mariveles discovered his lawyer‘s desertion onl y when he was subpoenaed by the trial court to appear before it for the execution of the decision which had become final. resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Mallari demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard to his duties as a lawyer. who immediately filed a motion for reinvestigation. (March 3. and their relatives in question. Carino paid Atty. he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law profession. Ricardo Rivera. 3294 February 17. He sought relief in the SC which granted his petition. Atty. Delos Reyes the amount of P10. threats. Delos Reyes withdrew from the case and returned the acceptance fee. Mallari to appeal said the decision to the CA. Odilon C. He is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client and is hereby DISBARRED. Katrina Carino contracted the services of Atty. QC Assistant Prosecutor Soller recommended the filing of information for maltreatment. After an adverse decision was rendered therein. Days have passed with excuses. RATIO: Atty. Delos Reyes denied that he had agreed to represent Carino in filing criminal complaints against her relatives. and threats with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|104 . on one hand. Delos Reyes added that he is a member of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.‖ CASE 131: Mario S. Carino admitted the return of the fee. IBP dismissed the complaint for the insufficiency of evidence. as Carino failed to do so. but the money was paid only after repeated demands made by her to Atty.P. cancel the entry of judgment and accept his brief. CASE 132: CARINO V. threats. A lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that practice. Through new counsel. However.C. Delos Reyes. Delos Reyes never filed the complaint-affidavits with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation. to file complaints for slander by deed. in the CA. after hiring the legal services of Atty. physical injuries. 1998- LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. despite numerous extensions of time. The Court referred the case to IBP for investigation. and physical injuries against her relatives Faye Lorenz. Mallari committed (or what he failed to do) is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The cases were subsequently filed before the MTC of QC. Atty.counsel. The common law maxim finds application in this case. On the contrary. Atty. Atty. Godofreditas Lorenz. and yet he still was not able to prepare the complaint-affidavits to be filed against the relatives. ISSUE/S: WON what Atty. On the other hand. on the other hand. ―between two parties innocent parties. despite demands by Carino. Delos Reyes. with respect to the complaints filed by the Lorenzes and Joaquin. Carino alleged that Atty. 22. Atty. He stated that his services were hired in connection with the filing of a case for partition of the lot occupied by her and her father. she immediately furnished a copy of the Medical Certificate of her father as well as their joint complaint concerning the incident and a police blotter. 1993 FACTS: Mariveles (petitioner) engaged the services of Atty. but it was denied. Mallari. who themselves subsequently filed charges against her and her father for maltreatment. totaling 245 days. which the latter did. Mallari failed to file the appellant‘s brief. Delos Reyes failed to protect their interest. They were forced to hire the services of another counsel. a former Quezon City prosecutor. and recommendation. A. DE LOS REYES FACTS: On March 3. Mariveles instructed Atty. Mariveles filed a petition to reinstate his appeal. Carino stated that. Mariveles vs. ruling that: ―the failure of petitioner‘s former counsel to file the brief xxx amounted to deliberate abandonment of his client‘s interest‖ which justified the reinstatement of Mariveles‘ appeal through a new counsel. report. which was denied by the prosecutor's office. and he is mindful of the duties of members of the bar toward their clients. No. Blg. HELD: Yes. Carino promised to furnish him the certification of the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for the filing of the case in court as well as the TCT of the lot but. Atty. 000 as acceptance fee. the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss. However. 1998. and slight physical injuries against Carino and her father.

1998) On the other hand. as claimed by him. 2004.‖ The fact that. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. because Natividad told him that she would work out the transfer of ownership to her of the land subject matter of the ejectment case. and devotion. the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Braulio RG Tansinin. elevated the case to the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal. through Atty. and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity. in relation to Art. Reprimanded with warning RATIO: The Court finds Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|105 . Atty. Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin admitted that Natividad obtained his legal services. Atty. in this case was the filing of complaint-affidavits against the relatives of Carino for slander by deed. a decision was rendered by the MTC against Natividad. save by the rules of law. as a result of Atty. because the contract between Natividad and her lessor had long expired. In effect. Pursuant to Art.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. before the IBP. but the latter failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate. In any event. 90. would hire the services of the lawyer for a purpose other than in connection with petitioner's pressing legal concern. Fojas: ―Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client. Natividad engaged the services of Atty. at that time. Elsewise stated. not to the case for partition as he alleged. Atty.Lastly. 283 of the Revised Penal Code. Delos Reyes' failure to file the complaint for threats. Braulio RG Tansinin. Natividad. he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client. Delos Reyesclaimed that he was hired by Carino to file a case for partition. however. Rule 18. Delos Reyes has neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.May 4. which caused grave injury to Natividad. threats and physical injuries claiming that his services were hired to file a case for partition HELD: Yes. but no legal fee was ever paid to him. the interests of Carino and that of her father are not altogether without legal protection as they can controvert the charges against them in the proceedings before the trial court. Santiago v. and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client. Natividad initiated the disbarment case against respondent. Natividad alleged that not only did Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin fail to file the required pleadings. It is improbable that she. His services were hired by Carino 6 days after the occurrence of the incident giving rise to the filing of the charges and counter-charges for physical injuries. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time. respondent. and slander by deed filed by the parties before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of their barangay. In an Orderdated May 25. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. but. Braulio RG Tansinin FACTS:Natividad was the defendant in an ejectment case filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court to defend her rights. Natividad averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to Atty. Eventually. prescription set in.. legally applied. the filing of the criminal complaints with the prosecutor's office. Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel. On the other hand. failed to file one for and on behalf of Natividad.e. because he knew that the law favored the plaintiff as against Natividad in the ejectment case. the prescriptive period for filing a complaint for threats is five years. i. Required to file a Position Paper. Delos Reyes failed to give him the documents to be used in filing of the case. Braulio RG Tansinin said that he did not submit the required pleadings. care. He was not able to provide and submit the complaint-affidavits for the filing of criminal complaints against the relatives of Carino. he also was remiss in informing her of the status of the case. Braulio RG Tansinin who timely filed an Answer to the complaint for ejectment. For his part. there is no merit in Carino's claim that. He must serve the client with competence and diligence. because the Atty. She also claimed that respondent‘s failure to file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence and gross negligence. Delos Reyes' explanation flimsy.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides . warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights. threats. Braulio RG Tansinin to file a memorandum on appeal. he decided to withdraw his representation. Respondent explained that he could not submit an intelligible position paper. the RTC dismissed the appeal solely because of the failure of Atty. That he returned the money paid to him does not diminish his responsibility but only mitigates the penalty. he is a member of the IBP commission investigating complaints against members of the bar all the more should have impressed on him his duty of fidelity to his client's cause. CASE 133: Natividad Uy vs. He added that he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal.

Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention. diligence.03 of the Code of Professional Resposibility. appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be filed with the CA through a verified petition for review. he did not familiarize himself with the correct procedural remedy as regards their case. and he should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he. care and devotion. and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently. Bala guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.ISSUE/S: WON the lawyer violated canon 18 section 3. respondent did not bother to do so. he repeatedly assured them that the supposed petition had already been filed. CASE 134: Spouses Garcia vs.C. Herbosa found Atty. No.. Rolando S. November 25. within thirty days from his receipt of the Decision. Bala. Bala to appeal to the CA the adverse Decision of the Department of Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB). Bala is found guilty of negligence and conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The case was dismissed on that ground alone. Braulio RG Tansinin failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainant‘s appeal was then pending. 2005 FACTS: Complainants Spouses Garcia engaged the services of respondent Atty. Investigating IBP Commissioner Teresita J. et. It recommended that Atty. to the prejudice of his clients. respondent failed to champion the cause of his clients with wholehearted fidelity. G. Under the present factual circumstances.03 provides that ―a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. the Court can only assume that there was no valid reason for his failure to file a petition for review. Bala. in total disregard of the court order. Rolando S. Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Atty. the amount of P9. Worse. thus. However. A.‖ Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client.200. PNB. No. diligent and efficient manner. skill and competence. In addition Atty.R. they owe fidelity to the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Bala should be disciplined. HELD: YES. to protect the client‘s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor. A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious. himself. Evidently. Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|106 . and recommendation. 5039. He failed to comply. he violated it. The Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution which adopted with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating commissioner. It must be recalled that the MTC required the parties to submit their respective position papers. Instead. Respondent‘s failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18. In its Resolution. Despite adequate time. By agreeing to be his client‘s counsel. A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense authorized by law. HELD: Yes. al. Bala‘s error. Since he effectively waived his right to be heard. Braulio RG Tansinin failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client‘s cause. he was presumed to have waived his right to be heard. with legal interest from the filing of the present Complaint with this Court. The Court required Atty. regardless of its importance. respondent should return the money paid by complainants. CASE 135: Felisa Joven-De Jesus vs. Bala should be reprimanded and suspended from the practice of law for six months. and that he was therefore negligent. Bala erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB.Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed before this Court a Letter-Complaint against Atty. He should be disciplined. would expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. RATIO: Rule 18. Because of Atty. the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed. report. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. L-19299. Rolando S. the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation. Bala to comment on the Complaint. RATIO: Atty. he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to do. he is suspended from the practice of law for six months. and that he should return. and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

.. 1964 FACTS: The case at bar presents a procedural question on the dismissal of in appeal as perfected out of time. 1961 by Eugenio Magpoc. and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable. In its motion filed. it stated that the registered mail containing said copy was received from the post office on February 13. and served on the adverse party. 1961." It alleged that movant's failure to appeal on time was due to "accident. Defendant bank has appealed from the orders of March 17.98 with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6% a year from the date of the filing of the complaint. On the basis of this date. from appellant's system of handling and receiving correspondence for its legal and all other departments. within thirty days from notice of judgment. appellant's counsel computed the period to appeal. it was clear that the date of receipt by the receiving clerks of its several departments could not be relied upon as the very same date of receipt from the post office. Appellant's counsel carelessly took for granted that the date of receipt stamped on the letter by the legal department's receiving clerk was the date of receipt from the post office." In support of such contention. its personnel and different departments" PNB admitted having filed its notice of appeal. The record will show that copy of the decision sent to appellant's counsel in its legal department was received on February 13. ―Section 3. 1961. 1956. Del Carmen Branch at the CFI of Pampanga. we find no excuse for his having failed to do so. his affidavit states that "as such. the judgment becomes final and executory.274. Jr. delivered it to the receiving clerk of appellant's legal department only on February 15. it was stamped by said receiving clerk as received on February 15. mistake and/or excusable negligence. the appeal bond. one of my duties is to get and receive from the Post Office all registered mail matters addressed to the Philippine National Bank. It was known or at least should have been known to him that letters addressed to appellant's legal department were taken from the post office by Eugenio Magpoc and sorted out by Feliciano Jimenez. 1961. 1961. 1961 the registered letter was given by the bank's postal mail clerk Eugenio Magpoc to Feliciano Jimenez. 1961. Jr. plus the other sum of P500.‖ RATIO: According to Rule 18. The Court cited. mistake and/or excusable negligence. On March 16. HELD: Yes. and in the circumstances. and/or to set aside the order of March 17. until the principal shall have been fully paid. 1961 and failed to inform the latter that it was received two days before. ISSUE/S: WON the counsel of the appellant neglected the period for appeal in the case at bar.00 as attorney's fees of the said plaintiff. 1961. and the record on appeal be all filed in court. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.. 1961 defendant PNB filed its notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file record on appeal. it filed its record on appeal and appeal bond. The Court denied the motion on May 18. . PNB filed a "motion for reconsideration and relief from.03. appellant‘s counsel carelessly took for granted that the date of receipt stamped on the letter. so that if said period is not complied with. Due to volume of work. Bello vs.03.. 1961 and May 18. On September 15. Feliza Joven De Jesus filed a civil case against Philippine National Bank (PNB).‖ LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. 1961. Although the latter is postal mail and delivery clerk of appellant's cashier department. and compliance with this period for appeal is considered absolutely indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. He violated Rule 18. Fernando. that the delay was due to "accident. However. 1961. Feliciano Jimenez. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|107 .November 28. Counsel for appellant could have easily found out the latter date had he inquired from Eugenio Magpoc or Feliciano Jimenez. its appeal was dismissed on that day by the court on plaintiff Joven De Jesus‘ motion as fi led out of time because the registry return card showed receipt by PNB of its copy of the decision on February 13. Jr. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Thereupon. Jr. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court requires that the notice of appeal. it is alleged that on February 13." as supported by affidavits annexed to the motion. record on appeal and appeal bond beyond the 30-day period.‖ The lower court did not find excusable the negligence in the circumstances of the case. On March 17. registered mail clerk of appellant's cashier department. but contended in its motion of March 22. and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable. The Court rendered a decision ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P3. Thus.

