LEGAL ETHICS 2

nd
Sem 2005-2006
1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO
FACTS:
Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter he !as appointed as "lection #e$istrar of Cadi% &e$ros
'ccidental () C'*"L"C
Ledesma !ithdre! as counsel on the (asis that his appointment as "lection #e$istrar !ould re+uire full time
ser,ice as !ell as on the ,olume or pressure of !or- !ill pre,ent him from handlin$ ade+uatel) the defense.
.ud$e Climaco denied his motion and e,en appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused.
/SS0": 1o& the !ithdra!al of Ledesma should (e allo!ed
2"L3: &o.
#AT/':
4. There is o(,ious reluctance of Ledesma to compl) !ith his responsi(ilities as counsel de oficio. Then e,en
assumin$ that he continues his position his ,olume of !or- is li-el) to (e ,er) much less than present. There is
no e5cuse for him to shir- from his o(li$ation as mem(er of the (ar !ho e5pects to remain in $ood standin$
should fulfill.
2. Ledesma !as not mindful of his o(li$ation as counsel de oficio. 2e ou$ht to -no! that mem(ership in the (ar is a
pri,ile$e (urdened !ith conditions. 6ein$ appointed as counsel de oficio re+uires a hi$h de$ree of fidelit) 7la! is a
profession and not a mere trade8. #e+uires counsel of repute and eminence.
9. /n criminal cases ri$ht to counsel is a(solute. &o fair hearin$ unless the accused (e $i,en an opportunit) to (e
heard () counsel.
:. The denial () .ud$e Climaco !as due to the principal effect to dela) the case 7case has alread) (een postponed
for ; times8
2 IN RE SYCIP
FACTS:
This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed () the sur,i,in$ partners of att). Ale5ander S)cip and the other
filed () the sur,i,in$ partners of Att). 2erminio ',aepa. The) pra) that the) (e allo!ed to continue usin$ the
names of partners !ho had passed a!a).
<etitioners (ased their petitions on the follo!in$ ar$uments:
o Art. 4;:0 of the Ci,il Code
o in re$ulatin$ other professions the le$islature has authori%ed the adoption of firm names !ithout an)
restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner
o the Canons of <rofessional "thics allo!s the continued use of a deceased partner !hen permissi(le ()
local custom.
/SS0":
1=& la! firms ma) continue to use the names o deceased partners in their firm names
2"L3:
&'>
Art. 4;:0 primaril) deals !ith the e5ception of lia(ilit) on cases of a dissol,ed partnership of the indi,idual
propert) of the deceased partner for de(ts contracted () the person !ho continues the (usiness usin$ the
partnership name. !hat the la! contemplates is a hold o,er situation preparator) to formal reor$ani%ation. Art.
4;:0 treats more of a commercial partnership !ith a $ood !ill to protect rather than a professional partnership
!hose reputation depends on the personal +ualifications of its indi,idual mem(ers.
A partnership for the practice of la! cannot (e li-ened to partnerships formed () other professionals or for
(usiness. a partnership for the practice of la! is not a le$al entit). /t is not a partnership formed for then
purpose of carr)in$ on trade or (usiness or of holdin$ propert). Thus assumed or trade name in la! practice is
improper. The ri$ht to practice la! is not a natural or constitutional ri$ht (ut is in the nature of a pri,ile$e or
franchise.
/t must (e considered that in the <hilippines no local custom permits or allo!s the continued use of a deceased
partner?s name. Therefore the cited pro,ision on Canons of <rofessional "thics is not applica(le.
3/SS"&T/&@ '</&/'&:
<etition ma) (e $ranted !ith the condition that it (e indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that S)cip and
',aepa are dead or the period !hen the) ser,ed as partners sould (e stated therein.
3 CAYETANO V MONSOD
Facts:
<res. A+uino nominated Christian *onsod to the position of C'*"L"C chairman.
The Commission on Appointments affirmed the nomination and appointed *onsod to the position.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
#enato Ca)etano no! assails the appointment. 2e sa)s that *onsod is not +ualified to the position (ecause he
has not (een Aen$a$ed in the practice of la! for ten )earsB 7re+uirement is pro,ided () Consti Art. C-C Sec. 47488.
/ssue:
1=n *onsod is +ualified for the position of C'*"L"C chairman.
2eld:
SC sa)s )es. *onsod passed the (ar in 4C60 and had (een consistentl) pa)in$ his professional fees. 2e !or-ed
in a la! firm for se,eral )ears after $raduatin$ (ut after that had (een more en$a$ed in (usiness and politics 7for
a list of his Do(s see p.29;8. Still the SC said that he can still (e considered as practicin$ la! if !e consider the
modern concept of the practice of la!. This modern concept pertains to an) act !hether in or out of court !hich
re+uires the application of la! le$al procedure -no!led$e trainin$ and e5perience.
SC no! sa)s that since most of *onsod?s Do(s in,ol,ed the la! e,en if he has not (een en$a$ed in traditional
la!)erin$ 7i.e. ma-in$ pleadin$s or appearin$ in court8 he can still (e considered as to ha,e (een en$a$ed in the
practice of la!.
3issents:
*ost of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti re+uirement pertains to ha(itual practice of la!. The
dissenters pointed out that for the past ten )ears *onsod reall) seldom practiced la!. This $roup (elie,ed that
the Consti re+uired that the practice of la! (e on a re$ular (asis. .ustice <adilla e,en came up !ith +ualifications
E ha(itualit)F compensationF application of la! le$al principle practice or procedureF and att).-client relationship
E to determine !=n a person has (een en$a$ed in the practice of la!..
4 CUI V CUI
Facts:
The main concern in this case is the respecti,e +ualifications of .esus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of
administrator of 2ospicio de San .ose de 6arii a charita(le institution esta(lished () 3on <edro Cui and 3ona
6eni$na Cui.
.esus and Antonio are the sons of *ariano Cui a nephe! of the founders of the institution. Antonio?s claim to the
position is (ased on a Acon,enioB !here then administrator Teodoro resi$ned in fa,or of him. .esus ho!e,er had
no prior notice of this.
.esus?s claim is that he should (e preferred pursuant to the deed of donation 7!hich reco$ni%ed their father
*ariano as a le$itimate descendant to the position8 as he is the older of the t!o.
The deed ho!e,er $i,es preference to a descendant !ho has a Atitulo de a(o$adoB or a doctor or a ci,il
en$ineer or a pharmacist 7in order8. 'r to the one !ho pa)s the hi$hest ta5es. .esus holds the de$ree of 6achelor
of La!s (ut is not a mem(er of the 6ar !hile Antonio is a mem(er of the 6ar 7he !as formerl) dis(arred thou$h
() the SC and !as Dust reinstated !ee-s (efore assumin$ the position8
/ssue:
1ho has a (etter ri$ht to the position of administrator (et!een .ose and AntonioG
1hat does the term Atitulo de a(o$adoB meanG
2eld:
Antonio. The term Atitulo de a(o$adoB is not Dust mere possession of the academic de$ree of 6achelor of La!s (ut
mem(ership in the (ar after due admission thereto +ualif)in$ one to the practice of la!. <ossession of the de$ree is not
indispensa(le to +ualif) as a la!)er since completion of the prescri(ed courses ma) (e sho!n in some other !a).
/t !as also ar$ued that Antonio is dis+ualified for ha,in$ (een pre,iousl) dis(arred since the deed also pro,ided that an
administrator ma) (e remo,ed if found to lac- a sound moral character. 2o!e,er Antonio !as reinstated. This
reinstatement is a reco$nition of his moral reha(ilitation after pro,in$ !hat !as re+uired () the 6ar. Antonio?s restoration
to the roll of la!)ers !iped out restrictions and disa(ilities resultin$ from the pre,ious dis(arment.
5 ALAWI V ALAUYA
<A#T/"S
ALA1/ sales rep of ".6. Hillarosa
ALA0IA incum(ent e5ecuti,e cler- of court
FACTS
Throu$h ALA1/?S a$enc) a contract !as e5ecuted for the purchase on installments () ALA0IA of a housin$ unit
A housin$ loan !as also $ranted to ALA0IA () the &ational 2ome *ort$a$e Finance Corporation 7&2*FC8
Su(se+uentl) ALA0IA !rote a letter to the <resident of Hillarosa ad,isin$ termination of his contract on the
$rounds that his consent !as ,itiated () $ross misrepresentation deceit fraud dishonest) and a(use of
confidence () ALA1/ and proceeded to e5pound usin$ acer(ic lan$ua$e
A cop) of the letter !hich (ore no stamps !as sent to the H< of Hillarosa
ALA0IA also !rote the &2*FC repudiatin$ as ,oid his contract !ith Hillarosa and as-in$ for cancellation of his
loan
Finall) ALA0IA !rote 9 other letters to officers of the SC to stop deductions from his salar) re$ardin$ the loan
from &2*FC
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
&2*FC also !rote the SC re+uestin$ it to stop said deductions
Learnin$ of the letters ALA1/ filed a complaint alle$in$ that ALA0IA
o Committed malicious and li(elous char$es
o 0surped the title of attorne)
/SS0" 1=& ALA0IA H/'LAT"3 T2" C'3" 'F C'&30CT A&3 "T2/CAL STA&3A#3S F'# <06L/C 'FF/C/ALS A&3
"*<L'I""S
2"L3 I"S <A#T/C0LA#LI S"CT/'& :
#AT/'
Section : Apu(lic officials and emplo)ees at all times respect the ri$hts of others and refrain from doin$ acts
contrar) to la! pu(lic order pu(lic safet) and pu(lic interestB
ALA0IA (ein$ a mem(er of the Shari?a 6ar and an officer of the Court ma) not use lan$ua$e !hich is a(usi,e
offensi,e scandalous menacin$ or other!ise improper
2is radical de,iation from these norms cannot (e e5cused
/SS0" 1=& ALA0IA 6"/&@ A *"*6"# 'F T2" S2A#/?A 6A# CA& 0S" T2" T/TL" AATT'#&"IB
2"L3 &' #"S"#H"3 '&LI F'# T2'S" 12' 2AH" 6""& A3*/TT"3 AS *"*6"#S 'F T2" /&T"@#AT"3 6A#
#AT/'
Court has alread) had an occasion to declare that persons !ho pass the Shari?a 6ar are not full-fled$ed mem(ers
of the <hilippine 6ar and ma) practice la! onl) (efore Shari?a courts
ALA0IA?S !ish of not usin$ AcounsellorB (ecause of confusion !ith councilorB is immaterial (ecause
disinclination to use said title does not !arrant his use of the title Aattorne)B
6 IN RE CUNANAN
Facts:
This is the A6ar Flun-ers Act of 4C59B case.
As per the #ules of Court. A (ar candidate must ha,e a $eneral a,era$e of J5K in all su(Dects !ithout failin$ (elo! 50K in
an) su(Dect.
/n spite of this the court passed and admitted to the (ar those candidates !ho had o(tained an a,era$e of onl):
J2K in 4C:6
6CK in 4C:J
J0K in 4C:;
J:K in 4C:C
/n 4C50 to 59 the J:K !as raised to J5K
A fe! candidates !ho missed the a(o,e mar-s set () the courts approached Con$ress. Con$ress made a (ill !hich !as
allo!ed () the president to (ecome a la! !ithout his si$nature. This is #A CJ2.
<ursuant to the la! in +uestion those !ho !ithout a $rade (elo! 50 per cent in an) su(Dect ha,e o(tained a $eneral
a,era$e of 6C.5 per cent in the (ar e5aminations in 4C:6 to 4C54 J0.5 per cent in 4C52 J4.5 per cent in 4C59 and those
!ill o(tain J2.5 per cent in 4C5: and J9.5 per cent in 4C55 !ill (e permitted to ta-e and su(scri(e the correspondin$
oath of office as mem(ers of the 6ar not!ithstandin$ that the rules re+uire a minimum $eneral a,era$e of J5 per cent
!hich has (een in,aria(l) follo!ed since 4C50.
A (rea-do!n of the num(ers is on pa$e 59;.
The additional candidates !ho !ant to (e admitted claim that the) suffered from insufficienc) of readin$ materials and of
inade+uac) of preparation.
/ssue:
1=& #A CJ2 is ,alid.
2eld:
#A CJ2 is contrar) to pu(lic interest (ecause it +ualifies 40C: la! $raduates !ho confessedl) had inade+uate preparation
for the practice of the profession. The pu(lic interest demands of the le$al profession ade+uate preparation and efficienc)
precisel) more so as le$al pro(lems e,ol,ed () the times (ecome more difficult.
/n decreein$ that (ar candidates !ho o(tained in the (ar e5aminations of 4C:6 to 4C52 a $eneral a,era$e of J0 per cent
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
!ithout fallin$ (elo! 50 per cent in an) su(Dect (e admitted in mass to the practice of la! the disputed la! is not a
le$islationF it is a Dud$ment L a Dud$ment re,o-in$ those promul$ated () this Court durin$ the )ears affectin$ the (ar
candidates concerned
Althou$h the SC certainl) can re,o-e these Dud$ments e,en no! for Dustifia(le reasons it is no less certain that onl) the
SC and not the le$islati,e nor e5ecuti,e department that ma) (e so. An) attempt on the part of an) of these departments
!ould (e a clear usurpation of its functions as in this case.
Con$ress ma) repeal alter and supplement the rules promul$ated () this court (ut the authorit) and responsi(ilit) o,er
the admission suspension dis(arment and reinstatement of attorne)s-at-la! and their super,ision remain ,ested in the
Supreme Court.
Section 49 article H/// of the Constitution pro,ides:
Section !"# T$e S%pre&e Co%rt s$all $ave t$e po'er to pro&%l(ate r%les concernin( pleadin(, practice, and
proced%re in all co%rts, and t$e ad&ission to t$e practice o) la'# Said r%les s$all *e %ni)or& )or all co%rts o) t$e
sa&e (rade and s$all not di&inis$ increase or &odi)+ s%*stantive ri($ts# T$e e,istin( la's on pleadin(, practice,
and proced%re are $ere*+ repealed as stat%tes, and are declared R%les o) Co%rts, s%*-ect to t$e po'er o) t$e
S%pre&e Co%rt to alter and &odi)+ t$e sa&e# T$e Con(ress s$all $ave t$e po'er to repeal, alter, or s%pple&ent
t$e r%les concernin( pleadin(, practice, and proced%re, and t$e ad&ission to t$e practice o) la' in t$e
.$ilippines#
The Constitution has not conferred on Con$ress and the SC e+ual responsi(ilities concernin$ the admission to the practice
of la!. The primar) po!er and responsi(ilit) !hich the Constitution reco$ni%es continue to reside in the SC.
2ad Con$ress found that this Court has not promul$ated an) rule on the matter it !ould ha,e nothin$ o,er !hich to
e5ercise the po!er $ranted to it.
The Constitution does not sa) nor mean that Con$ress ma) admit suspend dis(ar or reinstate directl) attorne)s at la! or
a determinate $roup of indi,iduals to the practice of la!. /ts po!er is limited to repeal modif) or supplement the e5istin$
rules on the matter if accordin$ to its Dud$ment the need for a (etter ser,ice of the le$al profession re+uires it. 6ut this
po!er does not relie,e this Court of its responsi(ilit) to admit suspend dis(ar and reinstate attorne)s at la! and
super,ise the practice of the le$al profession.
There is no moti,e stated () the authorities for the +ualification in #A CJ2 (ecause of this the classification is fatall)
defecti,e.
4. That 7a8 the portion of article 4 of #epu(lic Act &o. CJ2 referrin$ to the e5aminations of 4C:6 to 4C52 and 7(8 all
of article 2 of said la! are unconstitutional and therefore ,oid and !ithout force and effect.
2. That for lac- of unanimit) in the ei$ht .ustices that part of article 4 !hich refers to the e5aminations su(se+uent
to the appro,al of the la! that is from 4C59 to 4C55 inclusi,e is ,alid and shall continue to (e in force in conformit) !ith
section 40 article H// of the Constitution.
Conse+uentl) 748 all the a(o,e-mentioned petitions of the candidates !ho failed in the e5aminations of 4C:6 to 4C52
inclusi,e are denied and 728 all candidates !ho in the e5aminations of 4C59 o(tained a $eneral a,era$e of J4.5 per cent
or more !ithout ha,in$ a $rade (elo! 50 per cent in an) su(Dect are considered as ha,in$ passed !hether the) ha,e
filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has (ecome final the) shall (e permitted to ta-e and su(scri(e the
correspondin$ oath of office as mem(ers of the 6ar on the date or dates that the Chief .ustice ma) set.
7 ECHEGARAY V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
pp. 444-442
The 4CJ9 Constitution
Article M Sec5 758:
The Supreme Court shall ha,e the follo!in$ po!ers:
555 555 555
758 <romul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$ practice and
procedure in all courts the admission in the practice of
la! and the inte$ration of the 6ar !hich ho!e,er
ma !" #"$"a%"&' a%("#"&' )# *+$$%"m",("& ! (-"
.a(a*a,/ Pam!",*a0 Such rules shall pro,ide a
simplified and ine5pensi,e procedure for the speed)
disposition of cases shall (e uniform in all courts of the
same $rade and shall not diminish increase or modif)
su(stanti,e
ri$hts.
The 4C;J Constitution
Article H/// Sec5 758:
The Supreme Court shall ha,e the follo!in$ po!ers:
555 555 555
758 P#)m+%/a(" #+%"* 1),1"#,2,/ (-" $#)("1(2),
a,& ",3)#1"m",( )3 1),*(2(+(2),a% #2/-(* pleadin$
practice and procedure in all courts the admission in
the practice of la! the /nte$rated 6ar and le$al
assistance to the underpri,ile$ed. Such rules shall
pro,ide a simplified and ine5pensi,e procedure for the
speed) disposition of cases shall (e uniform in all courts
of the same $rade and shall not diminish increase or
modif) su(stanti,e ri$hts. #ules of procedure of special
courts and +uasi-Dudicial (odies shall remain effecti,e
unless disappro,ed () the Supreme Court.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
The 4C;J molded an e,en stron$er and more independent Dudiciar). /t e5panded the rule-ma-in$ po!er of the Supreme
Court. For the first time the court !as $i,en the po!er to promul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforcement of
constitutional ri$hts. /t also $ranted for the first time the po!er to disappro,e rules of procedure of special courts and
+uasi-Dudicial (odies. .+( m)*( 2m$)#(a,(%' (-" 1457 C),*(2(+(2), ())6 a7a (-" $)7"# )3 C),/#"** () #"$"a%'
a%("#' )# *+$$%"m",( #+%"* 1),1"#,2,/ $%"a&2,/' $#a1(21"' a,& $#)1"&+#"0
5 IN RE GUTIERRE8
/n re @utierre%
Facts:
@utierre% is a mem(er of the <hilippine 6ar. 1hile he !as the municipal ma)or of Calapan he and other co-
conspirators murdered the former municipal ma)or of Calapan for !hich the) !ere held $uilt) and sentenced to the
penalt) of death. 0pon re,ie! () the Supreme court the penalt) !as chan$ed to reclusion perpetua. After ser,in$ a
portion of the sentence @utierre% !as $ranted conditional pardon () the <resident. The une5ecuted portion of the prison
term !as remitted on condition that the shall not a$ain ,iolate an) of the penal la!s of the <hilippines.
The !ido! of the murdered ,ictim then filed a complaint !ith the Supreme Court as-in$ that @utierre%
(e remo,ed from the rule of la!)ers pursuant to #ule 42J section 5.
/ssue: 1=& the conditional pardon to @utierre% places him (e)ond the rule of dis(arment
2eld: &'.
0nder section 5 of #ule 42J a mem(er of the (ar ma) (e remo,ed or suspended from his office as attorne) ()
the Supreme Court () reason of his con,iction of a crime in,ol,in$ moral turpitude. *urder is !ithout dou(t
such a crime. A*oral turpitudeB includes e,er)thin$ contrar) to Dustice honest) modest) or $ood morals.
/n the Lonto- case on !hich @utierre% relies the respondent Lonto- !as $ranted a(solute or unconditional
pardon after con,iction for the crime of crime of (i$am). /t !as held that such pardon releases the punishment
and (lots out e5istence of $uilt so that in the e)e of the la! the offender is as innocent as if he had ne,er
committed the offense.
/n the case at (ar the pardon $ranted !as conditional and merel) remitted the une5ecuted portion of his term.
/t !as not a full pardon !hich could ha,e (lotted out the offense committed.
The crime !as +ualified () treacher) and a$$ra,ated () its ha,in$ (een committed in (and () ta-in$ ad,anta$e
of his official position and !ith the use of a motor ,ehicle. The de$ree of moral turpitude !arrants dis(arment.
Admission of a candidate to the (ar re+uires academic preparation and satisfactor)testimonials of $ood moral
character. These standards are neither dispensed !ith nor lo!ered after admission: the la!)er must adhere to
them or incur the ris- of suspension or remo,al.
4 ROYONG 9 O.LENA
FACTS:
#o)on$ the niece it the common-la! !ife of '(lena filed a rape case a$ainst the latter.
/n her complaint #o)on$ alle$ed that in 4C5; '(lena forced her to ha,e intercourse !ith her and that she
refrained to report the incident (ecause '(lena threatened to -ill her famil).
As a result if the se5ual intercourse #o)on$ $a,e (irth to a child
'(lena denied all the alle$ations and ar$ued that he and #o)on$ had a relationship and #o)on$ consented to
ha,e intercourse !ith him.
The Solicitor @eneral recommended that '(lena (e permanentl) remo,ed from the roll of attorne) e,enthou$h
the acts of the #o)on$ (efore and after the rape incident sho!ed that she is more of a s!eetheart than a ,ictim
(ecause of the circumstances (ehind the incident
The Solicitor @eneral also char$ed '(lena of falsif)in$ and deli(eratel) alle$in$ in his application in the (ar
in4C5; that he is a person of $ood moral character !hile ha,in$ an illicit and adulterous relationship !ith An$eles
!ho is not onl) the aunt of #o)on$ (ut also has a le$al hus(and in the pro,ince
'(lena mo,ed to dismiss the case (ecause the offenses char$ed are different from those ori$inall) char$ed in
the complaint (ut the court o,erruled his petition
After the hearin$ the in,esti$ators concluded that A.8 '(lena used his -no!led$e in la! to commit immoral acts
!ithout incurrin$ an) criminal lia(ilit)F 6.8 he committed $ross immoralit) () continuousl) coha(itin$ !ith
An$eles his common-la! !ife e,en after he (ecame a la!)er and C.8 '(lena falsified the truth as to his $ood
moral character in his application to ta-e the (ar.
/SS0":
1=& the illicit relationship !ith #o)on$ and the open coha(itation !ith An$eles a married !oman are sufficient
$rounds to cause '(lena?s dis(arment
2"L3:
I"S>
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Althou$h '(lena is not )et con,icted of the crime of rape seduction or adulter) and he is not $uilt) of an) of the
$rounds for dis(arment enumerated in Sec 25 #ule 42J of the #ules of Court the enumeration is not e5clusi,e
and the po!er of the court to e5clude un!orth) mem(ers of the (ar is inherent and is a necessar) incident to the
proper administration of Dustice and can (e e5ercised e,en !ithout an) statutor) authorit) in all cases unless
properl) prohi(ited () statutes.
American Durisprudence pro,ides that the continued possession of a $ood moral character is a re+uisite condition
for the ri$htful continuance in the practice of la!. The loss re+uires suspension or dis(arment e,enthou$h the
statues do not e5plicitl) specif) that as a $round of dis(arment.
'(lena?s ar$ument that he (elie,ed himself to (e a person !ith $ood moral character !hen he filed his
application to ta-e the (ar e5amination is !ron$. 'ne?s o!n appro5imation of himself is not a $au$e of his moral
character. *oral character is not a su(Decti,e term (ut one !hich corresponds to o(Decti,e realit). *oral
character is !hat the person reall) is and not !hat he other people thin-s he is.
2is pretension to !ait for the 4;
th
(irthda) of #o)on$ (efore ha,in$ carnal -no!led$e !ith her sho!s the
schemin$ mind of '(lena and his ta-in$ ad,anta$e of his -no!led$e of the la!.
Also #o)on$ is the niece of his common-la! !ife and he enDo)ed moral ascendanc) o,er her. '(lena too-
ad,anta$e of #o)on$?s trust on him.
'(lena?s contention that the Solicitor @eneral e5ceeded his authorit) in filin$ the present complain !hich is
entirel) different from the ori$inal complaint filed is untena(le. There is nothin$ in the la! re+uirin$ the Solicitor
@eneral to char$e in his complaint the same offence char$ed in the ori$inal complaint. 1hat the la! pro,ides is
that if the Solicitor @eneral finds sufficient $rounds to proceed a$ainst the respondent he shall file the
correspondin$ complaint accompanied () the e,idence introduced in his in,esti$ation.
1: CORDON 9 .ALICANTA
7complaint for dis(arment a$ainst 6alicanta8
Facts:
Cordon and her dau$hter inherited 24 parcels of land in Nam(oan$a Cit) !hen Cordon?s hus(and died.
Sometime after 6alicanta enticed Cordon to or$ani%e a corporation to de,elop the properties. 4C parcels of land
!as transferred in the name of the ne!l) formed corporation. 6alicanta (ecame the Chairman of the 6oard
<resident @eneral *ana$er and Treasurer of the corporation 7-upal tala$a8
6alicanta !as a(le to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Su) 'n$ throu$h an S<A si$ned () Cordon.
6alicanta !as also a(le to o(tain a loan from Land 6an- usin$ as collateral C parcels of land.
6alicanta did not e,en tr) to redeem the properties and e,en sold the ri$ht to redeem to another person.
@a$o tala$a to si 6alicanta. Cordon?s ancestral home !as demolished and Cordon !as detained in a nipa shac-.
6uti na lan$ at nadisco,er ni dau$hter -un$ ano nan$)ari. Sa(i -asi ni 6alicanta na he?s Dust $oin$ to ha,e the
house remodeled and repainted tapos dinemolish na ni)a. @a$o tala$a.
Cordon and dau$hter demanded that 6alicanta return all the properties $i,en () them to the corporation (ut
6alicanta is una(le to do so 7napunta na sa i(an$ tao eh8
/6< in,esti$ation recommended that 6alicanta (e dis(arred. 6alicanta fou$ht (ac- and said that the in,esti$ation
is preDudiced a$ainst him and filed a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst the people !ho in,esti$ated his case and
the la!)ers of Cordon. 6alicanta?s complaint !as dismissed.
/ssue:
1=& 6alicanta should (e dis(arred
2eld:
2elloG> Si)empre he should (e dis(arred.
6alicanta cannot in,o-e the separate personalit) of the corporation 7!o! piercin$ the corporate ,eil8
6alicanta has perpetuated massi,e fraud a$ainst his client.
Lahat n$ $ina!a ni)a a$ainst The Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit).
11 TING;DUMALI 9 TORRES
FACTS:
/sidra Tin$-3umali char$es #olando Torres !ith ,iolatin$ his oath as a la!)er and canons of le$al and Dudicial
ethics.
/sidra?s parents died intestate and left man) parcels of land to their 6 children 7/sidra *arcelina *iriam
"liseo and Hicente and Felicisima 7married to #olando Torres88
Torres consented to the for$er) of /sidra?s si$nature for an "5traDudicial settlement ma-in$ it appear that his
!ife and *iriam !ere the onl) sole heirs.
Torres on a reconstitution hearin$ presented false testimon) that *iriam and Felicisima !ere the onl) sole
heirs
Torres presented the reconstituted deed to the #3 to ena(le them to profit () sellin$ the land
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Torres contends that his acts !ere done in $ood faith (elie,in$ for himself that his and the si(lin$s had
alread) a$reed on ho! to dispose of the said lot. That the false testimon) !as a clear o,ersi$ht. And that his
conformit) throu$h his si$nature !as pro forma (ecause the propert) !as a paraphernal propert) of *arcelina
and his !ife.
/n,esti$atin$ Commissioner of /6< su$$ested dis(arment
/SS0": 1o& Torres should (e dis(arredG
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. The la!)er?s oath to !hich all la!)ers ha,e su(scri(ed in solemn a$reement to dedicate themsel,es to the
pursuit of Dustice is not a mere ceremon) or formalit) for practicin$ la! to (e for$otten after!ards nor is it mere
!ords drift and hollo! (ut a sacred trust that la!)ers must uphold and -eep in,iola(le at all times.
2. A la!)er is the ser,ant of the la! and (elon$s to a profession to !hich societ) has entrusted the administration of
la! and the dispensation of Dustice he should ma-e himself more an e5emplar for others to emulate and he
should ma-e himself more an e5emplar for others to emulate and he should not en$a$e in unla!ful dishonest
immoral or deceitful conduct.
9. The supreme penalt) of dis(arment is meted out onl) in clear cases of misconduct that seriousl) affect the
standin$ and character of the la!)er as an officer of the court and mem(er of the (ar.
12 MACARRU.O 9 MACARRU.O
Facts:
Florence *acarru(o () herself and on (ehalf of her 2 children files a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst "dmundo *acarru(o
alle$in$ that "dmundo decei,ed her
into marr)in$ him despite his prior su(sistin$ marria$e !ith a certain 2elen "spar%a.
Florence further a,erred that "dmundo entered into a 9rd marria$e !ith .osephine ConstantinoF and that he a(andoned
Florence !ithout pro,idin$ them != re$ular
support.
"dmundo denied the alle$ations insistin$ instead that complainant Florence !as full) a!are of his prior su(sistin$
marria$e (ut that Florence dra$$ed "dmundo a$ainst his !ill to a Osham !eddin$O.
"dmundo su(mitted the decision of #TC declarin$ his marria$e to complainant ,oid a( initio. "dmundo claimed that he
left complainant and their 2 children != her consent.
/ssue:
1=n "dmundo should (e dis(arred...
2eld:
Ies.
Facts sho! that !hile "dmundo has a su(sistin$ marria$e != 2elen "spar%a s= !hom he had 2 children he entered into a
2nd marria$e !ith complainant. 1hile the
marria$e (et!een complainant Florence and "dmundo has (een annulled () final Dud$ment this does not cleanse his
conduct of impropriet).
",en assumin$ ar$uendo that "dmunod !as coerced () complainant to marr) her the duress has ceased after !eddin$
da). "dmundo ha,in$ freel) coha(ited !ith her
and e,en (e$ot a 2nd child.
The decision of #TC annullin$ their marria$e is not res Dudicata on the final resolution of this case. A dis(arment case is sui
$eneris for it is neither purel) ci,il nor criminal (ut is rather an in,esti$ation () the court on the conduct of its officers.
13 SICAT 9 ARIOLA
Facts:
Arturo Sicat 6oard *em(er of the San$$unian$ <anlala!i$an of #i%al char$ed Att). @re$orio ". Ariola of
committin$ fraud deceit and falsehood in notari%in$ a Special <o!er of Attorne) 7S<A8.
Said S<A !as purportedl) e5ecuted () .uanito 6enite% of the .C 6enite% Architect and Technical *ana$ement.
Said compan) had a contract !ith the *unicipalit) of Cainta for the construction of lo! cost houses.
1hat is fraudulent a(out it is the fact that the S<A !as notari%ed more than 2 months after the death of 6enite%
the person !ho supposedl) e5ecuted it.
<9J00T !as paid to .C 6enite% Architect and Technical *ana$ement for ser,ices not rendered 7as consultants8.
Ariola claims that the document he notari%ed !as superfluous and unnecessar) and preDudiced no one and
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
therefore he should (e e5onerated E the document !as cancelled the same da) he notari%ed it hence le$all)
there !as no pu(lic document that e5isted.
/ssue:
1=& Ariola can (e held lia(le.
2eld:
Ies.
&otaries pu(lic should not authenticate documents unless the persons !ho si$ned them are the ,er) same
persons !ho e5ecuted them an personall) appeared (efore the to attest to the contents and truth of !hat are
stated therein.
2is assertion of falsehood in a pu(lic document contra,ened one of the most cherished tenets of the le$al
profession and potentiall) cast suspicion on the truthfulness of e,er) notarial act.
Ariola is dis(arred and not merel) suspended for a )ear.
14 CHUA 9 MESINA' J#
Facts:
Att) Simeon *esina is the le$al counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a (uildin$ o!ned
() *esina?s famil). The propert) ho!e,er !as actuall) mort$a$ed in fa,or of a (an- for a loan o(tained ()
*esina?s motherLFelicisima *elencio 7!ho !as the re$istered o!ner as !ell8.
1hen Felicisima failed to meet her o(li$ations to the (an- the spouses !ere con,inced () *esina to help his
mother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale !as made con,e)in$
the propert) to the spouses.
6ut !hen the spouses !ere appraised for capital $ains ta5 Att) *esina su$$ested to e5ecute another deed of
saleLthis time the date of the transaction is 4CJC !hich is (efore the effecti,it) of the la! imposin$ capital
$ains ta5.
&ot lon$ after the title !as handed o,er to the spouses another lessee of the (uildin$LTecsonL+uestioned the
transaction as he !as himself interested in (u)in$ the propert). Tecson filed char$es for falsification of
documents.
To a,oid the falsification char$e *esina proposed to simulate a deed of sale !herein the spouses !ould appear
to resell the propert) to Felicisima. A ne! title !as issued to Felicisima () ,irtue of said deed (ut this !as
entrusted in the hands of the spouses.
Later on Tecson desisted from pursuin$ the char$es. *ean!hile *esina (orro!ed the title of the propert) from
the spouses and promised to transfer )et a$ain title in the name of the spouses.
6ut *esina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the propert) is (ein$ offered to a pu(lic
sale. 2ence the action. The case !as in,esti$ated () the /6< and recommended that *esina (e suspended for
$ross misconduct.

/ssue:
1as Att). *esina $uilt) of $ross misconductG
2eld:
6lime)> 'f course> 1hen Att) *esina ad,ised Chua to e5ecute a deed of sale antedated to 4CJC to e,ade pa)ment of
capital $ains ta5 he ,iolated his dut) to promote respect for la! and le$al processes. 1hen he con,inced Chua to e5ecute
another deed to ma-e it appear that the propert) !as con,e)ed (ac- to Felicisima *esina committed dishonest). And
!hen he o(tained the title upon the misrepresentation that he !ill return the same after : months he committed
dishonest) a$ain. There !ere also (ad$es of fraud that can (e attri(uted to *esina as there !ere mar-ed differences in
the si$natures of Felicisima.
Clearl) *esina ,iolated his oath of office and Canons 4 J 45 and 4J of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit). 2is
dis(arment is !arranted.
15 DE YSASI III 9 NLRC
FACTS
This is a case filed () a son a$ainst his father
PFather? emplo)ed PSon? as farm administrator of 2acienda *anucao
PSon? suffered ,arious ailments and !as hospitali%ed on 2 separate occasions .une and Au$ust 4C;2
PFather? too- care of medical e5penses !hile son continued to recei,e compensation
2o!e,er in April 4C;: PFather? ceased to pa) PSon?s? salar)
PSon? filed an action in &L#C for ille$al dismissal !ith pra)er for reinstatement !ithout loss of seniorit) ri$hts and
pa)ment of full
(ac- !a$es
&L#C dismissed case statin$ that PSon? has a(andoned his !or- and termination is for a ,alid cause thou$h ordered
PFather? to pa) <5000 as penalt) for failure to ser,e notice of said termination to son
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE W<N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
HELD YES
RATIO
Article 2;2 of La(or Code enumerates causes for !hich an emplo)er ma) ,alid terminate an emplo)ment
PFather? (an-s on the fact that PSon? has a(andoned his !or-
2o!e,er to constitute a(andonment there must (e a clear deli(erate and Dustified refusal to resume emplo)ment
and not mere a(sence
/n the case at (ar the reason for the PSon?s? a(sence !as due to his illness of !hich Father !as a!are of since he
paid hospital and medical (ills
PFather? is ordered to pa) PSon? (ac-!a$es in lieu of reinstatement and separation pa) e+ui,alent to 4 month for
e,er) )ear of ser,ice
ISSUE W<N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSI.ILITY
HELD NO
RATIO
#ule 4.0: of the Code of #esponsi(ilit) e5plicitl) pro,ides Aa la!)er shall encoura$e his client to a,oid end or settle
the contro,ers) if it !ill admit of a fair settlementB
/n the case at (ar records do not sho! that counsel of (oth parties too- pains to initiate steps $eared to!ard a
rapprochment (et!een their clients
/n the same manner the la(or ar(iter has (een less than faithful to the spirit of the La(or Code as he did not e5ert
all efforts to!ards the amica(le settlement of the la(or dispute
16 PEOPLE 9 ROS=UETA
Facts:
There !as a criminal case a$ainst Antonio #os+ueta .r. "u$enio #os+ueta and Citon$ 6rin$as. 'n appeal the SC
issued a resolution orderin$ Att). @re$orio "stacio 7counsel de parte of the accused8 to e5plain !h) disciplinar)
actions should not (e ta-en a$ainst him for his failure to file the (rief for appellants durin$ the re+uired period.
"stacio failed to e5plain so he !as suspended from the practice of la!.
2e then filed a motion for reconsideration sa)in$ that he did file the (riefs (ut he sent it to #os+ueta Sr. !hose
house !as (urned do!n alon$ !ith the (riefs. 2e also said that the reason !h) he did not file the (riefs !as
(ecause the accused declared that the) intended t !ithdra! their appeal for lac- of mone).
The SC did su(se+uentl) recei,e affida,its from the accused !ithdra!in$ their appeal.
/ssue:
1=n "stacio?s acts should (e punished.
2eld:
SC sa)s )es. 2is acts !ere not consistent !ith the idea that the la! is not a (usiness (ut a profession. La!)ers do
their Do( not for the sole consideration of mone). "stacio should ha,e continued !ith his duties despite -no!in$
that the accused did not ha,e mone) an)more.
SC commended !hat some la!)ers !ould ha,e done in that situation !hich !as to (e declared as counsel de officio
so that the client remains properl) represented () a la!)er !ho is alread) familiar !ith the case.
SC said that "stacio?s suspension for 5 mos. is alread) sufficient punishment for his acts. Thus the suspension is
lifted and "stacio is not an)more re+uired to file the (riefs (ut he is censured for ne$li$ence and inattention to dut).
17 CANOY 9 ORTI8
Facts: A Co&plaint !as filed Cano) accusin$ Att). 'rti% of misconduct and malpractice. /t !as alle$ed that Cano) filed a
complaint for ille$al dismissal a$ainst Coca Cola <hilippines. Att). 'rti% appeared as counsel for Cano) in this
proceedin$. Cano) su(mitted all the documents and records to Att). 'rti% for the preparation of the position
paper. Thereafter he made se,eral unfruitful ,isits to the office of Att). 'rti% to follo!-up the pro$ress of the case.
2e !as shoc-ed to learn that his complaint !as actuall) dismissed !a) (ac- in 4CC; for failure to prosecute the
parties not ha,in$ su(mitted their position papers. Cano) alle$ed that 'rti% had ne,er communicated to him a(out
the status of the case.
Att). 'rti% informs the Court that he has mostl) catered to indi$ent and lo!-income clients at
considera(le financial sacrifice to himself. Att). 'rti% admits that the period !ithin !hich to file the position paper
had alread) lapsed. 2e attri(utes this failure to timel) file the position paper to the fact that after his election as
Councilor of 6acolod Cit) Ahe !as fran-l) preoccupied !ith (oth his functions as a local $o,ernment official and
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
as a practicin$ la!)er.B
/ssue: 1=& Att). is lia(le to (e sanctioned.
2eld: Att). 'rti% is to (e sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of la! for one 748 month.
Se,eral of the canons and rules in the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) $uard a$ainst the sort of conduct.
CA&'& 4;EA LA1I"# S2ALL S"#H" 2/S CL/"&T 1/T2 C'*<"T"&C" A&3 3/L/@"&C".
#ule 4;.09EA la!)er shall not ne$lect a le$al matter entrusted to him and his ne$li$ence in
connection there!ith shall render him lia(le.
#ule 4;.0:EA la!)er shall -eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
!ithin a reasona(le time to the client?s re+uest for information.
2is failure to do so constitutes a ,iolation of #ule 4;.09 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit). A la!)er
o!es fidelit) to such cause and must al!a)s (e mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 2e o!es entire
de,otion to the interest of the client. The relationship of la!)er-client (ein$ one of confidence there is e,er present
the need for the client to (e ade+uatel) and full) informed of the de,elopments of the case and should not (e left
in the dar-.
&either is the Court mollified () the circumstance of Att). 'rti%?s election as a Cit) Councilor of 6acolod
Cit) as his adoption of these additional duties does not e5onerate him of his ne$li$ent (eha,ior.
15 PEOPLE 9 STA TERESA
Facts:
An$eles Sta. Teresa !as found () the trial court to (e $uilt) (e)ond reasona(le dou(t of rapin$ his 42-)ear old dau$hter
and !as $i,en the penalt) of death. The case is no! on automatic re,ie!.
1hen accused !as arrai$ned he pleaded not $uilt). After C da)s his counsel de oficio made a manifestation that the
accused !anted to chan$e his plea to A$uilt).B The prosecution no lon$er presented testimonial e,idence and merel)
presented e5hi(its to !hich counsel de oficio did not comment nor o(Dect. 3urin$ the promul$ation of #TC?s decision
counsel failed to appear and the trial Dud$e had to appoint
another counsel de oficio for the purpose of promul$ation.
/ssue: 1=& counsel de officio dischar$ed his duties properl)
2eld: &'.
The a((re,iated and a(orted presentation of the prosecution e,idence and the impro,ident plea of $uilt) !as not in
accordance !ith re+uirements of due process
Considerin$ the $ra,it) of the offense char$ed and the finalit) of the penalt) the counsel de oficio?s performance
!as utterl) !antin$. As a la!)er s!orn to uphold Dustice and the la! he had the dut) to e5ert utmost efforts to
defend his client and protect his ri$hts no matter ho! $uilt) or e,il he appears to (e. This dut) (ecomes more
compellin$ is his client is accused of a $ra,e crime and is in dan$er of forfeitin$ his life
The ri$ht to counsel means more that Dust the presence of a la!)er in the courtroom or the mere propoundin$ of
standard +uestions and o(Dections. Counsel must pro,ide effecti,e le$al assistance and commit himself to the cause
for the defense. There must (e acti,e in,ol,ement () the la!)er and he must (e !ell-,ersed on the case the
procedures la! and Durisprudence.
14 >HAN V SIM.ILLO
FACTS:
An ad,ertisement in <hilippine 3ail) /n+uirer came out !hich reads: AA&&0L*"&T 'F *A##/A@" S<"C/AL/ST 592-
:999=524-266J.B
SC ordered its staff to call the num(er and as- some information.
"speleta called the num(er and the !ife of Att). #i%alino Sim(illo ans!ered !ho said that his hus(and !as an
e5pert in handlin$ annulment cases and $uarantees a court decree !ithin :-6 month. The ser,ices of Att).
Sim(illo is for <:;000. half of !hich is pa)a(le at the filin$ of the case and the (alance after the decision has
(een rendered.
Similar ad,ertisement also appeared in The <hilippine Star and *anila 6ulletin.
Qhan Assist. Court Administrator filed a case a$ainst Sim(illo for ,iolatin$ the Code of <rofessional
#esponsi(ilit) #ule 2.09 and 9.04.
Sim(illo admitted that he caused the ad,ertisement (ut he ar$ued that solicitation and ad,ertisement is not
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
prohi(ited per se and that it is a(out time to chan$e our ,ie!s a(out the prohi(ition on ad,ertisin$ and
solicitation. 2e also said that the interest of the pu(lic is not ser,ed () the prohi(ition and su$$ested that the
(an (e lifted.
/6< recommended that Sim(illo (e suspended for 4 )ear and that repetition of similar act !ill (e dealt !ith more
se,erel).
1hile the case !as (ein$ in,esti$ated upon () the court Sim(illo a$ain ad,ertised his le$al ser,ices for 2 times
in the 6u) R Sell Free Ads *a$a%ine.
/SS0":
1=& Sim(illo ,iolated the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
2"L3:
I"S>
#ule 2.09 pro,ides a la!)er shall not do or permit to (e done an) act desi$ned primaril) to solicit le$al (usiness
!hile #ule 9.04 states that a la!)er shall not use or permit the use of an) false fraudulent misleadin$
decepti,e undi$nified self-laudator) or unfair statement or claim re$ardin$ his +ualifications or le$al ser,ices.
/t has (een repeatedl) stressed that the practice of la! is not a (usiness. /t is a profession in !hich the dut) to
pu(lic ser,ice not mone) is the primar) consideration. The $ainin$ of li,elihood should (e a secondar)
consideration.
Aside from ad,ertisin$ himself as an AAnnulment of *arria$e SpecialistB his assurance of his clients that an
annulment ma) (e o(tained in :-6 months from the filin$ of the case encoura$es people !ho mi$ht other ha,e
2
nd
thou$ht to dissol,e their marria$e.
Solicitation of le$al (usiness is not proscri(ed. 2o!e,er solicitation must (e compati(le !ith the di$nit) of the
le$al profession. The use of simple si$ns statin$ the name=s of the la!)ers the office and residence address and
the fields of e5pertise as !ell as ad,ertisement in le$al periodicals (earin$ the same (rief data are permissi(le.
The use of callin$ cards is no! accepta(le.
2: IN RE TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Ta$orda is a mem(er of the pro,incial (oard of /sa(ela
<re,ious to the last election he used placards !hich in a !a) !as ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices as a la!)er and notar)
pu(lic
2e also !rote a letter to a lieutenant of a (arrio in "cha$ue/sa(ela. /n essence he !as informin$ the lieutenant
that he !ill (e in "cha$ue durin$ the !ee-ends and the lieutenant should con,e) this information to the other
people in his to!n.
/ssue:
1=& the acts of Ta$orda is ad,ertisin$
2eld:
Ies Ta$orda is in a !a) ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices and this is contrar) to the Canons of <rofessional "thics 7!ala pa
)un$ code of professional responsi(ilit) 4C2C case to8
The most !orth) and effecti,e ad,ertisin$ for a la!)er is a !ell-merited reputation for professional capacit).
Solicitation of (usiness () circulars or ad,ertisements or () personal communications or inter,ie!s not
!arranted () personal relations is unprofessional.
/t is unprofessional for a la!)er to ,olunteer ad,ice to (rin$ la!suit.
Solicitation of cases result in the lo!erin$ of the confidence of the communit) and inte$rit) of the mem(ers of the
(ar. /t results in needless liti$ations and in incentin$ to strife.
Ta$orda suspended for a month.
21 DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V .AYOT
FACTS:
6a)ot !as char$ed !ith malpractice () pu(lishin$ A*arria$elicense promptl) secured thru our assistance R the
anno)ance of dela) or pu(licit) a,oided if desired and marria$e arran$ed to !ishes of parties. Consultation on
an) matter free for the poor. ",er)thin$ confidential.B /n the Sunda) Tri(une
6a)ot first denied the pu(lication (ut later on admitted and as-ed for miti$ation sa)in$:
o / onl) did it once. / !on?t repeat it a$ain>
o / ne,er had an) case () reason of the pu(lication
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/SS0": 1o& 6a)ot can (e char$ed !ith malpracticeG
2"L3: I"S.
4. The pu(lication is tantamount to a solicitation of (usiness from the pu(lic. Section 25 of #ule 42J e5pressl)
pro,ides amon$ other thin$s that Sthe practice of solicitin$ cases at la! for the purpose of $ain either personall)
or thru paid a$ents or (ro-ers constitutes malpractice.S /t is hi$hl) unethical for an attorne) to ad,ertise his
talents or s-ill as a merchant ad,ertises his !ares. La! is a profession and not a trade.
2. /n In re Ta(orda 59 <hil. the respondent attorne) !as suspended from the practice of la! for the period of one
month for ad,ertisin$ his ser,ices and solicitin$ !or- from the pu(lic () !ritin$ circular letters. That case
ho!e,er !as more serious than this (ecause there the solicitations !ere repeatedl) made and !ere more
ela(orate and insistent..Considerin$ his plea for lenienc) and his promise not to repeat the misconduct the Court
is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should (e as he here() is reprimanded.
9. SThe most !orth and effecti,e ad,ertisement possi(le e,en for a )oun$ la!)er is the esta(lishment of a !ell-
merited reputation for professional capacit) and fidelit) to trust. This cannot (e forced (ut must (e the outcome
of character and conduct.S 7Canon 2J Code of "thics.8
22 ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:
0lep pra)s the Supreme Court to order the Le$al Clinic to cease issuin$ ad,ertisement similar to or of the same
tenor as that of anne5es A and 6 7p9;48. Le$al Clinic admits the facts of pu(lication of said ad,ertisement that
claims that it is not en$a$e in the practice of la! (ut in the renderin$ of le$al support ser,ices throu$h parale$als
!ith the use of modern computers and electronic machine.
/SS0":
1=& the ser,ices offered () Le$al Clinic as ad,ertised () it constitutes practice of la!
1hether the same can properl) (e the su(Dect of the ad,ertisement complained of
2"L3:
Accordin$ to the /6< not!ithstandin$ the manner () !hich respondent endea,ored to distin$uish the 2 terms
le$al support ser,ices and le$al ser,ices common sense !ould readil) dictate that the same are essentiall)
!ithout su(stantial distinction. The use of the name the Le$al Clinic $i,es the impression that the respondent
corporation is (ein$ mana$ed () la!)ers and that it renders le$al ser,ices. The ad,ertisement in +uestion is
meant to induce the performance of acts contrar) to la! morals pu(lic order and pu(lic polic). This is in
,iolation of Canon 4 #ule 4.02 that is counselin$ ille$al acti,ities.
<ractice of la! means an) acti,it) in or out of court !hich re+uires that application of la! le$al procedures
-no!led$e trainin$ and e5perience. Appl)in$ the case Ca)etano ,s. *onsod the court a$rees that the acti,ities
of the respondent Le$al Clinic constitute the practice of la!. Such a conclusion !ill not (e altered () the fact that
respondent does not represent clients in court since la! practice is not limited merel) to court appearances.
#e$ardin$ the issue on the ,alidit) of the +uestioned ad,ertisements the Code of <rofession #esponsi(ilit)
pro,ides that a la!)er in ma-in$ -no!n his le$al ser,ices shall use onl) true honest fair and o(Decti,e
information or statement of facts. The proscription a$ainst ad,ertisin$ of le$al ser,ices rests on the fundamental
postulate that the practice of la! is a profession.
"5ceptions:
o <u(lication in reputa(le la! lists in a manner consistent !ith the standards of conduct imposed () the
canon
o 'rdinar) simple professional card. The card ma) contain onl) the statement of his name the la! firm
address and (ranch of la! practiced.
Considerin$ that Att). &o$ales !ho is the prime incorporator maDor stoc-holder and proprietor of the le$al clinic
is a mem(er of the <hilippine 6ar he is here() reprimanded !ith a !arnin$ that the repetition of the same or
similar acts !hich are in,ol,ed in this proceedin$ !ill (e dealt !ith more se,erel).
23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS
Fa1(*?
This is a dis(arment case a$ainst Att). #o(erto #omanillos for representin$ conflictin$ interests and for usin$ the
title A.ud$eB despite ha,in$ (een found $uilt) of $ra,e and serious misconduct 7in Narate , #omanillos8.
Apparentl) #omanillos !as pre,iousl) an acti,e (oard mem(er as corporate secretar) of 3urano Corp. /nc. 73C/8.
6ut it allo!ed itself to represent San .ose 2omeo!ners Association /nc 7S.2A/8 (efore the human Settlements
#e$ulation Commission in a case a$ainst the same 3C/.
/rrele,ant info: the case a(o,e !as an alle$ed ,iolation of 3C/ of the Su(di,ision and Condominium 6u)er?s
<rotection Act. 3C/ sold a land desi$nated as a school site !ithout disclosin$ it as such. 7pa$e 4068
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
1hen S.2A/?s petition o,er the land !as denied the S.2A/?s 6oard terminated #omanillos? ser,ices.
Also #omanillos acted as counsel for L)dia 3urano-#odri$ue% !ho su(stituted for 3C/.
Thus a dis(arment case !as filed for conflictin$ interests.
The /6< handled the case (ut he !as merel) reprimanded.
/n spite of this he still continued to ser,e as counsel for 3urano-#odri$ue%. Thus a second dis(arment case !as
filed. /t also included his use of ADud$eB althou$h he !as found $uilt) of $ra,e and serious misconduct.
I**+"?
1=& #omanillos should (e dis(arred
H"%&?
Ies.
/t is inconse+uential that S.2A/ ne,er +uestioned the propriet) of respondent?s continued representation of
3urano-#odri$ue%. The lac- of opposition does not mean consent. As lon$ as the la!)er represents 2 or more
opposin$ clients he is $uilt) of ,iolatin$ his oath.
2is continued use of ADud$eB ,iolated #ules 4.04 and 9.04. The penalt) imposed on him in the Narate case
forfeiture of all lea,e and retirement (enefits and pri,ile$es: includin$ the title Dud$e. 7he !as a Dud$e (efore
(ut he resi$ned instead of (ein$ (ooted out8
The title ADud$eB should (e reser,ed onl) to Dud$es incum(ent and retired an not to those !ho !ere
dishonora(l) dischar$ed from the ser,ice.
24 DIMATULAC 9 VILLON
Facts:
/n the prosecution of the Ia(uts for the murder of 3imatulac the 'ffice of the <u(lic <rosecutor 7particularl) the
Asst <rosecutor8 and t!o .ud$es 7!ho handled the case8 committed serious procedural fla!s resultin$ in the
impairment of due process 7preDudicial to (oth the offended part) and the accused8.
<rocedural irre$ularities in the 'ffice of the <ro,incial <rosecutor:
o 1arrants of arrest !ere issued () the *CTC !ith no (ail recommended (ut the Ia(uts !ere not
arrested or !ere ne,er (rou$ht unto the custod) of the la!. Iet Asst Fiscal Alfonso-#e)es conducted a
rein,esti$ation. Thou$h a prosecutor ma) disa$ree !ith the findin$s of the Dud$e !ho conducted the
preliminar) in,esti$ation 7and conduct his o!n8 the circumstance that the accused !ai,ed the filin$ of
their counter-affida,its left Alfonso-#e)es no other choice (ut to sustain the *CTC findin$sL!hich she
did not do. And later on Alfonso-#e)es allo!ed the Ia(uts to file their counter-affida,its !ithout first
demandin$ that the) surrender () ,irtue of the standin$ !arrants of arrest.
o Alfonso-#e)es recommended a (ond of 20- for the Ia(uts despite the fact that the) !ere char$ed of
homicide and that the) !ere fu$iti,es from Dustice 7ha,in$ a,oided ser,ice of !arrant of arrest8.
o Alfonso-#e)es !as a!are of the pri,ate prosecution?s appeal to the 3'. from her resolution. 7The
su(se+uent resolution of the 3'. Secretar) e5posed her (latant errors.8 And despite the pendin$ appeal
she filed the /nformation. /t !ould (e more prudent to !ait for the 3'. resolution.
o 'ffice of the <rosecutor did not e,en inform the trial court of the pendin$ appeal to the 3'. Secretar).
.ud$e #oura?s procedural lapses:
o 3eferred resolution on the motion for a hold departure order until Asuch time that all the accused !ho
are out on (ail are arrai$nedB
o 3enied the motion to defer proceedin$s for the reason that Apri,ate prosecution has not sho!n an)
indication that the appeal !as $i,en due course () 3'.B
.ud$e Hillon?s procedural lapses:
o 'rdered arrai$nment despite: a motion to defer proceedin$sF a ten-da) period !ith !hich the
complainants can file petition !ith the CAF resolution of the CA orderin$ the Ia(uts to comment on the
complainants? actionF pendin$ appeal !ith the 3'..