The records of the court were burned. The heirs of Juana moved for reconsideration of the three orders dated February 22. but a photocopy of a medical certificate dated January 30. The notice of the denial of his motion for postponement was served to him in Feb 24. The death of Juana does not affect the Court‘s jurisdiction. the Court will proceed to try the case ex parte. 1978 is untenable. 1976 in the capitol building. between Juana V. The SC also noted that the character of illness of Atty. Pablo Salazar and Alberto Lumakang. He then told Alcoriza that the Judge has become impatient because of the many postponements. The Court reset the pre-trial to February 27. 249. The latter submitted that the whole case emanated from the decision of the MTC for sum of money. Since the respondents were residents of Davao. the defendant‘s counsel pleading illness. Lumakang explains his failure to appear in the trial: ―Early in the morning as usual as I used to. the Court was in formed of Juana Patriarca‘s death and her heirs requested that she be substituted which was granted. Pacamarra has headache and is advised to take a rest. 3 days before the pre-trial date. 1978 but was only filed on February 22. The SC also held that defendant‘s contention that the demise of Juana Patriarca prevented the trial court‘s acquisition of jurisdiction over her is untenable. 1978 stating that Atty. Patriarca FACTS: A case was set for pre-trial but before it was held. 1978. 1978 FACTS: An administrative complaint for disciplinary action was filed against Respondents Attys. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|108 . A. A party or counsel desiring a postponement of a pre-trial must comply with the requisites set out in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. February 27. CASE 137: Tomas Alcoriza vs. On March 4. Pacamarra is not so severe as to render his non-attendance excusable. report and recommendation. neither the counsel nor the defendants appeared. But again.M. including the present case. while invoking the interest of justice. It shall state the grounds upon which it is based. He neglected his duties to legal matters. the case was referred to the City Attorney of Davao City. a fire broke out on June 26. It shall be served by the applicant on all parties concerned 3 days before the said hearing. for investigation. especially because the judgment provided for reimbursement in appellant's favor by third-party defendant Jacobo Lampa and the latter has not appealed therefrom. Alcoriza assured that he will go and Atty. Lumakang told him that if LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. The Court declared them in default. The record was reconstituted and was rescheduled for pre-trial on January 25. sought this be cancelled and rescheduled again. But this was denied by the court. lack of setting of the date of hearing. be accompanied by supporting affidavits or papers. I waited for him until 9:00. We may also add that appellant. His petition for the rescheduling of the pre-trial set on Feb 27. Alberto Lumakang. Lumakang contended that when he asked Alcoriza why he did not go to the office or to the Court to attend to the trial of his case. 1978. Tomas Alcoriza. and if necessary. It shall be made in writing. Atty. has not shown how it would stand to be prejudiced from the loss of its right to appeal. Petition for certiorari dismissed. The trial was conducted in the absence of the defendant and or his counsels despite the fact that they have been duly notified.Such circumstances do not exist in this case. The motion filed was denied for being not in accordance with the rules because of lack of notice to the adverse party. and March 4. It shall specify the date of hearing. Antonio vs. These requisites were not complied with by the defendants. The defendant‘s actuations give rise to the conclusion that they were motivated by a desire to delay the disposition of the case. 1978. This motion contained no notice of hearing. Hence. Alcoriza merely answered that he is busy. Atty. I know that the hearing of Judge Hofileña will be 9:00 and that as I said if he will not appear in my office I will not appear for him as I would be going there without any preparation. I reported to the office at 7:30 believing that Tomas Alcoriza would come to the office. that an order was issued giving him last postponement and that if he will be absent again on the day of the trial. No. The defendant‘s counsel move for the cancellation of this setting. ISSUE/S: W/N Atty. CASE 136: Agravante v. they filed a petition for certiorari to the SC contending that they had been denied their day in court. This motion was dated February 14. and the attached medical certificate was only a photocopy. so that on that day though I was jittery I did not go to the court. At the scheduled pre-trial on February 27.‖ Atty. This case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General. I stayed in the office waiting for Alcoriza. November 21. Pacamarra violated Rule 18. She was s ubstituted. From the record no such prejudice can be gathered.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes.

et. Instead. owing to his "negligence and gross bad faith in unduly and knowingly failing to remit to the Court of Appeals the docket fee and the estimated cost of printing the record on appeal. ISSUE/S: WON Respondent Atty. Atty." said Court dismissed the aforementioned appeal. Lumakang would constitute so serious a ground as to warrant disciplinary action in view of the lack of interest which his client has shown in the premises. is charged by his former clients. After due hearing. 1957. unworthy of credence and found the charge against him duly proven. it is not considered that this inaction of Atty. Manuel G. HELD: Yes. Atty." in that. al. Tomas Alcoriza. Lumakang‘s failure to appear in the trial constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Alino. Lumakang suspected that Alcoriza had already lost his interest in the case." On August 21. 1968 FACTS: Respondent Manuel G. ISSUE/S: WON respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 18. Aliño a member of the bar. Pablo Salazar is concerned. A.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. appeal bond (P15). the instant administrative case is dismissed insofar as Atty. 381.03 . still he could do things to protect the interest of his client by appearing for him in court.M.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. However. in the trial of his is not wholly laudable. Lumakang was not prepared to enter into trial on that day. WHEREFORE. in support of his answer. should he consider it advisable to desist from said appeal. for the specific purpose of applying the same to the payment of the "appellate" docket fees (P24). as their counsel in Civil Case No. the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija — who. with alleged "gross negligence tantamount to malpractice and betrayal of his clients' trust and confidence. and to regard said sum of P298. This suspicion came true because on the date set for hearing of his case as Alcoriza did not appear at the office of the respondent neither to the Court. The Court finds the report and recommendation of the Solicitor General to be in order and amply justified by the circumstances on record. The Solicitor General reported and recommended that the reason of Atty. received the evidence for both parties — considered respondent's uncorroborated testimony. 2248 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija — the decision in which. adverse to said complainants. Respondent Alino is guilty of such.he will not come to the office on the date of the trial. The undersigned believes that although Atty. and Atty. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. accordingly. Lumakang for his failure to appear in representation of his client. it is the honest belief of Atty. Lumakang that a lawyer cannot be more interested in his client's case than the client himself. to explain to the court the predicament he was in. had been appealed by them to the Court of Appeals — the sum of P298.00 as compensation for his services in connection with said case. having been deputized therefor by the Solicitor General.00. No. the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong. malpractice or gross misconduct in office as a lawyer. and that said appeal was dismissed because of respondent's failure to pay the docket fee and to deposit the estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal. Lumakang should be reprimanded for his inaction as it would tend to diminish trust and confidence which the public is supposed to repose in the office of a lawyer. Respondent alleged that complainants had authorized him to exercise his judgment and discretion in determining whether or not he should prosecute the appeal. the Solicitor General filed the corresponding complaint charging respondent with "deceit. Atty. In order to be free from any complaint from his client. RATIO: Rule 18. Alberto Lumakang is hereby reprimanded and admonished to be more careful in attending to the cases of his clients so as to avoid any similar incident as that complained of. Concurring in this finding and recommendation. HELD: Yes. and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable. Lumakang will not appear in Court as his appearance would only be useless. (printing of) the record on appeal (P150) and appellants' brief (P100). GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|109 . respondent received from the complainants. vs. February 10. Such being the case. and. CASE 138: Emilio Capulong. he should have appeared primarily to protect the interest of his client and secondarily. recommended disciplinary action against respondent.