/ssue:
Can the orders of .ud$e #oura and .ud$e Hillon (e sustained despite procedural defectsG
2eld:
&o. The orders of .ud$e #oura den)in$ *otion to 3efer proceedin$s are ,oid and set aside. The order of .ud$e Hillon on the
arrai$nment and the su(se+uent arrai$nment of the Ia(uts are ,oid and set aside. 'ffice of the <ro,incial <rosecutor is
ordered to compl) !ith the 3'. Secretar)?s resolution.
<rosecutors are the representati,es not of an ordinar) part) to a contro,ers) (ut of a so,erei$nt) !hose o(li$ation to
$o,ern impartiall) is as compellin$ as its o(li$ation to $o,ern at allF and !hose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that
it shall !in e,er) case (ut that Dustice (e done. The) are ser,ants of the la! !hose t!o-fold aim is that $uilt shall not
escape and innocence shall not suffer.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
The Dud$e Ashould al!a)s (e im(ued !ith a hi$h sense of dut) and responsi(ilit) in the dischar$e of his o(li$ation to
promptl) and properl) administer DusticeB. The Dud$e?s action must not impair the su(stantial ri$hts of the accused nor the
ri$ht of the State and offended part).
1hen the State is depri,ed of due process in a criminal case () reason of $ra,e a(use of discretion on the part of the trial
court the ac+uittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is ,oid.
25 TRIESTE 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
FACTS
T#/"ST" !as char$ed !ith 29 separate ,iolations of the Anti @raft and Corrupt <ractices ActT (ecause !hile (ein$
the *unicipal *a)or and mem(er of the Committee on A!ard of the *unicipalit) of &umancia in A-lan and ha,in$
financial or pecuniar) interest in T#/@"& A$ro-/ndustrial 3e,elopment Corporation he a!arded purchases of
construction materials () the said municipalit) from the said corporation and si$nin$ the ,ouchers as e,idence of
said purchase
The Sandi$an(a)an found T#/"ST" $uilt) and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalt) of imprisonment and
perpetual dis+ualification
T#/"ST" in his defense alle$es that he si$ned the ,ouchers onl) after all the purchases had alread) (een made
deli,ered and paid for () the *unicipal Treasurer hence he cannot (e $uilt) under the pro,isions of the Anti @raft
and Corrupt <ractices Act
ISSUE W<N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
HELD NO
RATIO
T#/"ST" alread) sold his shares to a certain *#S T0AS'& (efore he assumed office and despite the a(sence of it
in the S"C records the court finds this fact immaterial as there is no la! re+uirin$ su(mission of reports re$ardin$
sales and disposal of stoc-s 7!hat is re+uired is onl) su(mission of annual financial reports8
The *unicipal Treasurer testified that there !as ne,er a pu(lic (iddin$ hence if there is no (iddin$ then there
could (e no a!ardin$ () T#/"ST"
Testimonial and documentar) e,idence (oth confirm that T#/"ST" si$ned ,ouchers after pa)ment and since !hat
is contemplated in the Anti-@raft La! is the actual inter,ention in the transaction !hich one has financial or
pecuniar) interest in T#/"ST" cannot (e held lia(le under such La!
T#/@"& did not $ain an) undue ad,anta$e in the transaction such that there is no complaint for non-deli,er)
underdeli,er) or o,erpricin$ in the transactions
2ence T#/"ST" should (e ac+uitted
NOTE
@Section 9. Corrupt <ractices of <u(lic 'fficers
7h8 3irectl) or indirectl) ha,in$ financial or pecuniar) interest in an) (usiness contract or transaction in
connection !ith !hich he inter,enes or ta-es part in his official capacit) or in !hich he is prohi(ited () the
Constitution or () an) la! from ha,in$ an) interest
26 TATAD 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
Facts:
'ct. 4CJ: E Antonio de los #e)es former 2ead "5ecuti,e Assistant of the 3epartment of <u(lic /nformation 73</8
filed a report to the Le$al <anel of the <residential Securit) Command 7<SC8 containin$ char$es of ,iolations of
#A904C
1
7Anti-@raft and Corrupt <ractices Acts8 a$ainst Sec. of 3</ Francisco Tatad.
4CJC E Tatad had a fallin$ out !ith then <res. *arcos and the char$es (ecame !idel) -no!n.
3ec. 42 4CJC E a formal complaint !as filed !ith the Tanod(a)an
Apr. 4 4C;0 E Tanod(a)an referred the complaint to the <SC for in,esti$ation and report.
.une 46 4C;0 E report () <SC !as su(mitted recommendin$ the filin$ of char$es for $raft and corruption.
1
(a) Giving DGroup, a private corporation owned by his brother in-law unwarranted benefits; (b) receiving a chec fro! "oberto #allar, Gen$ %anager
of &!ity 'rading (orp$, as consideration for the release of a chec to the said corp$ for printing services rendered during the (onstitutional (onvention
"eferendu!; and (c) failure to file his )tate!ent of &ssets and *iabilities$
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
'ct. 25 4C;2 E all affida,its and counter-affida,its !ere in and the case !as read) for disposition.
.ul) 5 4C;5 E Tanod(a)an issued a resolution callin$ for the filin$ of char$es a$ainst Tatad in the Sandi$an(a)an.
5 informations !ere filed a$ainst Tatad in 4C;5.
Tatad no! +uestions the propriet) of the filin$ of char$es. 2e alle$es that his ri$hts to due process and speed)
disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.
/ssue:
1=n Tatad?s ri$hts to due process and speed) disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.
2eld:
SC sa)s )es the) !ere ,iolated () the lon$ dela) in the termination of the preliminar) in,esti$ation () the
Tanod(a)an. Su(stantial adherence to the re+uirements of the la! and su(stantial compliance !ith the time
limitation prescri(ed () la! is part of procedural due process.
The case !as read) for disposition as earl) as 4C;2 (ut the informations !ere onl) filed in 4C;5. A dela) of close
to 9 )ears can not (e deemed reasona(le or Dustifia(le in the li$ht of the circumstance o(tainin$ in the case at
(ar. The char$es in the complaint speciall) his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Lia(ilities are not that
complicated to re+uire 9 )ears (efore formal complaints are filed.
27 PN. 9 ATTY CEDO
Facts: <&6 filed a complaint a$ainst Att). Cedo for ,iolation of #ule 6.02 that states: A la'+er s$all not, a)ter leavin(
(ov/t# service, accept en(a(e&ent or e&plo+&ent in connection 'it$ an+ &atter '$ic$ $e $ad intervened 'it$ in
said service# Cedo !as the former Asst. Hice-<resident of the Asset mana$ement @roup of <&6.
3urin$ Cedo?s stint !ith <&6 he (ecame in,ol,ed in 2 transactions: 4.8 sale of steel sheets to *s. 'n$
and 2.8 inter,ened in the handlin$ of a loan of spouses Almeda. 1hen a ci,il action arose (ecause of U4 Cedo
after lea,in$ the (an- appeared as one of the counsel of *s. 'n$. Also !hen U2 !as in,ol,ed in a ci,il action the
Almedas !ere represented () the la! firm Cedo, Ferrer, Ma+ni(o 0 Associates of !hich Cedo !as a Senior <artner.
Cedo claims that he did not participate in the liti$ation of *s. 'n$?s case. 2e also claims that e,en if it
!as his la! firm handlin$ the Almeda case the case !as (ein$ handled () Att). Ferrer.
/ssue: 1=& ,iolated #ule 6.02.
2eld: Cedo ,iolated #ule 6.02.
/n the comple5it) of !hat is said in the course of dealin$s (et!een the att). and the client in+uir) of the
nature su$$ested !ould lead to the re,elation in ad,ance of the trial of other matters that mi$ht onl) further
preDudice the complainant cause. 1hate,er ma) (e said as to !=n the att). utili%ed a$ainst his former client
information $i,en to him in a professional capacit) the mere fact that their pre,ious relationship should ha,e
precluded him from appearin$ as counsel for the other side.
I( 2* +,$#)3"**2),a% () #"$#"*",( 1),3%21(2,/ 2,("#"*(*' "A1"$( ! "A$#"** 1),*",( )3 a%% (-"
$a#(2"* 1),1"#,"& a3("# (-" &2*1%)*+#" )3 3a1(*0 A %a7"# #"$#"*",(* 1),3%21(2,/ 2,("#"*(* 7-",' 2,
!"-a%3 )3 )," 1%2",(' 2( 2* -2* &+( () 1),(",& 3)# (-a( 7-21- &+( () a,)(-"# 1%2",( #"B+2#"* -2m ()
)$$)*"0
25 DINSAY 9 CIOCO
Facts:
<lanters *achiner) Corporation 7<LA*AC'8 mort$a$ed to Traders #o)al 6an- 7the 6an-8 certain properties as
securit) for the pa)ment of its loan. <LA*AC' defaulted in the pa)ment of the loan so the 6an- e5traDudiciall)
foreclosed the mort$a$e. At a foreclosure sale conducted () the sheriff the propert) !as sold to the (an- !ho
!as the sole (idder. A certificate of Sheriff?s sale !as e5ecuted () Att). Cioco then cler- of Court and "5-officio
Sheriff.
#ecords disclose that pa$e four of the said Certificate !as surreptitiousl) su(stituted. The ne! pa$e lo!ered the
(id price from the ori$inal amount of <9 269 4;2.6J to onl) <J90000. Cioco and the sheriff !ho conducted the
sale had pre,iousl) (een administrati,el) char$ed and dismissed from ser,ice.
&o! Att).Cioco is sou$ht to (e dis(arred. 2e ar$ues that there !as res adDudicata due to the administrati,e
case and that dis(arment !as deemed adDudicated therein thus he ma) no! lon$er (e char$ed.
/ssue: 1=& Cioco ma) (e char$ed !ith dis(arment 71=& res adDudicata appplies8
2eld:
Cioco?s contention has no merit. #es adDudicata applies onl) to Dudicial or +uasi-Dudicial proceedin$s and not to
the e5ercise of the Court?s administrati,e po!ers as in this case.
3is(arment has not (een adDudicated in the pre,ious case. Therein Cioco !as administrati,el) proceeded a$ainst
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
as an errin$ Court personnel under the super,isor) authorit) of the court. 2erein Cioco is sou$ht to (e
disciplined as a la!)er under the court?s plenar) authorit) o,er mem(ers of the le$al profession.
1hile Cioco is in effect (ein$ indicted t!ice for the same misconduct there is no dou(le Deopard) as (oth
proceedin$s are administrati,e in nature.
The $eneral rule is that a la!)er !ho holds a $o,ernment office ma) not (e disciplined as a mem(er of the (ar for
misconduct in the dischar$e of his duties as a $o,ernment official. The e5ception is if that misconduct affects
his +ualification as a la!)er or sho!s moral delin+uenc).
Cioco?s participation in chan$in$ the (id price in the Certificate of Sheriff?s Sale affects his fitness as a mem(er of
the (ar. 2e -no!s it is patentl) ille$al to alter its contents after notari%ation since it is alread) a pu(lic
document.
Cioco is dis(arred.
24 IGOY 9 SORIANO
FACTS:
/$o) is one of the petitioners in the case of 2eirs of @a,ino /$o) et al. ,s. *actan Shan$rila 2otel.
"n$. 1illiam #edo(lado introduced Att). Soriano to /$o) as a .ustice of the CA.
Accordin$ to /$o)?s friend Att). Soriano !ill (e a(le to help him in his case !hich is pendin$ in the CA
Att). Soriano demanded from /$o) <20000 (ut the former reminded the latter the he !ill onl) (e a(le to help in
the case as soon as the case !as lifted to the SC
/$o)?s case recei,ed an unfa,ora(le decision in the CA and Att). Soriano offered to prepare the <etition for
#e,ie! to (e filed in the SC.
Att). Soriano as-ed for an additional <20000
/$o) send the amount () courier to the address of Att). Soriano !hich !as recei,ed () his son.
SC denied the petition for re,ie! of /$o) !ith finalit)
/$o) later found out that Att). Soriano is not a CA .ustice and filed this complaint a$ainst /$o) in the SC
Ar$uments of Att). Soriano:
o /t is unnatural for a person to $i,e mone) to someone !hom he does not -no! !ell and !hom he met
onl) for the first time
o The mone) !as offered $ratuitousl) () /$o)
o it is impossi(le the /$o) handed the mone) to him on the SC par-in$ lot for man) emplo)ees !ere
passin$ in that place
o it is not "n$. #edo(lado !ho introduced him to /$o) (ut *r. Taneo
o if the SC finds that he is $uilt) he !ill retire from the ser,ice
Att). Soriano filed his letter of resi$nation=retirement under #A 4646
/SS0":
1=& Att). Soriano ,iolated Canon 6 #ule 6.02 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
2"L3:
Ies> Att). Soriano !as dismissed from the ser,ice !ith forfeiture of all retirement (enefits and is suspended from
the practice of la!.
Att). Soriano?s offer to resi$n !as o(,iousl) an attempt to e,ade !hate,er penalt) ma) (e imposed on him.
2o!e,er resi$nation !ill not e5tricate him form the conse+uences of his acts
#esi$nation should not (e used either as an escape or an eas) !a) out to e,ade administrati,e lia(ilit) () court
personnel facin$ administrati,e sanctions
To accept the claim of Soriano that the mone) !as offered $ratuitousl) !ill open the flood$ates to fraud or $raft
and corruption.
@o,ernment la!)ers !ho are pu(lic ser,ants o!e utmost fidelit) to the pu(lic ser,ice for pu(lic ser,ice is a pu(lic
trust. @o,ernment la!)ers should (e more sensiti,e to their professional o(li$ations as their reputa(le conduct is
more li-el) to (e ma$nified in the pu(lic e)e.
The nature and responsi(ilities of pu(lic officers enshrined in the Constitution are not mere rhetorical !ords to (e
ta-en li$htl) as idealistic sentiments (ut as !or-in$ standards and attaina(le $oals that should e matched !ith
actual deeds.
3: PCGG 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN

T-alo-ohan na -aso to 4:0VV pa$es 7disclaimer8 main decision E 2; pa$es lan$
TT meron$ histor) of #ule 6.09 and other historical stuff sa case
Facts:
4CJ6: @eneral 6an- R Trust Compan) 7@en(an-8 encountered financial difficulties. Central 6an- e5tended loans
to @en(an- in the hope of reha(ilitatin$ it 7<940*8. &onetheless @en(an- failed to reco,er.
4CJJ: @en(an- !as declared insol,ent. A pu(lic (iddin$ of @en(an-?s assets !as held !ith the Lucio Tan @roup
!innin$ the (id. Solicitor @eneral *endo%a representin$ the $o,ernment inter,ened !ith the li+uidation of
@en(an-.
4C;6: after "3SA / Cor) esta(lished the <C@@ to reco,er the ill-$otten !ealth of *arcos his famil) and cronies.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
4C;J: <C@@ filed a case a$ainst Lucio Tan and certain other people 7(asta marami sila8. /n relation to this case
<C@@ issued se,eral !rits of se+uestration on properties alle$edl) ac+uired () the respondents () ta-in$
ad,anta$e of their close relationship and influence !ith *arcos. Sandi$an(a)an heard the case.
"stelito *endo%a 7Solicitor @eneral durin$ the time of *arcos8 represented the respondents.
4CC4: <C@@ filed a motion to dis+ualif) *endo%a (ecause of his participation in the li+uidation of @en(an-.
@en(an- 7no! Allied 6an-8 is one of the properties that <C@@ is see-in$ to (e se+uestered from the Lucion Tan
$roup. <C@@ in,o-ed #ule 6.09 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit).
Sandi$an(a)an denied <C@@?s motion. Accordin$ to the Sandi$an(a)an *endo%a did not ta-e an ad,erse
position to that ta-en on (ehalf of the Central 6an-. And *endo%a?s appearance as counsel !as (e)ond the 4
)ear prohi(itor) period since he retired in 4C;6.
/ssue:
1=& #ule 6.09 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) apllies to "stelito *endo%a
2eld:
&o it does not appl) to *endo%a. Sandi$an(a)an decision is affirmed.
The matter 7see 9
rd
note8 or the act of *endo%a as Solicitor @eneral is ad,isin$ the Central 6an- on ho! to
proceed !ith the li+uidation of @en(an-. This is not the AmatterB contemplated () #ule 6.09 of the Code of
<rofessional #esponsi(ilit).
The matter in,ol,ed in the li+uidation of @en(an- is entirel) different from the matter in,ol,ed in the <C@@ case
a$ainst the Lucio Tan $roup.
The inter,ention contemplated in #ule 6.09 should (e su(stantial and important. The role of *endo%a in the
li+uidation of @en(an- is considered insu(stantial.
SC is e,en +uestionin$ !h) <C@@ too- such a lon$ time to re,i,e the motion to dis+ualif) *endo%a. Apparentl)
<C@@ alread) lost a lot of cases a$ainst *endo%a. Q)le?s interpretation: <C@@ $ettin$ desperate
Somethin$ to thin- a(out: SC is someho! of the opinion that #ule 6.09 !ill ma-e it harder for the $o,ernment to
$et $ood la!)ers in the future to !or- for them (ecause of the prohi(ition of acceptin$ cases in the future that
!ere related to one?s !or- as a $o,ernment counsel.
Concurrin$ 'pinions:
<an$ani(an R Carpio: the con$ruent interest pron$ of #ule 6.09 should ha,e a prescripti,e period
Tin$a: #ule 6.09 cannot appl) retroacti,el) to *endo%a 7!hen he !as Solicitor @eneral no #ule 6.09 )et8
6ottom line the) are all +uestionin$ the unfairness of the rule if applied !ithout an) prescripti,e period and if
applied retroacti,el)
&otes:
Ad,erse-interest conflicts E !here the matter in !hich the former $o,ernment la!)er represents a client in
pri,ate practice is su(stantiall) related to a matter that the la!)er dealt !ith !hile emplo)ed !ith the
$o,ernment and the interests of the current and former are ad,erse
Con$ruent-interest conflicts E the use of the !ord AconflictB is a misnomer it does not in,ol,e conflicts at all as it
prohi(its la!)ers from representin$ a pri,ate person e,en if the interests of the former $o,ernment client and the
ne! client are entirel) parallel
*atter E an) discrete isolata(le act as !ell as indentifia(le transaction or conduct in,ol,in$ a particular situation
and specific part)
/nter,ention E interference that ma) affect the interests of others
31 IN RE GALANG

FACTS:
#amon @alan$ has a pendin$ criminal case of sli$ht ph)sical inDuries in the Cit) Court of *anila
2e too- the 6ar "5ams J times and !as allo!ed to ta-e the la!)er?s oath in 4CJ2. 60T he !as allo!ed to do so
onl) (ecause he fraudulentl) concealed and !ithheld from the Court his pendin$ criminal case in
4C62696:666J6C and J4. And in 4C666J6C and J4W he committed perDur) !hen he declared under oath that
he had no pendin$ criminal case in court
/SS0": 1o& @alan$ should (e dis(arredG
2"L3: I"S>
#AT/':
4. /t is !ell-settled in a lon$ strin$ of cases that concealment of an att) in his application to ta-e the 6ar of the fact
that he had (een char$ed !ith or indicted foran alle$ed crime is a $round for re,ocation of his license to
practice la!. 7@uilt) of Fraud upon the Court8
2. @alan$?s persistent denial of his in,ol,ement in an) criminal case 7!hich he later admitted8 and his failure to clear
his name for 49 )ears indicate his lac- of the re+uisite attri(utes of honest) pro(it) and $ood demeanor. 2e is
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
therefore un!orth) to (e a la!)er. 7he did not offer an) e5planation for such omission8.
9. Amon$ other $rounds for dis(arment:
a. *isrepresentations of or false pretenses relati,e to the re+t on applicant?s educational attainment
(. Lac- of $ood moral character
c. Fraudulent passin$ of the 6ar e5ams
32 IN RE CUEVAS
Facts:
<etitioner Arthur Cue,as .r. recentl) passed the 4CC6 6ar "5aminations. 2is oath ta-in$ !as held in a(e)ance in ,ie! of
the CourtOs resolution !hich permitted him to ta-e the 6ar "5ams su(Dect to the condition that should he pass the same he
shall not (e allo!ed to ta-e the la!)erOs oath pendin$ appro,al of the court. This resolution !as due to his pre,ious
con,iction for #ec-less /mprudence resultin$ in 2omicide. The con,iction stemmed from Cue,asO participation in the
initiation rites of the L"M TAL/'&/S F#AT"#&/TAS a fraternit) in the SA& 6"3A Colle$e of La! !here #aul Camali$an a
neoph)te died as a result of personal ,iolence inflicted upon him.
Thereafter petitioner applied for and !as $ranted pro(ation. 2e !as later dischar$ed from pro(ation and his case
considered closed and terminated.
/n this petition Cue,as pra)s that he (e allo!ed to ta-e the la!)erOs oath at the courtOs most con,enient time.
/ssue:
1=n Cue,as should (e allo!ed to ta-e the la!)er?s oath...
2eld:
I"S.
2is deli(erate participation in the senseless (eatin$s o,er a helpless neoph)te shich resulted to the latterOs untimel)
demise indicates a(sence of that moral fitness re+uired for admission to the (ar. The court nonetheless is !illin$ to $i,e
Cue,as a chance in the same manner that it recentl) allo!ed Al Caparros Ar$osino 7case sa le$prof8 petitionerOs co-
accused (elo! to ta-e the la!)erOs oath.
2is dischar$e from pro(ation !ithout an) infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the ,arious certification
attestin$ to his ri$hteous peaceful and ci,ic-oriented character pro,e that he has ta-en decisi,e steps to pur$e himself of
his deficienc) in moral character.
33 DIAO 9 MARTINE8
Fa1(*?
Telesfor 3iao !as admitted to the 6ar in 4C59.
T!o )ears after Se,erino *artine% char$ed him for ha,in$ falsel) represented his application: that he had the
re+uisite academic +ualifications.
The Solicitor @eneral in,esti$ated and recommended that 3iao?s name (e erased from the roll of attorne)s.
3iao has not completed 6"F'#" ta-in$ up la! the re+uired pre-le$al education prescri(ed () the 3epartment of
<ri,ate "ducation:
o 3iao did not complete his 2S trainin$F and
o 3iao ne,er attended Xuisum(in$ Colle$e
3iao claims that he left 2S in his third )ear he entered the 0S Arm) passed the @eneral Xualification Test !hich
accordin$ to him is e+ui,alent to a 2S diploma and upon return to ci,ilian life the education authorities
considered his arm) ser,ice as the e+ui,alent of 9
rd
and :
th
)ear 2S.
Also he claims that he reall) $ot his colle$e diploma from Arellano 0ni,ersit) in April 4C:C. 2e sa)s he !as
erroneousl) certified due to confusion as a $raduate of Xuisum(in$ Coll$e in his school records.
I**+"?
1=& 3iao should (e remo,ed from the roll.
H"%&?
Ies. 3iao?s name is remo,ed from the roll.
The AerrorB or AconfusionB !as to his o!n ma-in$. 2ad his application sho!ed that he $raduated from Arellano it
!ould ha,e sho!ed that he too- up la! 6 months (efore o(tainin$ his Associate in Arts de$ree. 2e then !ould
ha,e not (een permitted to ta-e the 6ar.
#ule: AThat <#"H/'0S to the stud) of la! he had successfull) and satisfactoril) completed the re+uired pre-le$al
education as prescri(ed () the 3epartment of "ducation.B
The fact that he hurdled the (ar is immaterial. <assin$ the (ar is not the onl) +ualification to (ecome an
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
attorne)-at-la!F ta-in$ the prescri(ed courses of le$al stud) in the re$ular manner is e+uall) essential.
34 CALU. 9 SULLER
Facts:
Att) Suller raped the !ife of his nei$h(or Cristino Calu(.
A criminal complaint for rape !as filed a$ainst Suller. A complaint for dis(arment !as also filed () Calu( (efore
the SC.
The CF/ ac+uitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to pro,e $uilt (e)ond reasona(le dou(t.
/ssue:
Can Att) Suller (e dis(arredG
2eld:
Ies. Ac+uittal in a criminal case is not determinati,e of an administrati,e case for dis(arment. A la!)er ma) (e dis(arred
or suspended for misconduct !hether in his professional or pri,ate capacit) !hich sho!s that he lac-s moral character to
continue as officer of the court. The rape () a la!)er of his nei$h(or?s !ife constitutes such serious moral depra,it).
35 UI 9 .ONIFACIO
FACTS
L"SL/"?S side of the stor)
o L"SL/" 0i married CA#L'S and had : children !ith him
o Su(s+uentl) L"SL/" found out CA#L'S !as ha,in$ illicit relations !ith Att) /#/S 6onifacio and (e$ot a
dau$hter
o CA#L'S admitted this relationship !ith L"SL/" !ho confronted /#/S
o /#/S told L"SL/" e,er)thin$ !as o,er (et!een her and CA#L'S
o 2o!e,er L"SL/" found out later the illicit relations continued and /#/S e,en had 2
nd
child !ith CA#L'S
o L"SL/" filed a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst /#/S on $round of immoralit)
/#/S? side of the stor)
o *et CA#L'S !ho represented himself as a (achelor !ith children () a Chinese !oman !ith !hom he
had lon$ (een estran$ed
o CA#L'S and /#/S $ot married in 2a!aii
o 0pon return to *anila the) did not li,e to$ether (ecause CA#L'S !anted his children !ith the Chinese
!oman to $raduall) -no! and accept his marria$e !ith /#/S
o 1hen /#/S -ne! a(out the 4
st
marria$e she cut all ties !ith him
/n proceedin$s (efore the /6< Commission L"SL/" filed a motion to cite /#/S in contempt for ma-in$ false
alle$ations in her Ans!er to impress upon the /6< that her 4
st
child () CA#L'S !as !ithin !edloc-
o /#/S indicated in Ans!er she $ot married to CA#L'S in 'ct 22 4C;5
o 2o!e,er Certificate of *arria$e certified () State #e$istrar re,ealed that date of marria$e !as actuall)
'ct 22 4C;J
ISSUE W<N IRIS SHOULD .E DIS.ARRED
HELD NO
RATIO
/mmoralit)
#e+uisites to admission to practice of la! includes (ein$ a person of $ood moral character and possession of such
must (e continuous
Loss of $ood moral character is a $round of re,ocation of the pri,ile$e of the practice of la!
/n the case at (ar /#/S !as imprudent in her personal affairs
Circumstances e5isted !hich should ha,e at least aroused her suspicion that somethin$ !as amiss 7i.e. not li,in$
to$ether as hus(and and !ife children () another !oman etc8 (ut she did not do an)thin$ a(out it
2o!e,er the fact remains that /#/S? relationship !ith CA#L'S !as clothed !ith marria$e and cannot (e
considered immoral
*oreo,er such conduct to !arrant disciplinar) action must (e $rossl) immoral that is so corrupt and false to
constitute a criminal act or moral indifference to the opinion of respecta(le mem(ers of the communit)
/#/S? act of immediatel) distancin$ herself (elies the alle$ed moral indifference and pro,es she has no intention of
flauntin$ the la!
2ence /#/S should not (e dis(arred
False alle$ation
An) normal (ride !ould recall date and )ear of marria$e
3ifficult to fathom ho! /#/S could Afor$etB the )ear of her marria$e
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
*oreo,er an) prudent la!)er !ould ,erif) the information contained in an attachment to her pleadin$ especiall)
in this case since /#/S had personal -no!led$e of facts stated therein
2ence /#/S should (e reprimanded for attachin$ marria$e certificate !ith an altered date
36 ROYONG 9 O.LENA
FACTS:
#o)on$ the niece it the common-la! !ife of '(lena filed a rape case a$ainst the latter.
/n her complaint #o)on$ alle$ed that in 4C5; '(lena forced her to ha,e intercourse !ith her and that she
refrained to report the incident (ecause '(lena threatened to -ill her famil).
As a result if the se5ual intercourse #o)on$ $a,e (irth to a child
'(lena denied all the alle$ations and ar$ued that he and #o)on$ had a relationship and #o)on$ consented to
ha,e intercourse !ith him.
The Solicitor @eneral recommended that '(lena (e permanentl) remo,ed from the roll of attorne) e,enthou$h
the acts of the #o)on$ (efore and after the rape incident sho!ed that she is more of a s!eetheart than a ,ictim
(ecause of the circumstances (ehind the incident
The Solicitor @eneral also char$ed '(lena of falsif)in$ and deli(eratel) alle$in$ in his application in the (ar
in4C5; that he is a person of $ood moral character !hile ha,in$ an illicit and adulterous relationship !ith An$eles
!ho is not onl) the aunt of #o)on$ (ut also has a le$al hus(and in the pro,ince
'(lena mo,ed to dismiss the case (ecause the offenses char$ed are different from those ori$inall) char$ed in
the complaint (ut the court o,erruled his petition
After the hearin$ the in,esti$ators concluded that A.8 '(lena used his -no!led$e in la! to commit immoral acts
!ithout incurrin$ an) criminal lia(ilit)F 6.8 he committed $ross immoralit) () continuousl) coha(itin$ !ith
An$eles his common-la! !ife e,en after he (ecame a la!)er and C.8 '(lena falsified the truth as to his $ood
moral character in his application to ta-e the (ar.
/SS0":
1=& the illicit relationship !ith #o)on$ and the open coha(itation !ith An$eles a married !oman are sufficient
$rounds to cause '(lena?s dis(arment
2"L3:
I"S>
Althou$h '(lena is not )et con,icted of the crime of rape seduction or adulter) and he is not $uilt) of an) of the
$rounds for dis(arment enumerated in Sec 25 #ule 42J of the #ules of Court the enumeration is not e5clusi,e
and the po!er of the court to e5clude un!orth) mem(ers of the (ar is inherent and is a necessar) incident to the
proper administration of Dustice and can (e e5ercised e,en !ithout an) statutor) authorit) in all cases unless
properl) prohi(ited () statutes.
American Durisprudence pro,ides that the continued possession of a $ood moral character is a re+uisite condition
for the ri$htful continuance in the practice of la!. The loss re+uires suspension or dis(arment e,enthou$h the
statues do not e5plicitl) specif) that as a $round of dis(arment.
'(lena?s ar$ument that he (elie,ed himself to (e a person !ith $ood moral character !hen he filed his
application to ta-e the (ar e5amination is !ron$. 'ne?s o!n appro5imation of himself is not a $au$e of his moral
character. *oral character is not a su(Decti,e term (ut one !hich corresponds to o(Decti,e realit). *oral
character is !hat the person reall) is and not !hat he other people thin-s he is.
2is pretension to !ait for the 4;
th
(irthda) of #o)on$ (efore ha,in$ carnal -no!led$e !ith her sho!s the
schemin$ mind of '(lena and his ta-in$ ad,anta$e of his -no!led$e of the la!.
Also #o)on$ is the niece of his common-la! !ife and he enDo)ed moral ascendanc) o,er her. '(lena too-
ad,anta$e of #o)on$?s trust on him.
'(lena?s contention that the Solicitor @eneral e5ceeded his authorit) in filin$ the present complain !hich is
entirel) different from the ori$inal complaint filed is untena(le. There is nothin$ in the la! re+uirin$ the Solicitor
@eneral to char$e in his complaint the same offence char$ed in the ori$inal complaint. 1hat the la! pro,ides is
that if the Solicitor @eneral finds sufficient $rounds to proceed a$ainst the respondent he shall file the
correspondin$ complaint accompanied () the e,idence introduced in his in,esti$ation.
37 DE LOS REYES 9 A8NAR
Facts: 3elos #e)es filed a complaint a$ainst Att). A%nar for $ross immoralit).
/t appears that Att). A%nar raped 3elos #e)es. From the e,idence it appears that A%nar !as the
Chairman of the 6oard of South!estern 0ni,ersit).
3elos #e)es failed her <atholo$) su(Dect. As such she approached A%nar for reconsideration. A%nar
assured her that she !ould pass. 3espite her plea she failed the su(Dect. A%nar told 3elos #e)es that she should
$o !ith him to *anila or else she !ill flun-. The) !ent to *anila. After dinin$ in a restaurant A%nar raped her
t!ice in the e,enin$ and thrice the ne5t mornin$ inside the Am(assador 2otel.
A%nar denies all the alle$ations and sa)s that !hen he !ent to *anila he slept at the house of his friends.
/ssue: 1=& A%nar is $uilt) of $ross misconduct.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2eld: A%nar is $uilt) of $ross misconduct.
The court a$rees !ith the Sol. @en.?s findin$ that A%nar committed $ross misconduct. 1hile A%nar denied
ha,in$ ta-en 3elos #e)es to the Am(assador 2otel and had se5ual intercourse !ith her he did not present an)
e,idence to sho! !here he !as on that date. I( 2* (-" &+( )3 (-" %a7"#' 7-","9"# -2* m)#a% 1-a#a1("# 2*
$+( 2,() B+"*(2),' () *a(2*3 (-" 1)+#( (-a( -" 2* 32( a,& $#)$"# () ",C) 1),(2,+"& m"m!"#*-2$ 2, (-"
!a#0 H" 1a,,)( &2*$",*" 72(- (-" -2/- "Aa1(2,/ m)#a% *(a,&a#&* )3 (-" $#)3"**2),0 G))& m)#a%
1-a#a1("# 2* a 1),(2,+2,/ B+a%2321a(2), ,"1"**a# () ",(2(%" ), () 1),(2,+" 2, (-" $#a1(21" )3 %a7
35 SO.ERANO 9 VILLANUEVA
Facts:
So(erano filed a petition for dis(arment alle$in$ that after Att). Hillanue,a had induced her to ta-e part in a fa-e
!eddin$ the latter coha(ited !ith her and later li,ed !ith her as hus(and and !ife. As a conse+uence of this
she (ore him t!o children and su(se+uentl) Hillanue,a a(andoned them.
Soon thereafter So(erano sent a letter to the court as-in$ that no action (e ta-en on her petition until her
mother has arri,ed and decided !hether it should push thou$h.
So(erano sent another letter sa)in$ that her mother has arri,ed and that the case must case.
So(erano a$ain !rote a letter sa)in$ that the filin$ of the petition !as not sincerel) her o!n !ish and that she
!as finall) !ithdra!in$ her complaint
the last letter !ritten () So(erano to the court ho!e,er pra)ed that her motion to !ithdra! the petition (e
denied since Hillanue,a had procured the motion () means of threat and intimidation.
/ssue: 1=& Hillanue,a should (e dis(arred
2eld: &'
The letters of So(erano to Hillanue,a clearl) indicated that intimate relations had e5isted (et!een them prior to
the date !hen the alle$ed fa-e !eddin$ occurred. These indicate that there !as o need for Hillanue,a to sta$e a
fa-e !eddin$ to induce So(erano to coha(it !ith him.
Some of the letters sho!ed that So(erano reminded him of his promise to marr) her after he passed the (ar
As to !hether the e5tra-marital relations (et!een So(erano and Hillanue,a !arrants disciplinar) action SC held
that in li$ht of the circumstances in this case these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor
so unprincipled as to !arrant a dis(arment of disciplinar) action.
Also distin$uished mem(ers of the (ar had attested to Hillanue,a?s $ood moral character. 'ne is no less than
the "5ecuti,e .ud$e of the CF/ of &e$ros 'ccidental !here Hillanue,a is practices his profession. The other is the
3ean *ontema)or of the Ateneo Colle$e of La!. The last one is 2on. @uillermo Santos former Chairman of
A$ricultural Tenanc) Commission then .ud$e of CF/ and Court of A$rarian #elations.
34 RAO SHENG 9 VELASCO
FACTS:
#au Shen$ *ao is a Tai!anese national !ho en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). An$eles Helasco as his le$al consultant
and counsel of his compan) Forei$n /n,estors Consultanc) and *ana$ement /nc 7F/C*/8.
2aru @en 6each #esort and 2otel Corporation represented () Att) Helasco as its director and stoc-holder
entered into a mana$ement a$reement !ith F/C*/
Att) Helasco sold to #au Shen$ his 40000 shares in 2aru @en for <4000000 (ut the former refused to deli,er
the certificates to the Tai!anese despite complete pa)ment made () the Tai!anese
Also 9 lands of Att). Helasco !as (ou$ht () #au Shen$ for <9.9* !ith a remainin$ (alance of <900000 (ut Att).
Helasco still refused to deli,er the titles
#au Shen$ filed an administrati,e case a$ainst Att). Helasco. #au Shen$ presented as e,idence letters made ()
Att). Helasco !herein the latter !as as-in$ mone) from the former to (e $i,en to Dud$es hearin$ his cases
An additional char$e for immoralit) (ecause of his illicit relationship !ith Luc) *atien%o !ho is not his le$al !ife
!as filed () #au Shen$ !herein he presented the (aptismal certificate of .enn) Helasco !hich listed Att). Helasco
as its father to$ether !ith the affida,its of se,eral people confirmin$ Helasco?s illicit relationship !ith Luc) as
e,idence
Att). Helasco denied all the alle$ations of #au Shen$ !ith these ar$uments:
o 2e could not decei,e #au Shen$ for the Tai!anese !as al!a)s represented in all their transactions ()
Att). <uro$
o 2e refused to deli,er the certificate of stoc-s and the land titles (ecause of the #au Shen$?s incomplete
pa)ment of the purchase price
o As to the immoralit) claim Att). Helasco presented affida,its of his !ife and Luc) *atien%o
/SS0":
1=& Att). Helasco is $uilt) of all the alle$ations made () #au Shen$
2"L3:
I"S> Att). Helasco !as found $uilt) of the ha,in$ illicit relationship !ith *atie%a and $i,in$ #au Shen$ the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
impression that he !as in the position to influence the court and he !as ordered suspended from the practice of
la! for 2 )ears
The court found it unli-el) that #au Shen$ !as decei,ed () Att). Helasco in all their transactions for he !as
al!a)s represented () Att). <uro$ in all the dealin$s
6ut Att). Helasco is $uilt) of ha,in$ an adulterous relationship !ith *atien%a !ith !hom he has 9 children all
(earin$ his surname as seen in all the school records of the children.
Helasco ,iolated Canon 4 #ule 4.404 () en$a$in$ in unla!ful and immoral acts. La!)ers are (urdened !ith the
hi$hest de$ree of social responsi(ilit) and thus must handle their personal affairs !ith the $reatest caution. Their
e5alted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the hi$hest de$ree of moralit).
1hat is more Helasco ,iolated one of the (asic tenets of le$al ethics () $i,in$ #au Shen$ the impression that he
!as in the position to influence the courts. Helasco claimed that he has connections !ith Dud$es and the) !ere
claimin$ mone) from #au Shen$.
A la!)er is dut) (ound to a,oid improprieties !hich $a,e the appearance of influencin$ the courts and place the
inte$rit) of the administration of Dustice in peril.
&o profession offers $reater opportunit) for pu(lic ser,ice than that of a la!)er. For the pri,ile$e conferred upon
him a la!)er !as tas-ed !ith the e+uall) $reater responsi(ilit) of upholdin$ the ideals and ethics esta(lished.
4: OL.ES 9 DECIEM.RE
Facts:
Spouses 'l(es 7Fran-lin R Lourdes8 !ere emplo)ees of the Central <ost 'ffice in *anila. The) filed this case for
dis(arment a$ainst Att). 3eciem(re.
Lourdes !ith the help of 3eciem(re ac+uired a loan from #odela Loans in the amount of <40Q.
Lourdes then issued 5 <&6 (lan- chec-s to respondent to ser,e as collateral.
Su(se+uentl) Lourdes paid 3eciem(re the amount of the loan plus interest and surchar$es.
&ot!ithstandin$ pa)ment 3eciem(re filled up the (lan- chec-s in the amount of <50- each. Si)empre tumal(o$
)un m$a che-e.
3eciem(re then filed 6<22 R estafa cases a$ainst the 'l(es spouses.
#e-lamo si)empre sila 'l(es. The) are e,en sa)in$ that some of their officemates suffered the same fate under
3eciem(re.
/n,esti$atin$ officer: 3eciem(re?s ,ersion of the facts is hi$hl) dou(tful. There are discrepancies (et!een his oral
and !ritten testimonies.
/ssue:
1=& 3eciem(re should face disciplinar) sanctions
2eld:
Si)empre> 2e is in ,iolation of #ule J.09
2e committed falsification !hen he filled up the (lan- chec-s e,en if this !as not a$reed upon and despite
-no!led$e that the loan had alread) (een paid.
2e e,en filed 6<22 cases a$ainst the couple. This sho!s the ,ileness and !retchedness of his soul. Fran-lin !as
e,en detained for 9 months (ecause of the cases.
3eciem(re is found to (e lac-in$ $ood moral character. @ood moral character includes at least common honest).
The penalt) recommended () the /6< of suspension for 2 )ears is too mild. 3eciem(re is suspended from the
practice of la! indefinitel).
41 GRANDE 9 DA SILVA
FACTS:
"milio @rande is the pri,ate offended part) 7of estafa and 6< 228 a$ainst a certain Ser$io &ati,idad the client of
Att). 3e Sil,a
3e Sil,a tendered a chec- to @rande as settlement of the ci,il aspect of the case.
The chec- !as returned !ith the notation that the ACCT CL'S"3
@rande filed a suit a$ainst 3e Sil,a for ,iolation of 6< 22 and "stafa 7sha naman an$ na-asuhan tulo) hehe8
3e Sil,a refused to comment on notices of complaints sent to her.
/6< recommended that de Sil,a (e suspended for t!o )ears.
/SS0": 1o& de Sil,a should (e suspendedG
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. The nature of the office of an att) re+uires that a la!)er shall (e a person of $ood moral character. @ross
misconduct !hich puts the la!)er?s moral character in serious dou(t ma) render her unfit to continue in the
practice of la!. A la!)er ma) (e disciplined for e,adin$ pa)ment of a de(t ,alidl) incurred. The loss of moral
character of a la!)er for an) reason !hatsoe,er shall !arrant her suspension or dis(arment.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2. An) !ron$doin$ !hich indicates moral unfitness for the profession !hether it (e professional or non-pro Dustifies
disciplinar) action. For a la!)er?s professional and personal conduct must at all times (e -ept (e)ond reproach
and a(o,e suspicion.
2er deli(erate refusal to accept the notices ser,ed on her stains the no(ilit) of the profession. 2o! else !ould a la!)er
endea,or to ser,e Dustice and uphold the la! !hen she disdains to follo! e,en simple directi,es. Also Canon 4 sa)s that a
la!)er shall uphold the consti o(e) the la!s of the land and promote respect for the le$al processes.
42 COJUANGCO 9 PALMA
Facts:
Complainant CoDuan$co !a a client of An$ara Concepcion #e$ala and Cru% La! 'ffices and <alma !as the la!)er assi$ned
to handle his cases. <almaOs relationship !ith the CoDuan$cos (ecame intimate. 2e fre+uented theis house and e,en
tutored CoDuan$coOs 22-)ear old dau$hter *aria Luis CoDuan$co.
1ihtout the -no!led$e of complainant CoDuan$coOs famil) <alma married Lisa in 2on$-on$. /t !as onl) the ne5t da) that
<alma informed complainant of such fact. Complainant !as shoc-ed -no!in$ full) !ell that <alma is a married man and
has 9 children.
Complainant filed !ith CF/ a petition for declaration of nullit) of the marria$e (et!een respondent <alma and Lisa. CF/
delared that marria$e null and ,oid. Thereafter CoDuan$co fileed !ith the SC the instant complaint for dis(arment.
*ean!hile the first di,ision of SC issued a resolution settin$ aside the CF/ 3ecision declarin$ the marria$e null and ,oid
and remandin$ the case to the CF/ for proper proceedin$. To this date the records fail to disclose the outcome of this
case.
/ssue:
1=n <alma should (e dis(arred...
2eld:
I"S.
There is no distinction as to !hether the trans$ression is committed in the la!)erOs professional capacit) or in his pri,ate
life. <rofessional competenc) alone does not ma-e a la!)er !orth) mem(er of the 6ar. @ood moral character is al!a)s
an indispensa(el re+uirement.
The truth is respondent married Lisa !hile he has a su(sistin$ marria$e !ith "li%a(eth 2erosisima. Therefore he e5hi(ited
a deplora(le lac- of that de$ree of moralit) re+uired of him as a mem(er of the (ar. #espondentOs culpa(ilit) is
a$$ra,ated () the fact that Lisa !as Dust 22 )ears old and !as under ps)cholo$ical treatment for emotional immaturit).
The su(se+uent Dud$ment of annullment of marria$e has no (earin$ to the instant dis(arment proceedin$. A dis(arment
case is sui $eneris for it is an in,esti$ation () the court into the conduct of its officers.
43 REYES 9 CHIONG JR0
Fa1(*?
Att). #amon #e)es counsel for Non$$i Mu.
Att). Hictoriano Chion$ .r for Chia 2sien <an.
Mu a Chinese-Tai!anese !ent into a (usiness ,enture !ith <an. <an !as supposed to set up a Ce(u-(ased
fish(all tempura and seafood products factor). 2e did not esta(lish it and so Mu as-ed that his mone) (e
returned.
Mu then filed a case of estafa a$ainst <an. <rosecutor Salan$a then issued a su(poena a$ainst <an.
Att). Chion$ then filed a motion to +uash (ut he also filed a ci,il complaint for the collection of a sum of mone)
and dama$es as !ell as for the dissolution of a (usiness ,enture a$ainst Mu Att) #e)es and <rosecutor Salan$a.
2e alle$ed that Salan$a !as impleaded as an additional defendant (ecause of the irre$ularities the latter had
committed in conductin$ the criminal in,esti$ation he still filed the complaint a$ainst <an in spite of <an?s
motions.
Att). #e)es !as alle$edl) impleaded (ecause he alle$edl) conni,ed !ith Mu in filin$ the estafa case !hich !as
(aseless.
/6< recommended that Chion$ (e suspended for 2 )ears.
I**+"?
1=& Chion$ should (e suspended.
H"%&?
Ies.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Canon ; of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) pro,ides that a la!)er shall conduct himself !ith courtes)
fairness and candor to!ards his professional collea$ues and shall a,oid harassin$ tactics a$ainst opposin$
counsel.
/f Chion$ (elie,ed that the t!o had conspired to act ille$all) he could ha,e instituted dis(arment proceedin$s.
As a la!)er Chion$ should ha,e ad,ised his client of the a,aila(ilit) of these remedies. Thus the filin$ of the
cases had no Dustification.
La!)ers should treat their opposin$ counsels and other la!)ers !ith courtes) di$nit) and ci,ilit).
An) undue ill feelin$ (et!een clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor to!ard each
other.
44 ALCANTARA 9 PEFIANCO
Facts:
Att) <efianco is counsel in a criminal case. 'ne da) the pri,ate offended part) !ent to the <u(lic Attorne)?s 'ffice
to ha,e her ci,il claims 7in the criminal case8 settled. Att) Sal,ani attended to her.
1hile Att). Sal,ani !as tal-in$ to the !oman Att) <efianco shouted at them and +uestioned the actions of the
!oman 7pertainin$ to the settlement8.
Att) <efianco !as as-ed to calm do!n (ut he did not refrain from his out(urst. 3istrict <u(lic Attorne) Alcantara
as head of the a$enc) tal-ed to <efianco.
6ut <efianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid 7loud enou$h for other people to hear8. A commotion in the
office ensued 7<efianco e,en tried to attac- Alcantara8.
A complaint !as filed a$ainst <efianco for conduct un(ecomin$ of a la!)er and for usin$ improper and offensi,e
lan$ua$e.
<efianco sa)s that he !as Dust mo,ed () the si$ht of a cr)in$ !oman !hose hus(and had (een murdered. 2e also
a,erred that it !as Alcantara !ho punched him and called him stupid.
/ssue:
3id <efianco ,iolate the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)G
2eld:
Ies. <efianco ,iolated Canon ; of the Code !hich re+uires la!)ers to conduct themsel,es !ith courtes) fairness and
candor to!ard their fello! la!)ers. /t !as <efianco?s meddlin$ in a matter in !hich he had no ri$ht to do so that caused
the unto!ard incident 7shoutin$ at Sal,ani and the !oman8. Thou$h he thou$ht that this is ri$hteous his pu(lic (eha,ior
can onl) (rin$ do!n the le$al profession in the e)es of the pu(lic and erode respect for it.
Att) <efianco !as fined and reprimanded.
45 CAMACHO 9 PANGULAYAN
FACTS
C students of A*A !ere e5pelled for ha,in$ apparentl) caused to (e pu(lished o(Dectiona(le features or articles
in the school paper
3enial of the appeal to A*A <resident A$uilu% $a,e rise to Ci,il Case CJ-905:C
CA*AC2' !as the hired counsel of the e5pelled students in an action for the /ssuance of a 1rit of <reliminar)
*andator) /nDuction in the said ci,il case
1hile the ci,il case !as still pendin$ letters of apolo$) and #e-admission A$reements !ere separatel) e5ecuted
() the e5pelled students !ithout the -no!led$e of CA*AC2'
CA*AC2' filed a complaint a$ainst la!)ers comprisin$ the <A&@0LAIA& A&3 ASS'C/AT"S La! Firm 7la!)ers of
A*A8 (ecause !ithout his -no!led$e the) procured and effected on separate occasions compromise a$reements
7letters of apolo$) and #e-admission A$reements8 !ith : of his clients !hich in effect re+uired them to !ai,e all
-inds of claims the) ma) ha,e !ith A*A
CA*AC2' a,erred that such an act !as un(ecomin$ of an) mem(er of the le$al profession !arrantin$ either
dis(arment or suspension
<A&@0LAIA& in his defense claimed that the a$reements !ere e5ecuted for the sole purpose of effectin$ the
settlement of an administrati,e case
ISSUE W<N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD .E SUSPENDED<DIS.ARRED
HELD YES
RATIO
/t !ould appear that !hen indi,idual letters of apolo$) and #e-admission A$reements !ere formali%ed CA*AC2'
!as alread) the retained counsel of the e5pelled A*A students
<A&@0LAIA& and associates ha,in$ full -no!led$e of this fact still proceeded to ne$otiate !ith the e5pelled A*A
students and their parents !ithout at least communicatin$ the matter to their la!)er CA*AC2'
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
This failure of <A&@0LAIA& and associates !hether () desi$n or o,ersi$ht is an e5cusa(le ,iolation of the
canons of profession ethics and in utter disre$ard of a dut) o!in$ to a collea$ue
The e5cuse that a$reements !ere e5ecuted for settlin$ the administrati,e case !as (elied () the *anifestation
!hich states AC si$natories a$reed amon$ others to terminate ALL ci,il criminal and administrati,e proceedin$s
the) ma) ha,e a$ainst A*A arisin$ from their pre,ious dismissalB
2ence <A&@0LAIA& should (e suspended for 9 months
DOCTRINE
A la!)ers should not in an) !a) communicate upon the su(Dect of contro,ers) !ith a part) represented () counsel much
less should he underta-e to ne$otiate or compromise the matter !ith him (ut should onl) deal !ith his counsel. /t is
incum(ent upon the la!)er most particularl) to a,oid e,er)thin$ that ma) tend to mislead a part) not represented ()
counsel and he should not underta-e to ad,ise him as to la!.
46 TORRES 9 JAVIER
Facts:
This is an administrati,e case filed () Att). /reneo Torres a$ainst Att). .ose .a,ier for malpractice $ross
misconduct in office as an attorne) and=or ,iolation of the la!)er?s oath. There !ere 9 causes of action
First the alle$ations stem from statements=remar-s made () .a,ier in the pleadin$s he filed in a petition for audit
of all funds of the 0ni,ersit) of the "ast Facult) Association 70"FA8 7Torres is the <resident8. .a,ier implied that
Torres had a moti,e to (ur$lari%e the office of 0"FA to $et certain documents.
Second Torres alle$es that .a,ier used lan$ua$e that !as clearl) a(usi,e offensi,e and improper inconsistent
!ith the character of an attorne) as a +uasi-Dudicial officer. This !as !ith re$ard to .a,ier?s A#epl) to
#espondents Ans!er=CommentB in the Aattorne)?s fees caseB !here .a,ier made a comment on the intellectual
capacit) of Torres.
Third Torres finds fault in .a,ier?s statement that implies that it is normal for notaries pu(lic to let their relati,es
si$n the documents for them. Torres sa)s that this statement is demeanin$ to the le$al profession and the
notarial ser,ice.
/6< found .a,ier $uilt) and reprimanded him.
/ssue:
1=n .a,ier should (e held lia(le for his acts.
2eld:
SC sa)s onl) as re$ards the second cause of action. The court made mention that it is !ell entrenched in
<hilippine Durisprudence that for reasons of pu(lic polic) utterances made in the course of Dudicial proceedin$s
includin$ all -inds of pleadin$s petitions and motions are a(solutel) pri,ile$ed so lon$ as the) are pertinent and
rele,ant to the su(Dect in+uir) ho!e,er false or malicious the) ma) (e.
For the first cause of action the SC held that such statements made () .a,ier !ere necessar) in order to resol,e
the petition for audit filed. These statements $i,e a possi(le scenario as to the reason for the (ur$lar) in the
0"FA office. As to the third cause of action the SC $a,e .a,ier the (enefit of the dou(t that he issued these
statements onl) in the defense of his client.
As to the second 7for !hich the SC found .a,ier $uilt)8 the Court ruled that the statements made re$ardin$
Torres? intellectual aptitude !ere not rele,ant to the Aattorne)?s fees caseB. The issue in the said case !as
!hether the 40K attorne)?s fees Achec-ed offB from the initial (ac-!a$es=salaries of 0"FA mem(ers is le$al 7/
don?t reall) understand this pero )an lan$ )un na-ala$a)8.
The SC pointed out that Canon ; of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) instructs that respondent?s ar$uments
in his pleadin$s should (e $racious to (oth the court and opposin$ counsel and (e of such !ords as ma) (e
properl) addressed () one $entleman to another. .a,ier has diso(e)ed such mandate and is thus suspended
from the practice of la! for 4 month.
47 CAM.ALI8A 9 CRISTO.AL;TENORIO
Facts: Cam(ali%a a former emplo)ee of Att). Cristal-Tenorio char$ed the latter !ith $rossl) immoral conduct. Cam(ali%a
alle$ed that Att). has (een falsel) representin$ herself to (e married to Felicisimo Tenorio !hen in fact Felicisimo
!as alread) married to another !oman 7Att). $ot a fa-e marria$e license.8. She also alle$es that the Att). caused
the dissemination to the pu(lic of a li(elous affida,it a$ainst a *a-ati Councilor. At the helm of her complaint !as
the alle$ation that the Att). cooperated in the ille$al practice of la! () her hus(and Felicisimo !ho is not a
mem(er of the (ar.
Att). denies all the alle$ations. She sa)s that her firm is a sole-proprietorshipF hence she had no
partners in her la! office.
/ssue: 1=& the la!)er is $uilt) of cooperatin$ in the ille$al practice of la!.
2eld: The la!)er is $uilt).
The court a$rees !ith the findin$ of the Commissioner on 6ar 3iscipline. Accordin$ to the Commissioner
Att). cooperated in ille$al practice in ,iolation of #ule C.04 (ased on the ff. e,idence: 748 letterhead of Cristal-
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Tenorio La! office !ith Felicisimo as senior partner 728 Sa$ip #adio Comm. @roup card of AAtt). Felicisimo
TenorioB 798 an ordered () the *TCC !here Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel.
An) la!)er !ho allo!s a non-mem(er of the 6ar to misrepresent himself as a la!)er is $uilt) of ,iolatin$
rule C.04. The la!)er?s dut) to pre,ent or not assist in the unauthori%ed practice of la! is founded on pu(lic
interest and polic). The purpose is to protect the pu(lic the client the (ar and the court from the incompetence
and dishonest) of those unlicensed to practice.
45 TAN TE> .ENG 9 DAVID
Facts:
Tan Te- 6en$ is a non-la!)er !hile 3a,id is a la!)er. 3a,id drafted a contract si$ned () him and Tan Te- 6en$
statin$ amon$ others that A'n all commissions and attorne)?s fees that !e shall recei,e from our clients !e shall
di,ide fift)-fift).B /n the same contract 3a,id also a$reed not to deal directl) !ith their clients.
The (usiness relationship (et!een 3a,id and Tan Te- 6en$ did not last since there !ere mutual accusations of
dou(lecross.
Tan Te- 6en$ accused 3a,id of not compl)in$ !ith the a$reement and denounced the latter to then <residential
Assistant #onaldo Namora to the 'ffice of Ci,il #elations at Camp Crame and to the Supreme Court. 2e did not
file an) action to enforce the a$reement.
1hile the case !as (ein$ in,esti$ated () the Solicitor @eneral Tan Ta- 6en$ died. This case !as su(mitted for
decision.
/ssue:
1=& the a$reement !as ,alid.
2eld: &'.
The a$reement is ,oid (ecause it !as tantamount to malpractice !hich is Athe practice of solicitin$ cases at la!
for the purpose of $ain either personall) or throu$h paid a$ents or (ro-ers.B This meanin$ is in consonance !ith
the principle that the practice of la! is a profession not a (usiness.
The commerciali%ation of la! practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted () the
American 6ar Association:
A9:. &o di,ision of fees for le$al ser,ices is proper e5cept !ith another la!)er (ased upon a di,ision
of ser,ice or responsi(ilit).B
A95. The professional ser,ices of a la!)er should not (e controlled or e5ploited () an) la! a$enc)
personal or corporate !hich inter,enes (et!een client and la!)erWB
3a,id should ha,e -no!n (etter than to enter and act upon such ,oid and unethical a$reement.
2e is reprimanded for (ein$ $uilt) of malpractice.
44 PEOPLE 9 DE LUNA
FACTS:
3e Luna "T al. respondents -no! that the) did not pass the (as e5amination. Althou$h the) sou$ht admission
under the 6ar Flun-ers Act the) !ere notified of the decision of the SC den)in$ their petitions. 6ut
not!ithstandin$ their dis+ualification to (e admitted to the (ar the) too- their oaths as la!)ers (efore a notar)
pu(lic and formall) ad,ised the SC of such oath ta-in$ and that the) !ill en$a$e in the practice of la! in all courts
of the <hilippines
#TC: not $uilt) of contempt of court unless the respondents actuall) en$a$ed in the practice of la! or held
out to the pu(lic that the) are la!)ers () means of circulars
/SS0":
1=& the act of the respondents of ta-in$ their oath (efore a notar) pu(lic constitutes contempt of court
2"L3:
I"S>
The oath as la!)er is a prere+uisite to the practice of la! and ma) (e ta-en onl) (efore the SC () those
authori%ed () the latter to en$a$e in such practice.
#espondents clearl) defied and challen$ed the orders of the SC () !illfull) ta-in$ the la!)er?s oath (efore the
notar) pu(lic despite the resolution of the SC den)in$ their petition to (e admitted to the (ar.
The rulin$ of the lo!er court is !ron$ for Aassumin$ to (e an attorne) 5 5 5 and actin$ as such !ithout
authorit)B is onl) one of the $rounds under #ule 6: section 9.
Also () ta-in$ the oath of office as attorne)-at-la! and notif)in$ the SC of !hat the) had done and their intent to
practice la! in all courts of the <hilippines the respondents had for all intent and purposes held out to the pu(lic
as such as attorne)-at-la!
The case is remanded to the court of ori$in
5: PHILIPPINE LAWYERS 9 AGRAVA
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
A$ra,a is the 3irector of the <hilippines <atent 'ffice 7<<'8.
A$ra,a issued a circular announcin$ that there !ill (e an e5amination to determine !ho are +ualified to practice
as patent attorne)s (efore the <<'.
<hil. La!)er?s Assoc. 7<LA8 filed this case for prohi(ition and inDunction a$ainst A$ra,a.
<LA: one !ho passes the (ar is licensed to practice la! and is +ualified to practice (efore the <<'. A$ra,a is in
e5cess of his Durisdiction in issuin$ the additional +ualification
A$ra,a: prosecution of patent cases does not in,ol,e entirel) or purel) the practice of la! (ut includes the
application of scientific and technical -no!led$e. That li-e his 0S counterpart he can re+uire additional
re+uirements to practice (efore the <<'.
Ta-e note E A$ra,a has (een issuin$ e5aminations (efore (ut it !as onl) no! that this po!er has (een contended
/ssue:
1=& appearance (efore the <<' constitutes or is included in the practice of la!
2eld:
Ies it is still !ithin the am(it Apractice of la!B. A$ra,a is in e5cess of his Durisdiction !hen he re+uires an
additional e5amination for la!)ers.
The SC has the e5clusi,e and constitutional po!er !ith respect to admission to the practice of la! in the
<hilippines.
The practice of la! em(races an) acti,it) in or out of court !hich re+uires the application of la! le$al principle
practice or procedure and calls for le$al -no!led$e trainin$ and e5perience.
Althou$h it is admitted that there is some technicalit) in,ol,ed in the !or- for <<' (ut e,er)thin$ still $oes (ac-
to the <atent la! as !ell as other la!s.
As to A$ra,a?s contention that he has the authorit) Dust li-e his 0S counterpart this contention is !ron$. The <hil.
<atent la! and the 0S <atent la! are different as to the sections in,ol,in$ the po!ers of the director. &o!here in
the <hilippine la! is it pro,ided for that the director has the po!er to re+uire additional e5aminations for
attorne)s.
51 SANTOS 9 LLAMAS
FACTS:
Soliman Santos a mem(er of the 6ar filed a complaint for misrepresentation and non-pa)ment of (ar
mem(ership dues a$ainst Att). Francisco Llamas
Santos (ases his claims on the $rounds that 48 Llamas has (een dismissed as <asa) Cit) .ud$e and 28 his
con,iction for estafa
Llamas contends that 48 his dismissal !as re,ersed and set aside 28 that his principal occupation !as a farm
!hich he had declared in his /ncome Ta5 #eturn. And moreo,er since he !as a senior citi%en he !as e5empt in
pa)in$ 7in pursuant to Sec : #A J:928and that Llamas (elie,ed in $ood faith that he is onl) allo!ed a limited
practice
/SS0": 1o& Llamas can (e held administrati,el) lia(leG
2"L3: I"S.
#AT/':
48 a la!)er () indicatin$ Y6<- #i%al 5555 in his pleadin$s there() misrepresentin$ to the pu(lic and the courts that
he had paid his /6< due is $uilt) of ,iolatin$W
a. #ule 4.04 A la!)er shall not en$a$e in unla!ful dishonet immoral or deceitful conduct
(. Canon J- A la!)er shall at all timed uphold the inte$rit) and di$nit) of the le$al profession and support
the acti,ities of the /6<
c. Canon 40 E A la!)er o!es candor fairness and $ood faith to the Court
d. #ule 40.04- A la!)er shall not do an) falsehood nor consent to the doin$ of an) court nor shall he
mislead or allo! the court to (e misled () an artifice
28 a la!)er?s failure to pa) his /6< dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadin$s that he filed in court indeed merit the
most se,ere penalt) --- 2'1"H"# in ,ie! of Llamas?ad,anced a$e his e5press !illin$ness to pa) his dues and plea for a
more temperate application of the la! the Court held a penalt) of 4 )ear suspension or until he paid his dues as
appropriate.
52 FAR EASTERN SHIPPING 9 CA
Facts:
*=H <a,lodar o!ned and operated () the Far "astern Shippin$ Compan) 7F"SC8 arri,ed at the port of *anila. Senen
@a,ino !as assi$ned () the *anila <ilotOs Association 7*<A8 to conduct doc-in$ manue,ers for the safe (erthin$ of the
,essel. @a,ino stationed himself in the (rid$e !ith the master of the ,essel Hictor Qa,an-o, (eside him.
1hen the ,essel !as alread) a(out 2000 feet from the pier @a,ino ordered the anchor dropped. Qa,an-o, rela)ed the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
orders to the cre! of the ,essel. 2o!e,er the anchor did not hold as e5pected. The speed of the ,essel did not slac-en.
A commotion ensued (et!een the cre! mem(ers. 1hen @a,ino in+uired a(out the commotion Qa,an-o, assured @a,ino
that there !as nothin$ to it.
The (o! of the ,essel rammed into the apron of the pier causin$ considera(le dama$e to the pier. <<A filed a complaint
for a sum of mone) a$ainst F"SC @a,ino and *<A. CA ruled in fa,or of <<A holdin$ them lia(le !ith *<A 7emplo)er of
Qa,an-o,8 entitled to
reim(ursement from @a,ino.
/ssue:
Are the counsels for the parties committed acts !hich re+uire the e5ercise of the courtOs disciplinar) po!ersG
2eld:
I"S. The records sho! that the la! firm of 3el #osario and 3el #osario thru its associate Att) Tria is the the counsel of
record for F"SC in (oth @# no 49006; and @# no 490450. @# 49006; !hich is assi$ned to the CourtOs second di,ision
commenced !ith the filin$ of a ,erified motion for e5tension of time !hich contained a certification a$ainst forum
shoppin$ si$ned () counsel Tria statin$ that to the (est of his
-no!led$e there is no action or proceedin$ pendin$ in the SC CA or an) other tri(unal.
#e,ie!in$ the records the court finds that the petition filed () *<A in @# no 490450 then pendin$ !ith the third di,ision
!as dul) filed !ith a cop) thereof furnished () re$istered mail to counsel for F"SC 7att) Tria8. /t !ould (e fair to conclude
that !hen F"SC filed its petition @# no 49006; it !ould aread) ha,e recei,ed a cop) of the cop) of the petition () *<A. /t
!a therefore encum(ent upon F"SC
to inform the court of the pendin$ action. 6ut considerin$ that it !as a superfluit) at that sta$e of the proceedin$ it
(ein$ unnecessar) to file such certification of non forum shoppin$ !ith a mere motion for e5tension the court disre$arded
such error.
'n the other hand it too- the 'S@ representin$ <<A an ordinatel) and unreasona(l) lon$ period of time to file its
comment thus undul) dela)in$ the resolution of these cases. /n @# no 49006; it too- 240 da)s (efore the 'S@ filed its
comment. F"SC !as not e,en furnished !ith a cop). /n @r no 490450 it too- 4;0 da)s (efore comment !as filed. This
disinclination of the 'S@ to seasona(l) file re+uired pleadin$s constitutes deplora(le disser,ice to the pu(lic and can onl)
(e cate$ori%ed as inefficienc) on the part of the $o,t la! office.
Counsel for F"SC the la! firm of 3el #osario and 3el #osario specificall) its asscociate Tria is reprimaded and !arned
that a repetition of the same acts shall (e dealt !ith se,erel).
The ori$inal mem(ers of the le$al tean of the 'S@ are admonished and !arned tha a repetition shall also (e dealt !ith
more strin$entl).
6a-a lan$ itanon$ -un$ ano rulin$: The decision of the CA is affirmed. @a,ino *<A and F"SC are declared solidaril) lia(le
!ith *<A entitled to reim(ursement from @a,ino for such amount of the adDud$ed pecuniar) lia(ilit) in e5cess of the
amount e+ui,alent to J5K of its prescri(ed reser,ed fund.
53 COMELEC 9 NOYNAY
Facts:
.ud$e Tomas &o)na) ordered the records of a certain election case to (e !ithdra!n and directed to the Comelec.
The case !as a$ainst 3iosdada Amor a pu(lic school principal and other pu(lic school teachers for ha,in$
,iolated the 'mni(us "lection Code: for ha,in$ en$a$ed in partisan political acti,ities.
Comelec !anted to prosecute Amor et al. 7This case is irrele,ant to the main case8
Apparentl) the ma5imum imposa(le penalt) in each of the cases does not e5ceed 6 )ears.
The Dud$e dismissed the cases usin$ as (asis the .udiciar) #eor$ani%ation Act: &ot e5ceedin$ 6 )ears not !ith
#TC (ut !ith *TC.
6ut the 'mni(us "lection Code states that the re$ional trial court shall ha,e the Ae5clusi,e Durisdiction to tr) and
decide an) criminal action or proceedin$s for ,iolation of this code MMMB
A closer readin$ of the .udiciar) #eor$ani%ation Act 7in its first sentence sa)s8: A"5cept in cases fallin$ !ithin the
ori$inal Durisdiction of the #e$ional Trial Court MMMB
The 'mni(us "lection Code is an older la! , the .udiciar) "lection Act
.ud$e &o)na) Adid not read at all the openin$ sentence of the .udiciar) "lection ActB !hen he dismissed the
cases.
Comelec?s la!)er !as Att). .ose 6al(uena from the Comelec le$al department.
/n his *otion for #econsideration 7see p 2698 he +uoted the memorandum of te Court Administrator 7not the SC8
and made it appear that these !ere the !ords of the SC.
2e cited a case (ut erroneousl):
o 1hat he used: AAl(erto &alde%aB=Al(erto
o Al(erto &aldo%a
2e said the case !as in ,olume 2:5 of the SC#A (ut it !as reall) in ,olume 25:.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/ssue:
1=& .ud$e &o)na) has the Durisdiction to handle the election cases in his sala.
2eld:
7#C &ote: parts of the SC decision !ere in the AFactsB portion since )ou !ill not understand the case if / placed it
in the (ottomB
Ies.
.ud$e &o)na) and Att). 6al(uena should also (e admonished.
The Dud$e should (e reminded of his dut) to (e studious of the principles of la! to administer his office !ith due
re$ard to the inte$rit) of the s)stem of the la! itself to (e faithful to the la! and to maintain professional
competence.
6al(uena should also (e admonished for his utter carelessness in his references.
#ule 40.02 mandates that a la!)er shall not -no!in$l) mis+uote or misrepresent the te5t of a decision or
authorit).
54 RIVERA 9 CORRAL
Facts:
A decision in a case for eDectment !as sent to Att) Corral. 2is secretar) recei,ed the decision on Fe( 29 4CC0.
'n *arch 49 4CC0 Att) Corral filed a notice of appeal. The ne5t da) Corral !ent to the 'ffice of the Cler- of
Court to chan$e the date of receipt of the decision from Fe( 29 to Fe( 2C 7!hich !as later chan$ed to Fe( 2;
!hen Corral reali%ed that there !as no Fe( 2C that )ear8. <ara hindi si)a ma-dis+ualif) n$ 45-da) appeal period.
#i,era filed a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst Att) Corral for tamperin$ the court?s records !ithout such court?s
permission or -no!led$e.
The /6< in,esti$atin$ committee affirmed the char$es and recommended suspension. Later on the /6< 6oard
ordered Corral?s suspension.
Corral claims he !as not afforded due process or hearin$.
/ssue:
Can Att) Corral (e suspendedG
2eld:
Ies. Contrar) to Corral?s claim that he !as not afforded due process he !as in fact $i,en the opportunit) to present his
e,idence durin$ the course of the proceedin$s. Accordin$ to the records the hearin$s had to (e rescheduled se,eral times
to accommodate his re+uests. 6ut he did not appear on the scheduled hearin$s. 2e cannot no! claim that he !as denied
due process.
/t should (e remem(ered that the essence of due process is simpl) an opportunit) to (e heard.
The Court finds that Att) Corral ,iolated his oath () en$a$in$ in unla!ful dishonest or deceitful conduct. 6) alterin$ the
material dates to ma-e it appear that the notice of appeal !as timel) filed Corral committed an act of dishonest). A
suspension for 4 )ear is !arranted.
55 YOUNG 9 .ATUEGAS
FACTS
I'0&@ is the pri,ate prosecutor in <eople of the <hil , Arana
6AT0"@AS et al are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case
'n 3ec 49 2000 6AT0"@AS filed a *anifestation !ith *otion for 6ail alle$in$ that the accused has ,oluntaril)
surrendered to a person in authorit) and as such is no! under detention
0pon ,erification !ith the &6/ I'0&@ disco,ered that the accused surrendered on 3ec 4: 2000 7not !"8
6AT0"@AS et al in their defense alle$ed that
o 'n 3ec 49 2000 upon learnin$ that a !arrant of arrest !as issued a$ainst their client the) filed a
*anifestation !ith *otion for 6ail
o The) immediatel) fetched accused from Ca,ite and (rou$ht him to &6/ to ,oluntaril) surrender
o 2o!e,er due to hea,) traffic the) arri,ed at &6/ at 2am the ne5t da)
o That !as !h) the Certificate of 3etention indicated that the accused surrendered on 3ec 4: 2000 and
not 49
o As to lac- of notice I'0&@ (ein$ a pri,ate prosecutor is not entitled to such as onl) the State and Cit)
prosecutors should (e $i,en notices
/n,esti$atin$ Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months
/6< Commission on 6ar 3iscipline in a resolution appro,ed said recommendation
ISSUE W<N .ATUEGAS' ET AL ARE GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND SHOULD .E SUSPENDED
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
HELD YES' CONCEALED TRUTH
RATIO
A la!)er must (e a disciple of truth
2e s!ore upon his admission that he !ill do no falsehood nor consent to the doin$ of an) in court
As officer of the court his hi$h ,ocation is to correctl) inform the court upon the la! and facts of the case to aid it
in arri,in$ at the correct conclusion
The courts on the other hand are entitled to e5pect onl) complete honest) from la!)ers appearin$ and pleadin$
(efore them
2is a la!)er?s solemn dut) is to defend his client his conduct must ne,er (e at the e5pense of truth
/n the case at (ar 6AT0"@AS et al feel short of the duties and responsi(ilities e5pected of them as mem(ers of
the (ar
Anticipatin$ that their *otion for 6ail !ill (e denied () the Court found that it had no Durisdiction o,er the person
of the accused the) craftil) concealed the truth alle$in$ that the accused had ,oluntaril) surrendered
To -no!in$l) alle$e an untrue statement in the pleadin$ is a contemptuous conduct that the Court stron$l)
condemns
6AT0"@AS et al ,iolated their oath !hen the) resorted to deception
2ence 6AT0"@AS et al should (e suspended for 6 months
56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO 9 FLORIDO
Facts:
&atasha 2ue)su!an-Florido 72-F8 filed this administrati,e complaint a$ainst her hus(and .ames Florido for
,iolatin$ his oath as a la!)er () manufacturin$ flauntin$ and usn$ a spurious and (o$us CA resolution=order.
2-F admits that she and her hus(and li,e separatel). The) ha,e t!o children. Sometime in 3ec. 2004 Florido
!ent to 2-F?s house and sho!ed her a photocop) of a resolution issued () the CA apparentl) $i,in$ to Florido the
le$al custod) of their children. 2-F dou(ted the authenticit) of the CA resolution so she did not $i,e her children
to Florido.
Then in 2002 !hile 2-F and her children !ere in the A6C Learnin$ Center Florido arri,ed accompanied () armed
men. Florido demanded that 2-F surrender custod) of their children to him. 2-F fearin$ for her children?s safet)
called the police. /n the police station 2-F a$reed to let the children sleep !ith Florido Dust for one ni$ht at a
hotel. 6ut !hen 2-F heard of ne!s that Florido !as plannin$ to ta-e the children to 6acolod she immediatel)
too- them a!a).
Florido then filed a petition for a !rit of ha(eas corpus on the (asis of the CA resolution he presented to 2-F
earlier. This petition !as dismissed (ecause Florido did not appear and 2-F presented a certification from the CA
that there !as no resolution $rantin$ Florido !ith le$al custod) of their children.
Thus this present action. The /6< has recommended that Florido (e suspended from the practice of la! for 6
)ears.
/ssue:
1=n Florido should (e held lia(le for his actions.
2eld:
SC sa)s that Florido should (e held lia(le. 2e ,iolated Canon 40 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
particularl) #ule 40.04 and 40.02 () his act of ma-in$ up a spurious CA resolution and usin$ such false resolution
to his aad,anta$e.
The SC thin-s that suspension of 6 )ears is too much so the) lo!ered the penalt) to Dust a 2-)ear suspension.
57 ESTRADA 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Facts: Att). <a$uia is the counsel of .oseph "strada in the case of "strada ,s. Arro)o. Att). <a$uia asserts that the
mem(ers of the Supreme Court should inhi(it themsel,es from hearin$ the petition (ecause of R+%" 501: )3 (-"
C)&" )3 J+&212a% C),&+1( !hich prohi(its Dud$es from participatin$ in partisan political acti,ities. Accordin$ the
Att). <a$uia the Dustices ha,e ,iolated the rule () participatin$ in the "3SA 2 rall) and authori%in$ the assumption
of office () <resident Arro)o.
The Sandi$an(a)an denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Att). <a$uia to dismiss all the
criminal cases a$ainst "strada. Att). <a$uia attac-ed the decision of the Court in the case of "strada ,s. Arro)o ()
sa)in$: similar in the decisions in,ol,in$ admin. a$encies if the act of the Dustices is la!ful it is the act of the
Supreme Court and if the act of the Dud$es is not la!ful it is not the act of the Supreme Court. As such Att).
<a$uia asserts that the decision in "strada ,s. Arro)o (ein$ unla!ful in ,ie! of #ule 5.40 of Code of .udicial
Conduct is not the act of the SC.
Att). <a$uia repeated his assault on the court in (oth (roadcast and print media. For that reason the
court as-ed him to sho! cause !h) he should not (e sanctioned.
/ssue: 1=& Att). <a$uia should (e sanctioned for conduct un(ecomin$.
2eld: A((0 Pa/+2a 2* *a,1(2),"&0 H" 2* 2,&"32,2("% *+*$",&"& 3#)m $#a1(21" )3 %a70
Canon 44 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) mandates the la!)er should o(ser,e and maintain
the respect due to the courts and Dudicial officers. /n li(erall) imputin$ sinister and de,ious moti,es and
+uestionin$ the impartialit) inte$rit) and authorit) of the mem(ers of the court Att). <a$uia has onl) succeeded
see-in$ to impede o(struct and per,ert the dispensation of Dustice.
Att). <a$uia has also (een called to the mandate of #ule 49.02 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
prohi(itin$ a mem(er of the (ar from ma-in$ such pu(lic statements on a case that ma) tend to arouse pu(lic
opinion for or a$ainst a part).
55 TIONGCO 9 AGUILAR
7Canon 40 *orada8
Facts:
Att). Tion$co filed a petition !ith the Supreme Court for a re,ie! of a lo!er court?s decision.
The petition contained malicious and intemperate lan$ua$e. Tion$co stated that the decision of the trial court
.ud$e !as Acrafted to fool the !innin$ part)B Aa h)pocritical Dud$ment in plaintiff?s fa,orB Ait !as the de,il !ho
dictated itB Athe .ud$e !as confused (ein$ (orn and raised amon$st the non-propertied classB
Tion$co also filed a pleadin$ !ith the SC statin$ that Ait is hard to ima$ine that this 2onora(le Court had read the
petition and hold that the same failed to sufficientl) sho! that the respondent Court had committed $ra,e a(use
of discretion.B
/n a pre,ious resolution the SC re+uired Att). .ose 6. Tion$co to sho! cause !h) he should not (e dealt !ith
administrati,el) for the ,iolation of Canon 44 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit).
/n Tion$co?s Compliance he alle$es that the SC failed to mention that he also called the Dud$e a Aro((erB Aa
rotten manipulatorB and Aa(etter of $raft and shad) deals.B
/ssue:
1=& Tion$co must (e held administrati,el) lia(le.
2eld: I"S
Att). Tion$co did not at all sho! cause !h) he should not (e dealt !ith administrati,el). 1hile Tion$co tried to
Dustif) as true his descriptions of the .ud$e as AliarB AthiefB AperfidiousB and A(lasphemerB he did not offer an)
e5cuse for the other intemperate !ords and phrases he used. &either did he sho! their rele,ance to the petition.
6) insinuatin$ that this Court did not at all read the petition Tion$co e5hi(ited $ross disrespect and attempted to
discredit the *em(ers of the First 3i,ision. 2e char$ed them !ith ,iolatin$ their dut) to render Dustice and he
there() promoted distrust in Dudicial administration.
2e also sho!ed disrespect to and contempt for the respondent Dud$e there() diminishin$ pu(lic confidence in
the latter and in the Dudiciar).
Althou$h a la!)er has the ri$htLe,en the dut)Lto critici%e the courts this ri$ht must (e e5ercised responsi(l).
The criticism must (e (ona fide !ithout usin$ lan$ua$e that !ould tend to create or promote distrust in Dudicial
administration and undermine the people?s confidence in the inte$rit) of the mem(ers of this Court.
54 RHEEM OF THE PHILS 9 FERRER
FACTS:
The SC issued an order directin$ Att). Armonio and the senior partners in his la! firm to sho! to cause !h) the)
should not (e dealt !ith for contempt of court
The la! firm of <once "nrile. Si$iuon #e)ne etc. ar$ued that:
o /t has ne,er (een their intent to (e disrespectful
o /t !as the result of o,erenthusiasm on the part of Att). Armonio !ho thou$ht (est to focus the attention
of the court to the issue in the case and !as not in an) !a) meant to sli$ht or offend the court.
o /t !as (ecause Att). Armonio (ecame emotionall) in,ol,ed in the case
o &ot one of the partners !as a(le to pass upon the draft or final form of the said motion and that Att).
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Armonio an associate prepared si$ned and filed the motion !ithout clearin$ it !ith an) one of the
partner of the firm
/SS0":
1=& Att). Armonio and the partners in his firm must (e held in contempt (ecause of the disrespectful lan$ua$e
contained of the pleadin$ prepared () Att). Armonio.
2"L3:
The SC decided that Att). Armonio (e !arned that repetition of the incident !ill (e dealt !ith more se,erel) and
that necessar) attention must (e emplo)ed () the partners in e5ercisin$ ade+uate super,ision and control of the
pleadin$s su(mitted () its associate
The pleadin$ !hich contained Aone pit)all into '$ic$ t$is co%rt $as repeatedly fallen '$enever t$e -%risdiction
o) t$e Co%rt o) Ind%strial Relations co&es into 1%estionB and the s!eepin$ char$e that the decisions of this court
Ablindly adhere to earlier r%lin(s 'it$o%t as &%c$ as &a2in( an+ re)erence to and anal+sis o) t$e pertinent
stat%esB implies that the court is so patentl) inept in determinin$ the Durisdiction of the industrial court it has
committed error and continuousl) repeated that error to the point of perpetuation.
/mplicit in the +uoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on the Durisdiction of the industrial court
are not entitled to respect. /t detract much from the di$nit) of and respect due this court.
/t is the dut) of la!)ers to o(ser,e and maintain the respect due to the courts of Dustice and Dudicial officers. /t is
his o(li$ation to maintain to!ards the courts a respectful attitude not for the sa-e of the temporar) incum(ents
of the Dudicial office (ut for the maintenance of its supreme importance.
/t is proscri(es to use unnecessar) lan$ua$e !hich Deopardi%es hi$h esteem in courts creates or promotes
distrust in Dudicial administration or !hich could ha,e the effect of Ahar(orin$ or encoura$in$ discontent !hich in
man) cases us the source of disorder thus underminin$ the foundation upon !hich rests that (ul!ar- called
Dudicial po!er .B
The claim of Att). Armonio that his statements !as not in an) !a) meant to sli$ht or offend this court !ant of
intention is no e5cuse for the lan$ua$e emplo)ed. 'ne cannot escape responsi(ilit) () claimin$ his !ords did not
mean !hat an) reader must ha,e understood them as meanin$.
6: ANDRES 9 CA.RERA
Facts:
Stanle) #. Ca(rera 7Ca(rera8 !as a successful (ar e5aminee in 4CJJ.
Att). "milia Andres !as a le$al officer in the *inistr) of La(or. She dismissed a case filed () Ca(rera?s mother
a$ainst a certain Att). <ere%.
6ecause of the dismissal Ca(rera filed !ith the cit) fiscal of *anila criminal char$es a$ainst Andres 7$raft and
corruption falsification of pu(lic documents8
Andres then filed a case of dis+ualification a$ainst Ca(rera. Ca(rera apparentl) used in his affida,it ,ile inci,il
and uncouth lan$ua$e 7e.$. moronic unparalleled stupidit) idiotic8
Ca(rera?s oath-ta-in$ !as therefore postponed. The SC re+uired him to file an ans!er to !h) he should not (e
dis+ualified. /n Ca(rera?s repl) he still used unfit lan$ua$e 7e.$. callin$ Att). Andres a moron8. /n su(se+uent
motions () Ca(rera he used the !ords Aa ,ictim of the court?s inhuman and cruel punishment throu$h its
supreme inactionB
4CJC: The court thereafter deferred his oath-ta-in$ until he has sho!n that he has chan$ed his !a)s. Ca(rera
then filed a motion for contempt of court. And $uess !hat he still used unfit lan$ua$e 7e.$. supreme stupidit)
de$radation of the administration of Dustice8
&api-on )ata )un$ SC the) re+uired Ca(rera to file a repl) to !h) he should not (e held in contempt. Ca(rera
filed an apolo$) (ut $uess !hat the lan$ua$e he used !ere still unfit and e,en insincere.
/ssue:
1=& Ca(rera should (e held in contempt
2eld:
Ies> Fine of <500 and imprisonment for 50 da)s.
The dut) to o(ser,e and maintain the respect due the courts de,ol,es not onl) upon la!)ers (ut also upon those
!ho !ill choose to enter the profession. Their failure to dischar$e such dut) ma) pre,ent them from (ein$
inducted into the office of attorne).
<i-on )un$ Supreme Court hu!a$ ni)o silan$ su(u-an.
61 CO..;PERE8 9 LANTIN

FACTS:
#icardo 2ermoso commenced a ci,il case a$ainst 3amaso <ere% and @re$orio Sum(on$ for reco,er) of sum of
<4J90C.:: representin$ unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturin$ (usiness of
2ermoso. .ud$ment !as rendered in fa,or of 2ermoso orderin$ the defendants to (e held Doint) and se,erall)
lia(le.
The Sheriff of *anila le,ied upon the shares of common stoc- re$istered in 3amaso <ere%?name !ith the #epu(lic
6an-.
<etitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the e5ecution of Dud$ment. 7and the) mana$ed to ha,e the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
sale suspended 658
o The) alle$ed that le,) !as hi$hl) e5cessi,e and unDust
o ",en the !ife of 3amaso <ere% filed to lift the !rit of e5ecution alle$in$ that the shares of stoc- !ere
conDu$al assets and that the de(t !as a personal o(li$ation.
/SS0": 1o& petitioners restored to tric-) snea-) and maneu,erin$ tactics to th!art the ends of DusticeG
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. 3urin$ the protracted liti$ation the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions at some sta$es
alternatin$l) a(etted () their counsel for the sole purpose of th!artin$ the e5ecution of a simple mone) Dud$ment !hich
has lon$ (ecome final and e5ecutor). Some of the actions !ere filed onl) to (e a(andoned or !ithdra!n. The petitioners
and their counsel far from ,ie!in$ courts as sanctuaries for those !ho see- Dustice ha,e tried to use them to su(,ert the
,er) ends of Dustice.
62 MAGAT 9 SANTIAGO
Facts:
For dela)in$ the termination of an unla!ful detainer case () filin$ multiple petitions (efore the SC in,ol,in$ the same
su(Dect matters and cause of action !hich !ere attempts () the same part) and his counsel to dela) enforcement of a
Dud$ment that has lon$ (ecome final and e5ecutor) the SC suspended Att) *a$at from the practice of la! .
The court in rulin$ for the suspension of *a$at stated that a la!)er o!es the dut) of $ood faith and honora(le dealin$ to
the Dudicial tri(unal (efore !hom he practices his profession. /nherent in that o(li$ation is the dut) to assist in the speed)
disposition of cases.
Att) *a$at and mem(ers of his famil) is no! pra)in$ for Dudicial clemenc) e5pressin$ their profound re$ret for his past
misconduct and his a,o!al ot amend his !a)s in ,ie! if the said famil)Os financial and economic difficulties to his ina(ilit)
to earn his li,elihood as a la!)er. This plea has (een reiterated for a period of more than 2 )ears since his suspension.
/ssue:
1=n the suspension should (e terminated...
2eld:
I"S. The court is satisfied that *a$at appreciates the si$nificance of his dereliction and he has assured the court that he
no! possesses the re+uisite pro(it) and inte$rit) necesar) to $uarantee that he is !orth) to (e restored to the practice of
la!.
63 MILLARE 9 MONTERO
Facts:
7#C &ote: The first part of the case is pointless. /t Dust !ants to impress on )ou that Att). *ontero used
procedure to circum,ent the administration of Dustice8
<acfica *illare the mother of the complainant o(tained a fa,ora(le Dud$ment a$ainst "lsa Co. The case !as for
eDectment filed !ith the *TC.
The Dud$ment of the *TC (ecame final and e5ecutor) on &o,em(er 4C;6.
&umerous appeals=complaints=petitions !ere filed to frustrate the e5ecution of the *TC Dud$ment. The summar)
of !hich is in pa$e ;. There is no need to -no! !hat the) are thou$h.
/ssue:
1=& Att). *ontero?s acts are Dustified.
2eld:
&o.
*ontero should (e suspended for one )ear as recommended () the /6< !hich found him $uilt) of malpractice.
.ud$in$ from the num(er of actions filed *ontero is also $uilt) of forum shoppin$.
6) ha,in$ !illfull) and -no!in$l) a(used his ri$hts of recourse in his efforts to $et a fa,ora(le Dud$ment !hich
efforts !ere all re(uffed respondents ,iolated the dut) of a mem(er of the 6ar to institute actions onl) !hich are
Dust and put up such defenses as he percei,es to (e trul) contesta(le under the la!s.
*ontero has made a moc-er) of the Dudicial process. And disre$arded the canons in intentionall) frustratin$ the
ri$hts of a liti$ant in !hose fa,or a Dud$ment in the case !as rendered: thus a(used procedural rules to defeat
the ends of su(stantial Dustice.
64 ETERNAL GARDENS 9 CA
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
Seelin spouses filed a case a$ainst Central 3)ein$ for +uietin$ of title. The spouses !on and the decision in their
fa,or (ecame final an e5ecutor).
1hen the spouses filed a *otion for an /mmediate 1rit of <ossession "ternal @ardens *emorial <ar- Corp
opposed claimin$ that it is the true and re$istered o!ner of the propert)Lha,in$ (ou$ht the same from Central
3)ein$ in $ood faith. /t also ar$ued that it !as not (ound () the decision since it !as not impleaded in the case.
6ut the trial court fa,ored the spouses and dismissed "ternal @arden?s claim since the Dud$ment 7in the +uetin$ of
title case8 !as (indin$ upon the latter (ein$ the successor-in-interest of Central 3)ein$. The CA on the same
$rounds denied "ternal @arden?s appeal.
So Seelin spouses filed for a second !rit of e5ecution. 3ahil sa ma-ulit 7not to mention optimistic8 si "ternal
@ardens na$-file pa ito ulit n$ motion reconsideration. /t further contended that since there is a pendin$ issue on
possession 7a different case8 such should first (e resol,ed (efore a !rit of possession (e issued to the spouses.
Said motion !as initiall) $ranted (ut !as later denied. So na$-file n$ certiorari si "ternal sa CA. And of course
the) filed the case to the SC essentiall) !ith the same ar$uments.

/ssue:
/s "ternal @ardens (ound () the decision in the +uietin$ of title caseG

2eld:
Ies. 2a,in$ admitted that the) (ou$ht the propert) from Central 3)ein$ "ternal @ardens is the former?s successor-in-
interest !ho !ill (e (ound () the Dud$ment. *oreo,er (ein$ a transferee it does not ha,e to (e included or impleaded ()
name in an action a$ainst the transferorLaccordin$ to the #ules of Court.
As to the fear that o!ners of the $ra,e lots !ill (e distur(ed () the !rit the order of the court sho!s that it too- into
account the interests of such lot o!nersLin fact certain limits !ere pro,ided. 2ence the e5ecution of the Dud$ment need
not necessaril) desecrate these properties.
T!hat?s rele,ant to ethics:
The case has dela)ed the e5ecution of a final Dud$ment for 4J )ears. 1hile la!)ers o!e entire de,otion to the interests of
their client?s ri$hts the) should not for$et that the) are officers of the court (ound to e5ert e,er) effort to assist in the
speed) and efficient administration of Dustice. The) should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of Dustice
or undul) dela) a case or impede the e5ecution of a Dud$ment.
65 SPS GALEN 9 PAGUIRIGAN
Spouses @alen #asdas and Hilla 7C'*<LA/&A&TS8 !ere defendants in a ci,il case for reco,er) of a residential lot.
<A@0/#/@A& !as their attorne). .ud$ment !as rendered in fa,or of the C'*<LA/&A&TS. Trustin$ in the a(le
representation of Att) <A@0/#/@A& the C'*<LA/&A&TS continued the ser,ices of the said la!)er !hen the plaintiff in the
ci,il case appealed.
The C'*<LA/&A&TS !ere informed that the CA re,ersed the trial court?s decision. 0pon in+uir) in the CA the
C'*<LA/&A&TS found out Att) <A@0/#/@A& failed to file an appellees? (rief in their (ehalf. 1hen C'*<LA/&A&TS
confronted <A@0/#/@A& the la!)er assured them that he !ould see- a re,ie! of the decision of the CA. The
C'*<LA/&A&TS $a,e <A@0/#/@A& <40000 for doc-et fees.
'n 'ct 4: 4CCJ <A@0/#/@A& filed a motion for e5tension of time to file a petition for re,ie! on certiorari !hich the SC
$ranted in its resolution dated &o, 4C 4CCJ. 'n &o, 20 4CCJ <A@0/#/@A& filed the petition. 2o!e,er it !as denied for
ha,in$ (een filed out of time the due date (ein$ &o, 4: 4CCJ. Su(se+uentl) the C'*<LA/&A&TS !ere surprised to
recei,e a !rit of e5ecution issued () the trial court.
2ence this petition.
<A@0/#/@A& alle$es that he a$reed to represent the C'*<LA/&A&TS !ithout remuneration !hen their former counsel
!ithdre! that he did not file an appellees (rief since the filin$ of the same thou$h re+uired is not mandator) and that the
Court $ranted his motion for e5tension (elatedl) considerin$ that the 90 da) e5tension !as to e5pire on &o, 4: 4CCJ (ut
the SC acted on it onl) on &o, 4C 4CCJ.
ISSUE W<N PAGUIRIGAN SHOULD .E PUNISHED FOR NEGLIGENCE
HELD YES' FOR FAILING TO FILE PETITION AFTER .EEN GRANTED EDTENSION OF TIME
<A@0/#/@A& !as clearl) ne$li$ent in the performance of his duties. 2e admits that he failed to file the appellees? (rief
!hich Dust sho!s the ca,alier attitude he too- to!ards his clients? cause. Althou$h the failure to file the appellee?s (rief in
a case is not a $round for an ad,erse rulin$ the importance of filin$ an appellees? (rief cannot (e $ainsaid (ecause upon
appeal the appellate court can onl) place $reat reliance on the (riefs and memoranda of the parties. Thus the failure to
su(mit these pleadin$s could ,er) !ell (e fatal to the cause of the client.
To ma-e matters !orse <A@0/#/@A& did not onl) fail to file an appellees? (rief (ut after (ein$ $ranted a 90 da) e5tension
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
of the time to file a petition for re,ie! of the decision of the CA he a$ain lost throu$h default () failin$ to file said petition.
And <A@0/#/@A&?S alle$ation a(out the SC?s (elated action on the petition onl) succeeds in sho!in$ his i$norance of 2
(asic principles: first that a part) cannot presume that his motion !ill (e $ranted and second that an) e5tension $ranted
is al!a)s counted from the last da) of the re$lementar) period !hich is 'ct 4: 4CCJ 3not )ro& t$e da+ t$e resol%tion 'as
dated4.
<A@0/#/@A& is thus $uilt) of ,iolation of #ule 42.09 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) !hich pro,ides Aa la!)er
shall not after o(tainin$ e5tensions of time to file pleadin$s memoranda and (riefs let the period lapse !ithout
su(mittin$ the same or offerin$ an e5planation for his failure to do so.B
2ence <A@0/#/@A& is suspended from the practice of la! for 6 months and ordered to refund the C'*<LA/&A&TS <40000
!ith a !arnin$ that repitition of the same act !ill (e dealt !ith e,en more se,erel).
66 SANTIAGO 9 RAFANAN
Assi$nment no. 44
Santia$o ,s. #afanan E Lope%
Facts:
This administrati,e complaint !as (rou$ht () .onar Santia$o a$ainst Att). "dison #afanan a notar) pu(lic
(ecause of the latter?s failure to 7a8 ma-e the proper notation re$ardin$ the communit) ta5 certificate of the
affiantsF 7(8 enter the details of the notari%ed documents in the notarial re$isterF and 7c8 ma-e and e5ecute the
certification and enter his <T# and /6< num(ers in the documents he had notari%ed all in ,iolation of the #e,ised
Administrati,e Code.
Santia$o also points out that #afanan made an affida,it in fa,or of his 7#afanan8 client and offered the same as
e,idence in the case !herein he 7#afanan8 !as acti,el) representin$ his client.
The /6< found #afanan $uilt) of ,iolatin$ the re+uirements of the &otarial La! and imposed a fine of 9000.
/ssue:
1=n #afanan?s acts !ere contrar) to la!.
2eld:
SC sa)s )es. /t is mandated () the &otarial La! that a notar) pu(lic should enter the num(er place of issue and
date of the Communit) Ta5 Certificate of the affiant in his affida,it. The la! also sa)s that a notar) pu(lic should
-eep a notarial re$ister to record all affida,its the) ha,e notari%ed. The) are re+uired to enter the num(er of the
re$ister and the pa$e !here a particular affida,it has (een recorded. These re+uirements are mandator) due to
the de$ree of importance and e,identiar) !ei$ht attached to notari%ed documents. 2a,in$ ,iolated these
re+uirements #afanan should (e fined.
As to the affida,it e5ecuted () #afanan in fa,or of his client the SC sa)s that this is in ,iolation of #ule 42.0; of
Canon 42 !hich sa)s that a la!)er should a,oid testif)in$ in (ehalf of his o!n client. The SC e5plained that
appearin$ (oth as counsel and !itness of a client !ill pro,o-e un-ind criticism and lea,e man) people to suspect
the truthfulness of the la!)er (ecause the) cannot (elie,e the la!)er as disinterested. '(,iousl) if a la!)er
appears as client and counsel people !ould automaticall) thin- that his testimon) as a !itness is (iased in fa,or
of his client.
3espite of this #afanan cannot (e made administrati,el) lia(le. First the SC considered that it is the dut) of a
la!)er to assert e,er) remed) and defense for the (enefit of the client. Thus in defense of his client #afanan is
supposed to do e,er)thin$ in his po!er. Since he is a !itness to the crime his affida,it is essential to the
defense of his client. 1hat he should ha,e done thou$h !as to e5empt himself from (ein$ counsel. This !ould
ensure his credi(ilit) as a !itness.
/n the end (ecause of his ,iolation of the &otarial La!s and Canon 5 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
#afanan is fined 9000.
67 .ER.ANO 9 .ARCELONA
Facts: The heirs of 2ilapo appointed Att). 3aen as their att).-in-fact. Att). 3aen !as su(se+uentl) arrested () the
*untinlupa police. The heirs of 2ilapo tried to loo- for a la!)er to secure the release of Att). 3aen. The heirs !ere
recommended to Att). 6arcelona. 1hen the spouses ,isited Att). 3aen the) learned that Att). 3aen had decided
to en$a$e the ser,ices of Att). 6arcelona. Att). 6arcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if the) could produce
<50Q he could secure the release of Att). 3aen the ne5t da). 6ecause the heirs could not produce the total
amount the) merel) $a,e <45J00.
There !ere se,eral meetin$s (et!een the heirs and Att). 6arcelona re$ardin$ the A$rease mone)B to (e
used to alle$edl) (ri(e an SC Dustice. The heirs made another pa)ment ,ia a chec- !orth <2:000. 'n another
occasion the heirs !ent to the house of Att). 6arcelona and $a,e <40000. The total amount $i,en () the heirs to
Att). 6arcelona reached <6:000.
Commissioner 6autista found Att). to (e $uilt) of malpractice and (reach of dut) and recommended that
he (e dis(arred.
/ssue: 1=& Att). 6arcelona should (e dis(arred.
2eld: A((0 .a#1"%),a *-)+%& !" &2*!a##"&0
3is(arment proceedin$s are sui $eneris. /ts intention is to safe$uard the administration of Dustice ()
protectin$ the court and pu(lic from the misconduct of the officers of the court.
/n this case Att). demonstrated a penchant for misrepresentin$ that he had connections to secure the
release of Att). 3aen. Att). 6arcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could $et the release of Att).
3aen !ith his connection !ith a Supreme Court .ustice. /nstead of promotin$ respect for la! and the le$al
processes Att). 6arcelona demeaned the le$al profession () ta-in$ mone) from a client under the prete5t of
ha,in$ connections !ith a mem(er of this court.
65 ALMARVE8 9 PAAS
Facts:
<asa) Cit) *etropolitan Trial Court .ud$e "strellita <aas administrati,el) char$ed Almar,e% a Court Aide=0tilit)
1or-er !ith discourtes) to his fello! emplo)ees ne$lect in performin$ duties 7() not maintainin$ the cleanliness
around the court premises and often (ein$ a(sent from !or-8 and solicitation of mone) 7from prisoners (efore
ser,in$ them their #elease 'rders and from liti$ants () offerin$ to di,ul$e confidential information in ad,ance of
its unauthori%ed release8.
The Court found that the aforementioned char$es !ere not supported () e,idence since those !ho filed affida,its
as e,idence a$ainst Almar,e% !ere not presented at the hearin$s. The onl) offense !hich A%ma#9"E !as found
to commit !as inefficienc) in the dischar$e of his duties. Thus he !as suspended for 9 months.
Almar,e% had filed a counterclaim alle$in$ that .ud$e <aas ordered him to under$o a dru$ test after the latter had
alread) filed an administrati,e complaint a$ainst him. #e$ardin$ this the court held that this elicits the
suspicion the .ud$e is Dust fishin$ for more e,idence to support the administrati,e case she had alread) filed
a$ainst Almar,e%. This !as held to constitute conduct un(ecomin$ of a mem(er of the Dudiciar) for !hich J+&/"
Paa* should (e dul) #"$#2ma,&"&0
/n a separate case for inhi(ition of .ud$e <aas in a criminal case it !as found that .ud$e <aas? hus(and Att).
<aas !ho is a pri,ate practitioner !as usin$ his !ife?s office address in his la! practice particularl) in a criminal
case he !as handlin$ !hich !as doc-eted at an #TC also in <asa). /n support of this char$e documents !ere
su(mitted such as 48 a &otice of Appeal si$ned () Att). <aas and 28 notices from <asa) Cit) #TC and from the
Supreme Court
This !as admitted () .ud$e <aas (ut she claims that this !as done onl) to ensure and facilitate the deli,er) of
those notices.
/ssue: 1=& .ud$e <aas and Att). <aas should (e penali%ed for allo!in$ the latter to use the office of the former as his
return address in his pri,ate practice.
2eld: I"S
0sin$ the .ud$e?s address is a su(tle !as of sendin$ a messa$e that Att). <aas is the hus(and of a Dud$e in the
same (uildin$ and should (e $i,en special treatment () other Dud$es or court personnel.
/n SC Administrati,e Circular &o. 04-CC it !as stated that court officials and emplo)ees must Ane,er use their
officesWfor an) other purpose that for court or Dudicial functions.B
Code of .udicial Conduct pro,ides that a Dud$e should a,oid impropriet) in all acti,ities and shall not allo! the use
of the Dudicial office to ad,ance the pri,ate interests of others.
SC Circular &o. 9-C2 prohi(its the use of halls of Dustice for residential or commercial purposes.
/t is unprofessional and dishonora(le to misuse a pu(lic office to enhance a la!)er?s presti$e. /t ,iolates canons
9 40 49 and 45 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit).
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
A((0 Paa* 2* *+*$",&"& 3)# 3 m),(-* 3#)m (-" $#a1(21" )3 %a7' 7-2%" J+&/" Paa* *-a%% $a a 32," )3
P12':::
64 NESTLE 9 SANCHE8
FACTS:
From .ul) ;-40 union mem(ers of 0nion of Filipro "mplo)ees or the Qim(erl) /ndependent La(or 0nion !ho filed
a case in court intensified their pic-ets that the) had (een conductin$ since .une 4J in front of the <adre Faura
$ate of the SC
3espite of the !arnin$ $i,en () the court to their leaders and counsel the pic-etin$ continued
The union mem(ers are o(structin$ the access to and e$ress from the court?s premises. The) ha,e also
constructed pro,isional shelters alon$ the side!al-s set up -itchens and littered the place. the) too- turns
haran$uin$ the court all da) lon$ !ith the use of loudspea-ers
/SS0":
1=& the rall)ists must (e held !ith contempt
2"L3:
The contempt char$es !ere dismissed
The Counsel of the union mem(ers apolo$i%ed to the court and promised that the incident !ill not (e repeated
a$ain
The pic-etin$ !as actuall) done () the mem(ers of the <A*A&T/Q 7<a$-a-aisa n$ *An$$a$a!a sa Timo$
Qatalu$an8 an unre$istered loose alle$iance of a(out J5 unions in the Southern Ta$alo$ and not () either the
0nion of Filipro "mplo)ees or the Qim(erl) /ndependent La(or 0nion.
6ut the court !ill not hesitate in future similar incidents to appl) the full force of the la! and punish for contempt
those !ho attempt to pressure the court to actin$ one !a) or the other in an) case pendin$ (efore it.
The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its (usiness in an orderl) manner free from outside
interference o(structi,e of its functions and tendin$ to em(arrass the administration of Dustice.
An) attempt to pressure or influence courts of Dustice throu$h the e5ercise of either ri$ht amounts to an a(use
thereof and is no lon$er !ithin the am(it of constitutional protection and that an) such efforts to influence the
court constitutes contempt of court.
7: REGALA 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
Facts:
<etitioners in this case and pri,ate respondent #oco !ere all then partners of the la! firm An$ara A(ello
Concepcion #e$ala and Cru% La! 'ffices 7commonl) -no!n as ACC#A8
ACC#A performed ser,ices for clients !hich included ac+uirin$ and=or or$ani%in$ (usiness associations and=or
or$ani%ations !here it acted as incorporators or simpl) as stoc-holders
As mem(ers of the la! firm petitioners and #oco admit that the) assisted in the or$ani%ation and ac+uisition of
companies included in Ci,il Case &o. 0099. /n -eepin$ !ith the office practice ACC#A la!)ers acted as nominees-
stoc-holders. Anon$ -alo-ohan )anG
o Ci,il Case &o. 0099 E A#< ,. "duardo CoDuan$co et. al.B for the reco,er) of ill-$otten !ealth !hich
includes shares of stoc- in certain corporations
<C@@ later on filed a motion to admit 9
rd
amended complaint !hich e5cluded #oco in Ci,il Case 99 as part)
defendant. <C@@ !as remo,in$ #oco (ecause #oco !as $oin$ to ma-e choochoo and re,eal the identit) of the
principals.
The ACC#A la!)ers then filed a comment and=or opposition sa)in$ that the) should also (e remo,ed the !a) that
#oco !as.
<C@@ then said that it !ill as- for their e5clusion onl) if the) !ill also disclose the identit) of their clients
3urin$ the proceedin$s #oco did not actuall) re,eal the identit) of the client for !hom he acted as nominee-
stoc-holder
The ACC#A la!)er?s motion for e5clusion !as denied 7the) refused to compl) !ith the <C@@?s offer8 () the <C@@
and the court. 2ence this motion for certiorari
/ssue:
1=& the ACC#A la!)ers should (e e5cluded from the case
2eld:
Ies. /t is apparent that the ACC#A la!)ers !ere onl) impleaded to force them to disclose the identit) of their
clients.
<C@@ has no ,alid cause of action
/ssue:
1=& the attorne)-client pri,ile$e prohi(its the ACC#A la!)ers from re,ealin$ the identit) of their clients
2eld:
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
@eneral rule: a client?s identit) should not (e shrouded in m)ster)
o "5ceptions: !here a stron$ pro(a(ilit) e5ists that re,ealin$ the client?s name !ould implicate that client
in the ,er) acti,it) for !hich he sou$ht the la!)er?s ad,ice
o 1here disclosure !ould open the client to ci,il lia(ilit)
o 1here re,ealin$ the identit) !ould furnish the onl) lin- that !ould (e necessar) to con,ict an indi,idual
of a crime
The prosecution should rel) on the stren$th of their e,idence and not on the !ea-ness of the defense
#oco merel) stated that he !as actin$ as nominee-stoc-holder for the client and is part of le$itimate la!)erin$.
The ACC#A la!)ers also made such statement and should also (e dropped.
/n re: Canon 4:
the relation of attorne) and client is strictl) personal and hi$hl) confidential and fiduciar)
the la!)er is more than a mere a$ent or ser,ant (ecause he possesses special po!ers of trust and confidence
reposed on him () his client
71 DAROY 9 LEGASPI