over a parcel of residential land in Lapu-Lapu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. The evidence on record fully confirms the finding of guilt made by the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija and the Solicitor General and their conclusion to the effect that respondent's uncorroborated testimony is unworthy of credence.03 FACTS: On 18 July 1979. as principal. as redemption money. wife of petitioner Paterno D.00 in question as his fees. to keep the P298. The Responsibility. His name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and his certificate of Membership of the Philippine Bar. why is it that he filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in consequence of said failure. respondent violated the Code of Professional RATIO: While this Court is cognizant of the rule that. and. The consideration stated in the document was P42. according to her. It is so ordered. executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale under Pacto de Retro" in favor of private respondents. Escudero.000. duly verified by her. v. That the transaction was an equitable mortgage can be gleaned. to make said payment and deposit.. This was opposed by petitioner wife in an Answer.350. Emmanuel Seno. Indeed. where she alleged as an affirmative and special defense that the transaction between her and private respondents was actually one of loan of P 35. he did not make? Respondent Manuel G. eventually. CASE 139: Escudero. Moreover. had complainants authorized him to decide whether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist therefrom. at the same price of P42.RATIO: A misappropriation of funds held by respondent in trust for his clients and a breach of such trust.00. Judge Dulay CPR 18. and upon advice of petitioners' then counsel. within ten (10) days after this judgment has become final. private respondent spouses filed a petition for consolidation of title over the parcel of land in question. respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him for said sum.350. or ten (10) days after the expiration of the redemption period. in the instant case. stating specifically that it would be used for docket fees. remained in possession of the land and continued to enjoy the fruits thereof. the alleged vendor. if his failure to pay said docket fees and to deposit the estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision — pursuant to the aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given — to desist from prosecuting the appeal and to apply the money to the payment of his professional fees. On 28 October 1979. exceptions may be made to such rule.00. Atty.00. petitioner Araceli D. the vendors (petitioners) may still exercise their right of repurchase within thirty (30) days from the time final judgment is rendered in a civil action. or nearly a month after the expiration of the redemption period. the foregoing acts and omissions indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent herein and his unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession. result in the outright deprivation of their property through a LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.350. et al. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|110 . Under Canon 18. in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. disbarred. with 7% monthly interest. in effect. with the Clerk of Court of respondent trial court. Atty. which. accordingly. petitioner wife deposited P42. with the land mortgaged as collateral or security. the Amistad spouses.03 which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. On 16 November 1979.350. which he is directed to surrender to the Clerk of Court. the record on appeal. thus totalling P 42. in the interest of justice and equity. Adherence to the general rule would. in the latter alternative. because under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code.00 in the form of a bank manager's check. 9223 of the Register of Deeds of that city.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. generally. the appeal bond and the (printing) of their brief. a client will suffer the consequences of the negligence. thereby securing. ISSUE/S: WON violated Canon 18.00. Aliño is. hereby revoked. mistake or lack of competence of his counsel. Redemption was to be made by the vendors within three (3) months after the execution of the Deed of Sale. Seno then manifested at the pre-trial conference held on 10 March 1980 that he was moving for a judgment on the pleadings after agreeing to the characterization of the transaction between the parties as a sale with pacto de retro. an extension of over five (5) months. HELD: Yes. from the gross inadequacy of the purchase price and the fact that she. if the contract is a true sale with right to repurchase. Escudero.