FACTS:
Complainants char$ed Att). #amon Cha,e%- Le$aspi !ith malpractice for ha,in$ misappropriated the sum of
<:000.00 !hich he had collected for them. The) pra)ed that he (e dis(arred
FACT0AL "H/3"&C": Complainants hired Att). Le$aspi to represent them in the intestate proceedin$ for the
settlement of the estate of the spouses @on%a$a. The complainant-heirs in a Doint petition !hich Att). Le$aspi
si$ned as counsel a$reed that the coconut land left () the decedents !ould (e di,ided into 6 e+ual parts and that
the proceeds of the sale of the land !ould (e distri(uted amon$ them.
Att). Le$aspi !rote to the father of *rs. 3aro) Teofilo Le$aspi that the mone) deposited could (e !ithdra!n.
2o!e,er Att). Le$aspi had alread) !ithdra!n the mone) 7therefore he acted in (ad faith8. /t turned out that Att).
Le$aspi !as also an heir 7althou$h it !asn?t sho!n ho!8.
/SS0": 1o& Att). Le$aspi should (e dis(arred (ecause he ,iolated the relation (et!een attorne) and his clientG
2"L3: I"S>
#AT/':
4. The relation (et!een an att) and his client is hi$l) fiduciar) in nature and of a ,er) delicate e5actin$ and confidential
character re+uirin$ a hi$h de$ree of fidelit) and $ood faith. /n ,ie! of that special relationship la!)ers are (ound to
promptl) account for mone) or propert) recei,ed () them on (ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct. The fact that a la!)er has a lien for fees on mone) in his hands collected for his clients does not
relie,e him from the dut) of promptl) accountin$ for the funds recei,ed.
2. The complainants ho!e,er ha,e to reco,er the mone) in an ordinar) action and not in this dis(arment proceedin$.
72 DEE 9 CA
3ee and his father !ent to the residence of Att) *utuc to see- his ad,ice re$ardin$ the pro(lem of the alle$ed
inde(tedness of petitioner?s (rother 3e!e) 3ee to Ceasar?s <alace. <etitioner?s father !as apprehensi,e o,er the safet)
of his son 3e!e) ha,in$ heard of a lin- (et!een the mafia and Ceasar?s <alace and his possi(ilit) that his son ma) (e
harmed at the instance of the latter.
Att) *utuc assured petitioner and his father that he !ould in+uire into the matter after !hich his ser,ices !ere reportedl)
contracted for <400000.
Further in,esti$ations re,ealed that the alle$ed de(t of 3e!e) had actuall) (een incurred () #amon S) !ith 3e!e)
merel) si$nin$ for the chits. Att) *utuc tal-ed !ith the president of Ceasar?s palace and ad,ised the president that for the
sa-e and in the interest of the casino it !ould (e (etter to ma-e #amon S) ans!er for the inde(tedness. The president
told him that if he could con,ince #amon S) to ac-no!led$e the o(li$ation 3e!e) !ould (e e5culpated from lia(ilit).
#amon S) ac-no!led$ed the o(li$ation thereafter the account of 3e!e) !as cleared.
Att) *utuc sent demand letters to petitioner demandin$ the (alance of <50000 as attorne)?s fees. <etitioner 3ee i$nored
said letters. Att) *utuc filed a complaint a$ainst petitioner 3ee for the collection of attorne)?s fees.
<etitioner denied the e5istence of an) professional relationship of attorne) and client (et!een hin and Att) *utuc. 3ee
insists that the ,isits made to Att) *utuc !as merel) informal and that Att) *utuc had not (een specificall) contacted to
handle the pro(lem. The <50000 $i,en to Att) *utuc !as alle$ed to (e $i,en not in the nature of attorne)?s fees (ut
merel) poc-et mone).
/ssue:
1=n there !as a la!)er-client relationshipW
2eld:
I"S. The a(sence of a !ritten contract !ill not preclude the findin$ that there !as a professional relationship !hich
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
merits attorne)?s fees for professional ser,ices rendered. To esta(lish the relationship it is sufficient that the ad,ice and
assistance of an attorne) is sou$ht and recei,ed in an) matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is
implied on the part of the attorne) from his actin$ on (ehalf of his client in pursuance of a re+uest from the latter.
Therefore *utuc is entitled to recei,e a reasona(le compensation.
Att) *utuc did not represent conflictin$ interests as claimed () 3ee !hen 3ee alle$ed that *utuc !as actin$ as a$ent of
Ceasar?s <alace. *utuc?s representations in (ehalf of petitioner 3ee !ere not in resistance to the casino?s claim (ut !ere
actuall) $eared to!ard pro,in$ the lia(ilit) of true de(tor #amon S).
73 .R SE.ASTIAN 9 CA
Facts:
"ulo$io #e)es (efore he died filed an action for dama$es a$ainst the 3irector of <u(lic 1or-s and 6# Se(astian.
6# Se(astian 76#S8 !as held to (e lia(le (ut the 3irector of <u(lic 1or-s !as e5onerated.
6#S appealed. 3urin$ the pendenc) of the appeal #e)es died. 2e !as su(stituted () his heirs 7the #e)eses8.
/n 4CJ: 6#S recei,ed notice to file Appelant?s 6rief !ithin :5 da)s from receipt.
Counsel for 6#S 7The 6ai%as Al(erto and Associates8 failed to file the (rief.
The appeal !as then dismissed.
*uch later around 5 months after the deadline 6ai%as La! 'ffice 7different da! from the former one8 file a
motion for reconsideration. /t alle$ed that as a result of the death of Att) Crispin 6ai%as senior partner the
affairs of the aid firm are still (ein$ settled (et!een Att). .ose 6ai%as 7son of Crispin8 and Att) #u() Al(erto. And
that Att) "spiritu the la!)er !ho handled this case in the trial court and !ho is (elie,ed to ha,e also attended to
the preparation of the Appelant?s 6rief (ut failed to su(mit it throu$h o,ersi$ht and inad,ertence had also left
the firm.
/ssue:
1=& the appeal of 6# Se(astian should (e reinstated.
2eld:
&o.
/n this case no fraud is in,ol,ed. 'nl) simple ne$li$ence on the part of the 6#S? counsel.
The confusion in the office of the la! firm follo!in$ the death of At) Crispin 6ai%as is not a ,alid Dustification for its
failure to file the (rief.
The responsi(ilit) of the associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until !ithdra!al () the former of their
appearance in the manner pro,ided () the #ules of Court.
The la! firm should ha,e assi$ned the case to another associate. 'r it could ha,e !ithdra!n as counsel in the
manner pro,ided () the #ules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the ser,ices of a ne! la!)er.
The ne$li$ence of the counsel (inds the client.
74 HILADO 9 DAVID
Facts:
6landina 2ilado 7$anda n$ pan$alan>8 (rou$ht an action a$ainst Selim Assad to annul the sale of se,eral houses
and lot e5ected () 2ilado?s hus(and.
3el$ado et al. !as counsel for 2ilado !hile 'hnic- et al filed an ans!er for Assad.
Later on Att) Hicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad su(stitutin$ 'hnic- et al.
The firm of 3el$ado ur$ed Att) Francisco to stop representin$ Assad since there e5ists an att)-client relationship
(et!een him 7Francisco8 and the other part) 72ilado8 in the same case.
/t !as alle$ed that 2ilado consulted Francisco re$ardin$ the case and that the former turned o,er papers to the
latter. From such documents Francisco sent a !ritten opinion to 2ilado.
Since ma-ulit si Francisco 3el$ado et al. sou$ht to dis+ualif) Francisco from representin$ Assad in the case.
Francisco?s defense !as that he onl) met 2ilado once and this !as !hen the latter informed him a(out the case.
2e added that !hen 2ilado left documents in their office he told his assistant to tell 2ilado that their firm !ould
not handle her case. And that the !ritten opinion !as made () his assistant !hich he si$ned !ithout readin$
and onl) for the purpose of e5plainin$ to 2ilado !h) his firm reDected the case.
3a,id is the Dud$e tr)in$ the case !ho dismissed the complaint for dis+ualification a$ainst Francisco. Said Dud$e
reasoned that no attorne)-client relationship e5isted (et!een 2ilado and Francisco.
/ssue:
1as there an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and 2iladoG
Should Att) Francisco (e dis+ualified from representin$ AssadG
2eld:
The firm of Francisco mailed a !ritten opinion to 2ilado on the merits of the case 7!ith Francisco?s si$nature8F this opinion
!as reached on the (asis of papers su(mitted at his officeF and that 2ilado?s purpose in su(mittin$ those papers !as to
secure Francisco?s professional ser,ices. From these ultimate facts an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and
2ilado can (e said to ha,e ensued.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
To constitute professional emplo)ment it is not essential that the client should ha,e emplo)ed the attorne) professionall)
on an) pre,ious occasion. /t is not necessar) that an) retainer should ha,e (een paid promised or char$ed forF neither is
it material that the attorne) consulted did not after!ard underta-e the case a(out !hich the consultation !as had. 1hen a
person consults !ith his attorne) in his professional capacit) !ith the ,ie! of o(tainin$ professional ad,ice or assistance
and the attorne) ,oluntaril) permits or ac+uiesces in such consultation then the professional emplo)ment must (e
re$arded as esta(lished.
The e5istence of attorne)-client relationship precludes the attorne) from representin$ 7and recei,in$ a retainer from8 the
opposite part) in the same case.
An information professionall) o(tained () an attorne) from a client is sacred to the emplo)ment to !hich it pertains and
to permit it (e used in the interest of another or in the interest of the ad,erse part) is to stri-e at the element of
confidence !hich forms the (asis of an attorne)-client relationship.
The rule inhi(itin$ an attorne) from actin$ in (ehalf of (oth parties is implied in the #ules of Court 7!ala pan$ codified
codes of professional responsi(ilit) noon8.
The defense that Francisco ne,er read the !ritten opinion nor the documents su(mitted () 2ilado !ill not preclude the
e5istence of an attorne)-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did $i,e 2ilado a formal professional ad,ice from
!hich emer$ed the relation. The letter (inds and estops him in the same manner and de$ree as if he !rote it personall).
And an information o(tained from a client () a mem(er or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm.
The failure to o(Dect to counsel?s appearance does not operate as a !ai,er of the ri$ht to as- for counsel?s dis+ualification.
*otion for dis+ualification a$ainst Attorne) Francisco should (e allo!ed.
TA retainin$ fee 7Dust in case itanon$8 is a preliminar) fee $i,en to an attorne) or counsel to insure and secure his future
ser,ices and induce him to act for the client.
75 SANTOS 9 .ELTRAN
0SW.
76 NA>PIL 9 VALDES
Facts:
.ose &a-pil !as interested in a piece of propert) situated in *oran 6a$uio. 2e !ent into an a$reement !ith Att).
Carlos Haldes for the latter to (u) the propert) in trust for &a-pil.
Haldes did (u) the propert) () contractin$ 2 loans. The lands? titles !ere transferred to his name.
1hen .ose &a-pil died /melda &a-pil 7his !ife8 ac+uired the ser,ices of Haldes and his accountin$ and la! firms
for the settlement of the estate of .ose &a-pil.
1hat Haldes did !as to e5clude the propert) in 6a$uio from the list of assets of .ose &a-pil 7he actuall)
transferred the propert) to his compan) the Ca,al #ealt) Corporation8 !hile includin$ the loans he contracted.
1hat /melda did !as to file a suit for recon,e)ance in the CF/. 1hile the case !as pendin$ /melda also filed an
administrati,e complaint for dis(arment a$ainst Haldes.
The CF/ dismissed the action for recon,e)ance. The CA re,ersed the CF/.
The complaint for recon,e)ance !ent up to the SC and !as decided in fa,or of &a-pil. The SC held that Haldes
onl) held the lots in trust for &a-pil.
/ssue:
1=n Att). Haldes should (e administrati,el) sanctioned for his acts namel):
o "5cludin$ the propert) in 6a$uio from the estate of .ose &a-pilF
o /ncludin$ his loans as claims on the estateF and
o Apparentl) representin$ conflictin$ interests !hen his accountin$ firm prepared the list of claims of
creditors An$el &a-pil and "&'#& a$ainst the estate of .ose &a-pil !hich !as represented () his la!
firm.
2eld:
The SC found Haldes $uilt) of misconduct and suspends him for 4 )ear.
The Court held that the first t!o acts clearl) sho! that Haldes (ro-e the trust reposed on him () /melda &a-pil
!hen the latter a$reed to use his professional ser,ices as a la!)er and an accountant. /t !as clear that .ose
&a-pil and Att). Came to an a$reement that the latter !ould (e (u)in$ the propert) in trust for .ose. 6) his act of
e5cludin$ the propert) from the estate and includin$ the loans he contracted 7and used for his o!n (enefit8 as
claims Haldes too- for $ranted the trust formed (et!een .ose and him 7the) had a close relationship since the
50?s8 !hich !as the (asis for /melda?s decision to use his ser,ices.
As to the third char$e !e hold respondent $uilt) of representin$ conflictin$ interests !hich is proscri(ed ()
Canon 45 #ule 45.09. /n the case at (ar there is no +uestion that the interests of the estate and that of its
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
creditors are ad,erse to each other. #espondentOs accountin$ firm prepared the list of assets and lia(ilities of the
estate and at the same time computed the claims of t!o creditors of the estate. There is clearl) a conflict
(et!een the interest of the estate !hich stands as the de(tor and that of the t!o claimants !ho are creditors of
the estate.
77 ARTE8UELA 9 MADERA8O
Facts: "cha,ia had a ,ehicular accident in *andaue Cit). "cha,ia !as dri,in$ a Ford Telstar o!ned () a .apanese national
(ut in the name of his (rother-in-la! Hillape%. The car rammed into a small carinderia o!ned () Arte%uela.
Arte%uela en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). *adera%o in filin$ a dama$e suit a$ainst "cha,ia. Arte%uela paid
*adera%o the amount of <40000 as attorne)?s fees and <2000 as filin$ fee.
Arte%uela filed a suit for dis(arment a$ainst *adera%o. She alle$ed that *adera%o $rossl) ne$lected his
duties as a la!)er. Accordin$ to Arte%uela att). did not do an)thin$ to -eep the case mo,in$ and att). !ithdre!
his ser,ices !ithout o(tainin$ Arte%uela?s consent. Arte%uela also alle$ed that Att). *adera%o en$a$ed in acti,ities
inimical to her interests. She sa)s that 7-2%" a1(2,/ a* -"# 1)+,*"%' A((0 Ma&"#aE) $#"$a#"& E1-a92aF*
a,*7"#0
Att). *adera%o claims that the document of "cha,ia !as not prepared () him. Accordin$ to him the
ans!er () "cha,ia !as onl) printed in his office.
/ssue: 1=& Att). *adera%o represented conflictin$ interests.
2eld: A((0 Ma&"#aE) #"$#"*",("& 1),3%21(2,/ 2,("#"*(*0 S+*$",*2), )3 6 m),(-*0
To (e $uilt) of representin$ conflictin$ interests a counsel-of-record of one part) need not also (e the
counsel-of-record of the ad,erse part). 2e does not ha,e to hold himself as the counsel of the ad,erse part). I( 2*
",)+/- (-a( (-" 1)+,*"% )3 )," $a#( -a& a -a,& 2, (-" $#"$a#a(2), )3 (-" $%"a&2,/ )3 a,)(-"# $a#(
7-) 2* 1%a2m2,/ a&9"#*" a,& 1),3%21(2,/ 2,("#"*(* 72(- (-a( )3 (-" )#2/2,a% 1%2",(0
6ecause of the fiduciar) relationship (et!een the la!)er and the client sound pu(lic polic) dictates that
the la!)er (e prohi(ited from representin$ conflictin$ interests or dischar$in$ inconsistent duties.
75 HORNILLA 9 SALUNAT
Facts:
Salunat !as a mem(er of the <hil. <u(lic School Teachers Association 7<<STA8 6oard !hich appro,ed Att).
Salunat?s en$a$ement as counsel of <<STA
Complainants !ho are mem(ers of <<STA filed an intracorporate case a$ainst its 6oard of 3irectors. Att). Salunat
entered his appearance as counsel for the (oard mem(ers in said cases.
Complainants contend the Att). Salunat !as $uilt) of conflict of interest (ecause he !as en$a$ed () <<STA of
!hich complainants !ere mem(ers and !as (ein$ paid out of its corporate funds !here complainants ha,e
contri(uted.
Att). Salunat pointed out that he entered his appearance as counsel for the (oard mem(ers for and in (ehalf of
ASSA La! and Associates. 2e also stated that it !as another partner of the firm Att). A$ustin !ho handled the
case.
/ssue: 1=& Att). Salunat en$a$ed in conflictin$ interests.
2eld: I"S.
/n a deri,ati,e suit such as the one filed () the complainants a$ainst the 6'3 of <<STA the pre,ailin$ rule is that
the la!)er en$a$ed () the corporation ma) not represent the directors since that !ould $i,e rise to a conflict of
interest. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not (e influenced () the interest of the
indi,idual corporate officials.
That Att).Salunat entered his appearance in (ehalf of ASSA La! Firm doesn?t e5onerate him. 2e admitted that
ASSA !as the retained counsel of <<STA.
Since this is the first offense respondent is admonished to o(ser,e a hi$h de$ree of fidelit) in the practice of his
profession.
74 NATAN 9 CAPULE
FACTS:
&atan is the administrator of the estate of the deceased *aria <atero.
&atan had filed an action a$ainst Santia$o the hus(and of *aria <atero to reco,er *aria?s share in the conDu$al
propert). Z of Santia$o?s share in 2acienda *init !as ordered to (e deli,ered to *aria
Capule !as contracted () &atan to file an action of forci(le entr) a$ainst "don$a etc. and he deli,ered to him
,arious documents includin$ the decision of the pre,ious court on the partition of the propert) of Santia$o
specificall) 2acienda *init !hich !as recei,ed () *aria.
<artial pa)ments !ere recei,ed () Capule from &atan amountin$ to <2J5 (ut Capule !as una(le to attend the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
hearin$. Since the .ud$e refused to $rant postponement &atan handled the case personall) (ein$ an attorne)
himself.
Thereafter Capule represented 'limpio <atero claimin$ that he is the sole heir of Santia$o <atero and in
possession of 2acienda *init and filed an administrati,e case a$ainst &atan as-in$ the court to order &atan to
return Z of 2acienda *init.
/SS0":
1=& Capule ,iolated his dut) as a la!)er
2"L3:
I"S> And the court sentenced him to (e suspended him from the e5ercise of his profession for the period of 2
)ears
Capule had utili%ed the papers -no!led$e and information that he had recei,ed from his former client &atan in
connection to the 2acienda *init a$ainst &atan and for the (enefit of his ne! client 'limpio <atero
Capule (ecause of his pre,ious relationship !ith &atan !as dis+ualified to accept the case of 'limpio !ho claims
o!nership o,er 2acienda *init.
The fact the Capule retired from the forci(le entr) case prior to retainin$ the case of 'limpio did not relie,e him
from his o(li$ation of fidelit) and lo)alt) to his former client. The inconsistenc) (et!een his position as attorne)
of &atan and that of 'limpio is so apparent that it could not ha,e escaped his attention
An attorne) ma) not do an)thin$ !hich !ill inDuriousl) affect his former client in an) matter in !hich he formerl)
represented him nor ma) he at an) time use a$ainst his former client -no!led$e or information ac+uired ()
,irtue of his pre,ious relationship.
5: .AUTISTA 9 .ARRIOS
Facts:
#ufina 6autista en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). 6arrios to draft an e5tra-Dudicial partition (et!een 6autista and her
(rothers and sisters and #o,ero on the other side. 6arrios prepared the deed.
#o,ero later on refused to compl) !ith the terms of the deed. 6autista sued him.
/nstead of representin$ 6autista 6arrios instead appeared for #o,ero.
6arrios defense: it !as #o,ero !ho en$a$ed his ser,ices in preparin$ the deed and not 6autista
/ssue:
1=& 6arrios ma) handle a case nullif) a contract !hich he prepared
2eld:
&o he ma) not. Suspended for 2 )ears.
1hen 6autista approached 6arrios to enforce the deed 6arrios merel) said that she has no cause of action.
6arrios did not inform her that he !as alread) representin$ #o,ero.
Supposin$ that 6arrios !as indeed representin$ (oth 6autista and #o,ero he could not appear for one as a$ainst
another.
51 GAMILLA 9 MARIGO
FACTS:
Att) *arino .r. as president of the 0ST Facult) 0nion and other union officers entered into a collecti,e (ar$ainin$
a$reement !ith the mana$ement of 0ST for the pro,ision of economic (enefits amountin$ to <95 *illlion. The
4C;6 collecti,e (ar$ainin$ a$reement e5pired in 4C;; (ut efforts to for$e a ne! one unfortunatel) failed. /n 4C;C
the facult) mem(ers of 0ST !ent on stri-e and as a counter-measure 0ST terminated the emplo)ment of 46
officers and directors of the 0ST Facult) 0nion includin$ Att) *arino .r.
The Sec of La(or prescri(ed the retroacti,it) of the collecti,e (ar$ainin$ a$reement to 4C;; !hen the 4C;6
collecti,e (ar$ainin$ a$reement e5pired. /n the same )ear the administration of 0ST and the 0ST Facult) 0nion
also entered into a compromise a$reement for the pa)ment to settle (ac-!a$es.
The important fact in this case is that Att) *arino as president ne$otiated !ith 0ST as union attorne) e,en
thou$h he !as an interested part) since he !as one of the officers !ho !ere dismissed 7conflict of interests8
/SS0": 1o& *arino should (e reprimandedG
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. Att) *arino failed to a,oid conflict of interests first !hen he ne$otiated for the compromise a$reement !herein
he pla)ed the di,erse roles of union president union att) and interested part) (ein$ one of the dismissed
emplo)ees see-in$ his o!n restitution and thereafter !hen he o(tained the att)s fees of <:200000.00 !ithout
full prior disclosure of the circumstances Dustif)in$ such clain to the mem(ers of the 0ST Facult) 0nion.
2. As one of the 46 union officers and directors see-in$ compensation from the 0ST for their ille$al dismissal Att).
*arino !as in,ol,ed in o(,ious conflict of interests !hen in addition he chose to act as concurrent la!)er and
president of the 0ST Facult) 0nion in for$in$ the compromise a$reement. The test of conflict of interest amon$
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
la!)ers is A!hether the acceptance of a ne! relation !ill pre,ent an att) from the full dischar$e of his dut) of
undi,ided fidelit) and lo)alt) to his client or in,ite suspicion of unfaithfulness or dou(le-dealin$ in the
performance thereof. /n the same manner it is undou(tedl) a conflict of interests for an att) to put himself in a
position !here self-interest tempts or !orse actuall) impels him to do less than his (est for his client.
9. Att) *arino. 6oth as la!)er and president of the union !as dut) (ound to protect and ad,ance the interest of the
union mem(ers and the (ar$ainin$ unit a(o,e his o!n. This o(li$ation !as Deopardi%ed !hen his personal interest
complicated the ne$otiation process and e,entuall) resulted in the lopsided compromise a$reement that ri$htl)
or !ron$l) (rou$ht mone) to him at the e5pense of the other facult) mem(ers. 2e also ou$ht to ha,e disclosed
his interest 7!hich he onl) did onl) )ears after the consummation of his share.. ts- (ad.8
52 SUNTAY 9 SUNTAY
Facts:
The complaint for dis(arment !as filed () Frederico Sunta) a$ainst his nephe! Att) Sunta) alle$in$ that respondent !as
his le$al counsel !ho !as pri,) to all his le$al and political affairs. Since the) parted !a)s Att) Sunta) had (een filin$
complaints and cases a$ainst complainant ma-in$ use of confidential information $ained !hile their attorne)-client
relationship e5isted.
/n addition complainant Sunta) alle$ed that respondent Att) Sunta) pursued a case a$ainst him for ,iolation of <3 2C6
for the alle$ed disappearance of 2 cree-s tra,ersin$ complainant?s fishpond. Complainant alle$ed that Att) Sunta) Ps
possession of the TCT and the (lueprint plan of the propert) !hile he !as still counsel for complainant pro,ided him !ith
the information that there used to (e 2 cree-s tra,ersin$ the fishpond
/n one case *a$no 3in$lasan demanded from complainant <450000 as consideration for the destruction of complainants
record in the 6/# in !hich 3in$lasan is an officer. 1hen complainat declined the demand 3in$lasan char$ed complainant
!ith the crime of false testimon) and $ra,e oral defamation. 3urin$ the preliminar) in,esti$ation Att) Snta) acted as
counsel of *a$no 3in$lasan. Complainant testified that he consulted Att) Sunta) a(out the demand made () 3in$lasan.
/ssue:
1hether the acts of Att) Sunta) in filin$ the complaints constitute malpracticeW
2eld:
I"S. Att) Sunta) acted as counself for clients in case in,ol,in$ su(Dect matters re$ardin$ !hich he had either (een
pre,iousl) helped complainant to administer as the latter?s counsel and confidant. A la!)er shall preser,e the confidences
and secrets of his clients e,en after termination of the attorne)-client relation.
/t is also not necessar) to specif) the alle$ed confidential information used. To ma-e the passin$ of confidential
information a condition precedent !ould not enhance the !elfare of the liti$ants. 2ence the necessit) of settin$ do!n the
e5istence of the (are relationship of attorne) and client as the )ardstic- for testin$ incompati(ilit) of interests.
Att) Sunta) is suspended for 2 )ears.
53 DOCENA V LIMON
Facts:
Att). Limon !as the 3ocena spouses? la!)er for their appeal in a Forci(le "ntr) case.
2e then re+uired the 3ocena spouses to post a supersedeas (ond in the amount of <40000.00 alle$edl) to sta)
the e5ecution of the appealed decision
The 3ocena?s o(tained a loan of <9000.00 from the 6oron$an "astern Samar 6ranch of the 3e,elopment 6an-
of the <hilippinesF (orro!ed <24:0.00 from a pri,ate indi,idualF and applied for an a$ricultural loan of <:;60.00
from the 6oron$an Samar 6ranch of the <hilippine &ational 6an- !herein Limon himself acted as $uarantor.
1hen The 3ocena?s !ent to the CF/ to !ithdra! the (ond after the case the) disco,ered that no such (ond !as
e,er posted () Limon.
Limon claims that the <40T !as Dust his attorne)?s fees.
/ssue:
1=& Limon should (e sanctioned.
2eld:
2e should (e 3/S6A##"3>
6) e5tortin$ mone) from his client throu$h deceit and misrepresentation respondent Limon has reduced the la!
profession to a le,el so (ase so lo! and dishonora(le and most contempti(le.
2e has sullied the inte$rit) of his (rethren in the la! and has indirectl) eroded the peoplesO confidence in the
Dudicial s)stem. 6) his reprehensi(le conduct !hich is reflecti,e of his depra,ed character respondent has made
himself un!orth) to remain in the #oll of Attorne)s.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
54 SEVILLA 9 SALU.RE
Facts:
Salu(re prior to (ein$ a Dud$e !as Se,illa?s counsel in a ci,il case for repurchase and dama$es.
0pon ad,ice of Salu(re Se,illa $a,e <:5- to him to (e consi$ned !ith the court as repurchase mone).
/nstead of consi$nin$ it to the court Salu(re deposited the mone) in his o!n account and later used personall) ()
him.
Salu(re promised Se,illa that he !ould pa) the sum of mone). 2e e,en issued a promissor) note for said amount.
Se,eral e5tensions !ere sou$ht () Salu(re (ut he still failed to pa). Later on chec-s !ere issued to co,er the
inde(tedness. 6ut these !ere dishonored on the $round Aaccount closedB. 6) the time the case !as referred to
the 'ffice of Court Administrator the amount due !as around <JJ- 7:5- as principal and 92- as interest8.
Salu(re?s appointment as Dud$e did not e5tin$uish the o(li$ation incurred () him !hen he !as still a trial la!)er.
Salu(re?s defense !as that the complaint !as a result of misunderstandin$ and the filin$ of an Affida,it of
3esistance is proof that the matter !as alread) resol,ed. /t !as sho!n that Salu(re later returned the funds to
Se,illa after the case for estafa !as filed.
Salu(re also claimed that the mone) he recei,ed from Se,illa !as supposed to (e the latter?s pa)ment for his
appearance and other liti$ation e5penses
/ssue:
Should Salu(re still (e held lia(le for his acts despite the desistance of the complainantG
2eld:
Ies. The Affida,it of 3esistance did not di,est the Court of its Durisdiction to impose administrati,e sanctions upon Salu(re.
Complainant?s ,oluntar) desistance does not confirm nor den) Salu(re?s non-culpa(ilit). The primar) o(Dect of
administrati,e cases a$ainst la!)ers is not onl) to punish and discipline errin$ la!)ers (ut also to safe$uard the
administration of Dustice () protectin$ the courts and the pu(lic from the misconduct of la!)ers and to remo,e from the
le$al profession persons !hose utter disre$ard of their la!)er?s oath ha,e pro,en them unfit to continue dischar$in$ the
trust reposed in them as mem(ers of the (ar. Administrati,e cases a$ainst la!)ers can still proceed despite the dismissal
of ci,il and=or criminal cases a$ainst them.
Salu(re ,iolated Canon 46 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) for his failure to return the funds of his client upon
demand. 2is appointment as .ud$e is not a ,alid reason not to properl) address the demand of complainant. The fact that
he !as e,entuall) appointed as .ud$e !ill not e5culpate him from ta-in$ responsi(ilit) of the conse+uences of his acts as
an officer of the court. 2is defense that the mone) !as supposed to (e Se,illa?s pa)ment for his ser,ices should ha,e (een
made -no!n to the latter at the earliest time !hen the demand !as made. /nstead he (om(arded complainant !ith a
lon$ line of promises hopin$ that the latter !ould allo! the matter to (e e,entuall) left unsettled.
Salu(re () dela)in$ pa)ment of his o(li$ation failed to -eep up !ith the e5actin$ standards of the Canons of .udicial
"thics.

There !as an alle$ation of ,iolation of Canon 4J (ut this !as not su(stantiated. Salu(re is fined and $i,en a stern !arnin$.
55 CUNANAN 9 RIMORIN
FACTS
C0&A&A& a retired 0S citi%en en$a$ed the ser,ices of ATTI #/*'#/& in the matter of settlin$ his Ao,ersta)in$
alien statusB !ith the 6ureau of /mmi$ration and 3eportation so tat he could attend the funeral of his son Andre!
Cunanan in the 0nited States
C0&A&A& ,er(all) a$reed to pa) ATTI #/*'#/& <:0000
This amount !as to (e paid out of the $ood!ill mone) to (e paid () A6S-C6& represented () &'L/ 3" CAST#'
in e5chan$e for an e5clusi,e inter,ie! re$ardin$ the stor) of C0&A&A&?S son Andre!
For the 4
st
partial pa)ment &'L/ actin$ in (ehalf of A6S-C6& issued a chec- for <400000 pa)a(le to ATTI
#/*'#/&
To complete pa)ment A6S-C6& deposited the (alance of <400000 in the (an- account of ATTI #/*'#/&
Accordin$ to the affida,it of &'L/ the 2 pa)ments !ere intended for C0&A&A&
ATTI #/*'#/& sent a letter to C0&A&A& statin$ Adue to rains there is no !a) of chec-in$ !hether the chec-
deposited () A6S-C6& has (een clearedW/?ll tr) m) ,er) (est to produce the other <90000 toda)B
C0&A&A& indeed recei,ed <90000 (ut after that there !as no more communication from ATTI #/*'#/&
2ence C0&A&A& filed an administrati,e case !ith the /6< Commission on 6ar 3iscipline for the dis(arment of
ATTI #/*'#/& and for failin$ to render the accountin$ of <200000 !hich the la!)er recei,ed in trust for him[
ISSUE W/N ATTY RIMORIN SHOULD BE RERIMANDED
HELD YES' VIOLATED CANON 16 RULE 160:1
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
RATIO
/t !as esta(lished that the <200000 !ere recei,ed () ATTI #/*'#/& for the (enefit of and in trust of C0&A&A&
as corro(orated () &'L/ in his affida,it
The hi$hl) fiduciar) and confidential relation of attorne) and client re+uire that ATTI #/*'#/& should promptl)
account for the said funds !hich he recei,ed and held for the (enefit of his client C0&A&A& (ecause those
funds properl) (elon$ to the latter
From the time of the filin$ of the administrati,e case until the present C0&A&A&?S demand for accountin$ has
not )et (een satisfied () ATTI #/*'#/&
Thus ATTI #/*'#/& fell short of his dut) as a la!)er under Canon 46 #ule 46.04 and should (e penali%ed
accordin$l)
JUDGMENT
Suspended for 4 )ear and to render an accountin$ of <4J0000 representin$ the (alance of <200000
56 LICUANAN 9 MELO
Facts:
Leonila Licuanan !on in an eDectment case a$ainst Aida <ineda. 2er counsel in that case !as Att). *anuel *elo.
The Dud$ment ordered <ineda to pa) rentals in arrears and succeedin$ to Licuanan.
/t !as *elo !ho demanded pa)ment from <ineda. After (ein$ threatened !ith another la!suit <ineda paid the
rentals to *elo 7!orth <52208.
Licuanan ne,er $ot the pa)ments so she filed an administrati,e complaint a$ainst <ineda (efore the Chief of the
<hilippine Tu(erculosis Societ) accusin$ her of moral turpitude. /n response <ineda filed an action for dama$es
7on the $round of (esmirched reputation and mental an$uish8 a$ainst Licuanan (ecause <ineda (elie,ed that she
had alread) paid her de(t () pa)in$ to *elo.
After 4 )ear Licuanan throu$h another la!)er then finds out that the mone) paid () <ineda !as !ith *elo.
*elo then $i,es the rentals to Licuanan.
Licuanan then files this complaint !ith the 'ffice of the Court Administrator a$ainst *elo for (reach of
professional ethics.
/ssue:
1=n *elo should (e sanctioned for his acts.
2eld:
Ies he should (e sanctioned. /n fact the SC dis(arred him.
The acts of respondent in retainin$ for his personal (enefit o,er a one-)ear period the amount of <5220
recei,ed () him on (ehalf of his client Licuanan depri,in$ her of its use and !ithholdin$ information on the
same despite in+uiries made () her is a (reach of the La!)erOs 'ath to !hich he s!ore o(ser,ance and an
e,ident trans$ression of the Canons of <rofessional "thics 746.04 46.02 46.098.
#espondentOs unprofessional acts considered the SC !as constrained to find him $uilt) of deceit malpractice
and $ross misconduct in office. 2e has displa)ed lac- of honest) and $ood moral character. 2e has ,iolated his
oath not to dela) an) man for mone) or malice (esmirched the name of an honora(le profession and has pro,en
himself un!orth) of the trust reposed in him () la! as an officer of the Court. 2e deser,es the se,erest
punishment !hich is dis(arment.
57 MAR=UE8 9 MENESES
Facts: *ar+ue% !as introduced () Att). <eralta to Att). *eneses as a prospecti,e client. *ar+ue% retained the ser,ices of
Att). *eneses to prosecute a claim of <240 a$ainst /$danes. The a$reement !as that *ar+ue% !as to pa) *eneses
a fee of <400 !hether the case !as !on or lost. *ar+ue% ad,anced the amount from time to time totalin$ <J5.
The decision of the .ustice of the <eace Court !as in fa,or of *ar+ue% orderin$ /$danes to pa) the <240
claim and <J5 as attorne)?s fees. *ar+ue% recei,ed a letter from her (rother sa)in$ that /$danes had paid the <J5
to the sheriff as partial satisfaction and that Att). *eneses had $otten all of the <J5. *ar+ue% !ent to see Att).
*eneses to claim <50 of the <J5 that the latter $ot. *ar+ue% claims that *eneses !as onl) entitled to <25 of the
amount paid (ecause she had alread) $i,en the Att). <J5. Att). *eneses contends that *ar+ue% o!es her mone)
(ecause he !as entitled to the retainer fee 7<4008 and !hate,er contin$ent fees that ma) (e a!arded () the
court.
Sol. @en. sa)s that Att). *eneses must return the amount of <50 to *ar+ue%. The Sol. @en. also
recommended the suspension of Att). *eneses for at least 6 months.
/ssue: 1=& Att). *eneses should return the amount.
2eld: A((0 M","*"* *-)+%& #"(+#, (-" am)+,( )3 P 5:0 S+*$",*2), )3 1 m),(-0
/t is hi$hl) impro(a(le that *ar+ue% !ould a$ree to pa) <4J5 as fees to att). considerin$ the fact that
the claim !as onl) for <240. An att).?s fee of <4J5 is unconsciona(le. /t is !ell-settled that mone) collected () a
la!)er in pursuance of a Dud$ment in fa,or of his client is mone) held in trust and must (e immediatel) turned
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
o,er. Att). *eneses should ha,e made an accountin$ !ith his client of the amount he recei,ed.
55 CASTILLO 9 TAGUINES
Facts:
Castillo alle$ed that Att). Ta$uines failed to del,er to him <500 representin$ the monetar) settlement of a ci,il suit
(et!een Castillo and Licup.
Ta$uines !as the counsel of defendant Licup in the said case !here Castillo !as the plaintiff. /t !as a$reed that
Licup !ill $i,e <500.00 for the settlement of the case to Ta$uines and Ta$uines !ill $i,e the amount to Castillo. For
this consideration Castillo had the case a$ainst Licup dismissed.
&o mone) !as $i,en to Castillo and the latter onl) found out in the second !ee- of .anuar) ?JC that Licup had
alread) $i,en the mone) to Ta$uines since 3ec.46 PJ;
Castillo found out !hen Licup sho!ed him a certification si$ned () Ta$uines that the latter recei,ed the amount.
Ta$uines defense is that althou$h he recei,ed the mone) from Licup he ne,er (ound himself to $o out of his !a) to
personall) deli,er the mone) to Castillo or his la!)er and Ta$uines said he does not -no! personall) Castillo or his
address.
Castillo states that Ta$uines set a date to meet !ith him (ut ne,er sho!ed up nor called after!ards.
Ta$uines later on $a,e Castillo a (ouncin$ chec- !orth <500.
/ssue: 1=& Ta$uines must (e held administrati,el) lia(le for not deli,erin$ the mone) to Castillo and for Afoolin$ the
complainantB () $i,in$ a (ouncin$ chec-.
2eld: I"S.
Canon 46 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) pro,ides that a la!)er shall hold in trust all mone) and propert)
of his client that ma) come into his possession. #ule 46.09 of the same canon pro,ides that a la!)er shall deli,er
the funds or propert) of his client !hen due or upon demand.
Ta$uines is suspended for one )ear.
54 LEMOINE 9 .ALON
FACTS:
Lemoine is a French national !ho filed an insurance claim !ith *etropolitan /nsurance.
2is friend .esus @arcia arran$ed for the en$a$ement of 6alon?s ser,ices as his counsel
6alon ad,ised Lemoine that he !as char$in$ 25K of the actual amount to (ein$ reco,ered pa)a(le upon
successful reco,er). An ad,ance pa)ment of <50000 to (e deducted from !hate,er amount !ould (e
successfull) collected. <4000 as appearance and conference fee for each and e,er) court hearin$ and le$al
e5penses and other miscellaneous !ill (e char$ed to Lemoine?s account !hich !ould (e reim(ursed upon
presentment of account. Lemoine ne,er $a,e his consent as to the fee.
Lemoine si$ned an undated Special <o!er of Attorne) authori%in$ 6alon to (rin$ an) action a$ainst *etropolitan
/nsurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine?s claim as !ell as to ne$otiate si$n compromise encash and recei,e
pa)ments
*etropolitan /nsurance offered to settle Lemoine?s claim and 6alon confirmed his acceptance of the offer
3ecem(er 4CC; *etropolitan /nsurance issued a China 6an- chec- pa)a(le to Lemoine in the amount of
<525000 !hich !as recei,ed () 6alon
1hen Lemoine as-ed 6alon as to the status of the case 6alon ans!ered that *etropolitan /nsurance !as offerin$
<950000 for settlement !hich Lemoine su$$ested that 6alon accept to a,oid liti$ation
3ecem(er 4CCC Lemoine ,isited the office of *etropolitan /nsurance to as- on the status of the case and it
ans!ered that the case !as lon$ settled ,ia a chec- $i,en to 6alon.
6alon ac-no!led$e that he is in possession of the chec- and that he is -eepin$ the chec- as attorne)?s lien
pendin$ Lemoine?s pa)ment of his attorne)?s fee e+ui,alent to 50K of the entire amount collected. 2e also
threatened Lemoine that he !ill not hesitate to ma-e proper representation !ith the 6ureau of /mmi$ration and
3eportation 3'L" and 6/# if Lemoine !ill ma-e an) trou(le to 6alon and that he has $ood net!or- !ith the
mentioned a$encies.
6alon later claimed that he $a,e <299000 to @arcia on the representation of Lemoine. &o !ritten memorandum
of the turn-o,er !as made (ecause @arcia !as a co-#otarian and co-attorne) of 6alon
6alon !as in possession of the said chec- for 5 )ears
/SS0":
1=& 6alon ,iolated the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
2"L3:
I"S> And he !as ordered dis(arred () the SC
The la!)er?s continuin$ e5ercise of his retainin$ lien presupposes that the client a$rees !ith the amount of
attorne)?s fees to e char$ed. /n case of disa$reement ho!e,er the la!)er must not ar(itraril) appl) the funds in
his possession to the pa)ment of his fees. 2e can file the necessar) action !ith the proper court to fi5 the fees
6efore recei,in$ the chec- he proposes a 25K attorne)?s fees after recei,in$ the chec- he !as alread) as-in$
for 50K.
under the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) a la!)er shall not en$a$e in unla!ful acts must o(ser,e fairness
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
in all his dealin$s !ith his client and must hold in trust all mone)s and properties of his client
a la!)er !ho practices deceit in his dealin$s !ith his client not onl) ,iolates his dut) of fidelit) lo)alt) and
de,otion to the client?s cause (ut also de$rades himself and (esmirches the name of an honora(le profession.
4: MELENDRES 9 DECENA
Facts:
74
st
cause of action8
Au$. 5 4CJ5: Complainants 7spouses "rlinda 3alman R &arciso *elendre%8 o(tained from Att). #e)nerio 3ecena
73ecena8 a loan of <:Q. This loan !as secured () a real estate mort$a$e.
/t !as made to appear in the #"* that the amount (orro!ed !as <5Q. 3ecena assured the spouses that the #"*
!as a mere formalit) and due to this assurance the spouses si$ned the #"*.
3espite the assurance 3ecena collected from the spouses <500=month as usurious interest. The spouses paid
such usurious interest for 9 months.
6ecause of their failure to pa) the amounts 3ecena drafted a ne! #"*
o &e! contract of mort$a$e in the amount of <40Q !ith interest at 4CK=annum
o A special po!er of attorne) authori%in$ 3ecena to sell the mort$a$ed propert) in pu(lic auction
Spouses ne,er -ne! the implications of the ne! #"*. The) failed to pa) their o(li$ation and so 3ecena ac+uired
their propert) in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ilanan for <42Q
Spouses then !ent to 3ecena !ith <40Q in the hopes of $ettin$ their propert) (ac-. 3ecena then informs them
that their de(t has soared to <20.:Q.
1ith shattered hopes and $rief in their hearts 7andrama>8 the spouses filed this case for dis(arment.
72
nd
cause of action8
Spouses filed a case for estafa a$ainst #e)naldo <ineda for reco,er) of <2Q
3ecena entered into a compromise a$reement !ith <ineda. <ineda then paid <500 to 3ecena. This settlement
!as ne,er (rou$ht to the attention of the spouses nor !ere the) e,er consulted a(out such.
/ssue:
1=& 3ecena?s acts sho! $ross misconduct and should therefore (e dis(arred
2eld:
Ies 3ecena shall (e dis(arred
The acts of 3ecena as to the 4
st
cause of action constitute deception dishonest) and conduct un(ecomin$ a
mem(er of the (ar.
As to the 2
nd
cause of action 3ecena clearl) failed to $et the consent of the spouses (efore enterin$ into a
compromise. 3ecena also failed to inform the spouses or turn o,er to them the <500 $i,en to him () <ineda as
do!npa)ment for the settlement of the case.
3ecena?s failure to turn o,er to the spouses the mone) underscores his lac- of honest) and candor in dealin$ !ith
his clients
41 JUNIO 9 GRUPO
FACTS:
#osario .unio en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). Sal,ador @rupo for the redemption of a land (elon$in$ to her
parents. She $a,e <25000 to (e used in the redemption )et Att). @rupo did not redeem the propert) and has
continuousl) refused to refund the mone) $i,en.
.unio filed a complaint for dis(arment for malpractice and $ross misconduct
Attu. @rupo contends that the land could reall) not (e redeemed an)more and that since .unio -ne!
that the mort$a$e has alread) e5pired she -ne! that it !as Dust a last ditch effort to redeem the propert). Att).
@rupo then (orro!ed some of the mone) for himself to help defra) his children?s educational e5penses. 7personal
re+uest e,idenced () a <& e5ecuted in fa,or of .unio E Att). @rupo contends that their families !ere reall) ,er)
close and intimate !ith each other E .unio?s sisters !ere maids of Att). @rupoW8
Att). @rupo claims that there !as no att)-client relationship and further contends that he did not as- for
an) fee not e,en charit). 2e claims that his ser,ices !ere Dust acts of a friend for a friend. 7he claims that he is
!illin$ to pa) thou$h8
/6< found that Att) @rupo ,iolated a rule for(iddin$ la!)ers from (orro!in$ mone) from their clients
unless the client?s interests are protected () the nature of the case or () independent ad,ice and suspended him
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
indefinitel).
!hat he ,iolated !as the rule that a la!)er is (ound to o(ser,e candor fairness and lo)alt) in all his
dealin$ and transactions !ith his client. And that Att) @rupo did &ot ,iolate #ule 46 (ecause .unio consented to
and ratified to the use of the mone) as e,idenced () the <&. The court is constrained to $i,e credence to Att).
@rupo?s claims that the mone) pre,iousl) entrusted to him !as later con,erted into a loan
/SS0": 1o& Att). @rupo ,iolated #ule 46G
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
1hat he ,iolated !as the rule that a la!)er is (ound to o(ser,e candor fairness and lo)alt) in all his
dealin$ and transactions !ith his client. 7 he did not $i,e securit) for the loan and he refused to pa) the
amount8And that Att) @rupo did not ,iolate #ule 46 (ecause .unio consented to and ratified to the use of the
mone) as e,idenced () the <&. The court is constrained to $i,e credence to Att). @rupo?s claims that the mone)
pre,iousl) entrusted to him !as later con,erted into a loan
6ut in the dispositi,e portion sa(i he ,iolatedW so a)un.
As to the contention that no att)- client relationship e5ists: it is not necessar) that an) retainer should
ha,e (een paid. All is needed is !hen a person consults !ith his att) in his professional capacit) to o(tain
professional ad,ice.
Att) @rupo is suspended from practice of la! for 4 month and to refund the mone)
42 .UADO 9 LAYAG
Facts:
2erein complainant Lisin$ and her sister #osita de @u%man 7 mother of herein complianat Susana 6uado8 !ere the
plaintiffs in a ci,il case !hich !as decided in fa,or of the plaintiffs. Att) La)a$ represented the said plaintiffs in that case.
/nland Trail!a)s the defendant in that case issued chec-s: 748pa)a(le to Att) La)a$ for <45000 728 pa)a(le to Lisin$ for
<904;0 798 pa)a(le to 3e @u%man !ho had () then
passed a!a) 7for <:50008. The chec-s !ere recei,ed () Att) La)a$. Att) La)a$ did not inform the plaintiffs a(out the
chec-s. /nstead he $a,e the chec-s to one *arie <a% @on%ales for encashment on the stren$th of a Special <o!er of
Attorne) purportedl) e5ecuted () 3e @u%man constitutin$ @on%ales as a$ent.
After disco,erin$ that chec-s ha,e alread) (een issued Lisin$ and 6uado as heir of 3e @u%man demanded the deli,er) of
the chec-s. @on%ales the a$ent $a,e Lisin$ <40000. &o furhter amounts !ere remitted.
/ssue:
1=n Att) La)a$Os act of deli,erin$ the chec-s to @on%ales the purported a$ent constitutes malpractice...
2eld:
I"S. As a la!)er !ith more than 90 )ears in practice respondent is char$ed !ith -no!led$e of the la!. 2e should -no!
that it !as error for him to rel) on a Special <o!er of Attorne) after the death of the principal 3e @u%man. 1hen 3e
@u%man died the Special <o!er of Attorne) ceased to (e operati,e.
1ith respect to the chec- pa)a(le to Lisin$ Att) La)a$ should ha,e deli,ered it directl) to Lisin$. The <o!er of Attorne)
did not co,er Lisin$Os case.
2e is therefore suspended indefinitel) su(Dect to further orders () the SC.
43 DALISAY 9 MAURICIO
Facts:
This is the case a$ainst A6atasB *auricio the TH host.
Alle$edl) *auricio demanded and recei,ed e5or(itant attorne)?s fees (ut did not ta-e an) action on Halerina
3alisa)?s case.
/nitiall) she paid <25T as acceptance fee.
/n total she paid *auricio <56T: <;T filin$ fee 7thou$h the case !as alread) filed8 the (alance mi$ht (e a
com(ination of the ff:
o Additional acceptance fee <C0000.00 !ith the e5planation that he can $i,e a discount should she pa) in
cash.
o <9000.00 as appearance fee
not!ithstandin$ her pa)ments respondent ne,er rendered an) le$al ser,ice. She terminated their attorne)-
client relationship and demanded the return of her mone) and documents. *auicio refused.
The /6< 6oard of @o,ernors !anted to dismiss the case.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/ssue:
1=& the case a$ainst *auricio should (e dismissed.
2eld:
&o. 2e should (e suspended for 6 months.
1hen respondent accepted <56000.00 from complainant it !as understood that he a$reed to ta-e up the
latter?s case and that an attorne)-client relationship (et!een them !as esta(lished. From then on it !as e5pected of him
to ser,e complainant !ith competence and attend to her case !ith fidelit) care and de,otion.
6ut there is nothin$ on record that *auricio entered his appearance as counsel of record.
2e did not e,en follo!-up the case !hich remained pendin$ up to the time she terminated his ser,ices.
#e$ardin$ the <;T: 7alle$edl) as doc-et fees for other cases8: A(-"#" 7a* ,) "92&",1" ,)# a, $%"a&2,/*
*+!m2(("& () *-)7 (-a( #"*$),&",( 32%"& a, 1a*" 1),*2&"#2,/ (-a( (-" 32%2,/ 3"" -a& () !" $a2&
*2m+%(a,")+*% 72(- (-" 32%2,/ )3 a 1a*"0B
!hen a la!)er ta-es a client?s cause he co,enants that he !ill e5ercise due dili$ence in protectin$ his ri$hts.
.ust li-e an) other professional a la!)er is entitled to collect fees for his ser,ices. 2o!e,er he should char$e
onl) a reasona(le amount of fees.
44 MORTERA 9 PAGATPATAN
Facts:
The *orteras sued their mother and 2 other personsLA$uilar and 6radfieldLfor the rescission of a contract of
sale. The) secured a fa,ora(le Dud$ment in !hich the) are to recei,e <455-.
<a$atpatan !as counsel for the *orteras. After Dud$ment !as rendered he entered into a secret a$reement !ith
A$uilar !here he recei,ed <450- as partial pa)ment of the Dud$ment sum.
This mone) !as later deposited () <a$atpatan in his personal account !ithout the -no!led$e of the *orteras.
*orteras filed an action (ecause <a$atpatan refuses to surrender the mone) despite the successi,e 'rders of the
#TC and CA.
<a$atpatan?s defense is that the *orteras and their mother o!ed him mone) for ser,ices he pre,iousl) rendered
the famil) and that he !ouldn?t (e paid if he did not do !hat he did.
/ssue:
Should <a$atpatan (e held administrati,el) lia(leG 1hat is the proper penalt)G
2eld:
Ies. <a$atpatan failed to o(ser,e Canon 45 and 46 of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit). As counsel he: o!es candor
to his clientsF is (ound to account !hate,er mone) recei,ed for and from themF is o(li$ated to -eep his o!n mone)
separate from his clients andF althou$h he is entitled to a lien o,er the funds in order to satisf) la!ful fees he is (ound to
$i,e prompt notice to his clients of such liens and to deli,er the funds to them upon demand or !hen due.
The claim that he need to protect his interests since there !ere other people claimin$ the mone) from the *onteras !as
not pro,ed.
The penalt) of 4-)ear suspension recommended () the /6< is not commensurate to the fault done. Se,eral factors !arrant
a more se,ere penalt): Considerin$ that <a$atpatan is a seasoned practitioner his actions are ine5cusa(leF Counsel tried
to su(,ert (oth la! and proper procedure to reco,er his feesF Counsel?s actions !ere clearl) tainted !ith (ad faith deceit
and utter contempt of his s!orn dut) as a la!)er.
<a$atpatan is ordered to return the <450- and is suspended for 2 )ears.
45 HERNANDE8 9 GO
FACTS
Sometime in 4C64 2"#&A&3"N?S hus(and a(andoned her and her son
Shortl) thereafter creditors of 2"#&A&3"N?S hus(and demanded pa)ment of his loans
Fearful of mort$a$e foreclosures 2"#&A&3"N en$a$ed the le$al ser,ices of ATTI @'
ATTI @' ad,ised 2"#&A&3"N to $i,e him land titles of lots in Nam(oan$a Cit) (elon$in$ to her so that he ma)
sell them to ena(le her to pa) the creditors
Then ATTI @' persuaded 2"#&A&3"N to e5ecute deeds of sale in his fa,or !ithout an) monetar) or ,alua(le
consideration
ATTI @' also persuaded 2"#&A&3"N to e5ecute deeds of sale in,ol,in$ the other lots in Nam(oan$a Cit) !hich
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
!ere redeemed () 2"#&A&3"N !hen their mort$a$es fell due
/n 4CJ: 2"#&A&3"N came to -no! that ATTI @' did not sell her lots as a$reed (ut instead he paid her creditors
!ith his o!n funds and had her land titles re$istered in his name depri,in$ her of real propert) !orth millions
2"#&A&3"N filed a complaint !ith the /6<
/6<: ATTI @' ,iolated Canon 4J and should (e suspended for 9 )ears
ISSUE W<N ATTY GO SHOULD .E REPRIMANDED
HELD YES' FOR VIOLATING CANONS 16 AND 17
RATIO
ATTI @' ,iolated Canon 46
o 2is acts ac+uirin$ for himself 2"#&A&3"N?S lots entrusted to him are acts constitutin$ $ross misconduct
a $rie,ous !ron$ a for(idden act a dereliction of dut) !illful in character and implies a !ron$ful intent
and not a mere error in Dud$ment
o Such conduct on the part of ATTI @' not onl) de$rades himself (ut also the honor of the le$al profession
ATTI @' ,iolated Canon 4J
o #ecords sho! that 2"#&A&3"N reposed hi$h de$ree of trust and confidence in ATTI @' that !hen she
en$a$ed his ser,ices she entrusted to him her land titles and allo!ed him to sell the same
o ATTI @' ho!e,er a(used this trust and confidence !hen he did not sell her properties to others (ut to
himself
o ATTI @' is dut) (ound to render a detailed report to 2"#&A&3"N on ho! much he sold the lots and the
amounts paid to her creditors (ut failed to do so
/n pre,ious cases the Court dis(arred and e5pelled la!)ers from the practice of la! in similar circumstances
thus the penalt) recommended () the /6< is too li$ht
!UD"MENT
ATTI @' is dis(arred
46 REONTOY 9 I.ADLIT
Facts:
Cora%on #eonto) lost a decision in a ci,il case in the #TC !ith Att). Li(erato /(adlit as her counsel.
/(adlit recei,ed the notice of the decision (ut he opted not to file an appeal. 2e sa)s that he informed #eonto)?s
(rother <roculo Toma%ar to inform #eonto) of his opinion that he did not thin- that an appeal !ould prosper.
This statement !as refuted () the testimon) of <roculo sa)in$ that he !as not $i,en such info.
#eonto) also said that he !ould ne,er authori%ed <roculo to represent her to the court or to her la!)er (ecause
<roculo !as unlettered.
/(adlit onl) filed the notice of appeal after the re$lementar) period for appeal. '(,iousl) the appeal !as
instantl) dismissed.
/ssue:
1=n /(adlit should (e sanctioned.
2eld:
SC sa)s )es /(adlit is suspended for 4 )ear.
A la!)er o!es entire de,otion in protectin$ the interest of his client !armth and %eal in the defense of his ri$hts.
2e must use all his learnin$ and a(ilit) to the end that nothin$ can (e ta-en or !ithheld from his client e5cept in
accordance !ith the la!. 2e must present e,er) remed) or defense !ithin the authorit) of the la! in support of
his clientOs cause re$ardless of his o!n personal ,ie!s. /n the full dischar$e of his duties to his client the la!)er
should not (e afraid of the possi(ilit) that he ma) displease the Dud$e or the $eneral pu(lic.
A la!)er has no authorit) to !ai,e his clientOs ri$ht to appeal. 2is failure to perfect an appeal !ithin the
prescri(ed period constitutes ne$li$ence and malpractice proscri(ed () #ule 4;.09 Canon 4; of the Code o)
.ro)essional Responsi*ilit+ !hich pro,ides that Sa la!)er shall not ne$lect a le$al matter entrusted to him and his
ne$li$ence in connection there!ith shall render him lia(le.S
47 DE LAINO 9 CA
3e Liano ,s. CA E *endiola
Facts: The prior case in,ol,es the cancellation of 2 real estate mort$a$es in fa,or of San *i$uel e5ecuted () Tan$o. 3e
Liano !as a senior e5ecuti,e of S*C.
The prior case !as decided a$ainst S*C. 3e Liano appealed the decision to the CA. Their counsel Att).
Afa(le filed an Appellant?s 6rief !hich failed to compl) !ith the #ules of Court. Tan$o noticed this fla! of the 6rief
and immediatel) mo,ed for the dismiss of 3e Liano?s appeal. The CA decided that the Appellant?s 6rief does not
contain a Su(Dect /nde5 or a Ta(le of Cases and AuthoritiesF and that these lapses Dustif) the dismissal of the
appeal.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
3e Liano asserts that the CA erred in declarin$ that the appeal (e dismissed on the (asis of the lapses in
compl)in$ !ith the technical re+uirements in ma-in$ of (rief.
/ssue: 1=& the dismissal of the Appeal !as proper.
2eld: T-" &2*m2**a% )3 (-" !#2"3 7a* $#)$"#0
All appeals are merel) ri$hts that arise from statutesF thus the) must (e e5ercised in the manner
prescri(ed () la!. /t is to this end that rules $o,ernin$ pleadin$s must (e e5ercised in the manner prescri(ed ()
la!. These technical rules li-e the inclusion of the Astatement of factsB or the Asu(Dect inde5B in the (rief are meant
to ena(le the appellate court to ha,e a (etter $rasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal.
#ele,ant to the topic: G","#a%%' (-" ,"/%2/",1" )3 (-" 1)+,*"% !2,&* (-" 1%2",(0 ",en if Att).
Afa(le ma) (e said to (e S*C?s counsel this does not operate in fa,or of 3e Liano. A corporation is an artificial
(ein$ !hose Duridical personalit) is onl) a fiction created () la! and it can onl) e5ercise po!ers and transact its
(usiness throu$h its (oard of directors and its a$ents. T-a( A((0 A3a!%" 7a* 1%)(-"& 72(- *+33212",( a+(-)#2(
() !2,& SMC 2* +,&2*$+(a!%"0 SMCF* !)a#& #"*)%+(2), a(("*(* () (-a(0 A* *+1-' SMC m+*( !" -"%& !)+,&
! (-" a1(+a(2),* )3 2(* 1)+,*"%' A((0 A3a!%"0
45 TA.AS 9 MANGI.IN
Facts:
A deed of mort$a$e !as deli,ered to 2ilda Ta(as e,idencin$ a real propert) in La 0nion that !as mort$a$ed to
her () @al,an. The deed of mort$a$e !as re$istered in the #e$ister of 3eeds of La 0nion.
Su(se+uentl) a certain Lilia CastilleDos represented herself as Ta(as and appeared (efore *an$i(in !ho !as a
notar) pu(lic and as-ed the latter to prepare a dischar$e of the mort$a$e and to notari%e it after!ards.
*an$i(in prepared the dischar$e of real estate mort$a$e !ithout as-in$ CastilleDos for an)thin$ to ser,e as
identification e5cept for a Communit) Ta5 Certificate 7CTC8. This ena(led @al,an to mort$a$e the propert) a$ain
this time to a rural (an-
Ta(as informed *an$i(in that her si$nature in the +uestioned dischar$e of #"* !as for$ed (ut *an$i(in did
nothin$ to help. 2e e,en threatened to file a counter suit a$ainst her if she files a case a$ainst him.
Ta(as filed this complaint for dis(arment.
*an$i(in admitted that the dischar$e of #"* !as a for$er) (ut interposed the defense that it !as (e)ond the
scope of his dut) to ascertain the identit) of persons appearin$ (efore him and that he had no a,aila(le means of
ascertainin$ their real identities.
/ssue:
1=& *an$i(in should (e held administrati,el) lia(le for ne$li$ence in the performance of his dut) as a notar) pu(lic to
ascertain the identit) of the person appearin$ (efore him.
2eld:
I"S *an$i(in !as ne$li$ent in performin$ such dut).
&otari%ation is in,ested !ith pu(lic interest. /t con,erts a pri,ate document into a pu(lic one ma-in$ it
admissi(le in court !ithout further proof of its authenticit). Such document is () la! entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face. Courts administrati,e a$encies and the pu(lic must (e a(le to rel) upon an
ac-no!led$ement () a notar) pu(lic appended to a document.
A notar) pu(lic should not notari%e a document unless the person !ho si$ned the same is the ,er) same person
!ho e5ecuted and personall) appeared (efore him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the
document.
*an$i(in should ha,e re+uested other forms of identification or as-ed +uestions to ascertain her identit).
*an$i(in ,iolated the &otarial La! and Canon 4. 2is notarial commission is re,o-ed and he is dis+ualified from
reappointment as notar) pu(lic for 2 )ears.
44 SANTUYO 9 HIDALGO
FACTS:
Santu)o purchased a parcel of land co,ered () a deed of sale !hich !as notari%ed () 2idal$o and !as entered in
his notarial re$ister
6 )ears after the date of notari%ation Santu)o had a dispute !ith 3anilo @erman o,er the o!nership of the land
@ermen presented an affida,it of 2idal$o den)in$ the authenticit) if his si$nature on the deed of sale and that it
!as for$ed
Santu)o ar$ued that:
o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a dul) notari%ed document
o The) had no access to the dr) seal of 2idal$o
2idal$o on the other hand claimed that:
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
o 2e !as on ,acation at the time that the deed !as alle$edl) notari%ed
o An e5amination of the document !ill pro,e that his si$nature !as for$ed
o 2e !ould ha,e remem(ered Santu)o for he re+uires that the parties e5hi(it their communit) ta5
certificates and made them personall) ac-no!led$e the documents (efore he notari%e documents
/6<: the si$nature !as reall) for$ed (ut 2idal$o must (e suspended for 2 )ears as a notar) pu(lic
/SS0":
1=& 2idal$o must (e suspended
2"L3:
I"S>
The responsi(ilit) attached to a notar) pu(lic is sensiti,e. 2idal$o should ha,e (een more discreet and cautious /
the e5ecution of his duties as such and should not ha,e !holl) entrusted e,er)thin$ to the secretaries.
2idal$o is ne$li$ent not onl) in the supposed notari%ation (ut foremost in ha,in$ allo!ed the office secretaries to
ma-e the necessar) entries in his notarial re$istr) !hich !as supposed to (e done and -ept () him alone and
should not ha,e relied on some(od) else.
1:: ENDAYA 9 OCA
Facts:
A complaint for unla!ful detainer !as filed a$ainst Artemio "nda)a and his !ife. An ans!er !as prepared () a *r.
#amire% for the spouses.
At the (e$innin$ of the preliminar) conference spouses appeared !ithout counsel. "nda)a sou$ht the ser,ices of
the <u(lic Attorne)?s 'ffice. Att). 'ca !as assi$ned to handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference 'ca filed motion for amendment of ans!er. *otion !as denied.
The Dud$e then ordered all parties to su(mit their affida,its and position papers. The court also said that 90 da)s
after the su(mission of the last paper or upon e5piration of the period for filin$ Dud$ment shall (e rendered on
the case.
'ca failed to su(mit an) affida,it or position paper.
&onetheless the complaint for unla!ful detainer !as dismissed (ecause those !ho filed the case !ere not reall
parties-in-interest.
The case !as appealed to #TC. 'ca failed to su(mit an)thin$ a$ain. #TC re,ersed the *TC decision. Spouses
!ere ordered to ,acate the propert) and pa) a certain amount for rentals.
"nda)a confronted 'ca a(out the decision. 'ca fei$ned that he did not recei,e an)thin$. 0pon chec-in$ !ith the
cler- of court 'ca did indeed recei,e a cop) of the decision 7liar>8.
2ence this administrati,e complaint.
/ssue:
1=& 'ca committed professional misconduct
2eld:
Ies. Suspended for 2 months from practice of la!.
Facts to sho! ma) pro(lema tala$a to si Att). 'ca:
o /n his comment 'ca put up the defense that he did not file an) paper in the *CTC (ecause it !ould Dust
(e a repetition of the ans!er. "nda)a filed his repl) !hich Dust reiterated !hat he put in his complaint.
o SC ordered 'ca to file a reDoinder. @uess !hat 'ca once a$ain failed to file an)thin$. 'ca e5plained that
he failed to file a reDoinder (ecause he (elie,ed in $ood faith that it !as no lon$er necessar).
o /n the /6< in,esti$ation 'ca once a$ain failed to su(mit an)thin$.
'ca onl) appeared once in the *CTC and practicall) a(andoned the spouses thereafter.
The facts sho! that 'ca failed to emplo) e,er) le$al and honora(le means to ad,ance the cause of his client. For
intentionall) failin$ to su(mit the pleadin$s re+uired () the court respondent practicall) closed the door to the
possi(ilit) of puttin$ up a fair fi$ht for his client.
'ca cannot Dust appear onl) once for the spouses. A la!)er continues to (e a counsel of record until the la!)er-
client relationship is terminated.
'ca?s stor) sho!s his appallin$ indifference to his clients? cause deplora(le lac- of respect for the courts and a
(ra%en disre$ard of his duties as a la!)er.
6a-it hindi dis(arredG
o "nda)a misrepresented that the ori$inal ans!er !as prepared () a non-la!)er !hen in fact it !as
prepared () a la!)er
o "nda)a assured 'ca that he had stron$ e,idence to support their case. "nda)a ne,er $a,e an)thin$ to
'ca to support their claim.
o The <A' is (urdened !ith a hea,) caseload.
1:1 DE JUAN 9 .ARIA III
FACTS:
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
"mma de .uan d!as dismissed () Triple AAA !ithout notice. She as-ed for the assistance of 6anaha! 6roadcastin$
Compan) 766C8 to search for a la!)er. The ne! la!)er Att). 'scar 6arria /// !ho !or-ed !ith 66C offerin$ free
le$al ser,ices to indi$ents (ecame the counsel of de .uan in the &L#C case a$ainst Triple
AAA for ille$al dismissal.
1hen an ad,erse &L#C decision !as rendered a$ainst de .uan she as-ed Att) 6aria as to !hat to do ne5t. Att)
replied S<aano (a )an iha eh hindi a-o marunon$ $uma!a n$ *otion for #econsiderationGS and the secretar) of
Att). 6aria told de .uan and the hus(and S!a$ na tuma!a$ uli dahil $alit...S
3e .uan char$ed Att) 6aria !ith ne$li$ence and threats to her person.
Att). 6Aria contends that he fore!arned his client not to e5pect too much from him (ecause of his limited le$al
e5perience since he !as a ne! la!)er. Also he alle$es that 3e .uan poc-eted the mone) that Triple AAA has
alread) paid off.
After that the &L#C decision !as re,ersed and Att). 6aria accused de .uan that she lied re: her emplo)ment !hich
made him lose his appeal.
*a) incident pa re: #aff) Tulfo 7pero d na -elan$an un.. $usto n)a -asuhan n$ li(el -asi ma) sina(in$ (ad a$ainst
him8
/SS0": 1o& Att). 6aria can (e administrati,el) char$edG
2"L3: Ies.
#AT/':
4. 'nce a la!)er a$rees to ta-e up the cause of a client the la!)er o!es fidelit) to such cause and must (e mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
2. #ule 4;.09 pro,ides that the ne$li$ence of la!)ers in connection !ith le$al matters entrusted to them for handlin$ shall
render them lia(le.
9. 1ithout a proper re,ocation of his authorit) and !ithdra!al as counsel Att) 6aria remains counsel of record and
!hether or not he has ,alid cause to !ithdra! from the case he cannot Dust do so and lea,e his client out in the cold.
1:2 ED=UI.AL 9 FERRER
FACTS:
"d+ui(al char$ed Att) Ferrer !ith professional misconduct and ne$lect of dut).
"d+ui(al en$a$ed the ser,ices of Ferrer to assist his mother 0rsula in cases she filed a$ainst his sister 3elia in,ol,in$ a
certain propert). /n one of the cases the trial Dud$e rendered a decision ad,erse to his mother. Att) Ferrer then ad,ised
complainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost in,ol,ed is <:000. 1hen complainant "d+ui(al informed respondent
Att) Ferrer that he does not ha,e enou$h mone) Att) ferrer said <2000 is sufficient.
"d+ui(al follo!ed up the appealed case. 2e then learned that the appeal !as dismissed for failure to file the re+uired
appelantOs (rief.
#espondent Att) Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. 2e claimed that he ne,er a$reed to handle the appeal.
/SS0":
1=n Att) Ferrer is $uilt) of professional misconduct...
2"L3:
I"S. #ecords sho! that respondnet !as the counsel of record for "d+ui(al. The resolution of the CA clearl) states that the
Snotice sent to counsel for defendants-appelants re+uirin$ him to file appelants (rief !ihtin :5 da)s from receipt thereof
!as recei,ed () him...S. 2o!e,er respondent failed to file the appellantsO (rief despite receipt of such notice. Sec2 rule
:: of the #ules of Ci,<ro pro,ides that the counsel of the parties in the court of ori$in shall (e considered their counsel in
the CA.
/f it !ere true that Att) Ferrer did not a$ree to represent "d+ui(als !h) did he not file !ith the CA a motion to !ithdra! as
their counselG The practice of la! does not re+uire e5traordinar) dili$ence. All that is re+uired is ordinar) dili$ence
e5pected of a (onus pater familias.
Suspended for 9 mos.
1:3 CUI8ON 9 MACALIN
Facts:
The le$al ser,ices of the Att) #odolfo *acalino !as sou$ht () the Susan Cui%on in (ehalf of her hus(and Antolin
Cui%on !ho !as con,icted for Hiolation of 3an$erous 3ru$ Act.
Since the) cannot pa) he su$$ested that he (e $i,en possession of their *itsu(ishi car.
2e then offered to (u) and (ou$ht it for onl) <;5T. 7Too cheap e,en if this happened durin$ the earl) C0?s8.
/n spite of e,er)thin$ he still failed to appear in the case of Antolin Cui%on. The Cui%on?s $ot another attorne).
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2e 7*acalino8 !as sanctioned () the lo!er courts and !as fined () the SC for <4000. !hich he did not pa).
2e !as ordered to (e arrested () the &6/ !ho !as not a(le to ser,e the !arrant a$ainst him 7alle$edl) he no
lon$er resided in his place8
The /6< !anted to suspend him for 9 )ears.
/ssue:
1=& Att). *acalino should (e sanctioned.
2eld:
2e should (e 3/S6A##"3 and not Dust suspended.
Amon$ the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorne) !ho underta-es to conduct an action
impliedl) stipulates to carr) it to its conclusion
The respondent clearl) (reached his o(li$ation under #ule 4;.09 Canon 4; of the Code of <rofessional
#esponsi(ilit) !hich pro,ides: A la!)er shall not ne$lect a le$al matter entrusted to him and his ne$li$ence in
connection there!ith shall render him lia(le.
6) his repeated ca,alier conduct the respondent e5hi(ited an unpardona(le lac- of respect for the authorit) of
the Court
As an officer of the court it is a la!)er?s dut) to uphold the di$nit) and authorit) of the court. The hi$hest form
of respect for Dudicial authorit) is sho!n () a la!)er?s o(edience to court orders and processes.
1:4 DE JUAN 9 .ARIA III
Facts:
3e .uan !as an emplo)ee of Triple AAA. 6ased on a performance e,aluation she !as terminated.
3e .uan filed a case for ille$al termination a$ainst the compan). Att) 6aria /// !as her counsel.
The La(or Ar(iter rendered a decision in fa,or of 3e .uan. 1hen the compan) appealed to the &L#C the decision
!as re,ersed.
3e .uan (lamed 6aria /// for the re,ersal of the decision. She said that she onl) came to -no! of the re,ersed
decision a month after it !as promul$ated. And !hen she as-ed counsel !hat to do the latter said that he did not
-no! ho! to ma-e a *otion for #econsideration. And !hen her hus(and called the office of the la!)er the
secretar) told them not to tal- !ith said counsel an)more.
6aria ///?s defense !as that he fore!arned his clients that he !as Dust ne! in the profession and that the) should
not e5pect much from him. 2e also claimed that did not fail in informin$ his clients re$ardin$ the de,elopment of
the case. And !hen the &L#C re,ersed the decision of the La(or Ar(iter he ad,ised 3e .uan to $et a more
e5perienced la!)er. 2e also cited that he !as lam(asted on air () a radio announcer--#aff) Tulfo. And that he
recei,ed death threats after 3e .uan?s hus(and called their office and $a,e a !arnin$ to his secretar). /n sum
6aria /// asserts that he did not commit an) (reach of his oath and that he has ,i$orousl) pursued his client?s
cause. 2e further a,erred that it !as 3e .uan?s ne$li$ence and foll) that caused her to lose the case.
/ssue:
1hether 6aria /// committed culpa(le ne$li$ence that !ould !arrant disciplinar) action in failin$ to file for 3e .uan motion
for reconsideration from the decision of the &L#C.
2eld:
Ies. 'nce a la!)er a$rees to ta-e up the cause of a client he o!es fidelit) to such cause and must (e mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. A la!)er should carr) the case of his client until its termination or until it has (ecome final
and e5ecutor). A la!)er ma) onl) a(andon his client and !ithdra! his ser,ices for a reasona(le cause and onl) upon
appropriate notice.
6aria /// did fail to file a motion for reconsideration. 2is e5cuse that he did not -no! ho! to ma-e one is ine5cusa(le. After
his client e5pressed her desire to file such motion it is incum(ent upon him to familiari%e himself !ith the procedure to
carr) out such tas-. An)!a) filin$ a motion for reconsideration is not that complicated. Thou$h he did inform his client of
his lac- of e5perience this cannot a(sol,e him. A la!)er is e5pected to (e familiar !ith the rudiments of the la! and
procedure. /t is his dut) to ser,e his client !ith competence and dili$ence and should e5ert his (est efforts to protect the
interests of his client.
There !as no proper re,ocation of authorit) and !ithdra!al () 6aria ///. So he remained 3e .uan?s counsel in the case. 2e
did not o(tain the !ritten consent of his client or the permission of the court to !ithdra! from the case.
&e$li$ence of la!)ers in connection !ith le$al matters entrusted to them for handlin$ shall render them lia(le 7Canon 4;
#ule 98. 6aria /// a(andoned the cause of his client !ithout a Dust reason. 2e !as !arned and fined in the amount of <5-.
1:5 ROLLON 9 NAVAL
FACTS
#'LL'& to$ether !ith her S'& !ent to the office of ATTI &A#AHAL to see- his assistance in a case filed a$ainst
her 7Collection of Sum of *one)8
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
After $oin$ throu$h the documents ATTI &A#AHAL a$reed to (e #'LL'&?S la!)er and re+uired her to pa)
<;000 as filin$ and partial ser,ice fee
As per instruction of ATTI &A#AHAL #'LL'&?S S'& returned to his office to follo! up ho!e,er ATTI &A#AHAL
told the S'& that he !as not a(le to act on the case (ecause he !as (us)
After se,eral follo!-ups and still no action #'LL'& decided to !ithdra! the amount paid to ATTI &A#AHAL for
failure of the latter to compl) !ith their mutual a$reement
ATTI &A#AHAL said that he could not return the documents (ecause the same !ere in his house and the <;000
paid () #'LL'& (ecause he has no mone)
#'LL'& decided to refer the matter to the /6< <resident of 3a,ao Cit)
/&H"ST/@AT/&@ C'**/SS/'&"#: suspend for 4 )ear for ne$lect of dut) and=or ,iolation of Canons 45 and 4;
/6< 6'A#3 'F @'H"#&'#?S #"S'L0T/'&: suspend for 2 )ears for ,iolation of Canons 45 and 4; and restitution of
<;000
ISSUE W<N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD .E REPRIMANDED
HELD YES' FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 150:5 AND CANONS 16' 17 H 15
RATIO
'rdinaril) la!)ers are not o(li$ed to act either as ad,isers or as ad,ocates of an) person !ho ma) !ish to
(ecome their client. The) ma) decline emplo)ment and refuse to accept representation if the) are not in a
position to carr) it out effecti,el) and competentl). 6ut once the) a$ree to handle a case attorne)s are re+uired
() the Canons of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) to underta-e the tas- !ith %eal care and utmost de,otion.
Acceptance of mone) from a client esta(lishes an attorne) client-relationship and $i,es rise to the dut) of fidelit)
to a client?s cause. And e,er) case accepted () a la!)er deser,es full attention dili$ence s-ill and competence.
2ence practicin$ la!)ers ma) accept onl) as ma) cases as the) can efficientl) handle. 'ther!ise their clients
!ould (e preDudiced.
/n the case at (ar records sho! that after recei,in$ <;000 ATTI &A#AHAL failed to render an) le$al ser,ice to
#'LL'& and despite #'LL'&?S repeated demands ATTI &A#AHAL failed to return the files of the case that had
(een entrusted to him and -ept the mone) #'LL''& had li-e!ise entrusted to him
Furthermore after $oin$ throu$h her papers ATTI &A#AHAL should ha,e $i,en #'LL'& a candid opinion on the
merits and status of the case. Apparentl) the ci,il suit a$ainst #'LL'& had (een decided a$ainst her and had
lon$ (ecome final e5ecutor). 2o!e,er ATTI &A#AHAL !ithheld such ,ital information from #'LL'& and e,en
demanded <;000 as filin$ and ser,ice fee $i,in$ her hope that her case !ould (e acted upon.
JUDGMENT
Att). Camilo &ara,al is found G5ILT6 of ,iolatin$ #ule 45.05 and Canons 46 4J and 4; of the Code of <rofessional
#esponsi(ilit) and is here() S5S.E78E8 from the practice of la! for a period of t!o 728 )ears effecti,e upon his
receipt of this 3ecision. Furthermore he is 9R8ERE8 T9 RESTIT5TE, !ithin thirt) 7908 da)s from notice of this
3ecision complainant?s ei$ht thousand pesos 7<;0008 plus interest thereon at the rate of si5 percent per
annum from 'cto(er 4; 2000 until full) paid.
1:6 MIRAFLOR 9 HAGAD
Facts:
&ilo *iraflor !ith the help of <rimo *iraflor filed a complaint a$ainst /nsular Lum(er Co. <hils. 7/LC'<2/L8 for
ille$al dismissal. The *inister of La(or and "mplo)ment initiall) denied the petition (ut the &L#C re,ersed the
rulin$ !hich !as affirmed () the 'ffice of the <resident 7'<8.
#espondent Att). .ose A$uirre as the "5ecuti,e La(or Ar(iter issued a !rit of e5ecution to enforce the decision of
the '<.
/LC'<2/L throu$h Att). .uan 2a$ad filed a motion for reconsideration. A$uirre ordered /LC'<2/L to post a (ond
to sta) the e5ecution of the decision and ordered a trial to determine the correct amount of (ac-!a$es and
(enefits to (e a!arded to *iraflor. ",entuall) A$uirre lo!ered the amount adDud$ed () the '< 7from 2J- to
4:-8.
*irfalor no! complains to the SC that the respondent-la!)ers conspired to th!art the e5ecution of the decision of
the '< !hich ma) constitute malpractice $ross misconduct or ,iolation of the la!)er?s oath.
/ssue:
1=n A$uirre and 2a$ad acted properl) as la!)ers.
2eld:
SC sa)s I"S.
#espondent Att). 2a$ad can ne,er (e faulted for ha,in$ filed said motion for reconsideration. As counsel for
/LC'<2/L he has the dut) to pursue !ith %eal and dedication the (est interests of his client and the filin$ of the
motion for reconsideration !as !ell !ithin the scope of his authorit) and prero$ati,es as such counsel. Canon 4;
of the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) mandates that Sa la!)er shall ser,e his client !ith competence and
dili$ence.S
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
1ith respect to respondent Att). A$uirre .r. his e5planation is reasona(le and satisfactor). Complainants e5cept
for their unsu(stantiated alle$ations ne,er offered an) satisfactor) e,idence to !arrant the conclusion that Att).
A$uirre .r. acted maliciousl) in allo!in$ /LC'<2/L to file the +uestioned motion for reconsideration. 2is
e5planation that he Smerel) complied !ith due process () $rantin$ the respondent compan) /LC'<2/L an
opportunit) to present e,idence relati,e to its claim that complainant 7&ilo *iraflor8 had $ainful emplo)ment
durin$ the time he !as dismissedS is !ell ta-en. As a matter of fact in allo!in$ said motion for reconsideration
Att). A$uirre !as merel) compl)in$ !ith the presidential directi,e to ha,e a further adDudication on &iloOs salar)
differentials and other (enefits due him.
1:7 PEOPLE 9 PRIETO
Facts: <rieto !as prosecuted in the <eople?s Court for J counts of treason. 2e entered a plea of $uilt) on counts 4 2 9
and J and made a plea of not $uilt) on counts : 5 6. <rieto !as found $uilt) on count : 4 2 9 and Jdespite the fact
that the prosecutor onl) presented e,idence on count :.

<rieto see-s the re,ersal of the con,iction alle$in$ that the court failed to appoint another counsel de officio to him in
Sspite of the manifestation of the att). de officio that he !ould li-e to (e relie,ed for o(,ious reasons.S

/ssue: 1=& <rieto !as denied the ri$ht to counsel.

2eld: P#2"() 7a* ,)( &",2"& (-" #2/-( () 1)+,*"%0

The court places reasona(le presumption in fa,or of the le$alit) and re$ularit) of all the proceedin$s of the trial court
includin$ the presumption that the accused !as not denied the ri$ht to ha,e counsel. The fact that the att). appointed ()
the trial court to aid <rieto in his defense e5pressed reluctance to accept the desi$nation 7(ecause he did not s)mpathi%e
!ith <rieto?s cause8 is not sufficient to o,ercome the presumption. The statement of the counsel in the court (elo! did not
necessaril) impl) that he did not perform his dut) to protect <rieto.

The court also finds the <rieto is not $uilt) of counts 42 9 and J (ecause of lac- of e,idence. 2is $uilt in count : is
maintained and the penalt) imposed is reclusion perpetua due to a$$ra,atin$ 7torture8 and miti$atin$ 7plea of $uilt8
circumstances.
1:5 MILLARE 9 MONTERO
*illare , *ontero
Facts:
This is a dis(arment proceedin$ a$ainst Att). *ontero
<acifica *illare the mother of complainant o(tained a fa,ora(le Dud$ment from the *TC !hich ordered Co to
,acate the premises su(Dect of the eDectment case.
Co throu$h *ontero as counsel appealed the decision to the #TC. She neither filed a supersedeas (ond nor paid
the rentals adDud$ed () the *TC. Thus the appeal !as dismissed.
The CA also dismissed Co?s appeal from the #TC decision for failure to compl) !ith 6< 6l$. 42C and !ith the
/nterim #ules and @uidelines. Accordin$ to CA Co should ha,e filed a petition for re,ie! and not an ordinar)
appeal.
After the dismissal the Dud$ment of the *TC had alread) (ecome final and e5ecutor). 2o!e,er Co?s counsel
filed four more defecti,e and dilator) petitions (efore the #TC CA and SC for the purpose of dela)in$ the
e5ecution of Dud$ment () *TC.
/ssue: 1=& *illare should (e dis(arred for ,iolatin$ Canons 42 and 4C
2eld: *ontero is suspended for one )ear.
Canon 4C re+uires a la!)er to represent his clients !ithin the (ounds of the la!. 2e must emplo) onl) fair and
honest means to attain the la!ful o(Decti,es of his client. 2e must not allo! his client to dictate the procedure in
handlin$ the case. /n short a la!)er is not a $un for hire.
The appeal from *TC to #TC !as sufficient to protect Co?s interest and full) ,entilate her defenses.
*ontero is also $uilt) of forum shoppin$ considerin$ the num(er of actions he filed.
1:4 PHIL LAND 9 CE.U PORTLAND
FACTS:
<LASL0 as-ed the Court of /ndustrial #elations to order Ce(u <ortland to pa) o,ertime compensation and differentials due
to them under the #A 4;;0 or the :0 2ours a 1ee- La!.
The Compan) ar$ued that the sucurit) $uards are not under the said la! and ther) are not entitled to additional
compensation
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
C/#: <LASL0 are not !ithin the co,era$e of #A 4;;0
After 2 )ears form the decision of the C/# <LASL0 throu$h their ne! counsel made ot of record that their former counsel
!as not authori%ed () them to enter into stipulations of facts.
Accordin$ to <LASL0 the stipulation of their pre,ious attorne) !hich states that Sthe) !ere re+uired () the compan) to
!or- for 56 hours a !ee- !as due to the nature of thier ser,ices and in the interest of pu(lic noticeS is a le$al
conclusion and !ere not authori%ed () them
therefore <LASL0 filed a petition to reopen the case
C/#: denied the motion to reopen the case
/SS0":
1=& the court can reopen the case after it has lon$ (een final and e5ecutor)
2"L3:
&'>
/t has (een settled that clients are (ound () the acts and e,en mista-es of counsel in procedural techni+ues. The facts
that !ere a$reed upon !ere unfa,ora(le to the client does not detract from the (indin$ effect of the stipulation.
the condition to reopen a case is: it must (e upon $rounds not alread) directl) or indirectl) liti$ated and the $rounds must
not (e a,aila(le to the aprties in the pre,ious proceedin$s and the reopenin$ must not affect the period alread)
elapsed at the time the order to reopen !as issued.
11: CA.ALLERO 9 DEIPARINE
Ca(allero ,. 3eiparine
Facts:
There !as a stipulation of facts statin$ the follo!in$:
o <laintiffs are the children () the first marria$e defendants 7#a$a?s8 are the children () the second
marria$e of Hicenta 6ucao.
o Hicenta 6ucao and Tomas #a$a ac+uired land in Ce(u. \ of this land !as sold to Antonio Ca(allero 7one
of the plaintiffs8. Land !as ne,er transferred thru title.
o Later on 3eiparine ac+uired the !hole lot throu$h purchase from Tomas #a$a. TCT !as issued to
3eiparine.
The stipulation !as onl) si$ned () Att). @u(a7for plaintiffs8 and Att). 3a,ide7for respondents8.
From the stipulation of facts the CF/ rendered decision in fa,or of the defendants 7that 3eiparine o!ns the !hole
lot8.
<laintiffs filed for reconsideration sa)in$ that the) !ere ne,er made to participate in the preparation and
formation of the stipulation of facts
/ssue:
1=& the stipulation of facts is ,alid
2eld:
The case is remanded to court of ori$in for further proceedin$s and the amended complaint should (e accepted.
/t is pu%%lin$ !h) the petitioners? si$natures !ere not affi5ed in the stipulation.
The conduct of Att). @u(a in enterin$ into a compromise a$reement !ithout the -no!led$e and consent of his
clients is not in -eepin$ !ith the s!orn dut) of a la!)er to protect the interest of his clients. /t amounts to fraud.
The stipulation of facts !hich !as made the (asis of the decision !as null and ,oid as it contained serious
unauthori%ed admissions a$ainst the interest of the plaintiffs !ho had no hand in its preparation.
Attorne)s cannot !ithout special authorit) compromise their client?s liti$ation.
111 PHIL WHEELS 9 FASGI
<2/L AL0*/&0* 12""LS /&C , FAS@/
FACTS:
FAS@/ and <A1/ entered into a distri(utorship contract !herein <A1/ o(li$ated itself to ship !heels for FAS@/
7forei$n compan)8
FAS@/ paid <A1/ the F'6 ,alue of the !heels (ut later found the shipment to (e defecti,e and in non-compliance
!ith their stated re+uirements 7non stampin$ of countr) of ori$in !ei$ht load limits no proper indications and
mar-in$s on the !heels not fitted to the automo(iles etc8
FAS@/ instituted an action a$ainst <A1/ and F<S for (reach of contract and reco,er) of dama$es !here /
!as stipulated that <A1/ and F<S !ould accept the return of not loess than ;400 !heels after restorin$ to FAS@/
the purchase price ,ia : irreo,a(le letters of credit.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
<A1/ !as una(le to compl) !ith the fore$oin$ a$reement alle$in$ that it !as due to a restriction () the Central
6an- 7for appro,al of the L=C8
<A1/ and FAS@/ undertoo- a ST/<0LAT/'& 'F .03@*"&T a$reein$ that if <A1/ still failed to underta-e its
o(li$ation FAS@/ !ould immediatel) ha,e a ri$ht to appl) to the Court for entr) of Dud$ment.T2is !as
e5ecuted () the FAS@/ president and <A1/ Counsel 7*r. Thomas #ead)8.
<A1/ still defaulted so FAS@/ filed !ith the 0S 3istrict Court of the Central 3istrict of California. 7case !as decided
a$ainst <A1/ to pa)8
FAS@/ filed !ith the *a-ati #TC for enforcement of forei$n Dud$ment (ut the latter held that there !as unDust
enrichment since <A1/ !as to pa) !hile FAS@/ !as not ordered to return the !heels. F0#T2"#*'#" it held that
the supplemental settlement a$reement !ere a
&0LL/TI for ha,in$ (een entered into () *r. Thomas #ead) counsel for <A1/ !ithout the latterOs authori%ation.
/SS0": 1o& the decision is (indin$ a$ainst <A1/G
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. /n this Durisdiction it is clear that an att) cannot !ithout a clientOs authori%ation settle the action or S* of the liti$ation
e,en !hen he honestlo) (elie,es that such settlement !ill (est ser,e his clientOs (est interest. 60T !hen a client upon
(ecomin$ a!are of the compromise and the Dud$ment thereon fails to promptl) repudiate the action of his att) he !ill not
after!ards (e heard to complain
a(out it. 7<A1/ could ha,e sent a disclaimer and not ha,e !aited for more than a )ear to mention the
alle$ed lac- of authorit)8
2. A part) should not after its opportunit) to enDo) the (enefits of an a$reement (e allo!ed to later diso!n the
arran$ement !hen the terms thereof ultimatel) !ould pro,e to operate a$ainst its hopeful e5pectations.7<A1/ !as spared
from possi(l) pa)in$ su(stantial amount of dama$es and incurrin$ hea,) liti$ation fees and !as e,en afforded time to
reim(urse FAS@/8
112 MANALANG 9 ANGELES
FACTS:
This is an administrati,e case a$aisnt Att) An$eles for $ra,e misconduct as a la!)er and he stanes char$ed !ith infidelit)
in the dischar$e of fiduciar) o(li$ations to his clients herein complainant *analan$.
*analan$ alle$ed that the) !ere the complainants in a case for o,ertime and separation pa) filed a$ainst their emplo)er
the <hil #acin$ Clu( #estaurant. Att) An$eles !as their counsel. .ud$ment !as rendered in fa,or of *analan$ in the
amount of <6500. 2o!e,er
!ithout authorit) from his clients Att) An$eles compromised the a!ard and !as a(le to collect <5500 onl).
*analan$ made se,eral demands upon Att) An$eles to turn o,er to them the amount collected minus the a$reed upon
attorne)Os fees of 90K (ut the la!)er refuese and offered to $i,e them onl) the sum of <2650.
Att) An$eles in his defense stated the he refused (ecause he !as ordered to deduct from his attorne)Os fees the amount
of <2000 representin$ the amount discounted () counsel of the <hil #acin$ Clu( #estaurant to$ether !ith sheriff le$al
fees.
/SS0":
1hether respondent Att) An$eles should (e suspended from the practice of la! (ecause of $ra,e misconduct related to
his clientsO funds.
2"L3:
I"S. /n the instant case there is no dispute that complainants !ere a!arded <6500 for unpaid o,ertime and separation
pa). 90K !as a$reed to (e paid ot respondent as his attorne)Os fees. Alle$in$ difficulties in collectin$ te full amount
a!arded respondent compromised the a!ard on e5ecution and collected onl) <5500 from the losin$ part). This
compromise !as alle$edl) !ithout authorit) from his
clients. Att) An$eles failed to sho! an) such authorit).
Att) An$eles e5hi(ited an uncarin$ lac- of de,otion to the interest of his clients as !ell as !ant of %eal in the maintenance
and defence of their ri$hts.
Suspended for 6 months.
113 GARCIA 9 CA
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Facts:
An$elina @ue,arra !hile tal-in$ to Consuelo 3e @arcia o!ner of La 6ula-ena #estaurant reco$ni%ed her
7@ue,arra?s8 rin$ in the fin$er of *rs @arcia. She in+uired !here she (ou$ht it.
Apparentl) @ue,arra?s rin$ !as stolen from her house in Fe(ruar) 4C52. @arcia handed the rin$ to @ue,arra and
it fitted her fin$er.
The) (rou$ht the rin$ to *r. #e(ullida !here the rin$ !as alle$edl) (ou$ht and he concluded that it !as indeed
the rin$ that @ue,arra (ou$ht from him in 4C:J.
6ut the rin$ !as returned to @arcia !ho later on didn?t return the rin$ an)more. @arcia claims it !as lost.
A case !as filed. 3urin$ !hich an e5tra-Dudicial admission () @arcia !as done. She claims there that she (ou$ht
the rin$ from different persons the ultimate source (ein$ Alin$ <etrin$. And that the rin$ of @ue,arra mi$ht Dust
(e similar to hers.
Apparentl) Alin$ <etrin$ !as Dust a hoa5. As per the case: Am)sterious and ephemeral fi$ureB. There !as reall)
no Alin$ <etrin$.
/ssue:
1=& the e5tra-Dudicial admission of 3e @arcia throu$h his cousel is (indin$ on her.
2eld:
Counsel?s admission (inds the client.
3efendant 73e @arcia8 is refuted () her o!n e5tra-Dudicial admissions althou$h made () counsel. For an
attorne) !ho acts as counsel of record and is permitted to act as such as the authorit) to mana$e the cause and
this includes the authorit) to ma-e admission for the purpose of the liti$ation.
2er e5planation that her counsel misunderstood her is puerile 7This means sill)8 (ecause the lia(ilit) to error as to
the identit) of the ,endor and the e5chan$e of the rin$ !ith another rin$ of the same ,alue !as rather remote.
114 SANTIAGO 9 DE LOS SANTOS
Facts:
Luis Santia$o filed an application for re$istration of a piece of land in San *ateo #i%al.
The application !as opposed () the 3irector of Lands 3irector of Forestr) and () a certain <acita de los Santos.
0pon e5amination of the records the propert) appeared to (e a part of the pu(lic domain. So Santia$o !as
ordered to sho! cause to support his application.
*otions to 3ismiss 7the application8 on the $round that the propert) !as pu(lic domain !ere filed () the
oppositors. 7*rs de los Santos? !as actuall) a lessee of the land () ,irtue of a <asture Lease A$reement8
71hat?s funn) is thatW8 1hen Santia$o?s counselLthe firm of Luna and *analoLre+uested that the case (e
calendared for hearin$ the pleadin$ contained attachments sho!in$ that the land is indeed part of the pu(lic
domain 7court said that counsel pro(a(l) !anted to pro,e that despite the pu(lic character of the propert) there
!as open and uninterrupted possession in the concept of an o!ner8. This admission led to the dismissal of the
application.
&o! counsel !ants to re,erse the decision.
/ssue:
Can Santia$o 7more appropriatel) his counsel8 properl) call for the re,ersal of the decisionG
2eld:
&'. The court has adhered to the doctrine that Aan admission made in the pleadin$s cannot (e contro,erted () the part)
ma-in$ such admission and are conclusi,e to him and that all proofs su(mitted () him contrar) or inconsistent there!ith
should (e i$nored !hether o(Dection is interposed () the part) or notWB 7.ustice .6L #e)es in .oe?s #adio , Alto
"lectronics8. ",en if there !ould (e a full hearin$ of the case the result !ould still (e the same. The lo!er court is
constrained to dismiss the application.
/n a desperate effort to sa,e the case counsel tried to rel) on procedural doctrinesLparticularl) citin$ that de los Santos
has no interest in the case. 2o!e,er e,en if such !as admitted the) still failed to sho! open uninterrupted peaceful
and ad,erse possession in the concept of an o!ner. /t should (e noted that technicalities should $i,e !a) 7and e,en aid8 to
su(stantial Dustice.
115 PINEDA 9 CA
FACTS
.'S" H/CT'#/A filed a complaint for reco,er) of possession of 2 parcels of land in Ta$ui$ a$ainst "**A&0"L
H/CT'#/A "T AL pra)in$ after notice and hearin$ that the latter (e ordered to ,acate the premises
Cler- of Court of 6ranch // issued a notice of pretrial to ATTI H/CT'#/A for .'S" H/CT'#/A and ATTI @'&NAL"S
A&3 ASS'C/AT"S for "**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL statin$ that the pre-trial !ill (e held on *a) 2C
'n *a) 2C the desi$nated Dud$e .03@" &AHA##' !as on lea,e so the Cler- of Court of 6ranch // entered the
follo!in$ minutes: A.residin( :%d(e o) t$is Co%rt *ein( on leave and as pra+ed *+ ATT6 ;ICT9RIA and ATT6
CA.ISTRA79< let t$e pre=trial *e trans)erred to :%l+ ">
'n .ul) 9 .03@" &AHA##' !as still on lea,e and entered similar minutes notin$ the notification to ATTI
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
CA</ST#A&' as to the ne! date 'ct 46 of the pre-trial
The case !as transferred to the sala of .03@" </&"3A !ithout -no!led$e of "*A&&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL or their
la!)er
'n 'ct 46 neither "*A&&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL nor ATTI CA</ST#A&' appeared so .03@" </&"3A entered a
default order a$ainst "**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL and commissioned the deput) cler- to recei,e e,idence for
.'S" H/CT'#/A and to su(mit a report
A fe! da)s later an associate in the office of ATTI @'&NAL"S !hile appearin$ in another sala of the same court
stum(led upon the scheduled reception of e,idence of .'S" H/CT'#/A as ordered () .03@" </&"3A
"**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL filed a ,erified motion to reconsider and=or set-aside the order holdin$ them in
default (ut the same !as denied
'n the contrar) a motion for e5ecution pendin$ appeal !as $ranted
"**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL ele,ated the matter to the CA !ho re,ersed the decision of the lo!er court and
ordered .03@" </&"3A to proceed !ith the pre-trial
2ence this petition
*ain ar$ument of "**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL is that the minutes prepared () the cler- of court merel) sin$les
out ATTI CA</ST#A&' as ha,in$ (een notified so since no notice !as sent to them the !hole proceedin$ cannot
stand the test of ,alidit)
ISSUE W<N NOTICE TO COUNSEL REGARDING SCHEDULED DATE OF PRE;TRIAL IS NOTICE TO CLIENT
HELD NO' THERE SHOULD ALSO .E NOTICE TO THE CLIENT
RATIO
@enerall) notice to counsel operates as notice to the part)=parties represented
2o!e,er application in a $i,en case should (e loo-ed into and adopted accordin$ to its surroundin$
circumstances other!ise it ma) foster dan$erous collusions to the detriment of Dustice
The case at (ar in,ol,es Section 4 and 2 of #ule 20 of the #ules of Court !hich state In an+ action a)ter t$e last
pleadin( $as *een )iled, t$e co%rt s$all direct t$e parties A78 t$eir attorne+s to appear?>
The Court interpretin$ these pro,isions uniforml) emphasi%ed that the pre-trial is mandator) that the parties as
!ell as their counsel !ho are re+uired to appear thereat must 6'T2 (e notified of the same
/n other proceedin$s presence of parties is not necessar) so notice to counsel operates as notice to client (ut in a
pre-trial presence of parties is a must (ecause one of the purposes of a pre-trial is to e5plore the possi(ilit) of an
amica(le settlement 7!hich a counsel cannot compromise a(sent e5press authori%ation8 so notice to the parties is
necessar)
#ecords sho! that since onl) the counsel for "**A&0"L H/CT'#/A "T AL !as notified of the pre-trial such
notification is neither ade+uate nor sufficient for purposes of a pre-trial
.ud$ment of CA affirmed
NOTE
TATTI CA</ST#A&' - not mentioned (ut / presume he is an associate of ATTI @'&NAL"S
116 SALONGA 9 CA
Facts:
Astra #ealt) 3e,elopment Corp. 7Astra8 leased its propert) to Alelie *ontoDima. The latter tried to open a
restaurant (ut it !as not a success.
*ontoDima then entered into a .oint Henture A$reement 7.HA8 !ith <aul @ene,e "ntertainment Corp. 7<aul
@ene,e8 !here the latter purchased the lease ri$hts of *ontoDima o,er the propert).
<aul @ene,e paid *ontoDima (ut !hen it !as a(out to start its (usiness the 6el-Air Hilla$e 2omeo!ner?s
Association filed a complaint for ,iolation of some municipal ordinances.
&o! comes @eor$e Salon$a !ho !as interested in (u)in$ the lease ri$hts of <aul @ene,e. Since Salon$a had no
mone) he su$$ested that he 7alon$ !ith his compan) E Solid /ntertain8 and <aul @ene,e enter into a Doint ,enture
enterprise. The idea !as to form a ne! corporation to (e named Solidis+ue /nc.
All the documents !ere prepared () the counsels of (oth parties 7Att). @arlitos for Salon$a and Att). Sadili for
<aul @ene,e8.
<aul @ene,e si$ned the papers (ut 3alon$a didn?t.
2a,in$ possession of the unsi$ned papers Salon$a started operatin$ *etro 3isco on the su(Dect propert). &o
corporation under the name Solidis+ue /nc. !as e,er re$istered as a$reed upon in the Securities and "5chan$e
Commission. <aul @ene,e !as totall) left out.
<aul @ene,e filed a complaint for specific performance a$ainst Salon$a and his compan).
Salon$a and his counsel failed to appear in the trial dates so he !as declared in default and Dud$ment !as
rendered () the #TC in fa,or of <aul @ene,e.
Salon$a !as also adDud$ed $uilt) of ci,il contempt for his failure to appear in an earlier hearin$. 2e !as ordered
arrested until he o(e)s the orders and Dud$ment of the Court.
The CA affirmed.
/ssue:
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
1=n Salon$a?s alle$ation of e5trinsic fraud and denial of due process o(tain to Dustif) annulment of the default
Dud$ment rendered () the #TC.
2eld:
SC sa)s &'.
<etitioners @eor$e Salon$a and Solid /ntertain Corporation alle$e that the Sinimical and anta$onistic actsS of their
counsel Att). 'nofre @. @arlitos constitute e5trinsic fraud 7see p. 5:9 for list of acts8. SC said that e5trinsic fraud
refers to an) fraudulent act of the pre,ailin$ part) !hich is committed outside the trial of the case !here() the
defeated part) has (een pre,ented from e5hi(itin$ full) his side of the case () fraud or deception practiced on
him () his opponent. The nature of e5trinsic fraud as discussed pre,iousl) necessaril) re+uires that its cause (e
tracea(le to some fraudulent act of the pre,ailin$ part) committed outside the trial of the case. The Court notes
that the pre,iousl) enumerated ne$li$ent acts attri(uted to petitionerOs former counsel @arlitos !ere in no !a)
sho!n or alle$ed to ha,e (een caused () pri,ate respondents. Att). @arlitos neither conni,ed nor sold out to the
latter.
'n the other hand it is !ell-settled that the ne$li$ence of counsel (inds the client. This is (ased on the rule that
an) act performed () a la!)er !ithin the scope of his $eneral or implied authorit) is re$arded as an act of his
client. Conse+uentl) the mista-e or ne$li$ence of petitionersO counsel ma) result in the rendition of an
unfa,ora(le Dud$ment a$ainst them. "5ceptions to the fore$oin$ ha,e (een reco$ni%ed () the Court in cases
!here rec-less or $ross ne$li$ence of counsel depri,es the client of due process of la! or !hen its application
Sresults in the outri$ht depri,ation of oneOs propert) throu$h a technicalit).S &one of these e5ceptions has (een
sufficientl) sho!n in the present case.
3ue process !as ne,er denied petitioners Salon$a and Solid /ntertain Corporation (ecause the trial court had
$i,en them a reasona(le opportunit) to (e heard and present their side in all the proceedin$s (efore it. /n fact
petitioners !ere declared in default onl) on the third e5 parte motion filed () pri,ate respondents.
117 PEOPLE 9 VILLANUEVA
Facts: Hillanue,a !as accused of rapin$ his 44 )ear-old stepdau$hter &ia. 7The filin$ of the complaint !as (rou$ht a(out
() a -iss mar- that &ia?s (rother sa! on her nec-.8

/t !as alle$ed that one ni$ht Hillanue,a holdin$ a -nife a$ainst &ia?s nec- threatened to -ill her if she e,er told an)one of
the odious act. Hillanue,a attempted to insert his penis (ut it !ould not fit. 7Accordin$ to &ia it !as too (i$.8 Hillanue,a
contented himself to lic-in$ &ia?s $enetalia.