HELD: The Court finds the evidence adduced insufficient to warrant the taking of disciplinary action against Atty. al. he was bound to attend to complainants' claims with all due diligence. made a response reiterating their arguments re: illegal dismissal. (3) Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents. they handed over to him documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers They noticed that since then. ATTY. Atty. as in this case. (2) Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion. Aparicio claimed that the complaint is malicious. vs. CASE 140: Olegario Blanza. perforce. Agustin Arcangel. Atty. certification against forum shopping. The Court cannot close its eyes to the petitioner wife's affirmative and special defense. 1955. in behalf of his client. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait. and (4) Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.‖ Mr. Way back in April. Atty. Atty. be par excellence. and hope. representing his client. In addition to other multiple charges like (1) Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government. Arcangel. September 5. 2005. during the conference.technicality. for six long years on their pension claims. e. believing that the letter was unethical.g. Aparicio also claims that the issuance of demand letters had been an accepted practice in the legal profession. Peña) rejected these as baseless. we will be constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of cases and laws. Arcangelhad lost interest in the progress of their claims and when they finally asked for the return of their papers six years later. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|111 . Atty. and to return to work. Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands. Atty. especially so when. Peña then filed this complaint for disciplinary action with the IBP. under oath in her Answer before the respondent trial court that her transaction with private respondents was not a pacto de retro sale but an equitable mortgage. notably the incriminating note signed by the agent of both parties in which the real nature of the questioned transaction is revealed. Complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their respective claims Atty. There is no clear preponderance of evidence substantiating the accusations against him. yet We cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of the bar. Peña sent a letter to the employee and Atty. Arcangel should be held liable. Atty. Aparicio. Aparicio. Aparicio was hired as counsel by an employee who has been complaining at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for alleged illegal dismissal. But while We are constrained to dismiss the charges against Atty. and for this purpose. The letter also contained the following threats to the company: ―But if these are not paid on August 10. The Court cannot also but take note of petitioners' evidence to support such verified defense. Atty. 2 But having established the attorney-client relationship voluntarily. Arcangel. The NLRC arranged for a mandatory mediation/conciliation conference to be attended by both parties. His conduct must. Arcangel refused to surrender them. Atty. but the company (represented by the complainant. No. These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts as settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Agustin Arcangel for professional non-feasance. requiring an explanation as to her absences. that it must be dismissed because of procedural matters which were not complied with. et. Atty. overlooks the fact that he volunteered his professional services and thus was not legally entitled to recover fees. 1967 FACTS: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask this Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Atty. PEÑA v. The company thru Mr. he volunteers his professional services. Arcangel here has not lived up to that ideal standard. filed a claim for separation pay and damages. Arcangel should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. There was a LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.C. CASE 141: FERNANDO MARTIN O. Upon their refusal to co-operate. 492. however. soldiers. A. Arcangel submits that he was not obliged to follow up complainants' pension claims since there was no agreement for his compensation as their counsel. LOLITO APARICIO (2007) FACTS: Atty. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Aparicio. Arcangel for being legally insufficient. However.

mandatory conference but Atty. Not only do they violate the CPR. Coloma FACTS:Petitioner Angel Albano and his mother retained the services of Respondent Atty. Aparicio does not find anything wrong with what he wrote. It contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against the company which have nothing to do with his client‘s claim for separation pay. Perpetua Coloma. letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. disbarment is too harsh a penalty considering that he acted overzealously to protect the interests of his client. He is therefore reprimanded. Albano claims that such document was not signed by him nor his mother and the NBI found that the signature is not in the hand of the person whose sample signatures were submitted. Aparicio did what was exactly prohibited by Rule 19. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and forwarded it to the Supreme Court.‖ He further asserts that the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that our laws allow and encourage the settlement of disputes. Indeed. Coloma claims that her services were contracted for such case and that there was agreed upon fee. Coloma intervened in such case in order to collect her attorney‘s fees base on a document allegedly signed by Albano where an agreement to pay her a contingent fee of 33 and 1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages is stipulated. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|112 . It is clear in the content of the demand letter that Atty. Aparicio is unethical and the act. and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel the company to yield to their demands. RATIO:Any counsel. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents. 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. he himslef would not get his due. This is misleading. IAC LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. he violated Rule 19. The investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case for failure to comply with procedural matters. who is worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services. Coloma denied the allegations and claimed that the matters covered therein were untrue. asserting that ―a lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth. With his capital consisting solely of his brains and with his skill. However. to that end. Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and termination of the case which prompted Albano to sought a different counsel. a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer‘s client.‖ reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer‘s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. for which he may be criminally liable. unfounded and imaginary. acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy. to report to the government commission of offenses punishable by the State. and. Mr. dismissing the same as merely an act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party. However. his client‘s success is wholly subordinate. The Solicitor General found that the genuineness and due execution to pay respondent her attorney‘s fees. Coloma also claims that there is record to show that she was able to file dozens of papers and pleadings and went to trial with the assistance of her sister. with boldness. RATIO: Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that ―a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. ISSUE/S: WON the demand letter made by Atty.01. CASE 142: Albano v. CASE 143: QUIRANTE vs. he shall ‗keep silent‘ on the other alleged violations. It cannot be denied that he implied in the letter that if the company heeds to his demands. Indeed. the letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. Under Rule 19. Aparicio failed to appear. and given a stern warning. ISSUE/S:WON Coloma can collect her attorney‘s fees HELD:Yes.01. Coloma was their counsel in a civil case during the Japanese occupation. but they also amount to blackmail. violative of the CPR HELD: Yes. However.01. Peña then appealed the recommendation of the IBP.

petitioner Atty. since it is also premised on the eventual grant of damages to the Casasola family. NLRC. In the meantime. but was it was returned by David with the intention of getting paid after the case is ruled with finality by the SC and Corpus gets his back salaries and wages.‖ CASE 145: Traders Royal Bank Union-Independent v.00. the NLRC ruled in favor of the LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|113 . In September 1988. by the general provisions or principles of obligations and contracts. Casasola‘s claim against its erring building contractor. it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of Dr. he gave his services gratuitously. in the absence of proof that the service was rendered gratuitously. According to him. The alleged confirmation to attorney‘s fees should not adversely affect the non-signatories in the petition. Cor pus was administratively charged and he employed the services of David.A Cruz and Associates law firm. Cruz filed the complaint and the Labor Secretary to the NLRC certified the case. and by the customs of the people. HELD: NO. et al. CASE 144: Corpus vs. RATIO: Since the main case from which the petitioner‘s claims for their fees may arise has not yet become final. the attorney‘s fees of the undersigned counsel (Atty. Cruz the claims of its members for holiday. The Union would pay Atty. 1997 FACTS: In February 1987. John C. that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the damage of another. Ruling of respondent court affirmed." Innominate contracts have been elevated to a codal provision in the New Civil Code by providing under Article 1307 that such contracts shall be regulated by the stipulations of the parties. The orderly administration of justice dictates that such issue be likewise determined by the court a quo inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the same contingencies in determining the propriety and assessing the extent of recovery of attorney‘s fees. In a letter sent by David to Corpus. Quirante and Atty. Casasola with regard to his attorney‘s fees. Quirante) shall be P30.00 surety bond. head of the E. In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120. March 14.000. Corpus refused to pay David contending that since David refused the first check given by him. Casasola.FACTS:In the case of Dr. you will make me happier by just keeping the check‖. David won the administrative case for Corpus. ISSUE/S: WONprivate respondent Atty. when you shall have obtained a decision which would have finally resolved the case in your favor. Juan T. there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. David is entitled to attorney's fees HELD: Yes because there was at least an implied agreement for the payment of attorney's fees RATIO: Payment of attorney's fees to respondent David may be justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give which is based on the principle that "no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. CA. Jurisprudence provides ―Where one has rendered services to another. the trial court ruled in favor of the former who eventually died. it is but just that he should pay a reasonable remuneration therefor because 'it is a well-known principle of law. by the rules governing the most analogous nominate contracts. Atty. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the confirmation of his attorney‘s fees.00 bond. Trader Royal Bank (TRB). Dante Cruz. however. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. and these services are accepted by the latter. The trial court granted the motion for confirmationdespite an opposition thereto.N. entered into a retainer agreement. petitioner Traders Royal Bank Employees Union (Union) and private respondent Atty. Cruz a monthly retainer fee of P3000. he said ―Your appreciation of the efforts I have invested in your case is enough compensation therefor. mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer. The Union referred to Atty. Corpus gave a check to David. as confirmed in writing by the latter‘s surviving spouse and two daughters to be computed as follows: In case of recovery of the P120. remembering me then will make me happy. Emmanuel Cruz. David continued to fight for Corpus‘ case and got a favorable judgment.In the petition for review on certiorari. GR 120592. Atty. FACTS: David accepted the case of Corpus even though there was no express agreement regarding the attorney‘s fees.Here.000.000. Quirante is entitled of the attorney‘s fees. the determination of the propriety of said fees and the amount thereof should be held in abeyance. the respondent court (IAC) ruled that the confirmation of attorney‘s fees is premature.

GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|114 . pending the hearing of the application for the writ of execution. praying that 10% of the total reward for holiday pay differential be declared as his attorney‘s fees.‖ This Rule requires that a lawyer shall first and foremost take care of his client‘s interest before he concerns himself with his personal compensation. Thus. RATIO: Rule 20. In April 1990. this petition. Atty. mid-year bonus differential and year-end bonus differential. On the other hand. To include the award of the attorney's fees in the main case presupposes that the fees will be paid by TRB to the adverse party. Cruz maintained that his motion to determine attorney‘s fees was just an incident of the main case where th e Union was awarded its money claims. In its extraordinary concept. Hence. Atty. The Union maintained that: (1) the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the award of attorney‘s fees in violation of the retainer agreement. All that the non-inclusion of attorney's fees in the award means is that the Supreme Court did not order TRB to pay the opposing party attorney's fees in the concept of damages. Cruz received the Supreme Court decision and notified the Union. In its ordinary concept. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. This is false because it is a well settled rule that a claim for attorney‘s fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action. the TRB management and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney‘s lien over the award of holiday pay differential.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ―a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition. HELD: Yes. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. In July 1991. the NLRC should not have allowed said attorney‘s fees. the controversy started when the Union refused to pay Atty. The NLRC affirmed the grant. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied it. Through a latter. The Union members were paid through their payroll. Lorenzo granted the motion.employees. (2) the award for attorney‘s fees should have been incorporated in the main case and not after the Supreme Court had already reviewed and passed upon the NLRC decision. he has the remedy of judicial action to claim the amount for the services he rendered. And in times when there are controversies about it. the retainer agreement was terminated. TRB complied with the final judgment and determined the holiday pay differential. TRB challenged the NLRC decision before the Supreme Court. awarding them holiday pay differential. he informed the Union. The Supreme Court modified the decision by deleting the award of mid-year and year-end bonus differentials. In September 1990. Cruz filed. Cruz attorney‘s fees for the latter‘s render of service in the litigation of a particular case because they were already paying him a retainer‘s fee. It argued that since the Supreme Court had neither taken up nor approved Atty. an attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. Such lien resulted from and corresponds to the services he rendered in the action wherein the favorable judgment was obtained. However. The controversy of this case started when the Union had the false conception that NLRC has jurisdiction over claims for attorney‘s fees only before its judgment is reviewed and ruled by the Supreme Court. injustice or fraud. Cruz should be awarded attorney‘s fees. The grant of attorney's fees was the consequence of his exercise of his attorney's lien. the Union posited that the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in making the award of attorney‘s fees. he filed a motion before Labor Arbiter Lorenzo for the determination of his attorney‘s fees. Acting on the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution Atty. a s said act constituted a modification of a final and executor Supreme Court judgment which did not award attorney‘s fees. An attorney‘s fee is either ordinary or extraordinary. The basis of this is any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made. Cruz should be awarded attorney‘s fees. It is therefore imperative to distinguish an attorney‘s fee from a retainer‘s fee. Cruz‘s claim for attorney‘s fees. He is not therefore precluded from filing his motion to have his own professional fees adjudicated. In the case at bar. the NLRC raffled the case to Labor Arbiter Oswald Lorenzo. an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. Atty. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client.

or retaining fee. the client pays the lawyer a fixed retainer fee which could be monthly or otherwise. Flores and Rodrigo registered their appearance as counsel for the plaintiff. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|115 . the determination to be made by the courts will be premature. The future services of the lawyer are secured and committed to the retaining client.With respect to the first situation. he asserted that there was no express agreement as to the amount of his fees for services rendered in the case for recovery of differential pay. Attorney Francisco entered his appearance as attorney of record for the defendant in substitution for Attorney Ohnick. a petition for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client. Attorneys Ohnick. Article 111 of the Labor Code supplants this omission by providing for an award of ten percent (10%) of a money judgment in a labor case as attorney's fees. these attorneys filed an amended complaint by including Jacob Assad as party defendant. or as expressly stated therein. On October 5. depending upon their arrangement. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.00 monthly fee provided in the retainer agreement between the union and the law firm refers to a general retainer. The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or other parties. The issue over attorney's fees only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid. the remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client. the determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer's claim for attorney's fees may arise has become final. he argued that in the absence of such agreement. Attorneys Delgado. CASE 146: Hilado v David FACTS:on April 23. A client may have several cases demanding special or individual attention. Of course. The monthly payment is intended merely as a consideration for the law firm‘s ―commitment to render the services (general and special legal services) of the retainer agreement. While a claim for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered. each fee is considered a special retainer. 1946.000. 1945. On January 28. Velilla and Balonkita who had withdrawn from the case. it is a compensation for lost opportunities. Atty. as said monthly fee covers only the law firm's pledge. and on June 15. Cruz‘s execution or performance of the services listed in the contract. It was only after the Supreme Court modified the NLRC decision that he demanded his claim before the NLRC for it would be impossible and improper for the NLRC and for the Supreme Court to make an award for attorney‘s fees when no claim for it was pending before them. As long as the lawyer was in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the client. On May 14. Otherwise. The contract provides that the P3000 retainer fee does not cover the services the latter actually rendered before the labor arbiter and the NLRC in behalf of the former. Atty. It is elementary that an attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. Cruz demanded the fi rst type of attorney‘s fees. Evidently. For this. The Union argued that the retainer fee they paid Atty. However. Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an action against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot executed during the Japanese occupation by Mrs. Hilado's now deceased husband. its "commitment to render the legal services enumerated. A general retainer. Attorney's fees cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided and the subject of the recovery is at the disposition of the court. Cruz disagreed and said that they had no such agreement. Dizon. he should have a reasonable compensation for such services. If for every case there is a separate and independent contract for attorney's fees. A special retainer is a fee for a specific case handled or special service rendered by the lawyer for a client. subject to some particular qualifications or permutations stated there. Velilla and Balonkita filed an answer on behalf of the defendant. Heneither filed any claim for attorney‘s fees before the NLRC when the latter acted on the Union‘s money claims nor before the Supreme Court when it reviewed the NLRC decision. the P3. Cruz was already the attorney‘s fees. The fees are paid whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer. In fine. In the case at bar. Also. or a retaining fee. is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise in the routinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action." The fee is not payment for Atty.