/n his defense Hillanue,a $i,es an ali(i that he could not ha,e raped her and that the semen found on the ,ictim?s ,a$ina
could not ha,e (een his 7he alread) had ,asectom)8. The lo!er court ho!e,er found Hillanue,a $uilt) of rapin$ &ia and
imposes the death penalt).

/n this mandator) re,ie! () the SC Hillanue,a alle$es that he is entitled to a ne! trial (ecause of his counsel?s failure to
present his common-la! !ife 7&ia?s mother8.

/ssue: 1=& Hillanue,a is entitled to a ne! trial.

2eld: V2%%a,+"9a 2* ,)( ",(2(%"& () a ,"7 (#2a%0

The failure of the defense to present &ia?s mother () reason of the alle$ed ine5perience of his la!)er is not a $round for
ne! trial. The error of his defense counsel is neither an error of la! nor an irre$ularit) that !ill merit a ne! trial. The client
is (ound () the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and cannot (e heard to complain that the result of the
liti$ation mi$ht ha,e (een different had his counsel proceeded differentl). /f this !ere to (e allo!ed then there !ould (e
no end to suits so lon$ as ne! counsel could (e emplo)ed !ho could alle$e that the pre,ious counsel had not (een
dili$ent.

Hillanue,a is still $uilt) of rape. There is no +uestion a(out the credi(ilit) of the &ia as a !itness. The trial Dud$e had
occasion to determine the demeanor of the !itness. The ali(i of Hillanue,a is also self-ser,in$. /t doesn?t? matter if
Hillanue,a?s ]penis did not penetrate. 1hat is important is that there !as contract (et!een the peis and the la(ia of the
,a$ina. The fact that &ia?s h)men !as intact does not ne$ate rape (ecause it is not an element of rape. 2o!e,er the
char$e cannot +ualif) as +ualified rape (ecause the alle$ation that the accused is the stepfather 7in fact he is not he is
merel) a surro$ate father and there e5ists no le$al relation of step-father and step-dau$hter8 !as not a,erred in the
complaint.
115 AGUILAR 9 CA
Facts:
A$uilar and Sal,ador !ere char$ed !ith "stafa in an /nformation filed (efore the #TC. 6oth !ere con,icted () the
trial court and sentenced to an indeterminate penalt) of 4J )ears and : months of reclusion temporal as
minimum to 20 )ears of reclusion temporal as ma5imum and to indemnif) the offended part) the amount of
<250000.
A$uilar thru his former counsel Att).Arandia timel) appealed to CA. 0nfortunatel) Att). Arandia failed to file
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
petitioner?s (rief on its due date. 2e neither communicated to A$uilar nor !ithdre! his appearance as counsel.
A$uilar?s attempts to contact his counsel !ere futile.
A$uilar hired Att). Arias as his ne! counsel and the latter entered his appearance in the case and as-ed an
e5tension of :5 da)s to su(mit the appellant?s (rief.
The motion !as denied for ha,in$ (een filed out of time. CA su(se+uentl) denied A$uilar?s motion to dismiss and
his appeal.
'n the other hand Sal,ador !as $ranted an e5tension of time to file her (rief and the (rief !as admitted e,en
thou$h filed (e)ond the $race period.
/ssue: 1=& CA committed @A3 !hen it dismissed A$uilar?s appeal for failure to file his appellant?s (rief on time.
2eld: I"S.
There is no reason to treat the t!o appellants differentl). 6oth alle$edl) conspired in committin$ the crime of
estafa. Their cases rest on the same facts. "+ual protection of the la! demands that persons situated similarl)
(e treated ali-e.
A$uilar faces a Dail term of 4J )rs and : mos to 20 )rs. 2e cannot lose his li(ert) (ecause of the $ross
irresponsi(ilit) of his la!)er.
Losin$ li(ert) () default of an insensiti,e la!)er should (e fro!ned upon despite the fiction that a client is (ound
() the mista-es of his la!)er. The said rule must onl) (e applied to ad,ance the ends of Dustice not !hen the
circumstances of the case it (ecomes a hindrance to Dustice.
/n a criminal proceedin$ !here certain e,idence !as not presented (ecause of counsel?s error or incompetence
ne! trial ma) (e $ranted if the defendant satisfies the court that: 48 he has a $ood defense and that 28 ac+uittal
!ould in all pro(a(ilit) ha,e follo!ed the introduction of the omitted e,idence.
CA should ha,e considered the fact that the appellant?s (rief !as alread) filed and is alread) in the records of the
case. This sho!s earnest efforts of counsel and petitioner to (e heard and lac- of intention to cause dela).
114 SALONGA 9 CA
FACTS:
Astra o!ned a propert located at 6el-Air Hilla$e *a-ati.
*ontoDima leased this propert) and opened a restaurant !hich did not prosper
*ontoDima thereafter entered into a Doint ,enture a$reement 7.HA8 !ith <aul @ene,e "ntertainment Corp 7<@"C8 !ith the
consent of Astra under the follo!in$ term: *ontoDima !ill sell all his ri$hts o,er the propert) to <@"C for 9*.
*ontoDima recei,ed 4*
6t (efore <@"C can open the (usiness the homeo!ners association of 6el-Air filed a complaint a$ainst <@"C for ,iolation
of some municipal ordinances
<@"C and Salon$a entered into a .HA !herein the corporation of Salon$a and <@"C !ill form a ne! corporation.
(ut the ne! corporation ne,er e5isted and <@"C as-ed for specific performance from Salon$a
durin$ the scheduled hearin$ Salon$a did not appear and !as held in contempt
salon$a also as-ed for 2 motions foe e5tension of time (ut no ans!er !as filed
(ecasue of salon$aOs failure to file an ans!er salon$a !as held in default and cited in contempt
Salon$a is no! claimin$ that he recei,ed a cop) of the decision onl) on 40-J )et a motion for reconsideration !as filed on
J-2;
/SS0":
1=& the decision must (e annulled on the $round of fraud on the part of Salon$aOs counsel
2"L3:
&'>
a decision can (e annulle donl) on 2 $rounds: A. Dud$ment is ,oid for !ant of due process or Durisdiction and 6. it !as
o(tained () fraud
there is no e5trinsic fraud in the case
the ne$li$ence of counsel (inds the client. this is (ased on the rule that an) acts performed () counsel !ithin the scope of
his $eneral authorit) is deemed as an act of the client.
la!)er of Salon$a @arlitos is onl) $uilt) of simple ne$li$ence. althou$h he failed to file a timel) ans!er hus efforts at
defendin$ thier cause is real.
simple ne$li$ence !ould not amount to a depri,ation of ri$ht to due process.
to see all the ne$li$ent acts of Att) @arlitos see pa$e 5:9 4st para$raph.
12: LEGARDA 9 CA
@maha(a di -o na sinama m$a dissentin$. Talo naman sila eh

Facts:
&e! Catha) 2ouse /nc. 7Catha)8 and Hictoria Le$arda entered into a lease a$reement for a propert) in XC o!ned
() Le$arda.
For some reason Le$arda refused to si$n the contract. Catha) made a deposit and do!npa)ment of rentals then
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
filed for specific performance.
Le$arda?s counsel 3ean Antonio Coronel re+uested a 40-da) e5tension to file an ans!er !hich !as $ranted. 6ut
3ean Coronel failed to file an ans!er !ithin that period.
Catha) presented e,idence e5 parte. Catha) !on the case 7Qata) si Le$arda8. Ser,ice of decision !as made on
3ean Coronel (ut he still did not do an)thin$.
The XC propert) !as then le,ied and auctioned off to pa) for the Dud$ment de(t. Catha)?s mana$er Ca(rera !as
the hi$hest (idder in the auction. Le$arda did not redeem the propert) !ithin the 4 )ear period.
Qahit natalo na sila dahil !alan$ $ina$a!a si 3ean 7hindi n$a ni)a sina(ihan si Le$arda -un$ ano na nan$)ari sa
-aso nila na !ala na )un$ lupa8 Le$arda still did not lose faith in her counsel.
3ean Coronel then filed a petition for annulment of Dud$ment. <etition !as denied. &o motion for reconsideration
or appeal !as made on the order of denial 7i(an$ -lase -a dean>8
So Le$arda hired a ne! la!)er. &e! la!)er as-ed for annulment of Dud$ment upon the $round that the old
la!)er !as ne$li$ent in his duties. The petition !as $ranted and the sale of the XC propert) to (e set aside.
The SC said that there !as unDust enrichment on the part of Catha) (ecause of the rec-less ine5cusa(le and
$ross ne$li$ence of 3ean Coronel.
2ence this motion for reconsideration of SC decision.
/ssue:
1=& Le$arda can (e (ound () the $ross ne$li$ence of her counsel
2eld:
Ies. 'ri$inal decision is reinstated 7Le$arda^loser8
As lon$ as a part) !as $i,en the opportunit) to defend her interests in due course she cannot (e said to ha,e
(een denied due process of la!.
/f indeed Le$arda is innocent then all the more that Catha) is innocent. 6et!een t!o innocent parties the one
!ho made it possi(le for the !ron$ to (e done should (e the one to (ear the resultin$ loss.
Le$arda misDud$ed and hired the ser,ices of 3ean Coronel !ho in the end sort of a(andoned her case.
3ecision !as res ipso final due to failure to appeal the decision.
121 AL.ANO 9 COLOMA
FACTS:
An$el Al(ano alle$es that !hen he and his mom retained the ser,ices of Att). <erpetua Coloma as their counsel
Att) Coloma failed to e5pediet the hearin$ and termination of the case resultin$ to their ha,in$ to procure another
la!)er.
Att). Coloma inter,ened in the case to collect her att)Os fees and presented a document sho!in$ that the
complainants promised to pa) her a contin$ent fee of 99 4=9K of !hate,er could (e reco,ered !hether in land or
dama$es.
Att). Coloma li-e!ise denied that she could ha,e (een remo,ed for her failure to compl) !ith her o(li$ations as
counsel as she ser,ed Sfaithfull) efficientl) continuousl) and to the (est of her -no!led$e and capacit)S. 2er
dismissal accd$ to her !as made !ithout cause and !ithout her consent and !hen she had alread) !on the case
for them in the CF/ and the CA.
The facts as found () the Sol@en in so far as the ser,ices of Att) Coloma as counsel for the complainants re,eal the
utmost dili$ence and
conscientiousness on her part. The Sol@en further sai$ht that if there !as an)one $uilt) of (ad faith in
this case it is the complainants !ho after (enefitin$ from the ,alua(le ser,ices of att) C'loma tried to rene$e on
their a$reement for the pa)ment of the latterOs contin$ent att)Os fees () dismissin$ her as their counsel after she
had alread) !on for them in the trial court and the CA and later () attemptin$ to impu$n the authenticit) and
$enuineness of their !ritten a$reement for the pa)ment of att)Os fees
/SS0": 1o& Att) C'loma is entitled to her att)Os fees 7as a$reed upon in their !ritten a$reement of conti$ent fee8
2"L3: I"S
#AT/':
4. Counsel is entitled to full recompense for his ser,ices 2e is entitled to the protection of an) Dudicial tri(unal a$ainst an)
attempt on the part of a client to escape pa)ment of his fees. /t is indeed ironic if after puttin$ forth the (est that is in him
to secure Dustice for the part) he represents he himself !ould not $et due.
2. Also Att) C'loma has $ood reputation.. S' his reputation as a la!)er must (e protected.
122 TRADERS ROYAL .AN> UNION 9 NLRC
FACTS:
<etitioner 0nion and pri,ate respondent Att) Cru% entered into a retainer a$reement !here() the former o(li$ated itself to
pa) the latter a monthl) retainer fee of <9000 in consideration of the Att) Cru%Os underta-in$ to render the ser,ices
enumerated in their contract. <etitioner 0nion referred to Att) Cru% the claims of its mem(ers for 2olida) mid )ear and
)ear-end (onuses a$ainst their emplo)er Traders #o)al 6an- 7T#68. &L#C rendered a decision in fa,or of the union
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
mem(ers. 'n appeal to the SC the court modified the decision of the &L#C () deletin$ the a!ard of mid )ear and )ear-
end (onus. 6an- complied !ith such decision.
Att) Cru% thereafter notified the union the T#6 mana$ement and the &L#C of his ri$ht to e5ercise and enforce his
attorne)Os lien o,er the a!ard of holida) pa). 2e demanded the pa)ment of 40K of the total a!ard. 0nion opposed the
demand. &L#C ruled in fa,or of Att) Cru%.
The union insists that it is not $uilt) of unDust enrichment (ecause all attorne)Os fees due to Att) Cru% !ere co,ered () the
retainer fee of <9000 !hich it has (een re$ularl) pa)in$ to Att) Cru% under their retainer a$reement. To (e entitiled to
additional attorne)Os fees it contends that there must (e separate mutual a$reement prior to the performance of the
additional ser,ices of the counsel.
/ssue:
1=n Att) Cru% is entitled to compensation other than the <9000 retainer fee.
2"L3:
I"S. 2e is entitled to <40000.
An attorne) is entitiled to ha,e and recei,e a Dust and reasona(le compensation for ser,ices performed at the special
instance and re+uest of his client. As lon$ as the la!)er !as in $ood faith and honestl) tr)in$ to represent and ser,e the
interests of the client he should ha,e a reasona(le compensation for such ser,ices. The <9000 !hich the union pa)s
monthl) does not co,er the ser,ices the counsel actuall) rendered (efore the la(or ar(iter and the &L#C. The monthl) fee
is intended merel) as a consideration for the counselOs commitment to render the ser,ices.
The <9000 !as a $eneral retainer. /t is not pa)ment for counselOs e5ecution or performance of the ser,ices of the counsel.
The fact that petitioner union and counsel failed to reach a meetin$ of the minds !ith re$ard to the pa)ment of
professional fees for special ser,ices !ill not a(sol,e the client of ci,il lia(ilit) for the correspondin$ remuneration. A +uasi
contract arose (et!een the union and counsel from the counselOs la!ful ,oluntr) and unilateral prosecution of unionOs
cause. "+uit) and fair pla) dictate that petitioner should pa) the same after it accepted and (enefited from counselOs
ser,ices.
The measure of compensation should (e addressed () the rule of +uantum meruit meanin$ Sas much as he deser,esS.
123 ONG 9 GRIJALDO
Facts:
This is a case for dis(arment of Att). .ose @riDaldo.
@oretti 'n$ the complainant initiall) had @riDaldo as his counsel for a 6< 22 case. The opposin$ part) o!ed 'n$
(ut the) reached a compromised in the amount of <4;0T. 'n$ a$reed to a compromise pro,ided he (e paid in
cash.
1hen the time of pa)ment came @riDaldo 7!ho facilitated the compromise deal8 handed o,er <400T in cash and
an <;0T chec-. 'n$ initiall) refused (ut !as made to accept it. @riDaldo claims that the chec- is $ood since it
!as dra!n on the chec-in$ account of the opposin$ part)?s counsel Att). #e)es.
'n$ !as made to e5ecute an affida,it of desistance (ut 'n$ instructed @riDaldo to file it !ith the court onl) !hen
the chec- has (een cleared.
6ut the chec- (ounced. Later on after man) e5cuses 'n$ !ent to 6acolod 7!here the case !as filed8 to find out
for himself the status of the case and to see- pa)ment.
'n$ found out that the affida,it !as alread) filed in court and the case !as alread) dismissed.
1orse @riDaldo alread) recei,ed the mone) from #e)esm (ut he used it to pa) for his 7@riDaldo?s8 financial
o(li$ations.
2ence this case.
'n$ filed a num(er of affida,its () other disinterested persons !ho complained of @riDaldo?s mischief. 7(ottom
part of p 58 7irrele,ant8
/ssue:
1=& @riDaldo should (e dis(arred.
2eld:
Ies.
/t is clear that respondent $ra,el) a(used the trust and confidence reposed on him () his client. 1ere it not for
complainant?s ,i$ilance in in+uirin$ into the status of her case she !ould ha,e not -no! that the case !as
alread) dismissed. @riDaldo deli(eratel) !ithheld the fat from her.
@riDaldo (reached his fut) !!hen he failed to inform the complainant of the status of the criminal case. his
ne$li$ence sho!s a $larin$ lac- of the competence and dili$ence re+uired of e,er) la!)er. 2is infraction is
rendered all the more deplora(le () the fact that complainant is a resident of XC (ut the case !as filed in
6acolod. That !as the reason !h) 'n$ hired a 6acolod-(ased la!)er to protect her interests. This is a $ross
(etra)al of the fiduciar) dut): failure to loo- after the client?s !elfare. And it is also a (reach of the trust and
confidence !hich !as reposed on him.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
124 SES.REGO 9 CA
Facts:
#aul Ses(re_o replaced Att) <ac+uiao as counsel for 52 emplo)ees in a case a$ainst the <ro,ince of Ce(u and
@o,ernor "spina for reinstatement to !or- and (ac-!a$es.
92 of the emplo)ees a$reed that Ses(reno !ould (e paid 90K of the (ac-!a$es as attorne)?s fees and 20K for
e5penses of liti$ation.
#TC $ranted emplo)ees? petition. CA affirmed. .ud$ment (ecame final.
Later on a compromise !as made (et!een the emplo)ees and the <ro,ince of Ce(u !here() said emplo)ees
!ai,ed their ri$ht to reinstatement. Ce(u released <2.9* 7representin$ (ac- salaries terminal lea,e pa) $ratuit)
pa)8 to Ses(reno for the emplo)ees as A<artial Satisfaction of .ud$mentB.
40 of the emplo)ees asserted that the) onl) a$reed to $i,e :0K of their (ac- salaries to Ses(reno. Lo!er court
a$reed !ith them and fi5ed attorne)?s fees for Ses(reno at :0K plus the 20K e5penses.
"mplo)ees filed an *# assertin$ that there !as inad,ertence in placin$ 60K !here it should onl) (e 50K. This
!as $ranted.
Ses(reno !as not satisfied () the decision so he !ent to the CA. And -a!a!an$ Ses(reno na(a!asan pa lalo an$
(a)adWCA deemed the a!ard of 20K of the (ac- salaries as the fair e+uita(le and reasona(le amount for
attorne)?s fees. <unta si)a n$a)on sa <adre FauraWSupreme CourtW
/ssue:
1hether the court acted properl) in reducin$ Ses(reno?s attorne)?s fees despite a pre-e5istin$ contract (et!een the
parties.
2eld:
Ies. /t is a settled rule that !hat a la!)er ma) char$e and recei,e as attorne)?s fees is al!a)s su(Dect to Dudicial control.
1hen the courts find the amount to (e e5cessi,e or unreasona(le pu(lic polic) demands that the contract (e disre$arded
to protect the client. 1hen a la!)er ta-es his oath he su(mits himself to the authorit) of the court and su(Dects his
professional fees to Dudicial control.
A stipulation on a la!)er?s compensation in a !ritten contract for professional ser,ices ordinaril) controls the amount of
fees that the contractin$ la!)er ma) (e allo!ed 0&L"SS the court finds such stipulated amount unreasona(le or
unconsciona(le. Thou$h $enerall) a much hi$her compensation is allo!ed in a contin$ent fee a$reement 7as in this case8
in consideration of the ris- that the la!)er ma) $et nothin$ if the suit fails. 6ut contin$ent fee contracts are under the
super,ision of the court in order that clients ma) (e protected from unDust char$es. /ts ,alidit) rests lar$el) on the
reasona(leness of the stated fees under the circumstances of the case. An attorne)?s fee is unconsciona(le !hen it is so
disproportionate compared to the ,alue of the ser,ices rendered. &e,ertheless the e5istence of an unreasona(le fee 7no
matter the de$ree8 does not (ar reco,er). /t is onl) that the courts !ill fi5 a reasona(le amount.
AXuantum *eruitB !hich means Aas much as he deser,esB is often the court?s (asis for determinin$ the amount.
Considerin$ it?s a la(or case an a!ard of 50K of (ac- salaries is e5cessi,e. The 20K a!ard is Dustified.
125 FA.ILO 9 IAC
FACTS
.0ST/&A Fa(illo (e+ueathed to her (rother FL'#"&C/' Fa(illo a house in lot in San Sal,ador St Le)te 7San
Sal,ador propert)8 and to her hus(and @#"@'#/' 6rioso a lot in <u$ahana) Le)te 7<u$ahana) propert)8
FL'#"&C/' filed a petition for pro(ate of .0ST/&A?S !ill !ho appro,ed of the partition placed a reser,ation on the
o!nership of the San Sal,ador propert)
2 )ears later FL'#"&C/' sou$ht the assistance of ATTI *0#/LL' to reco,er the San Sal,ador propert)
FL'#"&C/' and ATTI *0#/LL' entered into a Contract for Ser,ices !herein
o /f the propert) is a!arded to FL'#"&C/' ATTI *0#/LL' !ill (e constituted as attorne) in fact to sell and
con,e) said propert) and !ill (e $i,en :0K of the purchase price
o /f mort$a$ed ATTI *0#/LL' !ill (e entitled to :0K of the proceeds of the mort$a$e
o /f leased ATTI *0#/LL' !ill (e entitled to :0K of the rentals
o /f the propert) is Dust occupied () FL'#"&C/' ATTI *0#/LL' !ill ha,e the option of occup)in$ or leasin$
to an) interested part) :0K of the said propert)
ATTI *0#/LL' filed a case for FL'#"&C/' a$ainst @#"@'#/' !hich ended in a compromise settlement !herein
FL'#"&C/' !as declared o!ner not onl) of the San Sal,ador propert) (ut also of the <u$ahana) propert)
ATTI *0#/LL' proceeded to implement the contract () ta-in$ possession of :0K of the properties and e,en
installed a tent in the <u$ahana) propert)
FL'#"&C/' claimed e5clusi,e ri$ht o,er the properties !hich prompted ATTI *0#/LL' to file a complaint
L'1"# C'0#T: ATTI *0#/LL' is o!ner of :0K of the properties
FL'#"&C/' ar$ued that the contin$ent fee of :0K is e5cessi,e unfair and unconsciona(le
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE W<N THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES PROVIDING FOR CONTINGENT FEES VIOLATED ARTICLE 1441
HELD NO' CONTINGENT FEES NOT COVERED .Y ARTICLE 1441
RATIO
Article 4:C4 prohi(its la!)ers from ac+uirin$ () purchase e,en at a pu(lic auction properties and ri$hts !hich
are o(Dects of liti$ation in !hich the) ma) ta-e part () ,irtue of their profession
2o!e,er said prohi(ition applies onl) if the sale or assi$nment ta-es place durin$ the pendenc) of liti$ation
in,ol,in$ the client?s propert)
Follo!in$ that principle a contract (et!een a la!)er and his client stipulatin$ a contin$ent fee is not co,ered ()
Article 4:C4 (ecause pa)ment of said fee is not made durin$ the pendenc) of liti$ation (ut onl) after Dud$ment
has (een rendered
2ence the Contract of Ser,ices entered into () FL'#"&C/' and ATTI *0#/LL' ha,in$ pro,ided for contin$ent
fees is not ,iolati,e of Article 4:C4
ISSUE W<N FLORENCIO IS OWNER OF 4:I OF THE PROPERTIES
HELD NO' CONTRACT OF SERVICES VAGUE AS TO WHO IS THE OWNER SO MUST .E CONSTRUED AGAINST
THE LAWYER WHO MADE IT' ATTY MURILLO
RATIO
The Court disa$rees !ith the lo!er court that FL'#"&C/' is the o!ner of :0K of the properties for careful
scrutin) sho!s that the parties intended :0K of the ,alue of the properties as ATTI *0#/LL'?S contin$ent fee
The pro,isions are clear in cases !here the properties are sold mort$a$ed and leased as ATTI *0#/LL' is
entitled to :0K of the purchase price proceeds of the mort$a$e or rentals respecti,el)
2o!e,er !ith respect to a situation !herein the properties are neither sold mort$a$ed or leased the contract is
,a$ue and onl) pro,ides that ATTI *0#/LL' shall ha,e the option of Aoccup)in$ or leasin$ to an) interested part)
:0K of the properties
The am(i$uit) of said pro,ision should then (e resol,ed a$ainst ATTI *0#/LL' as it !as he himself !ho drafted
the contract
*oreo,er if the parties intended that ATTI *0#/LL' should (ecome the la!ful o!ner of :0K of the properties in
case the same is not sold mort$a$ed or leased then the) !ould ha,e clearl) and une+ui,ocall) stipulated in the
contract such
JUDGMENT
Considerin$ the nature of the case the ,alue of the properties su(Dect matter thereof the len$th of time and effort e5erted
() ATTI *0#/LL' the Court holds that ATTI *0#/LL' is entitled to <9000 as reasona(le attorne)?s fees 7n+e2 l%(i@4
126 .AUTISTA 9 GON8ALES
Facts:
- An$el 6autista filed a complaint a$ainst #amon @on%ales for the follo!in$ acts:
o Acceptin$ a case !here he a$reed to pa) all e5penses for a contin$ent fee of 50K of the ,alue of the
propert) in liti$ationF
o Actin$ as counsel for the Fortunados in a case !here "u$enio Lope% .r. is one of the defendants and
!ithout said case (ein$ terminated actin$ as counsel for Lope% in another caseF
o Transferrin$ to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados !hich properties are the su(Dect of
the liti$ation !hile the case !as still pendin$F
o /nducin$ complainant !ho !as his former client to enter into a contract !ith him for the de,elopment of
the land in,ol,ed in a case into a residential su(di,ision claimin$ that he ac+uired fift) percent 750K8
interest thereof as attorne)Os fees from the Fortunados !hile -no!in$ full) !ell that the said propert)
!as alread) sold at a pu(lic auctionF
o Su(mittin$ to the CF/ falsified documents purportin$ to (e true copies of SAddendum to the Land
3e,elopment A$reementS and su(mittin$ the same document to the FiscalOs 'ffice of Xue%on Cit) in
connection !ith the complaint for estafa filed () respondent a$ainst complainant.
/ssue:
- 1=n @on%ales should (e punished for these acts.
2eld:
- Ies SC suspends him for 6 months.
- For the first alle$ation the SC pointed out that a la!)er ma) indeed ad,ance e5penses of liti$ation (ut such
pa)ment should (e su(Dect to reim(ursement. /n this case the contin$ent fee a$reement (et!een the
Fortunados and @on%ales did not pro,ide for such reim(ursement. Such contract is a$ainst pu(lic polic) (ecause
it $i,es undue le,era$e in fa,or of the la!)er.
- Second the Court found that @on%ales did not ,iolate an) la! (ecause the Fortunados consented to his
appearance for Lope%.
- Third act the Court said that such is a ,iolation of Art. 4:C4 of the Ci,il Code !hich prohi(its a la!)er from
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
(u)in$=ac+uirin$ the propert) of his clients !hich is the su(Dect of a pendin$ case. This Court has held that the
purchase () a la!)er of his clientOs propert) or interest in liti$ation is a (reach of professional ethics and
constitutes malpractice. And althou$h the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) does not an)more contain Canon
40 of the old Canons of <rofessional "thics !hich states that S]t[he la!)er should not purchase an) interests in
the su(Dect matter of the liti$ation !hich he is conductin$S the Code still pro,ides that a la!)er should follo! the
la!s of the <hil. At all times. 6) ac+uirin$ the propert) in liti$ation @on%ales has ,iolated Art. 4:C4 of the Ci,il
Code and can (e administrati,el) punished for such ,iolation.
- The SC held that in !ithholdin$ such information respondent failed to li,e up to the ri$orous standards of ethics
of the la! profession !hich place a premium on honest) and condemn duplicitous conduct. The fact that
complainant !as not a former client of respondent does not e5empt respondent from his dut) to inform
complainant of an important fact pertainin$ to the land !hich is su(Dect of their ne$otiation.
- Lastl) the SC held that the ori$inal copies of the documents @on%ales su(mitted !ere false (ecause the) (ore
the si$natures of the Fortunados !hen in fact the) did not si$n the ori$inal cop) (ut onl) a photocop) of the
ori$inal. Such conduct constitutes !illful disre$ard of his solemn dut) as a la!)er to act at all times in a manner
consistent !ith the truth. A la!)er should ne,er see- to mislead the court () an artifice or false statement of fact
or la!.
127 .IASCAN 9 LOPE8
Facts: This contro,ers) pertains to a 600 s+. m. lot.

The lot !as in the name of Florencio 6iascan. Florencio died intestate. 1hen Florencio died #osalina 6iascan filed a
complaint alle$in$ that she is the administratri5 of the estate of her father Florencio. 2o!e,er *aria 6iascan opposed the
claim of #osalina. At that instant Att). Lope% entered his appearance as the counsel of *aria in the opposition.

#osalina complained that !ithout the appro,al of the intestate court Att). Lope5 caused the re$istration of 240 s+. m. of
the 600 s+. m. lot in his name 7made throu$h a deed of assi$nment e5ecuted () *aria and Att). Lope%8. Accordin$ to
#osalina the re$istration !as made durin$ the special proceedin$s re$ardin$ the settlement of the estate.

/n his defense Lope% sa)s that the transfer of a portion of the land !as ,alid since it !as a pa)ment of his contin$ent fees.
Att). Lope% claims that *aria a$reed to $i,e him 95K of the area of the disputed land. Att). Lope% ar$ues that due to the
a(sence of a notice of lis pendens on the TCT he accepted the offer of *aria.

/ssue: 1=& the land !as a la!ful pa)ment of contin$ent fees.

2eld: T-" %a,& 1a,,)( !" #"/a#&"& a* 1),(2,/",( 3""*0 I%%"/a%0 S+*$",& J 6 m),(-*0

1hen Att). Lope% entered his appearance as *aria?s counsel #osalina had su(mitted an in,entor) report !hich listed the
land as part of the estate of the deceased Florencio. As respondent of *aria Att). Lope% should ha,e $one o,er the
records. Also the deed of assi$nment itself stated that the TCT !as re$istered in Florencio?s name. Therefore Att). Lope%
had actual -no!led$e that the lot formed part of the estate of Florencio.

6) re$isterin$ the land in his name Att). Lope% trans$ressed Art. 4:C4 (ecause he had -no!led$e that the land !as the
su(Dect of the liti$ation. 6ecause the transfer !as made durin$ the pendenc) of the Special <roceedin$s Art. 4:C4 clearl)
applies.
125 DALISAY 9 MAURICIO
Facts:
This is the case a$ainst A6atasB *auricio the TH host.
Alle$edl) *auricio demanded and recei,ed e5or(itant attorne)?s fees (ut did not ta-e an) action on Halerina
3alisa)?s case.
/nitiall) she paid <25T as acceptance fee.
/n total she paid *auricio <56T: <;T filin$ fee 7thou$h the case !as alread) filed8 the (alance mi$ht (e a
com(ination of the ff:
o Additional acceptance fee <C0000.00 !ith the e5planation that he can $i,e a discount should she pa) in
cash.
o <9000.00 as appearance fee
not!ithstandin$ her pa)ments respondent ne,er rendered an) le$al ser,ice. She terminated their attorne)-
client relationship and demanded the return of her mone) and documents. *auicio refused.
The /6< 6oard of @o,ernors !anted to dismiss the case.
/ssue:
1=& the case a$ainst *auricio should (e dismissed.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2eld:
&o. 2e should (e suspended for 6 months.
1hen respondent accepted <56000.00 from complainant it !as understood that he a$reed to ta-e up the
latter?s case and that an attorne)-client relationship (et!een them !as esta(lished. From then on it !as e5pected of him
to ser,e complainant !ith competence and attend to her case !ith fidelit) care and de,otion.
6ut there is nothin$ on record that *auricio entered his appearance as counsel of record.
2e did not e,en follo!-up the case !hich remained pendin$ up to the time she terminated his ser,ices.
#e$ardin$ the <;T: 7alle$edl) as doc-et fees for other cases8: A(-"#" 7a* ,) "92&",1" ,)# a, $%"a&2,/*
*+!m2(("& () *-)7 (-a( #"*$),&",( 32%"& a, 1a*" 1),*2&"#2,/ (-a( (-" 32%2,/ 3"" -a& () !" $a2&
*2m+%(a,")+*% 72(- (-" 32%2,/ )3 a 1a*"0B
!hen a la!)er ta-es a client?s cause he co,enants that he !ill e5ercise due dili$ence in protectin$ his ri$hts.
.ust li-e an) other professional a la!)er is entitled to collect fees for his ser,ices. 2o!e,er he should char$e
onl) a reasona(le amount of fees.
124 .ARONFS MAR>ETING 9 CA
FACTS:
- <helps 3od$e appointed 6arons *ar-etin$ as its dealer of electrical !ires and ca(les
- 6arons !as $i,en a 60 da) credit for the purchase of <helps 3od$e?s products
- 6arons purchased electrical !ires and ca(les !orth <:.4* on credit
- 0nder the sales in,oice issued () <helps 3od$e there is a stipulation: Ainterests at 42K per annum !ill (e
char$ed on all o,erdue accounts plus 25K on said amount for attorne)?s fees and collectionsB
- 6arons failed to pa) <helps 3od$e. The former as-ed the latter for installment pa)ment (ut the re+uest !as
refused
- An action for collection for sum of mone) !as instituted () <helps 3od$e a$ainst 6arons !ith a pra)er for
attorne)?s fees amountin$ to 25K pf the amount demanded
- #TC: ruled in fa,or of <helps 3od$e and ordered 6arons to pa) <9.4* and 25K of the precedin$ o(li$ation for and
as attorne)?s fees
- CA: corrected the amount due to <helps 3od$e and ordered 6arons to pa) <9.;* and 5K of the precedin$
o(li$ation for and as attorne)?s fees
/SS0":
- 1=& 6arons is lia(le to <helps 3od$e for interest and attorne)?s fees

2"L3:
- I"S> 6ut the amount stated in the sales in,oice is reduced from 25K to 40K of the principal amount for
attorne)?s fees.
- 6arons is e5pressl) lia(le as stated in the sales in,oice of <helps 3od$e !hich pro,ides that: Ainterests at 42K
per annum !ill (e char$ed on all o,erdue accounts plus 25K on said amount for attorne)?s fees and collectionsB
- The attorne)?s fees stated are in the nature of li+uidated dama$es and the stipulation is aptl) called a penal
clause. /t is settled that as lon$ as such stipulation does not contra,ene la! morals or pu(lic order it is strictl)
(indin$.
- 60T the courts are empo!ered to reduce such penalt) of the same is ini+uitous or unconsciona(le
- /n the case at (ar the interest alone runs to some <:.5* e,en e5ceedin$ the principal de(t !hich is onl) <:*.
25K of the principal and the interest amounts to rou$hl) <2*. /n real terms therefore the attorne)?s fees and
collection fees are manifestl) e5or(itant.
13: LI8ARDO 9 MONTANO
FACTS:
Li%ardo instituted a collection case a$ainst "ddie *irano. Li%ardo !on.
.ud$ment included 25K of the amount pa)a(le as attorne)?s fees.
*irano?s land !as le,ied and Li%ardo !on the (iddin$.
49 )ears after the case Att). *ontano the la!)er of Li%ardo filed !ith the trial court 7same trial court as in the
pre,ious decision8 an omni(us motion for pa)ment of his attorne)?s fees.
1ithout hearin$ petitioner the trial court rendered an order that Li%ardo pa) *ontano 25K of the propert) and=or
annotate in the TCT the attorne)?s lien.
CA affirmed the #TC decision hence this appeal.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/SS0":
1=& the trial court still has Durisdiction o,er the case 49 )ears after it rendered a final Dud$ment
2"L3:
&o the court no lon$er has Durisdiction o,er the claim for attorne)?s fees.
'nce a court ac+uires Durisdiction o,er a case it retains such Durisdiction until the final termination of the case. /t
loses its Durisdiction upon the finalit) of the decision
A final decision cannot (e amended or corrected e5cept for clerical errors mista-es or misprisions.
/n the +uestioned order the court ordered Li%ardo to pa) attorne)?s fees to counsel. That is not decreed in the
Dud$ment. Such ,ariance rendered the order ,oid.
1hat the la!)er ma) do is file an independent action a$ainst petitioner for collection.
131 CUETO 9 JIMENE8
FACTS:
- "n$r. Ale5 Cueto en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). .ose .imene% .r. as notar) pu(lic (ein$ the father of the (uildin$ of the
Construction A$reement to (e notari%ed. After notari%in$ the a$reement .imene% demanded <50000 as notarial fee. Ale5
Cueto paid <90000 in cash and issued a chec- of <20000. 2o!e,er Cueto re+uested .imene% not to deposit the chec- for
lac- of sufficient funds. Cueto also informed .imene% that his son had not )et paid his ser,ices as $eneral contractor.
- .imene% still deposited the chec- and of course the chec- (ounced 7insufficient funds n$a>8and the chec- issued ()
.imene%O son !as also dishonored for ha,in$ (een dra!n a$ainst a closed account.
- Att). .imene% filed a 6< 22 case a$ainst Cueto. /n return Cueto filed his o!n administrati,e complaint a$ainst .imene%
and alle$ed that he ,iolated Code of <rof #esponsi(ilit) and Canons of <rof "thics !hen he filed 6<22 so that .imene% can
reco,er the (alance of his notarial fee.
/SS0": 1o& .imene% can (e held administrati,el) lia(leG
2"L3: I"S. Att). .imene% is se,erel) reprimanded.
#AT/':
4. /t is hi$hl) improper for .imene% in filin$ a criminal case for ,iolation of 6< 22 a$ainst Cueto !hen the chec-
representin$ the (alance of his notarial fee !as dishonored (ecause SA LA1I"# S2ALL AH'/3 C'&T#'H"#S/"S 1/T2
CL/"&TS C'&C"#&/&@ 2/S C'*<"&SAT/'& A&3 S2ALL #"S'#T T' .03/C/AL ACT/'& '&LI T' <#"H"&I /*<'S/T/'&
/&.0ST/C" or F#A03S. /n the
case at (ar there !as clearl) no imposition inDustice or fraud... 48Cueto alread) paid more than half of the fee 28 /n all
pro(a(lit) the reason !h) Cueto lac-ed funds !as (ecause of .imene%O son failure to pa) 7so dapat mas lenient si .imene%
sa dela) n$ pa)ment sa -an)a n$ (alance8
2. AS to the contention that <50000 !as e5or(itant--` /6< and SC held that is is reasona(le recompense 74K of the
5000000 of the contract price sou$ht to (e notari%ed.8 and also Cueto should ha,e in+uired first a(out the
reasona(leness. ALso facts sho! that the)
a$reed on the amount.
132 LEMOINE 9 .ALON
FACTS:
- Lemoine is a French national !ho filed an insurance claim !ith *etropolitan /nsurance.
- 2is friend .esus @arcia arran$ed for the en$a$ement of 6alon?s ser,ices as his counsel
- 6alon ad,ised Lemoine that he !as char$in$ 25K of the actual amount to (ein$ reco,ered pa)a(le upon
successful reco,er). An ad,ance pa)ment of <50000 to (e deducted from !hate,er amount !ould (e
successfull) collected. <4000 as appearance and conference fee for each and e,er) court hearin$ and le$al
e5penses and other miscellaneous !ill (e char$ed to Lemoine?s account !hich !ould (e reim(ursed upon
presentment of account. Lemoine ne,er $a,e his consent as to the fee.
- Lemoine si$ned an undated Special <o!er of Attorne) authori%in$ 6alon to (rin$ an) action a$ainst *etropolitan
/nsurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine?s claim as !ell as to ne$otiate si$n compromise encash and recei,e
pa)ments
- *etropolitan /nsurance offered to settle Lemoine?s claim and 6alon confirmed his acceptance of the offer
- 3ecem(er 4CC; *etropolitan /nsurance issued a China 6an- chec- pa)a(le to Lemoine in the amount of
<525000 !hich !as recei,ed () 6alon
- 1hen Lemoine as-ed 6alon as to the status of the case 6alon ans!ered that *etropolitan /nsurance !as offerin$
<950000 for settlement !hich Lemoine su$$ested that 6alon accept to a,oid liti$ation
- 3ecem(er 4CCC Lemoine ,isited the office of *etropolitan /nsurance to as- on the status of the case and it
ans!ered that the case !as lon$ settled ,ia a chec- $i,en to 6alon.
- 6alon ac-no!led$e that he is in possession of the chec- and that he is -eepin$ the chec- as attorne)?s lien
pendin$ Lemoine?s pa)ment of his attorne)?s fee e+ui,alent to 50K of the entire amount collected. 2e also
threatened Lemoine that he !ill not hesitate to ma-e proper representation !ith the 6ureau of /mmi$ration and
3eportation 3'L" and 6/# if Lemoine !ill ma-e an) trou(le to 6alon and that he has $ood net!or- !ith the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
mentioned a$encies.
- 6alon later claimed that he $a,e <299000 to @arcia on the representation of Lemoine. &o !ritten memorandum
of the turn-o,er !as made (ecause @arcia !as a co-#otarian and co-attorne) of 6alon
- 6alon !as in possession of the said chec- for 5 )ears
/SS0":
- 1=& 6alon ,iolated the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit)
2"L3:
- I"S> And he !as ordered dis(arred () the SC
- The la!)er?s continuin$ e5ercise of his retainin$ lien presupposes that the client a$rees !ith the amount of
attorne)?s fees to e char$ed. /n case of disa$reement ho!e,er the la!)er must not ar(itraril) appl) the funds in
his possession to the pa)ment of his fees. 2e can file the necessar) action !ith the proper court to fi5 the fees
- 6efore recei,in$ the chec- he proposes a 25K attorne)?s fees after recei,in$ the chec- he !as alread) as-in$
for 50K.
- under the Code of <rofessional #esponsi(ilit) a la!)er shall not en$a$e in unla!ful acts must o(ser,e fairness
in all his dealin$s !ith his client and must hold in trust all mone)s and properties of his client
- a la!)er !ho practices deceit in his dealin$s !ith his client not onl) ,iolates his dut) of fidelit) lo)alt) and
de,otion to the client?s cause (ut also de$rades himself and (esmirches the name of an honora(le profession.
133 SCC CHEMICALS 9 CA
Facts:
SCC Chemicals Corporation throu$h its chairman and ,ice president o(tained a loan from State /n,estment
house 7S/2/8.
Loan amount !as <490T !ith a 90K interest rate p.a.
Surchar$es: 2K per month on the remainin$ (alance.
The officers a(o,e mentioned e5ecuted a comprehensi,e securit) a$reement on the loan.
6ut SCC failed to pa) the loan. S/2/ sent demand letters (ut no pa)ment !as made.
S/2/ presented one !itness to pro,e his claim. The cross-e5amination !as postponed man) times. SCC !as
finall) declared to ha,e !ai,ed its ri$ht to cross e5amine.
A lot of challen$es !ere made () SCC on the ,alidit) of the document. 6ut this is of no moment. 7and irrele,ant8
&o! SCC is +uestionin$ the preponderance of e,idence 7irrele,ant8 and the amount of attorne)s fees a!arded.
/ssue:
1=& S/2/ is entitled to attorne)?s fees.
2eld:
&o.
The appeal is partiall) $ranted. Attorne)?s fees are deleted.
#adio Communications of the <hilippines , #odri$ue% stated that the reason for the a!ard of the attorne)s? fees
must (e stated in the te5t of the court?s decision. Since the trial court did not state an) reason for a!ardin$ the
attorne)?s fees the fees should ha,e (een disallo!ed () the appellate court.
The a!ard of attorne)?s fees is the e5ception rather than the rule ahence it is necessar) for the trial court to
ma-e findin$s of fact and la! !hich !ould (rin$ the case !ithin the e5ception and Dustif) the $rant of the a!ard.
@i,en the failure of the trial court to e5plicitl) state the rationale for the a!ard of attorne)?s fees the same shall
(e disallo!ed.
134 IN RE HAMILTON
Facts:
L. <orter 2amilton ad,ised and counseled Luciano Andrada in re$ard to a claim 7() Andrada8 a$ainst /sa(elo
Al(uro.
/n lieu thereof 2amilton recei,ed ,arious documents 7,ouchers notes8 from Andrada. 2amilton prepared a formal
petition for Andrada and also prepared papers relatin$ to attachment proceedin$s a$ainst the propert) of Al(uro.
/t appeared ho!e,er that 2amilton !as not noted as attorne) of record for Andrada.
Later on 2amilton entered appearance as attorne) of record for Al(uro 7the defendant in the same case8.
2amilton onl) surrendered the documents recei,ed from Andrada !hen the court ordered him to do so.
Another misconduct !as committed () 2amilton !hen he proposed throu$h a letter to S.L. .oseph of Ce(u that
he (e emplo)ed as attorne) for S.L. .oseph Lum(er Iard under a threat to compel said person to accept his
proposition.
.ud$e 1isle%inus said: AAh hindi p!ede )an>B 2e orderd the fiscal to file an action for dis(arment a$ainst
2amilton for professional misconduct.
2amilton?s defense !as that there !as no attorne)-client relationship (et!een him and AndradaLsince he !as
not the attorne) of record. 'n the second misconduct 2amilton?s defense !as that the letter 7!here he made the
proposition8 !as pri,ile$ed communication so it cannot (e used as e,idence a$ainst him.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/ssue:
/s Att) 2amilton $uilt) of professional misconductG
2eld:
Ies and he should (e suspended for 6 )ears. The e5istence of an attorne)-client relationship could (e esta(lished () o,ert
acts. 6) acceptin$ papers relatin$ to the claim the confidential relationship !as esta(lished. 2amilton also counseled !ith
Andrada re$ardin$ the su(Dect matter of the suit. The fact that he did not allo! his name to (e place () the cler- of court
as attorne) of record for Andrada 7!hen the papers !ere filed8 can onl) (e considered as proof of lac- of $ood faith !ith
the client to !home he !as renderin$ professional ser,ices. A stipulated fee is not necessar) to esta(lish the relationship
either.
6) representin$ the opposin$ part) in the same case 7!ithout the other?s consent8 and () refusin$ to surrender the
documents recei,ed from Andrada 7until there !ere court orders8 counsel ,iolated the confidence (et!een him and
Andrada. 2e did not offer his ser,ices in $ood faith to his client.
As to the claim that the letter to S.L. .oseph !as pri,ile$ed there !as no proof that there !as an attorne)-client
relationship (et!een 2amilton and S.L. .oseph. Furthermore in a dis(arment proceedin$ !here the alle$ed client himself
is not insistin$ on the pri,ile$e counsel cannot (e permitted to shield himself (ehind the pri,ile$e.
135 HILADO 9 DAVID
Facts:
6landina 2ilado 7$anda n$ pan$alan>8 (rou$ht an action a$ainst Selim Assad to annul the sale of se,eral houses
and lot e5ected () 2ilado?s hus(and.
3el$ado et al. !as counsel for 2ilado !hile 'hnic- et al filed an ans!er for Assad.
Later on Att) Hicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad su(stitutin$ 'hnic- et al.
The firm of 3el$ado ur$ed Att) Francisco to stop representin$ Assad since there e5ists an att)-client relationship
(et!een him 7Francisco8 and the other part) 72ilado8 in the same case.
/t !as alle$ed that 2ilado consulted Francisco re$ardin$ the case and that the former turned o,er papers to the
latter. From such documents Francisco sent a !ritten opinion to 2ilado.
Since ma-ulit si Francisco 3el$ado et al. sou$ht to dis+ualif) Francisco from representin$ Assad in the case.
Francisco?s defense !as that he onl) met 2ilado once and this !as !hen the latter informed him a(out the case.
2e added that !hen 2ilado left documents in their office he told his assistant to tell 2ilado that their firm !ould
not handle her case. And that the !ritten opinion !as made () his assistant !hich he si$ned !ithout readin$
and onl) for the purpose of e5plainin$ to 2ilado !h) his firm reDected the case.
3a,id is the Dud$e tr)in$ the case !ho dismissed the complaint for dis+ualification a$ainst Francisco. Said Dud$e
reasoned that no attorne)-client relationship e5isted (et!een 2ilado and Francisco.
/ssue:
1as there an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and 2iladoG
Should Att) Francisco (e dis+ualified from representin$ AssadG
2eld:
The firm of Francisco mailed a !ritten opinion to 2ilado on the merits of the case 7!ith Francisco?s si$nature8F this opinion
!as reached on the (asis of papers su(mitted at his officeF and that 2ilado?s purpose in su(mittin$ those papers !as to
secure Francisco?s professional ser,ices. From these ultimate facts an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and
2ilado can (e said to ha,e ensued.
To constitute professional emplo)ment it is not essential that the client should ha,e emplo)ed the attorne) professionall)
on an) pre,ious occasion. /t is not necessar) that an) retainer should ha,e (een paid promised or char$ed forF neither is
it material that the attorne) consulted did not after!ard underta-e the case a(out !hich the consultation !as had. 1hen a
person consults !ith his attorne) in his professional capacit) !ith the ,ie! of o(tainin$ professional ad,ice or assistance
and the attorne) ,oluntaril) permits or ac+uiesces in such consultation then the professional emplo)ment must (e
re$arded as esta(lished.
The e5istence of attorne)-client relationship precludes the attorne) from representin$ 7and recei,in$ a retainer from8 the
opposite part) in the same case.
An information professionall) o(tained () an attorne) from a client is sacred to the emplo)ment to !hich it pertains and
to permit it (e used in the interest of another or in the interest of the ad,erse part) is to stri-e at the element of
confidence !hich forms the (asis of an attorne)-client relationship.
The rule inhi(itin$ an attorne) from actin$ in (ehalf of (oth parties is implied in the #ules of Court 7!ala pan$ codified
codes of professional responsi(ilit) noon8.
The defense that Francisco ne,er read the !ritten opinion nor the documents su(mitted () 2ilado !ill not preclude the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
e5istence of an attorne)-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did $i,e 2ilado a formal professional ad,ice from
!hich emer$ed the relation. The letter (inds and estops him in the same manner and de$ree as if he !rote it personall).
And an information o(tained from a client () a mem(er or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm.
The failure to o(Dect to counsel?s appearance does not operate as a !ai,er of the ri$ht to as- for counsel?s dis+ualification.
*otion for dis+ualification a$ainst Attorne) Francisco should (e allo!ed.
TA retainin$ fee 7Dust in case itanon$8 is a preliminar) fee $i,en to an attorne) or counsel to insure and secure his future
ser,ices and induce him to act for the client.
136 REGALA 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
Facts:
<etitioners in this case and pri,ate respondent #oco !ere all then partners of the la! firm An$ara A(ello
Concepcion #e$ala and Cru% La! 'ffices 7commonl) -no!n as ACC#A8
ACC#A performed ser,ices for clients !hich included ac+uirin$ and=or or$ani%in$ (usiness associations and=or
or$ani%ations !here it acted as incorporators or simpl) as stoc-holders
As mem(ers of the la! firm petitioners and #oco admit that the) assisted in the or$ani%ation and ac+uisition of
companies included in Ci,il Case &o. 0099. /n -eepin$ !ith the office practice ACC#A la!)ers acted as nominees-
stoc-holders. Anon$ -alo-ohan )anG
o Ci,il Case &o. 0099 E A#< ,. "duardo CoDuan$co et. al.B for the reco,er) of ill-$otten !ealth !hich
includes shares of stoc- in certain corporations
<C@@ later on filed a motion to admit 9
rd
amended complaint !hich e5cluded #oco in Ci,il Case 99 as part)
defendant. <C@@ !as remo,in$ #oco (ecause #oco !as $oin$ to ma-e choochoo and re,eal the identit) of the
principals.
The ACC#A la!)ers then filed a comment and=or opposition sa)in$ that the) should also (e remo,ed the !a) that
#oco !as.
<C@@ then said that it !ill as- for their e5clusion onl) if the) !ill also disclose the identit) of their clients
3urin$ the proceedin$s #oco did not actuall) re,eal the identit) of the client for !hom he acted as nominee-
stoc-holder
The ACC#A la!)er?s motion for e5clusion !as denied 7the) refused to compl) !ith the <C@@?s offer8 () the <C@@
and the court. 2ence this motion for certiorari
/ssue:
1=& the ACC#A la!)ers should (e e5cluded from the case
2eld:
Ies. /t is apparent that the ACC#A la!)ers !ere onl) impleaded to force them to disclose the identit) of their
clients.
<C@@ has no ,alid cause of action
/ssue:
1=& the attorne)-client pri,ile$e prohi(its the ACC#A la!)ers from re,ealin$ the identit) of their clients
2eld:
@eneral rule: a client?s identit) should not (e shrouded in m)ster)
o "5ceptions: !here a stron$ pro(a(ilit) e5ists that re,ealin$ the client?s name !ould implicate that client
in the ,er) acti,it) for !hich he sou$ht the la!)er?s ad,ice
o 1here disclosure !ould open the client to ci,il lia(ilit)
o 1here re,ealin$ the identit) !ould furnish the onl) lin- that !ould (e necessar) to con,ict an indi,idual
of a crime
Suin$ the la!)er to force him to disclose the identit) of his client in an) of these instances is improper and the
suit upon motion ma) (e dismissed on such $round.
The prosecution should rel) on the stren$th of their e,idence and not on the !ea-ness of the defense
#oco merel) stated that he !as actin$ as nominee-stoc-holder for the client and is part of le$itimate la!)erin$.
The ACC#A la!)ers also made such statement and should also (e dropped.
the relation of attorne) and client is strictl) personal and hi$hl) confidential and fiduciar)
the la!)er is more than a mere a$ent or ser,ant (ecause he possesses special po!ers of trust and confidence
reposed on him () his client
137 PEOPLE 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN
Facts: 2onrada !as the cler- of court and actin$ steno$rapher of the First *CTC. <aredes !as the <ro,incial Attorne) of
A$usan. Sansaet !as the counsel of <aredes.

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/t appears that <aredes applied for a free patent and Certificate of Title o,er a lot. /t !as initiall) appro,ed (ut the 3irector
of lands su(se+uentl) filed for the cansellation of the patent and title on the $round that the land had (een reser,ed as a
school site. The lo!er court ruled to nullif) the patent and title after findin$ out that <aredes o(tained the same throu$h
fraudulent misrepresentations.

An information for perDur) !as filed a$ainst <aredes. 2o!e,er the fiscal directed the 3eput) *inister of .ustice to mo,e for
the dismissal of the case on the $round of prescription. After some time @elacio the one !ho filed the perDur) case sent a
letter to the '*6 see-in$ the in,esti$ation of the 9 personalities for falsification of pu(lic documents. The alle$ed falsified
documents !ere documents purportin$ to (e a notice of arrai$nment and steno$raphic notes supposedl) ta-en durin$ the
arrai$nment of the perDur) char$e.

/n a sudden turn of e,ents Att). Sansaet re,ealed that <aredes contri,ed to ha,e the $raft case dismissed on the $round
of dou(le Deopard) () ma-in$ it appear that the perDur) case had (een dismissed () the trial court . Att). Sansaet !as in
effect as-in$ to (e a state !itness a$ainst <aredes. 2o!e,er the '*6 denied the re+uest of Att). to (e a state !itness on
the $round that the confession made () <aredes to Att). !as pri,ile$ed communication.

/ssue: 1=& the confession made () <aredes to Att). is pri,ile$ed communication.

2eld: T-" 1),3"**2), ma&" ! Pa#"&"* 2* ,)( 1)9"#"& ! $#292%"/"& 1)mm+,21a(2),0

This case is actuall) an e5ception to the rule. /t can (e assumed that there !as confidential information made () <aredes
to Sansaet in connection !ith the falsification case (ecause Sansaet !as the counsel.

A distinction must (e made (et!een communications relatin$ to past crimes alread) committed and future crimes
intended to (e committed () the client. /t is true that () no! those crimes had alread) (een committed. 6ut for the
application of the att).-client pri,ile$e to appl) the period to (e considered is the date !hen the pri,ile$ed communication
!as made () the client to the att). /n other !ords if the client see-s the ad,ice of the att). !ith respect to a crime alread)
committed at the time of the communication it is pri,ile$ed information. 6ut if the client consults the att). re$ardin$ a
crime he is a(out to commit after the consultation such is not pri,ile$ed information.

/n the present case the confession made () <aredes to Sansaet !ere in reference to a crime of falsification !hich had not
)et (een committed in the past () <aredes (ut !hich he later committed. 2a,in$ (een made for purposes of a future
offense those communications are outside the pale of the att).-client pri,ile$e.

6esides for the rule to attach the purpose of the consultation must (e for a la!fule purpose. 1ithout the la!ful purpose
the pri,ile$e does not attach.
135 NGAYAN 9 TUGADE
Facts:
-&$a)an as-ed Tu$ade to prepare and affida,it to (e used as (asis for a complaint a$ainst Soriano and Leonido as a
conse+uence of the latter?s entr) into complainants? d!ellin$. &$a)an si$ned the affida,it !ithout thorou$hl) readin$ it
(ut she noticed one para$raph !hich did not mention that Leonido !as !ith Soriano !hen the) (oth (ar$ed into
complainant?s residence.
-0pon (ein$ informed of this omission Tu$ade crossed out the said para$raph. &$a)an as-ed Tu$ade to ma-e another
affida,it and the latter promised to do so.
-&$a)an dischar$ed Tu$ade as their counsel and found out that Tu$ade did not include the name of Leonido in the criminal
case filed.
-1hen the omission !as remedied () their ne! counsel the ad,erse parties filed a motion for rein,esti$ation throu$h their
counsel Att). @aminda !ho !as a former classmate of Tu$ade.
-Tu$ade !as also a la!)er of the (rother of Leonido in an insurance compan).
-/n the hearin$ for the motion for rein,esti$ation the ad,erse parties in affida,it !hich Tu$ade prepared for &$a)an !ith
one para$raph crossed out. Tu$ade himself presented an affida,it contro,ertin$ the discarded affida,it !hich he prepared
for &$a)an.
-Thus &$a)an char$ed Tu$ade for ,iolation of para$raphs 7e8 and 7f8 Sec.20 #ule 49; #ules of Court
7e8 to maintain in,iolate the confidenceWand to preser,e the secrets of his clientW
7f8 to a(stain from all offensi,e personalit)..a$ainst a part) or !itnessW
/ssue: 1=& Tu$ade must (e disciplined for ,iolation of the said #ule
2"L3: I"S he is suspended from the practice of la! for 4 )ear.
-1hen Tu$ade furnished the ad,erse parties !ith a cop) of the discarded affida,it thus ena(lin$ the ad,erse parties to
use it as e,idence a$ainst complainants he (etra)ed the trust and confidence of his clients in ,iolation of para$raph 7e8
Sec.20 #ule 49;
-Tu$ade?s actuations from the (e$innin$ sho! that he !as partial to the ad,erse parties. This could (e e5plained () the
fact that he !as a former classmate of Att).@aminda the ad,erse parties? counsel and also () the fact that he !as the
la!)er of Leonido?s (rother in an insurance compan).
-Tu$ade su(mitted an affida,it containin$ facts preDudicial to his former client such as the fact that the crime char$ed ()
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
&$a)an had alread) prescri(ed and that &$a)an as-ed him to ma-e the offense more $ra,e to pre,ent the offense from
prescri(in$. This constitutes an act of offensi,e personalit) a$ainst complainants ,iolati,e of par.7f8 Sec.20 #ule 49;.
134 PFLEIDER 9 PALANCA
FACTS:
- <alanca is the la!)er of <fleider.
- <fleider leased to <alanca an a$ricultural land 2acienda Asia in &e$ros 'ccidental for a period of 40 )ears
- /t is stipulated in the lease a$reement that a specified portion of the lease rentals !ould (e paid to <fleider and
the remainder !ould (e deli,ered () <alanca to the listed creditors of <fleider
- <fleider filed a suit for the rescission of the lease a$reement of the $round of alle$ed default in the pa)ment of
rentals of <alanca.
- <fleider also filed for the dis(arment of <alanca on the $rounds of:
o <alanca did not follo! the instructions of <fleider to settle his estafa case a$ainst *atiao in 4C65 and the
latter also failed to deposit the sum of <5000 !ith the court
o <alanca has fraudulentl) char$ed the <5000 as part of the lease rental of the 2acienda Asia
o <alanca also falsel) represented ha,in$ paid one @uintos the sum of <;66 for the account of <fleider
!hen in truth and in fact @uintos onl) recei,ed <;6
o The list of creditors !hich <fleider has confidentiall) supplied <alanca !as disclosed () <alance in
,iolation of their attorne)-client relationship
/SS0":
- 1=& <alanca committed a (reach of fidelit) o!in$ form a la!)er to his client
2"L3:
- &'>
- There is no su(stantial (lame a$ainst <alanca inasmuch as the latter?s ser,ices !ere implicitl) terminated ()
<fleider !hen he sued his la!)er.
- 1hile the o(Dect of the suit is the rescission of the lease contract the conflict of interest (ecame incompati(le
!ith the mutual confidence and trust essential to e,er) la!)er-client relationship.
- Also <fleider deli,ered the list of creditors to <alanca not (ecause of the professional relation then e5istin$
(et!een them (ut on account of the lease a$reement. A ,iolation thereof !ould parta-e more of a pri,ate and
ci,il !ron$ than of a (reach of fidelit) o!in$ from a la!)er to his client.
14: MERCADO 9 VITRIOLO
FACTS:
#osa F. *ercado 7complainant8 is a Senior "ducation <ro$ram Specialist of C2"3. Att). Hitriolo is a 3eput)
"5ecuti,e 3irector /H of C2"3.
Complainant?s hus(and filed an annulment case entitled #u(en *ercado ,. #osa Francisco. The case !as
dismissed.
Complainant?s counsel later on died. Att). Hitriolo su(stituted the counsel !ho Dust died.
Later on Att). Hitriolo filed a criminal action a$ainst complainant. 7falsification of documents: (irth certificates of
her children ma-in$ it appear that she !as married to a certain Ferdinand Fernande% !hen in fact she !as le$all)
married to #u(en *ercado.
Complainant alle$ed that the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relatin$ to the ci,il
case for annulment. She claims that in filin$ the criminal case respondent is $uilt) of (reachin$ their pri,ile$ed
and confidential relationship.
: )ears later the results of the in,esti$ation recommended that Hitriolo is indeed $uilt) and should (e suspended
for a month. Complainant then !rote .ustice 3a,ide that she is desistin$ from pursuin$ the case (ecause she has
found it in her heart to for$i,e respondent. Such desistance has no (earin$.
/SS0":
1=& Att). Hitriolo is indeed $uilt) of ,iolatin$ the pri,ile$e and confidential relationship of attorne)-client
relationship
2"L3:
&'. Case dismissed.
Complainant did not e,en specif) the alle$ed communication in confidence disclosed () respondent. All her
claims !ere couched in $eneral terms and lac-ed specificit).
Court cannot (e in,ol,ed in a $uessin$ $ame as to the e5istence of facts !hich the complainant must pro,e.
The confidential information is a crucial lin- in esta(lishin$ a (reach of the rule on pri,ile$ed communication.
6urden of pro,in$ that the pri,ile$e applies is placed upon the part) assertin$ the pri,ile$e.
141 GENATO 9 SILAPAN
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
FACTS:
- Complaint for dis(arment filed () 1illiam 'n$ @enato a$ainst Att). "sse5 Silapan
- The ,arious criminal and ci,il cases !ere not discussed (ecause it !as left for the trial courts to decide. 7@enato lent
Silapan mone) to purchase a ne! car. Silapan mort$a$ed his house and lot. 1hen S/lapan failed to pa) @"nato sou$ht the
foreclosure of the mort$a$e and tried to encash a postdated chec- issued () Silapan !hich su(se+uentl) (ounced.8 The
Court in this case cannot sanction Att). Silapan
for his issuance of a (ouncin$ chec-.
- 1hen @enato filed a 6< 22 case a$ainst Att). Silapan the latter alle$ed in his ans!er that durin$ the pre,ious case
7criminal case8 @enato !anted Att) Silapan to offer (ri(e mone) to mem(ers of 3'. e,en the prosecutor and presidin$
Dud$e. Att). S/lapan refused since such acts are immoral and ille$al (ut also (ecause Othe complainant confided to him that
he !as reall) in,ol,ed in the commission of the crime
that !as char$edO.
/SS0": 1o& Att). Silapan committed a (reach of trust and confidence () imputin$ to @enato ille$al practices and
disclosin$ alle$ed intention to (ri(e $o,t officials in connection !ith a pendin$ caseG
2"L3: &'. The pri,ile$e a$ainst disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited onl) to
communications !hich are le$itimatel) and properl) !ithin the scope of a la!ful emplo)ment of a la!)er. /t does not
e5tend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetuation of a fraud. A la!)er is not a $un for hire.
/SS0": 1o& disclosures !ere indispensa(le to protect Att). SilapanOs ri$hts (ecause the) !ere pertinent to the foreclosure
case
2"L3: &'. /t !as improper for the respondent to use it a$ainst @enato in the foreclosure case (ecause it !as not the
su(Dect matter of liti$ation and ATt). S/lapanOs professional competence and le$al ad,ice !ere not (ein$ attac-ed in that
case. A la!)er must conduct himself especiall) in his dealin$s !ith his clients !ith inte$rit) in a manner that is (e)ond
reproach. 7Att) Silapan !as ordered 4 )ear suspension8
142 .ACARRO 9 CA
FACTS:
6acarro is the re$istered o!ner of a lot located in Ca$a)an de 'ro cit). 2e claims that he !as compelled () the *unicipal
.ud$e of 6aun$in 6u-idnon to appear (efore the Dud$eOs ofice and then and there coerced and forced under threat of
prosecution and loss said
land to e5ecute a deed of recon,e)ance of 4=2 of the land to @aerlan. 6acarro then filed a complaint for the annulment of
said deed of recon,e)ance.
Att) Luminarias and Ca(allero entered their appearance in said cas as counsel of 6acarro in colla(oration !ith Att)
<acana.
The Dud$e of the lo!er court ordered an amendment to th complaint of 6acarro. *rs. @aerlan filed a !ritten manifestation
in,itin$ attention to the fact that petittoner 6acarro had not complied !ith said order. The Dud$e then issued an order
dismissin$ the
complaint.
A motion for ne! trial= reconsideration !as filed () Att) Ca(allero on (ehalf of 6acarro. *otion !as denied in an order
issued () the Dud$e dated &o,em(er 4: 4C66. &otice of said order !as not recei,ed () Att) Ca(allero until *arch 45
4C6J on !hich date he
filed a notice of appeal. @aerlan o(Dected to the appro,al of said notice of appeal upon the $round that the period to
appeal should (e rec-oned from &o, 4: 4C66 !hen a cop) of the order !as ser,ed upon Att) <acana. 'n this alle$ation
the motion !as dismissed.
/SS0":
1hether or not period to appeal from order den)in$h motion for ne! trial= reconsideration (e$an to run on &o, 4: 4C66
!hen a cop) of said order !as ser,ed upon <acana or on *arch 46 4C6J !hen notice !as ser,ed upon Att) Ca(allero.
2"L3:
*arch 46 4C6J.
This is not a case of su(stitution. 6) enterin$ his appearnce Att) Ca(allero did not su(stitute Att) <acana (ut (ecame one
of the attorne)s for 6acarro. &either did Att) Ca(allero su(stitute or tr) to su(stitute Att) <acana. The statement in the
motion for reconsideration to the effect that throu$h Att) Ca(allero petitioner 6acarro Safter dul) relie,in$ his pre,ious
counsel mo,ed for the reconsideration of
the order had the effect of continui$ the ser,ices of Ca(allero and droppin$ <cana. 7!alan$ su(stitution... sa(a) silan$
la!)er tapos na-terminate un$ emplo)ment ni <acana...8
1hether 6acarro could - as re$ards the Court of @aerlan - ,alidl) dispense !ith the ser,ices of <acana !ithout securin$
his consent or !ithout proof that he had (een notified of 6acarroOs motion for reconsideration...
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2"L3:
I"S. Client ma) at an) time dismiss his attorne). The relatioship (et!een 6acarro and <acana ceased to e5ist from the
filin$ of the motion for reconsideration= ne! trial insofar as the court is concerned and form receipt of cop) thereof () Att)
Salcedo insofar as @aerlan !as concerned.
143 PEOPLE 9 CASIMIRO
Facts:
Att). *anuel San$la) !as filed an administrati,e complaint for his failure to file a (rief !ithin the re$lementar)
period for his clients 6enDamin /calla #odolfo Soriano and 6enDamin Cinco.
San$la) !as $i,en 40 da)s from Fe( 9 4CJ2 to e5plain (ut his e5planation came at the end of the month.
2e a(sol,ed himself from an) (lame as in his ,ie! no fault could (e attri(uted to him.
Accordin$ to him he contacted the parents of the appellants. /t !as mentioned to him that another la!)er !hose
ser,ices presuma(l) !ere hired () the parents of appellants /calla and Cinco.
San$la) then reminded them that failure to file the 7appellant?s8 (rief !ould mean automatic !ithdra!al of the
appeal.
2e !as then assured that the ne! la!)er !ill file the (rief and that as a to-en for his hard !or- he shoud not
!ithdra!.
/ssue:
1=& San$la) is lia(le for the late filin$ of the appellant?s (rief.
2eld:
&o. 7(ut he is reprimanded8
/t !as not a !illful act on his part.
&onetheless the e5culpation he see-s cannot (e $ranted. 0nder the circumstances the least that !as e5pected of him
!as that he !ould inform the Tri(unal of the de,elopments set forth in his e5planation and as that he (e allo!ed to
!ithdra! as counsel. Such a step he did not ta-e until after the Fe( 9 resolution.
/t did not !ipe out the pre,ious manifestation of ne$li$ence on his part. 2e cannot therefore escape lia(ilit).
144 .ICOL FEDERATION 9 CUYUGAN
Facts:
Certain mem(ers of the 6icol Federation of La(or !ere hired () 3o_a .acinta Cu)u$an to clear her land and plant
coconut seedlin$s on it. These planters !ere also allo!ed to plant other crops o,er the land.
1hen the coconut trees (ore fruit the planters !ere (ein$ $i,en half of 4=9 of the har,est. 6ut the custom in the
area !as that the planter and the o!ner should share 50-50 in case the o!ner !ould not $i,e monetar) pa)ment
to the planters.
3urin$ the har,estin$ the a$ent of the o!ner of the land hired other people. This in effect !as oustin$ the
planters and pre,entin$ them from claimin$ their ri$htful compensation.
6icol Federation of La(or in (ehalf of its indi,idual mem(ers filed an action (efore the A$rarian court to chan$e
their arran$ement !ith the o!ner from sharin$ to a lease-hold s)stem. Such desired arran$ement !ould ena(le
them to ha,e a !ider area to culti,ate and !ith the least inter,ention () the lando!ner?s a$ents.
3urin$ the pendenc) of the action counsel for 6icol FederationLAtt) Xuirico Fa(ulLdeclared that his authorit) to
represent the $roup has (een terminated and that the retainer !as in (ehalf of the indi,idual claimants and not of
the Federation. This fact !as used () the defendants 7Cu)u$ans and the a$ents8 as another defense.
The A$rarian Court dismissed the claim of 6icol Federation solel) on the $round that the action !as not !ithin its
Durisdiction.

/ssue:
1as the action () 6icol Federation !ithin the competence of the A$rarian CourtG
7"thics iss
ue8 Can Att) Fa(ul still represent the claimants despite the dismissal of his ser,ices 7() 6icol Federation8G
2eld:
Ies the Court of A$rarian #elations has Durisdiction. 0nder the Code of A$rarian #eforms and considerin$ the polic) and
o(Decti,es of such le$islation the A$rarian Courts has Durisdiction o,er issues in,ol,in$ an indi,idual7s8 claimin$ for
compensation from a lando!ner.
7the rele,ant issue8
Ies Att) Fa(ul can represent the claimants in this case despite the declared termination. This is one of those rare
instances !here an attorne) !hose authorit) has (een terminated () his client ma) (e allo!ed to continue his
representation. To pre,ent failure or miscarria$e of Dustice and pursuant to the pro,isions of the #ules of Court the names
of the indi,idual claimants should (e added to the complaint under the le$al representation of Att) Fa(ul until and unless
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
each indi,idual claimant should other!ise manifest (efore the court.
Case !as remanded to the A$rarian Court.
145 DOMINGO SR0 9 A=UINO
FACTS
Court of First /nstance appro,ed mone) claim of AX0/&' a$ainst the "state of 3omin$o and ordered
Administratri5 STA *A#/A to pa) <20000 to AX0/&'
6oth parties appealed
CA affirmed the rulin$ of the CF/
Copies of the Dud$ment !ere sent to ATTI 0&S'& throu$h re$istered mail
The ne! administratri5 3" L'<"N alle$es the co-administratri5 of STA *A#/A ATTI 3'*/&@' !as remo,ed from
his trust () the intestate court?s order for ha,in$ s+uandered cash so (ein$ the one 7ATTI 3'*/&@'8 !ho
en$a$ed the ser,ices of ATTI 0&S'& the remo,al of ATTI 3'*/&@' is in effect the remo,al of ATTI 0&S'& as
counsel of the estate
3" L'<"N pra)s that the cler- of court (e directed to ser,e a cop) of the CA Dud$ment on her counsel instead of
ATTI 0&S'&
7In ot$er 'ords, +%n co%rt na(send n( cop+ n( decision n( ca 2a+ att+ %nson pero sa*i n( estate $indi valid +%n
pa(send n( notice 2asi $indi na nila la'+er si att+ %nson at t$e ti&e notice 'as served4
ISSUE W<N SERVICE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ATTY UNSON WAS VALID
HELD YES' EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT THEIR LAWYER AT THE TIME COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT WAS SENT' A.SENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF DISCHARGE FILED WITH
THE COURT MA>ES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD .INDING UPON THE
CLIENT
RATIO
#ecords sho! that ATTI 0&S'& !as the counsel of record of the "STAT" 'F 3'*/&@' in the appellate court and ne,er
filed an) !ithdra!al as such counsel. ",en after the remo,al of ATTI 3'*/&@' as administrator of the estate ATTI
0&S'& filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate.
*oreo,er !hile it ma) (e true that ATTI 0&S'& ceased as counsel for the estate and for the former administrator !hen
the intestate court $ranted his motion to !ithdra! as counsel () ,irtue of his appointment to and assumption of pu(lic
office of Assistant Administrator of the Su$ar Xuota Administration this !as true onl) as far as the intestate court !as
concerned. 2e continued on record in the appellate court and did not file an) !ithdra!al as counsel. /n addition to that
no appearance of ne! counsel for the estate !as e,er filed.
/t follo!s that since notice and cop) of the appellate court?s decision !ere ser,ed () re$istered mail on the estate?s
counsel of record ATTI 0&S'& and the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5
th
da) after the first notice of the postmaster
such ser,ice !as deemed completed and effected and (indin$ upon the client in this case the "state of 3omin$o.
As to the contention that remo,al of ATTI 3'*/&@' as administratri5 means remo,al of ATTI 0&S'& as the estate?s
counsel (ecause ATTI 3'*/&@' !as the one !ho en$a$ed the ser,ices of ATTI 0&S'& the fact that ATTI 0&S'&?S
ser,ices !ere en$a$ed () ATTI 3'*/&@' in his official capacit) as administrator did not ma-e ATTI 0&S'& his personal
counsel. ATTI 0&S'& continued to (e authori%ed to represent the estate as its counsel until the ne! administrator
3'*/&@' 3" L'<"N should terminate his ser,ices !hich she ne,er did.
JUDGMENT
SC: ATTI #"@/&' 7petitioner?s counsel in this case8 is reminded that cooperation of liti$ants and their attorne)s is needed
so that needless clo$$in$ of the court doc-ets !ith unmeritorious cases ma) (e a,oided. 2ence petition is dismissed and
ATTI #"@/&' is ordered to pa) tre(le costs.
146 A=UINO 9 .LANCO
Facts:
- <etitioners Santia$o A+ui_o and 3ionisia A$uirre filed a complaint a$ainst 3omin$a Sal,eron in the CF/ !hich the
petitioners !on.
- Sal,eron !as represented in that case () Att). 6asilio Sorioso. Att). Sorioso !as appointed as Assistant <ro,incial
Fiscal of /loilo on Fe(. 44 4C:J.
- 3espite the appointment the Dud$ment in the earlier mentioned case !as ser,ed on Att). Sorioso.
- Sal,eron !as onl) informed of the Dud$ment on *ar. 26 4C:J !hen a !rit of e5ecution !as ser,ed on him.
- Sal,eron then filed a petition to ,acate said !rit of e5ecution. This !as $ranted () .ud$e 6lanco.
/ssue:
- 1=n the ser,ice of Dud$ment made on Att). Sorioso constitutes ser,ice upon his client Sal,eron.
2eld:
- SC sa)s &'.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
- 1hen Attorne) Sorioso !as appointed to the position of assistant pro,incial fiscal and therein +ualified ()
operation of la! he ceased to en$a$e in pri,ate la! practice and as a conse+uence he (ecame simultaneousl)
dis+ualified to continue representin$ his former client the herein respondent 3omin$a Sal,eron in the a(o,e-
mentioned case. So that in contemplation of la! the notice of the decision upon him on Fe(ruar) 44 4C:J !as
not a notice upon said respondent and the period for perfectin$ an appeal on the part of the latter in realit) did
not then commence to run (ut onl) if at all !hen she ac+uired -no!led$e of said decision upon the ser,ice on
her of the !rit of e5ecution on *arch 26 4C:J.
147 WAC>WAC> GOLF 9 CA
Facts: Arcan$el a former emplo)ee of 1ac- 1ac- 7118 filed !ith the CF/ a mone) claim case for o,ertime ser,ices
rendered to 11 for unenDo)ed ,acation moral dama$es and att).?s fees. At the hearin$ of the case neither 11 nor its
counsel 6alcoff et. al. appeared despite notification. As a result the lo!er court rendered Dud$ment in fa,or of Arcan$el.

The firm of Chuidian on (ehalf of 11 filed a petition to set aside the Dud$ment on the $round of mista-e
m2*+,&"#*(a,&2,/ and e5cusa(le ne$lect. Accordin$ to the firm of Chuidian 11 !as first represented () 6alcoff et. al.
Thereafter 11 decided to replace 6alcoff et. al. !ith the Chuidian La! 'ffice. 1hen the representati,e of Chuidian !ent
to the firm of 6alcoff to inform the latter of the replacement *r. 6alcoff !as not in the office. Att). Cru% of 6alcoff et. al.
declared that he had no authorit) to turn o,er the records of the case to Chuidian La! 'ffice. As a result Att). Chuidian
called Att). 6alcoff. Att). Chuidian said that inasmuch as 6alcoff et. al. !as still representin$ the 11 the Chuidian La!
'ffice !ill send a representati,e on the hearin$ da). 2o!e,er no representati,e from the Chuidian La! 'ffice came. 7This
is the misunderstandin$ that !as mentioned a(o,e. 6alcoff thou$ht that Chuidian !ill (e the one to appear instead of him.

/ssue: 1=& the Dud$ment in fa,or of Arcan$el should (e set aside (ased on misunderstandin$.

2eld: T-" C+&/m",( *-)+%& ,)( !" *"( a*2&"0 M2*+,&"#*(a,&2,/ a%2!2 ,)( a11"$("&0

The la! firm of 6alcoff and Cru% !as still 11?s counsel of record (ecause the firm of Chuidian onl) entered appearance
after the date of the hearin$ mentioned a(o,e. As such counsel of record 6alcoff et. al. must ha,e -no!n that it is under
o(li$ation to protect 11?s interest until its final release from the professional relationship.

The lac- of coordination and understandin$ (et!een the t!o la! firms cannot (e considered a le$al e5cuse !ithin the
am(it of e5cusa(le ne$li$ence.
145 AMPIL 9 AGRAVA
Facts:
-Ampil !as the counsel for An$ela <ere% in se,eral cases. The principal cases handled () Ampil !ere filed in the CF/ ()
An$ela?s hus(and and son Antonio and 6eni$no <ere% as-in$ that An$ela (e placed under $uardianship and that a
suita(le person (e appointed to administer her properties. Later on the parties su(mitted to court !hich dismissed the
action for lac- of Durisdiction. This dismissal !as affirmed () SC.
-A case !as later filed () Antonio and 6eni$no !ith the domestic court of *anila see-in$ the court?s appro,al of the
compromise a$reement. The domestic court dismissed the proceedin$ on the $round of lac- of Durisdiction (ecause the
case !hich !as to (e settled amica(l) () the compromise a$reement had alread) (een dismissed () CF/ as affirmed ()
SC.
-Ampil asserts that An$ela terminated his ser,ices as counsel !ithout Dust cause and !ithout pa)in$ him for his
profiessional ser,ices for !hich he presented his (ill and asserted his retainin$ lien o,er the three titles entrusted to him
() An$ela in the course of his professional emplo)ment.
-",entuall) the compromise a$reement mentioned a(o,e !as appro,ed () the Supreme Court. 6eni$no and Antonio thus
filed a case to o(tain the titles held () Ampil. The) claimed that the attorne)?s lien must (e e5ercised o,er the properties
(elon$in$ to An$ela not o,er the properties (elon$in$ to them in the compromise a$reement. The) also ar$ued that the
compromise a$reement !as entered into ; )ears (efore Ampil !as dischar$ed as An$ela?s counsel (esides Ampil too- a
position ad,erse to them () see-in$ to ha,e the compromise a$reement annulled. The) concluded that Ampil !as
therefore (ound () the compromise a$reement.

/ssue:
1=& !hether Ampil has a ri$ht to -eep his retainin$ lien o,er the said titles until his ser,ices are paid for.
2eld: I"S.
-Three elements of attorne)?s retainin$ lien !ere met: 48 la!)er-client relationshipF 28 la!ful possession of the client?s
funds documents and papersF and 98 unsatisfied claim for attorne)?s fees.
-Ampil o(tained possession of the titles !hen the) still (elon$ed to his client An$ela. /t !as onl) !hen An$ela later on
confirmed the compromise a$reement that it (ecame ,alid. The transfer of the properties to Antonio and 6eni$no could
not retroact to the time the compromise !as ori$inall) e5ecuted.
-The situation !ould (e different !here title to the propert) is the ,er) su(Dect in dispute in the case and the court
adDud$es the client?s ad,ersar) to (e ri$htfull) entitled thereto. /n such as case the titles to the propert) could not (e said
to (e properties of the client. The attorne) ma) enforce his lien onl) o,er the properties of his client and not a$ainst those
of his client?s ad,ersar).
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
-<etitioner is in no !a) interferin$ !ith the ta-in$ possession of the properties and enDo)ment of the fruits thereof. All that
petitioner asserts and e5ercises is his passi,e lien of retainin$ the muniments of title thereto. Such retention onl) impedes
the correspondin$ re$istration and transfer of titles to respondents.
144 MATUTE 9 MATUTE
FACTS:
.ose *atute filed an action a$ainst the administrator *atias *atute.
.ose is as-in$ *atias to surrender 4J titles to ,arious properties of the estate
<ro(ate court $ranted the pra)er of .ose and ordere9d the surrender of the titles
*atias and his counsel Att). Canlas appealed the decision
/SS0":
1=& Att). Canlas ma) (e compelled to surrender the titles e,en thou$h he !as not )et paid his fees
2"L3:
&'>
An attorne) is entitled to retain documents in the case pendin$ settlement of attorne)?s fees.
Sec 9J of #ule 49; pro,ides that attorne)s cannot (e compelled to surrender the documents in his possession
!ithout prior proof that his fees has (een dul) satisfied
6ut the court ma) re+uire the attorne) to deli,er the papers in his possession pro,ided that the client files proper
securit) for the attorne)?s compensation
15: RUSTIA 9 A.ETO
FACTS:
Att). #ustia filed this case to annul orders of the CF/ of *anila in the case of A/ntestate "state of Antonio de la
#i,aB.
Att). #ustia !as the counsel of respondent *ila$ros Schmid the administrator of the intestate estate.
1hen #ustia !as relie,ed as attorne) he sent a (ill for <92990. 2e !anted to ha,e a lien o,er all funds and
documents that he is currentl) holdin$ for the administrator.
CF/ of *anila ordered Att). #ustia to hand o,er the certificate of a land. Att). #ustia is o(Dectin$ sa)in$ that he
has a lien o,er the TCT for his professional fees.
CF/ nonetheless still !ent on !ith its pre,ious order. Att). #ustia o(e)ed the order. And then this case !as filed.
/SS0":
1=& Att). #ustia has a ,alid lien o,er the documents in his possession
2"L3:
I"S. An attorne) shall ha,e a lien upon the funds documents and papers of his client !hich ha,e la!full) come
into his possession and ma) retain the same until his la!ful fees and dis(ursements ha,e (een paid and ma)
appl) such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
The $eneral or retainin$ lien of an attorne) is dependent upon the possession and does not attach to an)thin$ not
in the attorne)?s hands.
The courts ma) re+uire the attorne) to deli,er up the papers in his possession pro,ided the client files proper
securit) for the attorne)?s compensation.
151 METROPOLITAN .AN> 9 CA
FACTS:
- A&T"C"3AL FACTS 7up to )ou $u)s -un$ $usto n)o (asahin ton$ para$raph na toh... not pertinent to our lesson8:
Celedonio .a,ier (ou$ht J parcels of land o!ned () "usta+io AleDandro. .a,ier mort$a$ed !ith *etro(an- the lots to secure
a loan of 6autistaG/ntOl
2otel Corp. *etro(an- foreclosed on the properties. AleDandro alle$ed fraud in the sale and (rou$ht suits a$ainst .a,ier
and *etro(an-. 3urin$ the pendenc) of these suits *etro(an- sold lots to Ser,ice Leasin$ resold to 2er() Commercial
!hich mort$a$ed the same
to 6anco de 'ro.
- Arturo Alfari% and Associates handled the ci,il cases of *etro(an-. All the ci,il cases !ere for the declaration of nullit) of
certain deeds of sale !ith dama$es. The la!)ers did not ha,e an) -no!led$e of an) of the transfers made () *etro(an-.
The) filed a
motion to enter its char$in$ lien 725K of the actual and current mar-et ,alues of the liti$ated properties as its att)s fees.8
3espite due notice *etro(an- failed to appear and oppose so the #3 annotated the att)Os liens on the TCTs.
- AleDandro 7plaintiffs8 filed a motion to dismiss !hich !as $ranted !ith preDudice to the earlier order of annotation. The
la!)ers filed a motion to fi5 the att)Os fees (ased on +uantum meruit. CA affiremed order to *etro(an- to pa) ALfari% and
ASsociates att)s
fees.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/SS0": 1o& la!)ers are entitled to att)Os fees
2"L3: &'
#AT/':
4. A char$in$ lien to (e enforcea(le re+uires as a condition sine +ua non a Dud$ment for mone) and e5ecution in
pursuance of such Dud$ment. /n the case at (ar the ci,il cases !ere dismissed upon the initiati,e of the plaintiffs Sin ,ie!
of the full
satisfaction of their claimsS. The dismissal neither pro,ided for an) mone) Dud$ment nor made an) monetar) a!ard to an)
liti$ant. The char$in$ lien !as 1/T2'0T A&I L"@AL 6AS/S.
2. The lien of respondent is not of a nature !hich attached to the propert) in liti$ation (ut is at most a personal claim
enforcea(le () a !rit of e5ecution.
9. 1hile a client cannot defeat an att)Os ri$ht to his char$in$ lien () dismissin$ the case terminatin$ the ser,ices of his
counsel !ai,in$ his cause or interest in fa,or of the ad,erse part) or compromisin$ his action this rule cannot find
application here as the termination of the cases !as not at the instance of the client (ut of the opposin$ part).
:. There is an o(,ious necessit) for a hearin$ (ecause the persons !ho are entitled to or !ho must pa) att)s fees ha,e the
ri$ht to (e heard upon the +uestion of propriet) or amount.
5. #e$ardin$ American Durisprudence statin$ a contrar) rule - the Court held that in the a(sence of a statute or special
a$reement pro,idin$ other!ise the $eneral rule is that an att) has no lien on the land
152 DORONILA;TIOSECO 9 CA
FACTS:
AS a result of dispute amon$ the heirs of the late Alfonso 3oronila and their counsel #amon @on%ales o,er his claim for
attorne)Os fees the #TC denied the heirsO *otion to Cancel Attorne)Os lien and declare #amon @on%ales entitiled to 40K of
the shares of the heirs of the late 3oronila. 6oth of the parties appealed the decision.
#amon @on%ales filed a motion to annotate attorne)Os lien pra)in$ that his attorne)Os lien (e annotated on the title of
parcels of land of the estate !hich the heirs had inherited.
Administrator of the estate opposed the said motion () contendin$ that an attorne)Os lien does not e5tend to land and that
the proper remed) is attachment.
Trial court $ranted the counselOs motion for annotation.
/SS0":
1=n an attorne)Os lien e5tends to land...
2"L3:
S1e ha,e ruled that an attorne)Os lien does not e5tend to land !hich is the su(Dect matter of the liti$ation.S 7eto lan$ )un$
sina(i sa case... un$ m$a prior cases applica(le...8
/SS0":
1=n the trial court retained Durisdiction to $rand #amon @on%alesO *otion to Annotate Attorne)Os lien on the title of the
parcels of land of the estate after the perfection of the appeal of (oth the petitioners and respondent from the order
declarin$ #amon @on%ales entitled to attorne)O fees...
2"L3:
Trial court has no Durisdiction. *otion !as filed lon$ after the) ha,e perfected their appeals therefore the trial court had
no more Durisdiction.
153 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS 9 NALDO8A
Facts:
@atchalian <romotions Talents <ool /nc. filed a dis(arment case a$ainst Att). <romo &aldo%a their former
counsel.
&aldo%a appealed a decision of the <'"A. /n line !ith this @atchalian assers that the dis(arments should prosper
since &aldo%a committed the ff acts:
o Appealin$ a decision -no!in$ that the same !as alread) final and e5ecutor)
o 3eceitfull) o(tainin$ t!o thousand fi,e hundred and fift)-fi,e 0S dollars 70Sb25558 from
complainant alle$edl) for Acash (ondB in the appealed case
o /ssuin$ a spurious receipt to conceal his ille$al act.
&aldo%a !as claimed to as- for a ACash 6ond? in 0&/T"3 STAT"S 3'LLA# amountin$ to T1' T2'0SA&3 F/H"
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
20&3#"3 F/FTI F/H" 70.S. b2555.008 7for pa)ment8 to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed
case could (e heard or acted upon () the Supreme Court.
@atchalian came to -no! that there !as no such Cash 6ond paid to the SC and in fact the fees !ere onl)
nominal 7<6228. *oreo,er the receipt that &aldo%a presented to @atchalian !hich alle$edl) emanated from
the SC !as spurious.
An estafa case !as filed a$ainst &aldo%a. /t !as later on dismissed (ut he !as held lia(le for the amount of
b2555.
&aldo%a see-s that he not (e suspended in the practice of la!.
/ssue:
1=& Att) &aldo%a should (e punished for his actsG
2eld:
Ies.
Att). <rimo &aldo%a is 3/S6A##"3 not Dust suspended.
'n the first issue:
o Complainant has failed to present proof re$ardin$ the status of the appeal. &either has there (een an)
sho!in$ that the appeal !as dismissed on the $round that the <'"A 3ecision had (ecome final and
e5ecutor). 1orse there has (een no e,idence that respondent -ne! that the case !as unappeala(le.
/ndeed the records of this Court sho!s that the <etition for #e,ie! !as dismissed for petitioner?s
7@atchalian?s8 failure to su(mit an Affida,it of Ser,ice and a le$i(le duplicate of the assailed 'rder.
Clearl) this char$e has no le$ to stand on.
'n the ne5t t!o issues:
o 1hen &aldo%a paid <40000 and issued a chec- to complainant as his Amoral o(li$ationB he indirectl)
admitted the char$e. &ormall) this is not the actuation of one !ho is falsel) accused of appropriatin$
the mone) of another. This is an admission of misconduct. 7#C &ote: &aldo%a claims that @atchalian
o!es him <4;0T in attorne)s? fees and after accountin$ he paid him <40T as his moral o(li$ation8
o the amount of b2555 !as not a part of his attorne)?s lien. 2e demanded the mone) from his client on
the prete5t that it !as needed for the <etition (efore the Supreme Court (ut he actuall) con,erted it to
his personal $ain.
&ot onl) did he misappropriate the mone) entrusted to himF he also fa-ed a reason to caDole his client to part !ith
his mone). 1orse he had the $all to falsif) an official receipt of this Court to co,er up his misdeeds. Clearl) he
does not deser,e to continue (ein$ a mem(er of the (ar.
154 VDA DE .ARRERA 9 LAPUT
Facts:
Casiano Laput !as &ie,es #illas Hda de 6arrera?s counsel in the settlement proceedin$s for the estate of de
6arrera?s hus(and.
'ne time Laput presented a A&otice for #endition of Final Accountin$ and <artition of "stateB to de 6arrera.
6arrerra refused to si$ned and as-ed Laput to Dust lea,e the document in order that she ma) as- someone to
interpret it for her.
6ut Laput (ecame an$r) and e,en placed a re,ol,er on the lap of de 6arrera 7!ho actuall) !as J2 )ears old8. This
compelled the old lad) to si$n the document.
Laput denied the char$esW
/ssue:
Should Laput (e disciplinedG
2eld:
&a-u po naman> 'f course. Laput !as suspended for 4 )ear.
/t !as found () the court that the documents !ere made () the counsel to end the proceedin$s and (e a(le to collect his
fees. The act of placin$ the $un on the client?s lap cannot (e interpreted other than as an act of threatenin$ such client.
Laput?s acts !ere improper and censura(le 7especiall) considerin$ that de 6arrerra !as J2 )ears old8. 6ein$ a mem(er of
the 6ar Laput should ha,e set the e5ample as a man of peace and a champion of the #ule of La!. An attorne)?s client is a
person !ho is supposed to (e defended and protected () such counsel.
155 .ARRIENTOS 9 DAAROL
FACTS
Hictoria 6A##/"&T'S is sin$le a colle$e student and a(out 20 )ears and J months old durin$ her relationship !ith
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Transfi$uracion 3AH/3 a la!)er and the @eneral *ana$er of Nam(oan$a del &orte "lectric Cooperati,e !ho !as a(out :0
)ears old and married to S0*AIL'.
Flas$*ac2? .aran( sine
3AH/3 had (een -no!n () the 6A##/"&T'S famil) for +uite sometime (ein$ the former student of Hictoria 6A##/"&T'S?
father and a former classmate of Hictoria 6A##/"&T'S? mother. 3AH/3 courted 6A##/"&T'S and after a !ee- of
courtship 6A##/"&T'S accepted 3AH/3?S lo,e. At this time 3AH/3 !as separated from his !ife for 46 )ears.
6A##/"&T'S !ith her parent?s permission !as 3AH/3?S partner durin$ the Cham(er Commerce affair. After the e,ent
and (efore $oin$ home the) par-ed the Deep at the (each and after the usual preliminaries 7'$at a ter&4, the)
consummated the se5ual act. This !as their set up until 6A##/"&T'S $ot pre$nant. 3AH/3 su$$ested a(ortion (ut
6A##/"&T'S disa$reed. 3urin$ her pre$nanc) until she $a,e (irth it !as 6A##/"&T'S? famil) !ho too- care of her.
6A##/"&T'S then filed an administrati,e case a$ainst 3AH/3 !ith the &ational "lectrification Administration !hich !as
ho!e,er dismissed. 2ence the present petition.
ISSUE W<N DAVID SHOULD .E DIS.ARRED
HELD YES' LAC> GOOD MORAL CHARACTER ;;; A CONTINUING RE=UIREMENT TO .E A.LE TO PRACTICE LAW
RATIO
From the records it is indu(ita(le that 6A##/"&T'S !as ne,er informed () 3AH/3 of his real status as a married
indi,idual. The fact of his pre,ious marria$e !as disclosed () 3AH/3 onl) after 6A##/"&T'S (ecame pre$nant. *oreo,er
3AH/3 misrepresented himself as (ein$ eli$i(le to re-marr) for ha,in$ (een separated from his !ife for 46 )ears and e,en
dan$led a marria$e proposal.
/nterestin$l) enou$h 3AH/3 li,ed alone in 3ipolo$ Cit) thou$h his son also studies in the same area. *oreo,er he ne,er
introduced his son and !ent around !ith his friends as thou$h he !as ne,er married. These circumstances (elie 3AH/3?S
claim that the 6A##/"&T'S famil) -ne! a(out his marital status at the ,er) start of the courtship.
6ut !hat surprises the Court is the per,erted sense of 3AH/3?S moral ,alues !hen he said that A/ see nothin$ !ron$ !ith
this relationship despite m) (ein$ marriedB. 1orse he e,en su$$ested a(ortion.
The practice of la! is a pri,ile$e accorded onl) to those !ho measure up to the e5actin$ standards of mental and moral
fitness. 3AH/3 ha,in$ e5hi(ited de(ased moralit) the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most se,ere
disciplinar) action --- dis(arment.
156 FLORES 9 CHUA
Facts:
- 6an 2ua Flores see-s the dis(arment of Att). "nri+ue Chua on the follo!in$ $rounds:
o Chua notari%ed a deed of sale !hich contains the for$ed si$nature of Chua 6en$ 7C68. The !ife of C6
sa)s that C6 could not ha,e si$ned the deed (ecause she !as !ith C6 the !hole time (efore his death.
Flores points out that Chua notari%ed the deed e,en if C6 did not appear personall).
o Chua falsified a petition filed !ith the S"C in order to molest and harass Flores. Apparentl) Chua altered
the petition to appl) for a notice of lis pendens o,er the propert) of Flores. 6ut his plan failed (ecause
the re$ister of deeds denied his application.
o Chua caused the pu(lication in a ne!spaper of $eneral circulation in the Hisa)as of a portion of a S"C
decision !hich ordered complainant and others to pa) 6; million. /n these pu(lications Chua !as
al!a)s in the forefront claimin$ to e the la!)er of the !innin$ parties. 2o!e,er this pu(lication is false
(ecause the order had not )et (ecome final it !as still pendin$ appeal. /n his defense Chua su(mitted
e,idence to sho! that a complaint for li(el filed () Flores a$ainst him !as dismissed () the prosecutor?s
office.
o Chua had alread) and has the propensit) to (ri(e Dud$es to $ain a fa,ora(le Dud$ment. Flores further
alle$es that there is a pattern of conduct on the part of Chua that tends to!ards the frustration of Dustice.
Chua apparentl) uses dilator) tactics and has (een reprimanded (efore.
o Chua is also char$ed !ith forum shoppin$.
/ssue:
- 1=n Chua is $uilt) of these acts and should (e dis(arred.
2eld:
- SC sa)s I"S. Chua is dis(arred
- 'n the first $round SC finds Chua $uilt) of notari%in$ the deed of sale !hich contains a for$ed si$nature. Chua
failed to e5ercise the re+uired dili$ence and fealt) to his office () attestin$ to the fact that C6 appeared (efore
him and si$ned the deed !hen in truth and in fact said person did not do so. This is clearl) a ,iolation of the
duties of a notar) pu(lic to certif) that the person si$nin$ the instrument is -no!n to him and that he is the same
person !ho e5ecuted it.
- There !as no (asis for the second $round (ut the Court said that his filin$ of the application for notice of lis
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
pendens e,en if he !as not counsel for the petitioners in the S"C case meant that he -ne! of such case. Thus
he shouldn?t ha,e filed the ci,il case in,ol,in$ the same issues. 2is act of filin$ the ci,il case amounted to forum
shoppin$.
- The SC also found sufficient e,idence to support the third $round. The other $rounds !ere dismissed for lac- of
merit.
- The Court reiterated that a la!)er shall at all times uphold the inte$rit) and di$nit) of the le$al profession. A
la!)er (rin$s honor to the le$al profession () faithfull) performin$ his duties to societ) to the (ar to the courts
and to his clients.
157 .ER.ANO 9 .ARCELONA
Facts: The heirs of 2ilapo appointed Att). 3aen as their att).-in-fact. Att). 3aen !as su(se+uentl) arrested () the
*untinlupa police. The heirs of 2ilapo tried to loo- for a la!)er to secure the release of Att). 3aen. The heirs !ere
recommended to Att). 6arcelona. 1hen the spouses ,isited Att). 3aen the) learned that Att). 3aen had decided
to en$a$e the ser,ices of Att). 6arcelona. Att). 6arcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if the) could produce
<50Q he could secure the release of Att). 3aen the ne5t da). 6ecause the heirs could not produce the total
amount the) merel) $a,e <45J00.
There !ere se,eral meetin$s (et!een the heirs and Att). 6arcelona re$ardin$ the A$rease mone)B to (e
used to alle$edl) (ri(e an SC Dustice. The heirs made another pa)ment ,ia a chec- !orth <2:000. 'n another
occasion the heirs !ent to the house of Att). 6arcelona and $a,e <40000. The total amount $i,en () the heirs to
Att). 6arcelona reached <6:000.
Commissioner 6autista found Att). to (e $uilt) of malpractice and (reach of dut) and recommended that
he (e dis(arred.
/ssue: 1=& Att). 6arcelona should (e dis(arred.
2eld: A((0 .a#1"%),a *-)+%& !" &2*!a##"&0
3is(arment proceedin$s are sui $eneris. /ts intention is to safe$uard the administration of Dustice ()
protectin$ the court and pu(lic from the misconduct of the officers of the court.
/n this case Att). demonstrated a penchant for misrepresentin$ that he had connections to secure the
release of Att). 3aen. Att). 6arcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could $et the release of Att).
3aen !ith his connection !ith a Supreme Court .ustice. /nstead of promotin$ respect for la! and the le$al
processes Att). 6arcelona demeaned the le$al profession () ta-in$ mone) from a client under the prete5t of
ha,in$ connections !ith a mem(er of this court.
155 TA.AS 9 MANGI.IN
Facts:
-A deed of mort$a$e !as deli,ered to 2ilda Ta(as e,idencin$ a real propert) in La 0nion that !as mort$a$ed to her ()
@al,an. The deed of mort$a$e !as re$istered in the #e$ister of 3eeds of La 0nion.
-Su(se+uentl) a certain Lilia CastilleDos represented herself as Ta(as and appeared (efore *an$i(in !ho !as a notar)
pu(lic and as-ed the latter to prepare a dischar$e of the mort$a$e and to notari%e it after!ards.
-*an$i(in prepared the dischar$e of real estate mort$a$e !ithout as-in$ CastilleDos for an)thin$ to ser,e as identification
e5cept for a Communit) Ta5 Certificate 7CTC8. This ena(led @al,an to mort$a$e the propert) a$ain this time to a rural
(an-
-Ta(as informed *an$i(in that her si$nature in the +uestioned dischar$e of #"* !as for$ed (ut *an$i(in did nothin$ to
help. 2e e,en threatened to file a counter suit a$ainst her if she files a case a$ainst him.
-Ta(as filed this complaint for dis(arment.
-*an$i(in admitted that the dischar$e of #"* !as a for$er) (ut interposed the defense that it !as (e)ond the scope of his
dut) to ascertain the identit) of persons appearin$ (efore him and that he had no a,aila(le means of ascertainin$ their
real identities.
/ssue:
1=& *an$i(in should (e held administrati,el) lia(le for ne$li$ence in the performance of his dut) as a notar) pu(lic to
ascertain the identit) of the person appearin$ (efore him.
2eld:
I"S *an$i(in !as ne$li$ent in performin$ such dut).
-&otari%ation is in,ested !ith pu(lic interest. /t con,erts a pri,ate document into a pu(lic one ma-in$ it admissi(le in
court !ithout further proof of its authenticit). Such document is () la! entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
Courts administrati,e a$encies and the pu(lic must (e a(le to rel) upon an ac-no!led$ement () a notar) pu(lic
appended to a document.
-A notar) pu(lic should not notari%e a document unless the person !ho si$ned the same is the ,er) same person !ho
e5ecuted and personall) appeared (efore him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document.
-*an$i(in should ha,e re+uested other forms of identification or as-ed +uestions to ascertain her identit).
-*an$i(in ,iolated the &otarial La! and Canon 4. 2is notarial commission is re,o-ed and he is dis+ualified from
reappointment as notar) pu(lic for 2 )ears.
154 IN RE ALMACEN
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
FACTS:
Att) Almecen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Iaptincha) ,s. Calero
The trial court after the hearin$ rendered Dud$ment a$ainst his client he mo,ed for reconsideration 7*#8 and ser,ed cop)
of the motion to the ad,erse part) (ut failed to notif) the latter of the date and place of the hearin$
/n the CA the court mo,ed to also disamiss the case for the reason that the *# does not contain a notice of time and place
of hearin$ and is nothin$ (ut a useless piece of paper
The SC refised to t-ae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal
/t !as at this pont that Att) Almacen filed his S<"T/T/'& T' S0##"&3"# LA1I"#OS C"#T/F/CAT" 'F T/TL"S
The pleadin$ filed () Att) Almacen is interspersed from (e$innin$ to end !ith insolent contemptuous $rossl)
disrespectful and dere$orator) remar-s a$aist the court as !ell as its indi,idual mem(ers.
Att) Almacen descri(ed the court as Sa tri(unal peopled () men !ho are calloused to our pleas of Dustice !ho i$nore
!ithout reason thier o!n applica(le decisions and commit culpa(le ,iolations of the Constitution !ith impunit). he also
referred to his client as Son !ho !as deepl) a$$rie,ed () the courtOs unDust Dud$mentS and has (ecome S one of the
sacrificial ,ictims (efore the altar of h)pocris).S 2e also referred to the mem(er of the court as SDustice as administered ()
the present mem(ers of the S0preme Court is not onl) (lind (ut also deaf and dum(.S
The court as-ed Att) Almacen to sho! cause !h) no disciplinar) actions must (e ta-en a$ainst him
Att) Almacen as-ed that he (e $i,en permission permission to $i,e his ans!er in an open and pu(lic hearin$. 2e
reasoned that since the court is the complainant prosecutor and Dud$e he preferred that he ans!er and (e heard in an
open and pu(lic hearin$ sa that the court could o(ser,e its sincerit) and candor.
The court allo!ed Att) Almacen to file a !ritten ans!er and thereafter (e heard in an oral ar$ument
6ut his !ritten ans!er offers no apolo$) (ut is full of sarcasm and innuendo 7S"" <A@" 56C-5J28
/SS0":
1=& Att) Almacen is $uilt)
2"L3:
I"S> and he is indefinitel) suspended until further order form the SC
1ell-reco$ni%ed is the ri$ht of a la!)er (oth as an officer of the court and as citi%en to critici%e in properl) respectful
terms and throu$h le$itimate channels the acts of courts and Dud$es. The decisions of the courta pu(lic propert) and the
press and the people ha,e the undou(ted ri$ht to comment on them critici%e and censure them as the) see fit.
60T it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall (e (ona fide and shall not spill o,er the !alls of decenc)
and rpopriet). A !ide chasm e5ist (et!een fair criticism on the one hand and a(use and slander of courts and Dustices
thereof on the other. /ntemperate and unfair criticism is a $ross ,iolation of the dut) of respect to courts. it isn such
misconduct that su(Dects a la!)er to disciplinar) action
/n his relations !ith the court a la!)er ma) not di,ide his personalit) so as to (e an attorne) at one time and a mere
citi%en at another. Statements made () an attorne) in a pri,ate con,ersation or in the course of political campai$n if
couched in insultin$ lan$ua$e as to (rin$ scorn and disrepute to the administration of Dustice ma) su(Dect the attorne) to
disciplinar) action.
post-liti$ation utterances or pu(lication made () la!)ers critical of the courts and their Duducial actions !hether
amountin$ to a crime or not !hich transcends the permissi(le (ounds of fair commetns and le$itimate criticism constitute
$ra,e professional misconduct.
there is no comfort in the ar$ument of Att). Almacen that his utterances !ere made after the Dud$ments a$ainst his client
attained finalit). he could still (e lia(le for contempt as if it had (een perpetrated durin$ the pendenc) of the said appeal.
T2e pendenc) or non-pendenc) of a case in court is of no conse+uence. the sole o(Decti,e of the proceedin$ is to
preser,e the purit) of the le$al profession.
16: RAYOS;OM.AC 9 RAYOS
Facts:
*rs. /rene #a)os-'m(ac 7lola8 is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is Att). 'rlando #a)os 7la!)er8 her
nephe!.
.an. 4C;5: la!)er induced lola !ho !as then ;5 )ears old to !ithdra! all her (an- deposits and entrust it to him
for safe-eepin$.
La!)er made lola (elie,e that if she !ould do so all the mone) !ill (e e5cluded from the estate of her deceased
hus(and and therefore e5clude the other heirs from inheritin$.
Lola then !ithdre! all her mone) 7<5;;Q8 and deposited it in the account of la!)er in 0nion 6an-.
0pon demands that the amount (e returned la!)er informed lola that he can onl) return <:00Q on installment.
<uma)a$ na lan$ si lola -asi -elan$an ni)a tala$a n$ pera. The) si$ned a *'A re$ardin$ this transaction.
2o!e,er the chec- $i,en () la!)er to lola !as dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Lola then filed an estafa case a$ainst la!)er. La!)er offered as settlement 2 second-hand cars and cash
amountin$ to <:0Q. Lola refused the offer.
La!)er also filed cases a$ainst Lola. "stafa - (ecause lola alle$edl) rene$ed on her promise to sell a certain
parcel of land. Another accusin$ lola of ma-in$ false statements in the testate proceedin$s of her deceased
hus(and.
Lola then filed a case for dis(arment on 2 $rounds. 748 defraudin$ lola and 728 filin$ fri,olous cases a$ainst her.
/6< recommended that la!)er (e suspended for 2 )ears.
La!)er then filed this motion to lift the suspension statin$ that lola has alread) !ithdra!n her complaint for
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
dis(arment
/ssue:
1=& la!)er should (e suspended for 2 )ears
2eld:
Ies. /n fact the SC raised the penalt) to dis(arment. 7pina(a)aan na lan$ sana ni)a )un$ suspension (a-a di pa
si)a dis(arred8
The !ithdra!al of lola of her complaint has no effect on the dis(arment proceedin$s.
La!)er ,iolated the C<# as !ell as his oath !hen he decei,ed his ;5 )ear old aunt.
La!)er?s !ic-ed deed !as a$$ra,ated () the series of unfounded suits he filed a$ainst lola.
La!)er?s deceitful conduct ma-es him un!orth) of mem(ership in the le$al profession.