In Atty. Simeon Capule who prepared an amended complaint and an opposition to dismiss the case. Francisco violated Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by providing the respondents with his opinion regarding Hilado‘s case. that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had submitted at his office. amounting to P180. If this letter was written under the circumstances explained by Attorney Francisco and he was unaware of its contents. emerged the relation of attorney and client. and the latter sent her a written opinion. it was alleged. 7." and section 19 (e) of Rule 127 imposes upon an attorney the duty "to maintain inviolate the confidence. Hilado a formal professional advice from which. Santiago was then condemned to deliver his wife‘s share in the conjugal properties to Natan plus his one -half share in the Hacianda Minit for failure to render an accounting of the fruits of the properties while it was in Santiago‘s possession. Capule FACTS: Complainant Simplicio Natan. 1945. HELD: Yes. Francisco‘s answer to plaintiff 's attorneys' complaint. the hearing of the case was postponed to Nov. and also told him (Francisco) that there was a pending suit brought by Mrs. without the consent of his client. and at every peril to himself. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Natan paid Capule sums of money in partial payment up to Oct. Francisco alleged that on about May. Capule received P50 which is a part of his fee of P250 for accepting the case. or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. The fact that petitioner did not object until after four months had passed from the date Attorney Francisco first appeared for the defendants does not operate as a waiver of her right to ask for his disqualification. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received by him from his first client.On May 29. that this woman asked him if he was willing to accept the case if the Syrian should give it to him. that Mrs. 1925 and Natan continued in possession of the Hacienda Minit in his original capacity as administrator. 17. On Oct. The defense that Attorney Agrava wrote the letter Exhibit A and that Attorney Francisco did not take the trouble of reading it. On Nov. An information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm. Francisco violated Canon 21 by providing the respondents to Hilado‘s case with opinions that he may have acquired through consultation with Hilado. as heretofore demonstrated. 1949. a real estate broker came to his office in connection with the legal separation of a woman who had been deserted by her husband. However. Natan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Attorney Dizon. that he would ask the judge for postponement. the judge refused to grant the postponement and Natan was forced to LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. that he told the woman that the sales of real property during the Japanese regime were valid even though it was paid for in Japanese military notes. RATIO: Section 26 (e). Natan filed an action of forcible entry against 3 individuals for having illegally occupied and detained portions of the Hacienda Minit under his administration. that this being his opinion. Rule 123 of the Rules of Court provides that "an attorney cannot. 1949. Hilado's purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Attorney Francisco's professional services. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. Capule assured Natan what in case he would not be able to arrive on time. In 1949. Atty. 1949. 7. CASE 147: Natan v. This letter binds and estop him in the same manner and to the same degree as if he personally had written it. he told his visitor he would have no objection to defending the Syrian. the judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Patero filed an action against the decedent‘s husband Santiago Patero for recovery of the wife‘s share in the conjugal properties. the fact remains that his firm did give Mrs. to preserve the secrets of his client. 1949 as Capule was based in Manila and the hearing was conducted in Coron. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|116 . Palawan. in the name of his firm. 17. Santiago died in Aug. Atty. on which occasion. would not take the case out of the interdiction. Attorney Francisco's law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the merits of her case. wrote Attorney Francisco urging him to discontinue representing the defendants on the ground that their client had consulted with him about her case. Hilado against a certain Syrian to annul the sale of a real estate which the deceased Serafin Hilado had made to the Syrian during the Japanese occupation. "she turned over the papers" to Attorney Francisco.

‖ In this case. Essex Silapan‘s postdated check with the drawee bank but it was dishonored as respondent‘s account therein was already closed. 1950 Capule filed on behalf of Olimpio a petition in the administration proceedings. He may not do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he formerly represented him. On Nov. Atty. He did actually utilize the papers. which the latter used in this petition against his former client. being a lawyer. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Capule is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. However. Essex Silapan 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. A. Olimpio Patero filed a motion to intervene in the civil case of forcible entry filed by Natan against 3 individuals. Essex Silapan 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. Essex Silapan issued to William Genato a postdated check in the amount of P176. The court ruled to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 2 years upon the respondent Atty. Atty. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|117 . to which the latter agreed. 1949. nor is LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. William Genato then filed a criminal case against Atty. RATIO: Capule violated Canon 21 which states that ― A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. his former counsel in that case. Atty. 2003 FACTS: The conflict between the parties started when Atty. No. 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. Capule used the documents given to him by his former client Natan during their attorneyclient relationship. nor may he at any time use against his former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship. On Feb. With the money borrowed from William Genato. 1949.528. 13. Silapan. July 14.C. Capule is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Essex Silapan borrowed two hundred thousand pesos (P200. the document of sale of the car was issued in William Genato‘s name and financed through City Trust Company. 21. to offer bribe money to the members of the review committee of the Department of Justice where a petition for review of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at the time ISSUE/S: WON Atty. after the attorney-client relationship between them was ended in Nov. Subsequently. Essex Silapan for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. unless the latter consents. 27. had been encroaching upon the land constituting the Hacienda Minit. CASE 148: Genato vs. interfering with its use and occupation and depriving Olimpio of the harvest of coconut and palay. Essex Silapan said.00 to answer for the six (6) months interest on the loan. that the administrator of the estate. knowledge and information which he had received in the course of his employment as lawyer for Natan. In return.000. Capule for his misconduct. 21.handle the case himself. It also appears that during the filing of the forcible entry case in 1949. where he (William Genato) wanted Essex L. This obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. Atty. his former client Natan. Essex Silapan failed to pay the amortization on the car and the financing firm sent demand letters to William Genato. in his petition against the latter. Capule filed a petition to withdraw as attorney for Natan. In reply to the allegation of William Genato. Natan gave various documents to Capule.00) from William Genato which he intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new car. 4078. Essex Silapan purchased a new car. 1950. William Genato tried to encash Atty. Atty. Silapan. An attorney is forbidden to do either of two things after severing his relationship with the former client. HELD: Yes.[3] The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation. alleging that Olimpio Patero is the sole heir of Santiago and that he is in possession of Hacienda Minit. and praying that Natan be restrained from interfering with the occupation and enjoyment of Hacienda Minit by Olimpio. On Jan. Atty. Essex Silapan failed to heed William Genato‘s repeated demands for payment.

or by any other change of relation between them.4 of Canon 20. Juan S. Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services. 1992. you lawyer for yourselves. would accomplish the end desired. lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Respondent‘s contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him was only P3. Thereafter. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. complainant paid respondent the amount of P7. Accordingly. 2001(January 18. Juan Dealca with misconduct and prays that he be ―sternly dealt wit administratively. In fact. 2000) LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY.[12] In the present case. Returning the case folder to the complainant. Dealca‘s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney‘s fees.00. Atty.000. with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. Sadly.R. The parties agreed upon attorney‘s fees in the amount of P15. mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition. G. for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant. complainant Felicisimo M. 2. Essex Silapan to use the alleged bribe against William Genato in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and Atty. 139760 (G. however. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty. Dealca‘s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. especially in his dealings with his clients. 134854)October 5.00.[2] stating: 28 February 1994 Pepe and Del Montano. Dealca FACTS: In a verified complaint filed before this Court on March 9. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. reprimand is deemed sufficient. Juan S. It even survives the death of the client.500.[11] under the circumstances of the present case.R. Complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4. CV No. 3.000.00. respondent Atty. No. For breaking your promise. ISSUE/S: WON respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. 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. Motano v. here‘s your reward: Henceforth. When complainant was unable to do so.500. Dealca is REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely. A lawyer must conduct himself. Complainant later on filed motions praying for the imposition of the maximum penalty of disbarment. 1993. Figueras. 4. Juan S.‖ The complaint[1] is summarized as follows: 1. respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance as complainant‘s counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity. injustice or fraud. respondent counsel again demand payment of the remaining balance of 3. Here are your papers. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|118 . respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of the Code. Dealca demanded an additional payment from complainant. HELD: Yes. Essex Silapan‘ s professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. On November 14. respondent counsel attached a Note dated February 28. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness CASE 149: Felicisimo M. No. since you do not want to fulfill your end of the bargain. Montano charged Atty. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. such as temporary affected by the party‘s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another. Ronando L.00 representing 50% of the attorney‘s fee. complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Johnny Complainant claimed that such conduct by respondent counsel exceeded the ethical standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with administratively. fifty percent (50%) of which was payable upon acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. IBP and Atty. the complainant hired the services of Atty. even before the respondent counsel had prepared the appellant‘s brief and contrary to their agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals docketed as CAG. CASE 150: Obando vs.500. Rule 20. 1994. The Court. Prior to the filing of the appellant‘s brief. 37467 wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant. does not agree with complainant‘s contention that the maximum penalty of disbarment should be imposed on respondent lawyer. RATIO: We find Atty. It was improper for the Atty.R.

He was subsequently removed by the probate court of this said position. ISSUE/S: WON The trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who was allegedy no longer Eduardo‘s counsel of record HELD: Yes. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Obando. as co-administrator of the joint estate filed a petition for the nullification of the sale. Obando then claimed that when Atty. Counsel may be validly substituted only if the following requisites are complied with: (1) new counsel files a written application for Substitution. he no longer represented him as shown by Eduardo‘s Manifestation and Motion dispensing with said counsel‘s services in the proceeding in view of a previously-done Compromise Agreement with Obando. if the written consent can no longer be obtained. The trial court could act on a motion filed by t lawyer who was allegedly no longer Eduardo‘s counsel of record. (2) the client's written consent is obtained. Strebel Figueras. The alleged Will bequeathed to Obando and several other members of the Obando clan properties left by the Figueras couple.FACTS: Alegria. if it can still be. Obando was indicted and convicted of Estafa through falsification of a public document. has found that the alleged Will is a forgery. While settlement of the estate was pending. an attorney who has already been dismissed by the client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client's rights. she died and Eduardo assumed administration of the joint estates of Don Jose and Doña Alegria. filed by Felizardo S. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|119 . RATIO: Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel in accordance with Section 26. filed a Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband Jose Figueras. After this. Obando. a nephew of Doña Alegria. LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. then the application for substitution must carry proof that notice of the motion has been served on the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules. we are convinced that Eduardo did not dismiss Attorney Yuseco. At the discretion of the court. In this case. Then Figueras field a Joint Motion to Dismiss after Obando‘s removal. the NBI. In fact. upon insistence of Eduardo. Eduardo manifested that he had been tricked by Obando into signing the aforesaid Manifestation and Motion and Compromise Agreement. They alleged that Obando does not anymore possess legal standing in this case. Eduardo then sold two parcels of land from the estate to Amigo Realty Corp despite probate court‘s denial to sell these lands. and (3) the written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured. Yuseco filed the Motion to Dismiss for the Eduardo. Hardly had the proceedings in both intestacies begun when Eduardo was served a Petition for Probate of what purported to be Doña Alegria's Last Will and Testament. Eduardo and Francisco. together with her stepsons.