161 IN RE LO8ANO
FACTS
- There !as a complaint a$ainst a .ud$e of First /nstance !hich !as referred to the Att) @eneral for in,esti$ation report
and recommendation. There !as an SC resolution !hich ma-es such proceedin$s condiential in nature
-The in,esti$ation !as conducted secretl). &ot!ithstandin$ the editor of "l <ue(lo Se,erino Lo%ano printed an article
!ritten () Anastacio Xue,edo indicatin$ that the hearin$ !as held (ehind closed doors and that the info of the reporter
!as o(tained from outside the screen and from comments in social circles. The testimonies of the !itnesses !ere
mutilated and the report reflected upon the action of
the complainant to his possi(le ad,anta$e
/SS0": 1o& Lo%ano and Xue,edo are +uilt) of contempt of courtG
2"L3: I"S. The) are each re+uired to pa) the nominal sum of <20
#AT/':
4. The po!er to punish for contempt is inherent in the SC. This po!er e5tends to administrati,e proceedin$s as !ell as to
suits at la!.
2. As important as is the maintenance of an unmu%%led press and the free e5ercise of the ri$hts of the citi%en is the
maintenance of the independence of the Dudiciar)
162 CUENCO 9 FERNAN
See attachmentW^8
163 IN RE LAURETA
Facts:
This case is purel) a discussion of Att). Laureta?s *otion for #econsideration findin$ him $uilt) of $ra,e
professional misconduct and suspendin$ him indefinitel). Also there is a discussion on ",a *ara,illa-/llustre?s
*otion for #econsideration holdin$ her in contempt.
Laureta is the counsel of /lllustre.
/n m) understandin$ /llustre lost a case !ith the SC First 3i,ision. And (ecause of this she filed a case !ith the
Tanod(a)an Ain e5asperation a$ainst those !hom she felt had commited inDustice a$ainst her in an underhanded
manner.B
Laureta is in hot !ater for he had alle$edl) circulated=distri(uted copies to the press copies of the complaint filed
(efore the Tanod(a)an. And !ith this he has manifested lac- of respect for and e5posed to pu(lic ridicule the
t!o hi$hest courts of the land.
2e also said that he has not authori%ed or assisted and or a(etted and could not ha,e pre,ented the
contemptuous statements conduct acts and malicious char$es of ",a /lustre !ho !as 7alle$edl)8 no lon$er his
clientW. 6ut he is sorr) for the ad,erse pu(licit) $enerated () the filin$ of the complaint a$ainst the .ustices
(efore the Tanod(a)an>
/ssue:
1=& Laureta should (e punished for his alle$ed acts.
2eld:
Ies.
Firstl) Laureta is reall) the counsel of /lustre.
o The cop) of the Tanod(a)an resolution indicated that he is the Acounsel for the complainantB W. And he
didn?t complain>>
o Laureta?s !ife recei,ed from the process ser,er the documents=resolutions of the court. /f Laureta !as
reall) not the counsel then the !ife could ha,e easil) not accepted.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
o Att). Laureta admitted that he is the counsel to a reporter of 3N#2 () the fact of his commentin$ !ith
Aalacrit)B 7#C note: this means ea$erness8 re$ardin$ the case.
Laureta?s protestations that he has done his (est to protect and uphold the di$nit) of the Court are (elied ()
en,ironmental facts and circumstances. 2is apolo$etic stance for the Aad,erse pu(licit)B rin$s !ith insincerit).
2e has deli(eratel) sou$ht to destro) the authenticit) inte$rit) and conclusi,eness of colle$iate acts to
undermine the role of the SC as the final ar(iter of all Dusticia(le disputes.
164 IN RE LONTO>
Facts:
*arcelino Lonto- is a mem(er of the 6ar !ho !as con,icted () final Dud$ment of (i$am).
Su(se+uentl) the @o,ernor-@eneral $ranted him a(solute pardon.
2o!e,er the Attorne)-@eneral pra)s for the remo,al of Lonto- from the roll of attorne)s despite such pardon. 2e
ar$ues that Lonto- should still (e dis+ualified from the practice of la! as he !as con,icted of a crime in,ol,in$
moral turpitude.
/ssue:
Should Lonto- (e stric-en from the #oll of Attorne)sG
2eld:
&o. An a(solute pardon unli-e a conditional one reaches not onl) the offense and the $uilt for !hich a person !as
con,icted of (ut it also releases the punishment and (lots out the e5istence of $uilt so that he ma) not (e loo-ed upon as
ne,er to ha,e committed the offense. /f $ranted (efore con,iction it pre,ents an) of the penalties and disa(ilitiesF if
$ranted after con,iction it remo,es the penalties and disa(ilities and restores the person to all his ci,il ri$hts. /t does not
ho!e,er restore offices propert) or interests that ha,e (een forfeited.
/f the proceedin$s to dis(ar an attorne) are founded on and depend alone on a statute ma-in$ the fact of a con,iction for
a felon) $round for dis(arment the pardon operates to !ipe out the con,iction and the attorne) cannot (e dis(arred. 6ut
if the dis(arment proceedin$s are founded on the professional misconduct in a transaction !hich resulted in a con,iction
for a felon) a pardon relie,es the counsel of the penal offense (ut can still (e su(Dect to dis(arment on the $round of lac-
of $ood moral character.
2ere the motion for dis(arment is (ased solel) on the con,iction for a crime for !hich Lonto- has (een pardoned.
165 IN RE DE GU8MAN
FACTS
A complaint for eDectment !as filed () FL'#' a$ainst LA<AT2A. .ud$ment !as rendered orderin$ LA<AT2A to ,acate the
premises and surrender possession to FL'#'. LA<AT2A filed a <etition for #elief from .ud$ment 'rders R 'ther
<roceedin$s 7na, civpro 4 alle$in$ that at the initial hearin$ she appeared !ithout counsel so she approached ATTI 3"
@0N*A& la!)er of FL'#' and (e$$ed for a 5 da) postponement to !hich ATTI 3" @0N*A& ,er(all) a$reed to !ith the
condition that she 7LA<AT2A8 si$n the court?s e5pediente of !hich she did. She then $a,e ATTI 3" @0N*A& a chec- for
<950 as partial pa)ment of her arrears in the rentals. That !as !h) she !as surprised later on to recei,e a cop) of a
decision from the Cit) Court !herein it appeared that she confessed Dud$ment and upon ,erification of the e5pediente
!hich she si$ned she disco,ered ATTI 3" @0N*A& !rote the !ords AConfess .ud$mentB (elo! her si$nature !ithout her
consent.
FL'#' filed his Ans!er alle$in$ that the decision of the Cit) Court !as (ased on an open admission () LA<AT2A made in
open court and it !as after such open admission that the !ords AConfess .ud$mentB !as !ritten on the e5pediente.
*oreo,er the chec- of <950 !as not $i,en as partial pa)ment of LA<AT2A?S arrears in rentals (ut !as $i,en to forestall
the e5ecution of Dud$ment.
ISSUE W<N ATTY DE GU8MAN SHOULD .E PUNISHED FOR HIS KACTSL
HELD NO' NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE HENCE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY RULE APPLIES
RATIO
The Cler- of the Cit) Court testified that !hen the eDectment case !as called for hearin$ the Trial .ud$e as-ed LA<AT2A if
she admitted the inde(tedness alle$ed in the complaint filed () FL'#' to !hich LA<AT2A ans!ered in the affirmati,e. /t
!as then that the !ord AConfess .ud$mentB !as !ritten on the e5pediente !hich !as after!ards si$ned () (oth ATTI 3"
@0N*A& and LA<AT2A. This testimon) of the Cler- of court deser,es credit (ecause the Cler- !as present at the said
hearin$ and is su(stantiated !ith the rulin$ of the Cit) .ud$e !ho sans e,idence to the contrar) is presumed to ha,e
re$ularl) performed his official dut).
The onl) o(Decti,e of LA<AT2A in filin$ a <etition for #elief !as to $ain more time to sta) in the leased premises.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
The Court a$rees !ith the Solicitor @eneral that in the instant case e,idence is !antin$ to sustain a findin$ that ATTI 3"
@0N*A& committed an) deceit or misconduct. As held in Go v Cando+, it is elementar) in dis(arment proceedin$s that
the (urden of proof rests upon the complainant and that to (e made the (asis for suspension of dis(arment such proof
must (e con,incin$. /n the case at (ar LA<AT2A failed to pro,ide such con,incin$ proof.
2ence the administrati,e complaint is dismissed and ATTI 3" @0N*A& e5onerated of the char$e.
166 LACHICA 9 FLORDELI8A
Facts:
- 'ne da) 3r. Amparo Lachica the *unicipal 2ealth 'fficer of .ose A(ad Santos 3a,ao del Sur !as approached
() 3ina *asa$lan$ and &orma #uton !ho !ere as-in$ 3r. Lachica to si$n a death certificate. 3r. Lachica refused
to si$n sa)in$ that the attendin$ ph)sician in @en. Santos should (e the one to si$n.
- Later in the da) 3r. Lachica met the t!o a$ain and the t!o told her that .ud$e #olando Flordeli%a *TC Dud$e
!as orderin$ her to si$n the death certificate. 3r. Lachica a$ain refused.
- Later in the e,enin$ at the *unicipal "mplo)ees? &i$ht <art) .ud$e Flordeli%a !ho !as drun- as-ed 3r. Lachica
to sit (eside him. .ud$e Flordeli%a then said to 3r. Lachica in an an$r) manner A6a-it hindi mo pinirmahan and
death certificateGB 3r. Lachica then tried to e5plain (ut to no a,ail this is !hen .ud$e Flordeli%a threatened to
(rin$ an administrati,e complaint a$ainst 3r. Lachica.
/ssue:
- 1=n .ud$e Flordeli%a should (e penali%ed.
2eld:
- SC sa)s I"S .ud$e Flordeli%a is fined 40000
- The SC !as con,inced that the char$e of misconduct a$ainst the respondent Dud$e !as esta(lished () su(stantial
e,idence. 3r. Lachica presented the testimon) of certain !itnesses confirmin$ that .ud$e Flordeli%a !as indeed
drin-in$ that ni$ht. There !as also testimon) de(un-in$ .ud$e Flordeli%a?s e5cuse that he could not ha,e acted
in such a manner (ecause the ma)or !as sittin$ !ith them 7the testimon) pro,ed that the ma)or !as not !ith
them8. The Court (elie,ed that .ud$e Flordeli%a did threaten 3r. Lachica in order to coerce the latter to si$n the
death certificate.
- Also his ine(riated demeanor and incoherent (eha,ior durin$ the festi,ities as attested to () a !itness is
reprehensi(le in a Dud$e. Allo!in$ himself to $et into5icated is not the conduct e5pected of a Dud$e.
167 ESTOYA 9 A.RAHAM;SINGSON
Facts: A complaint si$ned () :J emplo)ees and officers of se,eral (ranches of the #TC Anti+ue !as filed !ith the SC. The
si$natories alle$e that .ud$e Sin$son Streats her staff in a &21(a()#2a% a,& ("##)#2*(21 ma,,"# 72(-)+( #"/a#& () (-"
!a*21 &2/,2( a,& *"%3;#"*$"1( )3 (-" 2,&292&+a%'M ma-in$ the M7)#62,/ a(m)*$-"#"NOP ",(2#"% &"$",&",( ),
-"# m))&* ), (-" $a#(21+%a# &a 7-21- m)*( )3(", 3%+1(+a("* 72(- (-" m)),NOPM The si$natories alle$e that the)
could not understand the Dud$ecdes (i%arre actuations and that sometimes she is e5cessi,el) $enerous (ut in most
occasions she is Soppressi,e dictatorial despotic and un(eara(le if not h)sterical.S

The Dud$e !as further accused of $ross and culpa(le incompetence for ha,in$ dele$ated her authorit) to the Cler- of Court
() re+uirin$ the latter to ma-e orders or resol,e or decide cases for her.

Se,eral persons testified re$ardin$ her attitude to!ards her !or-ers 7refer to <. C8.

The lo!er court adDud$ed her to lac- the temperament re+uired of a Dud$e. 2er acts accordin$ to the lo!er court !ere
not mere admonitions to correct the emplo)eecdes !ron$doin$s.

/ssue: 1=& Dud$e is $uilt) of $ross incompetence and $ross i$norance of the la!.
2eld: T-" C+&/" 2* /+2%( )3 /#)** 2,1)m$"(",1" a,& /#)** 2/,)#a,1" )3 (-" %a70

'n $ross i$norance of the la!:

She is $rossl) i$norant of the la! (ecause she considered %nla')%l a((ression as a miti$atin$ circumstance. She also
made errors in the implementation of the /ndeterminate Sentence La!. She also allo!ed the release on (ail of se,eral
accused indi,iduals !ithout $i,in$ the prosecution to pro,e if the e,idence of $uilt is stron$ 7on the fact that the crime
committed () the accused indi,iduals8.

A Dud$e is called upon to e5hi(it more than Dust a cursor) ac+uaintance !ith statutes and procedural rules. /t is imperati,e
that that he (e con,ersant !ith (asic le$al principles. A Dud$e o!es it to the le$al profession he (elon$s and to the pu(lic
!ho depends on him to -no! the la! !hich he is called to interpret and appl).
'n $ross incompetence:

Accordin$ to the canons a Dud$e should or$ani%e his court !ith a ,ie! to a prompt and con,enient dispatch of its (usiness
and he should not tolerate a(uses and ne$lect () cler-s. To (e a $ood mana$er one must (e a $ood leader. The Dud$e
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
does not possess the ,irtues +ualities temperament aptitude and s-ill of a $ood mana$er of court emplo)ees. She is
t)rannical. 7<lease refer to the len$th) testimonies to ha,e an idea of her t)rannical (eha,ior.8
165 CUARESMA 9 AGUILAR
Facts:
-The 'larte the <ro,incial <rosecutor of *indoro char$ed 6anite !ith the murder of Acosta a relati,e of herein
complainants. The /nformation carried no recommendation for (ail.
-The case !as doc-eted in 6ranch :: of the #TC presided o,er () .ud$e Tarriela. 6anite !as arrai$ned and he pleaded
not $uilt).
-'larte amended the /nformation to homicide and recommended (ail of <20000 !ithout lea,e of court. .ud$e Tarriela
ordered the 'larte to e5plain his action considerin$ 6anite had alread) (een arrai$ned.
-*rs. Nu(iri a Steno-#eporter at the 'ffice of the <ro,incial <rosecutor !ent to see A$uilarLthe "5ecuti,e and <residin$
.ud$e of 6ranch :5 of the #TCLin his cham(ers. Nu(iri !as sent () 'larted to re+uest for the release of the accused
6anite on (ail of <20000.
-All pertinent papers includin$ the <ropert) 6ail 6ond the 'rder appro,in$ the (ond and directin$ the release of 6anite
!ere alread) prepared for the si$nature of respondent Dud$e.
-'n the same da) .ud$e A$uilar si$ned and issued the order appro,in$ the propert) (ond. 6anite !as released upon such
order.
/ssue: 1=& .ud$e A$uilar committed $ra,e a(use of authorit) in orderin$ the release of 6anite !hile the latter?s case !as
(ein$ tried in the sala of .ud$e Tarriela.
2eld: I"S
-Sec.4:7a8 #ule 44: states that : A6ail in the amount fi5ed ma)(e filed !ith the court !here the case is pendin$ or in the
a(sence or una,aila(ilit) of the Dud$e thereof !ith another (ranch of the same court !ithin the pro,ince or cit)WB
-.ud$e A$uilar ,iolated this rule and had no po!er to act on the re+uest to release 6anite on (ail.
-The record does not sho! that at the time A$uilar ordered 6anite?s release .ud$e Tarriela !as a(sent or una,aila(le and
could not ha,e acted on said re+uest.
-/t !as also irre$ular for the Dud$e to entertain the re+uest considerin$ that it did not appear that a formal motion had
(een filed () the accused to that effect.
-2e did not e,en e5amine the records of the case as he merel) si$ned the 'rders alle$edl) prepared () 'larte. 2is
indifference pre,ented him from disco,erin$ that at the time he ordered the release of 6anite the information had not
(een properl) amended.
-The Dud$e is ordered to pa) a fine of <2000 and is admonished to e5ercise $reater care and prudence in the performance
of his official duties.
164 IN RE? DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS
FACTS:
- State prosecutor Formaran char$ed Iu Iu- Lai to$ether !ith her nephe! (efore the #TC *anila !ith ,iolation of
#A 6:25
- Accused of a non-(aila(le offense (oth the accused !ere held at the detention cell of <&< &arcotics @roup in
Camp Crame
- Iu Iu- Lai filed a petition for (ail on the $round that the e,idence a$ainst her !as not stron$. 3enied>
- 0pon recei,in$ information that the accused had (een pla)in$ re$ularl) in the casinos of 2erita$e 2otel and
2olida) /nn <a,ilion Formaran filed an ur$ent e5-parte motion to transfer the detention of the accused to the cit)
Dail. *otion !as $ranted () .ud$e La$uio
- Accused filed a *otion for /nhi(ition ar$uin$ that La$uio do not inspire the (elief that its decision !ould (e Dust
and impartial. La$uio inhi(ited himelf
- Case !as re-raffled to 6ranch 59 !hich !as handled () .ud$e *uro.
- *uro $ranted accused motion to order the confinement of the accused in a hospital for a period not e5ceedin$ J
da)s. 2e also $ranted the e5tension of medical confinement of the accused for a period of 4 month or until such
time that she is fit to (e dischar$ed from the hospital
- *uro also $rnated the motion for lea,e of court to file demurrer to e,idence !ith motion to admit demurrer to
e,idence.
- #umors started to circulate that *uro !as partial to!ards the accused
- Also unidentified emplo)ees of the #TC manila callin$ themsel,es concerned court emplo)ees !rote to the
Secretar) of .ustice alle$in$ that *uro ordered the hospitali%ation of the accused e,en if she !as not sic- and
there !as alread) a rumor circulatin$ that *uro had $i,en the $o si$nal to the counsel of the accused to file a
motion to +uash !hich !ould (e $ranted for a consideration of millions of pesos and that the contact person is the
dau$hter of the Dud$e !ho is an emplo)ee in the said (ranch
- Formaran filed a motion for inhi(ition pra)in$ that *uro inhi(it himself from further handlin$ the case
- Thereafter )u Iu- lai !as arrested inside the H/< room of the Casino Filipino at the 2olida) /nn <a,ilion !hile
pla)in$ (acarrat unescorted.
- The motion for inhi(ition a$ainst *uro !as su(mitted for resolution !hen Formaran?s secretar) informed
Formaran that 3emetria called and that he !anted to spea- to Formaran.
- 3emetria @o Ten$ Qo- and a close friend friend of 3emetria !ent to the office of Formaran in the 3'.. 6ut e,en
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
prior to that meetin$ @o Ten$ Qo- !as alread) as-in$ Formaran to $o eas) on *uro and that Formaran has (een
politel) declinin$ the re+uest. 6ut in this meetin$ he told them that he !ould (rin$ the matter to his superior
Nuno. 1hen 3emetrio heard this he said:Bi)on palaB and left the office.
- Nuno then recei,ed a call from 3emetrio re+uestin$ him to instruct Formaran to !ithdra! his motion for inhi(ition
a$inst *uro so that the Dud$e could alread) issue an order. Nuno politel) replied that he !ould see !hat he can
do.
- The <hilippine 3ail) /n+uirer reported that .ustice 3emetria and @o Ten$ Qo- are Adru$ la!)ersB
/SS0":
- 1=& .ustice 3emetria is $uilt)
2"L3:
- I"S> And is dismissed from ser,ice !ith preDudice to re-emplo)ment in an) $o,ernment a$enc) and @'CC !ith
the forfeiture of all retirement (enefits e5cept accrued lea,e credits
- The timel) call to Nuno !as a lo$ical follo! up and no one could ha,e made that call e5cept .ustice 3emetria.
- ",en the re+uested AhelpB for @o Ten$ Qo- !hom 3emetria claims he did not -no! and met onl) that time could
not ha,e meant an) other assistance (ut the !ithdra!al of the motion to inhi(it *uro
17: MARTINE8 9 GIRONELLA
Facts:
*artine% !as the principal accused in a murder case. 3uclan and 6a)on$an !ere alle$ed to (e accessories after
the fact. @ironella is the .ud$e of CF/ of A(ra that tried the case.
6a)on$an !as the onl) one arrai$ned so trial proceeded onl) a$ainst him. 6a)on$an !as ac+uitted.
Thereafter *artine% surrendered to the police. 2e pleaded not $uilt) to the char$e.
Counsel for *artine% mo,ed that the @ironella inhi(it himself on the $rounds that @ironella alread) had a chance
to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to !ho committed the murder. That the Dud$e is no lon$er
fair and impartial. *otion !as denied.
3urin$ the re(uttal sta$e this petition for prohi(ition !as filed.
/ssue:
1=& there should (e a ne! trial for *artine%
2eld:
&o.
3ue process re+uires that a case (e heard () a tri(unal that is impartial and disinterested.
/n this case there !as no proof sho!n that the Dud$e !as unfair and impartial.
After the motion for inhi(ition !as denied petitioner no lon$er filed a motion for reconsideration. <etitioner no
lon$er too- an) action until the re(uttal sta$e.
The conclusion that can (e inferred is that the trial !as fair and impartial.
/ssue:
1=& the Dud$e should inhi(it himself from proceedin$ in the case
2eld:
Ies.
A Dud$e has the dut) not onl) to render a Dust and impartial decision (ut also to render it in such a manner as to
(e free from an) suspicion as to its fairness and impartialit) and as also to the Dud$e?s inte$rit).
The statement of the Dud$e in the decision ac+uittin$ 6a)on$an to the effect that Athe crime !as committed ()
*artine%B render it impossi(le for the Dud$e to (e free from suspicion of impartialit).
171 COJUANGCO 9 PCGG
172 LU=UE 9 >AYANAN
FACTS:
Ci,il Case :;J4 !as commenced in the CF/ of Xue%on () /lao "nri+ue%es a$ainst 'na Lu+ue 7petitioner herein8 Africao
Castillo and the 6aldeos. /lao etc. sou$ht to set aside the decision in ci,il cases 6 and 26 appro,in$ the parties?
compromise a$reement !hich !as alled$edl) procured thru duress and intimidation.
Ci,il case :;J4 !as set for trial (efore 6ranch / of the CF/ of Xue%on presided o,er () .ud$e Halero. 'n the date set for
hearin$ .ud$e Qa)anan first too- co$ni%ance of said Ci,il Case :;J4. /t !as alle$ed () the /lao?s attorne) that he found
that ci,il case :;J4 !as not included in the calendar of cases scheduled for 6ranc / and that he found the case in the sala
of .ud$e Qa)anan. 3efendant Lu+ue 7petitioner8 !as a(sent therein. Lu+ue alle$ed that he !as at 6ranch /. 2earin$s
!ere rescheduled man) times.
<etitioner lod$ed a motion to dismiss the case upon the $round of estoppel. The motion !as dismissed. <etitioner then
mo,ed to dis+ualif) .ud$e Qa)anan. 2e claimed that the Dud$e doctored the records of the case in that he suppressed the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
true and $enuine proceedin$s in open court in that the Dud$e did not state that he mo,ed the case to (e dismissed.
<etitioner !as then ordered () .ud$e Qa)anan to e5plain !h) he should not (e cited for contempt. <etitioner?s
e5planations !ere filed and later on declared () the Dud$e unsatisfactor) to !arrant his dis+ualification from tr)in$ the
case.
At a hearin$ Dud$e as-ed Lu+ue to !ithdra! his pleadin$ mo,in$ for the Dud$e?s dis+ualification. Lu+ue refused. .ud$e
then ,er(all) ordered a $uard to commit petitioner to Dail. <etitioner !as restrained for 2 hrs.
/SS0":
1=n .ud$e Qa)anan should (e dis+ualifiedW
1=n Lu+ue a la!)er should (e disciplinedW
2"L3:
I"S. The act of the Dud$e orderin$ the restraint of Lu+ueF that at one instance Dud$e iratel) told him A/ !ill ha,e )ou
dis(arred>BF that .ud$e Qa)anan !ould not $i,e Lu+ue lee!a) to spea- in court interruptin$ him and continuin$ to sa)
thin$s a$ainst him in a derisi,e tone and in a humiliatin$ and a(usi,e mannerF that after the Dud$e (ecame tired of tal-in$
the Dud$e told petitioner !ho !asn not $i,en the chance to spea- full): Athat is enou$h sit do!nB and stron$l) (an$ed
the $a,elW
There !as also an irre$ularit) in the ,enue of the case as stated a(o,e. Ta-en all to$ether respondent Dud$e is ordered to
refrain from ta-in$ co$ni%ance of the case.
173 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
Facts:
.ud$e &artate% issued a 2old 3eparture 'rder.
/t !as a$ainst "ileen Lope for alle$ed ,iolations of 6< 22.
The Secretar) of .ustice calls attention to the fact that the order in +uestion is contrar) to Circular &o. 9C-CJ of
the SC !hich limits the authorit) to issue hold departure orders to the #TC in criminal cases !ithin their e5clusi,e
Durisdiction.
.ud$e &artate% admits his mista-e and thus recalls his hold departure order.
/ssue:
1=& .ud$e &artate% should (e penali%edG
2eld:
The Court Administrator recommended that the SC reprimand the .ud$e and remind him to -eep himself a(reast
of SC issuances so as not to commit the same mista-e in the future. SC finds this !ell ta-en.
The Code of .udicial Conduct enDoins Dud$es to (e faithful to the la! and maintain professional competence. The)
can li,e up to this e5pectation onl) () dili$ent effort to -eep themsel,es a(reast of the le$al and Durisprudential
de,elopments. The learnin$ process in la! is ne,er endin$ and ceaseless process.
174 DELGRA 9 GON8ALES
Facts:
*artin 3el$ra !as the assistant pro,incial fiscal of 3a,ao. @on%ales !as Dud$e of the CF/ of 3a,ao.
3urin$ the trial of a criminal case 7entitled <eople , Suare%8 !here 3el$ra !as the prosecutor and @on%ales !as
the presidin$ Dud$e an incident occurred !hich tri$$ered this contro,ers).
/t so happened that !hile a !itness !as (ein$ cross-e5amined () the defense counsel confusion arose as to the
proper interpretation of the !itness? statement 7since it !as in the Ce(uano dialect8.
3el$ra o(Dected to the translation 7ar$ued that it should (e A/ called An$elB instead of A/ called their namesB8 (ut
the .ud$e o,erruled him immediatel). 3el$ra insisted. .ud$e @on%ales ordered that Fiscal 3el$ra (e (rou$ht out of
the court and into Dail.
3el$ra !as not (rou$h to Dail. 1hen the .ud$e learned of this he declared 3el$ra in direct contempt and called on
the police for the Fiscal?s arrest.
/ssue:
1as the action of .ud$e @on%ales properG
2eld:
&o. The incident could ha,e (een pre,ented had the .ud$e listened !ith care to the Fiscal?s o(ser,ation on the alle$edl)
!ron$ translation of the !itness? ans!er. The situation !ould not ha,e reached $ra,e proportions if the Dud$e onl) listened
carefull) to the pleas of the fiscal and patientl) allo!ed the fiscal to ma-e his manifestation.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
From the transcript of records 3el$ra did not so mis(eha,e as to o(struct or interrupt court proceedin$s. .ud$e @on%ales
a(used his discretion in declarin$ the fiscal in contempt of court. .ud$es should (e temperate and patient courteous to
counsel. The) should a,oid interruptin$ ad,ocates in their ar$uments and sh) a!a) from a contro,ersial tone in
addressin$ them. /n con,ersations (et!een Dud$es and counsel the Dud$e should (e studious to a,oid contro,ersies.
#emem(er restraint is a desira(le trait in those !ho dispense Dustice... ri$ht classG> The order adDud$in$ 3el$ra in direct
contempt !as nullified.
175 FERNANDE8 9 .ELLO
FACTS
T/*'T"A <erre)ras throu$h ATTI *A&0"L Fernande% as her counsel instituted Special <roceedin$s for her
appointment as $uardian o,er her minor (rothers
0pon her appointment she petitioned the court for authorit) to sell a nipa land o!ned in common () the !ards
for the purpose of pa)in$ outstandin$ o(li$ations to 0*A&@AI
The re+uest !as $ranted and the nipa land !as sold to 0*A&@AI
2o!e,er the nipa land sold () the $uardian had alread) (een pre,iousl) sold !ith ri$ht to repurchase to
#/CA#3' <erre)ras and 0*A&@AI () FL'#"&T/&' <erre)ras the father of the $uardian and !ards
The interest of #/CA#3' and 0*A&@AI !ere in turn sold for <200 to ATTI *A&0"L and another <200 for ser,ices
rendered () him
.03@" 6"LL' issued an order re+uirin$ ATTI *A&0"L to sho! cause !h) he should not (e suspended from the
practice of la! and declared in contempt for ha,in$ a(used his relationship !ith the $uardian and ta-en mone)
from her !ithout prior appro,al from the court
ATTI *A&0"L e5plained that !hen he recei,ed the <200 he !as no lon$er the attorne) of the $uardian as at that
time T/*'T"A secured the ser,ices of ATTI 6#A0L/' Fernande% and that he !as onl) paid <50 for his ser,ices to
the $uardian
2o!e,er the Court found
o ATTI *A&0"L $uilt) of contempt (ecause he had ta-en the amount of <:00 from the proceeds of the
sale !ithout pre,ious appro,al from the court and
o ATTI *A&0"L?S conduct anomalous for the reason that he instituted the $uardianship proceedin$s onl)
to ena(le him to collect the unpaid attorne)?s fees
ISSUE W<N ATTY MANUEL SHOULD REFUND THE P2:: HE GOT
HELD NO' WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LAWFUL FEES
RATIO
1hile the reprimand is in order for ATTI *A&0"L?S mista-e the mista-e is no sufficient $round for the non-
pa)ment of the fees he la!full) earned
3ut) of the courts is not alone to see that la!)er?s act in a proper manner (ut also that the) are paid their Dust
and la!ful fees
.03@" 6"LL' Dustifies his order for return of the <200 on the $round that ATTI *A&0"L is (elo! a,era$e standard
of a la!)er
2o!e,er the opinion of the Dud$e as to the capacit) of the la!)er is &'T the (asis of the ri$ht to a la!)er?s fees
(ut rather the contract (et!een the la!)er and his client
/n the case at (ar <200 is the amount admitted () the $uardian T/*'T"A as due ATTI *A&0"L
ISSUE W<N ATTY MANUELFS CONDUCT WAS ANOMALOUS
HELD NO' GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WAS THE PROPER REMEDY
RATIO
1ards !ere inde(ted to 0*A&@AI (ut the) had no mone) !ith !hich to pa) the de(t thus the onl) !a) to settle
!as to sell the nipa land
2o!e,er the nipa land could not (e sold !ithout the inter,ention of the $uardian
2ence ATTI *A&0"L !as Dustified in institutin$ the $uardianship proceedin$s in order to sell the nipa land it
(ein$ the proper remed)
ISSUE W<N THE DESIRE OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE PORTIONS OF ATTY MANUELFS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION .E STRIC>EN OUT FOR EMPLOYING STRONG LANGUAGE SHOULD .E
GRANTED
HELD NO' JUDGE .ELLO STARTED IT
RATIO
.03@" 6"LL' used lan$ua$e such as callin$ the act of ATTI *A&0"L Aanomalous and un(ecomin$B and char$in$
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
ATTI *A&0"L of o(tainin$ his fee Athrou$h maneu,ers of documents from the $uardianB
/f an) one is to (e (lamed for the lan$ua$e used () ATTI *A&0"L it is .03@" 6"LL' himself !ho has made
insultin$ remar-s in his orders !hich pro,o-ed ATTI *A&0"L
/f a Dud$e desires not (e insulted he should start usin$ temperate lan$ua$e himselfW he !ho so!s the !ind !ill
reap a storm>
176 TE 9 CA
Facts:
- Arthur Te ci,ill) married Liliana Choa. The) did not li,e to$ether (ut occasionall) met until Choa $a,e (irth to a
$irl !hich !as !hen Te stopped seein$ her.
- Choa then found out that Te married another !oman 7Santillo8.
- Thus upon the complaint of Choa a criminal case !as filed a$ainst Te for (i$am).
- 'n the other hand Te filed a case for annulment in the #TC.
- Choa also filed administrati,e complaints a$ainst Te and Santillo !ith the <rofessional #e$ulation Commission
7<#C8 to re,o-e their en$ineerin$ licenses on the $round that the) committed acts of immoralit).
- Te filed a demurrer and motion to inhi(it 7directed at the .ud$e8 in the criminal case. 6oth !ere denied. Thus Te
filed a petition for certiorari !ith the CA.
- Te also filed a motion to suspend proceedin$s in the <#C !hich !as also denied. Te also filed a petition for
certiorari !ith the CA.
- CA consolidated the t!o petitions and denied (oth.
/ssues:
- 1=n the ci,il case constituted a preDudicial +uestion to the criminal case and administrati,e case.
- 7*ore /mportant8 1=n the motion to inhi(it .ud$e <eraleDo 7on the $round of (ias and preDudice8 in the criminal
case should (e $ranted.
2eld:
- SC sa)s that there !as no preDudicial +uestion. The ,alidit) of the marria$e of Te to Choa !as considered ,alid at
the time he contracted the marria$e !ith Santillo e,en is Te alle$es that it !as ,oid a( initio. This is (ecause
Durisprudence at that time sa) that there has to (e a declaration of nullit) (efore a marria$e can (e considered as
,oid. 1ithout such declaration the marria$e is presumed ,alid.
- SC sa)s that the motion to inhi(it should not (e $ranted. The $rounds raised () petitioner a$ainst .ud$e <eraleDo
did not conclusi,el) sho! that the latter !as (iased and had preDud$ed the case. 1hile (ias and preDudice ha,e
(een reco$ni%ed as ,alid reasons for the ,oluntar) inhi(ition of a Dud$e the rudimentar) rule is that the mere
suspicion that a Dud$e is partial is not enou$h. There should (e clear and con,incin$ e,idence to pro,e the
char$e of (ias and partialit). The test for determinin$ the propriet) of the denial of said motion is !hether
petitioner !as depri,ed a fair and impartial
trial.http:==!!!.supremecourt.$o,.ph=Durisprudence=2000=no,2000=426J:6.htm - fedn:0 The instances !hen
.ud$e <eraleDo alle$edl) e5hi(ited anta$onism and partialit) a$ainst petitioner and=or his counsel did not depri,e
him of a fair and impartial trial. As discussed earlier the denial () the Dud$e of petitioner?s motion to suspend the
criminal proceedin$ and the demurrer to e,idence are in accord !ith la! and Durisprudence. &either !as there
an)thin$ unreasona(le in the re+uirement that petitioner?s counsel su(mit a medical certificate to support his
claim that he suffered an accident !hich rendered him unprepared for trial. Such re+uirement !as e,identl)
imposed upon petitioner?s counsel to ensure that the resolution of the case !as not hampered () unnecessar)
and unDustified dela)s in -eepin$ !ith the Dud$e?s dut) to disposin$ of the court?s (usiness promptl).
177 MANTARING 9 ROMAN
Facts:
*antarin$ filed an administrati,e complaint a$ainst .ud$e #oman char$in$ the latter of conduct un(ecomin$ of mem(ers
of the Dudiciar).
Thereafter .ud$e #oman issued a !arrant of arrest a$ainst *antarin$ and his son. The .ud$e alle$es that the !arrant !as
issued a$ainst @amo and it Dust so happened that the place !here the ille$al firearms !ere sei%ed !as o!ned ()
*antarin$F hence *antarin$
and his son !ere arrested for the) !ere in constructi,e possession of the ille$al firearms. *antarin$ no! comes (efore this
court alle$in$ that it !as improper for the .ud$e to ta-e co$ni%ance of the application of the arrest !arrant. Accordin$ to
*antarin$ the .ud$e should ha,e inhi(ited himself for there !as a pendin$ administrati,e case !hich in,ol,ed him and
*antarin$. *antarin$ claims that the Dud$e
issued the !arrant of arrest as a form of re,en$e a$ainst *antarin$ and his son for filin$ the administrati,e case.
/ssue:
1=& the Dud$e should ha,e inhi(ited himself from ta-in$ co$ni%ance of the application for the !arrant of arrest.

2eld:
Ies the Dud$e should ha,e inhi(ited himself. For the Dud$eOs failure to inhi(it he is reprimanded and !arned that
commission of the same act shall (e se,erel) dealt !ith in the future.
/t is true that the court had consistentl) held that mere filin$ of an administrati,e complaint a$ainst a Dud$e does not
constitute a $round for the dis+ualification of the Dud$e. 2o!e,er the factual milieu of these cases is different from the
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
case at hand. /n those cases the administrati,e complaint !as filed durin$ the pendenc) of the criminal case. /n the case
at hand ho!e,er the admiinistrati,e
complaint !as filed (efore the in,ol,ement of the Dud$e in the criminal case a$ainst *antarin$. /t cannot (e other!ise
concluded that the Dud$eOs action in this case !as dictated () a spirit of re,en$e a$ainst *antarin$ for ha,in$ filed the
administrati,e complaint. This circumstance should ha,e underscored for the Dud$e the need of steerin$ clear of the case
(ecause he mi$ht (e percei,ed to (e sucepti(le to (ias and partialit).
175 HEC> 9 SANTOS
Facts:
-/n a pre,ious case entitled AFlor ,. 2ec-B !hich !as lod$ed at the #e$ional Trial Court defendants therein includin$
2ec- filed a *otion to 3ismiss on the $round that the #TC has no Durisdiction since the case in,ol,ed an intra-corporate
matter !hich !as !ithin the Durisdiction of the S"C.
-The motion !as denied () .ud$e Santos.
-Counsel for therein defendants Att). .ardin su(se+uentl) filed a motion to !ithdra! as counsel !hich !as $ranted ()
Santos !ho reset the hearin$ date from April 4 to .une 40.
-As the defendants ne,er recei,ed a cop) of the order $rantin$ .ardin?s motion to !ithdra! neither defendants nor their
counsel appeared at the hearin$ on .une 40.
-At the said hearin$ Santos admitted the e,idence of the plaintiff and considered the defendants as ha,in$ !ai,ed their
ri$ht to present e,idence.
-The Dud$e then authori%ed the counsel for the plaintiffs Att).Sin$son to draft the decision. The defendants did not
recei,e a cop) of such order.
-/n 'cto(er Santos rendered a decision !hich !as copied ,er(atim from the draft decision su(mitted () Att). Sin$son.
/ssue: 1=& .ud$e Santos? act of orderin$ the counsel for one of the parties to draft a decision !arrants disciplinar)
sanction.
2eld:I"S.
-Santos ,iolated Canons 2T and 9TT of the Code of .udicial Conduct and Section 4 #ule 96 7AA Dud$ment or final order
determinin$ the merits of the case shall (e in !ritin$ personall) and directl) prepared () the Dud$eWB8 of the #e,ised
#ules of Court.
-6) such order the Dud$e a(dicated a function e5clusi,el) $ranted to him () the Constitution. 3ecision ma-in$ is the most
important dut) of a Dud$e. 2e must use his o!n percepti,eness in anal)%in$ the e,idence (efore him and his o!n
discretion in determinin$ the proper action.
-Lac- of malice or (ad faith in issuin$ the +uestioned order is not an e5cuse.
-Such act falls under the classification of a serious char$e. The sanctions pro,ided () #ule 4:0 Sec.40 are 48 dis(arment
28 suspension for 9 mos or 98 fine <20000 E :0000.
-Since Santos had alread) retired his dismissal or suspension is no lon$er feasi(le. 2e is thus ordered to pa) a fine of
<20000 to (e deducted from his retirement (enefits.
TA Dud$e should a,oid impropriet) and the appearance of impropriet) in all acti,ities.
TTA Dud$e should perform official duties honestl) and !ith impartialit) and dili$ence adDudicati,e responsi(ilities.
174 AVANCEGA 9 JUDGE LIWANAG
FACTS:
- A,ancena char$ed Dud$e Li!ana$ of the *TC of San .ose del *onte 6ulacan !ith ,iolation of the Anti-@raft and
Corrupt <ractices Act.
- A,ancena is the accused in a criminal case for ,iolation of 6< 22
- 2er counsel filed a *otion to <ostpone promul$ation and to #e-'pen Trial to Allo! Accused to <resent Further
",idenceB (ut the Dud$e denied the motion on the $round that she !as a(le represented () her counsel durin$
the trial of the case
- <rior to the dismissal of her motion Li!ana$ summoned A,ancena to his cham(er and told her that she !ill (e
con,icted unless she pa) <4*.
- A,ancena refused to pa) since her unpaid (alance !as onl) <4:0000 and there is no reason for her to pa) <4*
- Li!ana$ summoned A,ancena a$ain and told her to raise onl) <500000 if she could not afford the <4*
- Also Li!ana$ sent #a)munda Flores a common friend of A,ancena and Li!ana$ !ho !as tas-ed to (rin$
A,ancena to the cham(ers of Li!ana$ (ut A,ancena refused
- Li!ana$ also made Cora "spanola a court interpreter to telephone A,ancena and tell her that the .ud$e is
!aitin$ for her until ::90pm
- .ud$e Li!ana$ denied the alle$ations of A,ancena and ar$ued that all the contentions of A,ancena are lies and
fa(ricated.
- The case !as referred to "5ecuti,e .ud$e 2errera of the #TC *alolos 6ulacan for in,esti$ation report and
recommendation
- .ud$e 2errera $a,e more !ei$ht to the testimonies of A,ancena and concluded that the char$es a$ainst Li!ana$
are true. 6ut he did not recommend a specific penalt) to (e meted out to respondent
/SS0":
- 1=& Li!ana$ is $uilt)
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2"L3:
- I"S> And .ud$e Li!ana$ is dismissed from ser,ice !ith preDudice to re-emplo)ment in an) $o,ernment a$enc)
and @'CC !ith the forfeiture of all retirement (enefits e5cept accrued lea,e credits
- The period of almost : months !hich elapsed form *a) J 4CCC the date ori$inall) set for the promul$ation of the
decision of the criminal case and Au$ust 2J4CCC the date it !as actuall) promul$ated indicates a deli(erate
effort on the part of the .ud$e to dela) the promul$ation of the decision in order to $i,e complainant more time to
raise the mone) demanded () him
15: CITY OF TAG.ILARAN 9 HONTANOSAS
Facts:
Cit) of Ta$(ilaran is char$in$ .ud$e 2ontanosas !ith 748 open defiance of a hi$her court orderin$ his inhi(ition
from a case and 728 open and notorious ha(itual $am(lin$ in casinos.
4
st
char$e:
o #TC ordered *TC .ud$e 2ontanosas to inhi(it himself from a criminal case filed () the cit) a$ainst 'n$.
o 2ontanosas forced the fiscal to rest its case and rendered a Dud$ment of ac+uittal despite the order for
him to inhi(it
2
nd
char$e:
o 2ontanosas $oes to Ce(u on the afternoon and $oes (ac- to Ta$(ilaran earl) the ne5t da) in order to $o
to the casinos in Ce(u
o ",er) Sunda) 2ontanosas can (e seen around coc-pits
o That a fa,ora(le Dud$ment can (e (ou$ht from 2ontanosas !ith prices ran$in$ from <500 E <5Q
2ontanosas? ans!er to 4
st
char$e:
o The order of the #TC !as unla!ful due to lac- of hearin$ and failure to include the real parties in interest
o 'rder !as issued in connection !ith a petition for certiorari !hich is a prohi(ited pleadin$ in cases
co,ered () rules on summar) procedure
2ontanosas? ans!er to 2
nd
char$e:
o 2e is merel) accompan)in$ his !ife to Ce(u. That his !ife Dust !ants some e5citement and recreation.
o 2e admits that he $oes to the coc-pits on Sunda)s and holida)s and $am(les sometimes on this
occasions.
/ssue:
1=& 2ontanosas should (e sanctioned for diso(e)in$ the order that he inhi(it himself
2eld:
&o. The order !as merel) mandator).
#ules of Court pro,ide instances !hen a Dud$e is under o(li$ation to inhi(it himself from hearin$ a case. The
Dud$e?s case does not fall under an) of those mentioned in the pro,ision.
2is case falls under the 2
nd
para$raph !hich lea,es it to his discretion !hether or not to inhi(it himself.
/ssue:
1=& 2ontanosas should (e sanctioned for $am(lin$ in casinos and coc-pits
2eld:
Ies. Fine of <42Q for ,iolation of Circular &o. : of Au$ust 4C;0.
That circular prohi(its actual $am(lin$ and mere presence in $am(lin$ casinos.
6ases for the circular !as <3 406J-6 and <ar. 9 and 22 of the Canons of .udicial "thics.
151 RE? APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE CU.E
FACTS:- .ud$e Cu(e !as appointed <residin$ .ud$e of *TC 6ranch 22 of *anila. /nformation !as recei,ed () the .udicial
and 6ar Council that he had pre,iousl) (een dismissed as Asst. Fiscal of <asa) Cit). /t !as (ourne out of the records that
an administrati,e case for $ross misconduct and dereliction of dut) !as filed a$ainst Fiscal Cu(e () Sec of .ustice .ose
A(ad Santos for failure to prosecute a criminal case !hich led to its dismissal !ith preDudice. Fiscal Cu(e !as found $uilt)
as char$ed.
- Cu(e applied for appointment to the .udiciar) and in the <ersonal 3ata Sheet that he !as re+uired to accomplish he
deli(eratel) concealed the fact that he !as dismissed. 2e contended that he didnt act dishonestl) in not disclosin$ such
fact (ecause his remo,al from office !as 1/T2'0T <#".03/C" !hich le$all) meant that he can still (e recalled () the $o,t
to render pu(lic ser,ice and that he !as in fact #"CALL"3 A&3 A<<'/&T"3 to sensiti,e positions in the $o,t prior to the
+uestioned appointment and that he !as e,en allo!ed () the same $o,t to a,ail of the 'ptional #etirement under #A
44:5.
/SS0": 1o& .ud$e Cu(e acted dishonestl)G
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
2"L3: I"S4..ud$e Cu(e did not disclose the rele,ant fact that he had (een dismissed for $ross misconduct in the
dischar$e of his duties as ASst F/scal of <asa). That fact !as deli(eratel) suppressed. .ud$e Cu(e could not e+uate his
dismissal !ith retirement and $i,e (oth modes of separation an innocent character. 6) such disclosure the Council !as
led to (elie,e on the stren$th of his misrepresentations that he had a clean record and !as not dis+ualified from
appointment to the .udiciar)
2. The circumstance that the dismissal !as !ithout preDudice is not material and neither is his su(se+uent appointment to
a municipal position. The fact remains that he !as #"*'H"3 and that he 3/3 &'T #"T/#". 2e !as remo,ed after
in,esti$ation and found $uilt) of $ross misconduct and dereliction of dut) in the prosecution of a smu$$lin$ case. 2e
cannot no! (rush his remo,al aside as if it had ne,er e5isted at all. /t is a (lot on his record that has spread e,en more
(ecause of his concealment of it.
9. .ud$e Cu(e committed an act of dishonest) that rendered him unfit to (e appointed to and to remain no! in the
.udiciar) he has tarnished !ith his falsehood.
152 ALFONSO 9 JUANSON
FACTS:
Complainant a doctor of medicine () profession filed !ith this court a s!orn complaint char$in$ the respondent !ith
immoralit) and ,iolation of the Code of .udicial "thics. 2e accuses the respondent of maintainin$ illicit se5ual relations
!ith his !ife Sol Alfonso.
Complainant recei,ed a phone call from the !ife of the respondent *rs. .uanson !ho informed him that Sol and
respondent Dud$e ha,e (een carr)in$ on an affair and that she has in her possession the lo,e letters of Sol !hich she
!ants to sho! to the complainant. 1hen he told this to Sol she denied it.
Sol and complainant left for the 0SA. Sol returned ahead of complainant. *rs. .uansosn called up father of complainant
and di,ul$ed to the latter the illicit affair (et!een respondent Dud$e and Sol. The father of complainant en$a$ed the
ser,ices of a pri,ate in,esti$ator !ho disco,ered that Sol after arri,al from 0SA met !ith respondent Dud$e at an
apartment and sta)ed there for 9 hours.
Complainant upon -no!in$ this complainant confronted Sol. At first she denied it (ut later ho!e,er admitted ha,in$ an
illicit se5ual affair !ith the Dud$e.
#espondent Dud$e denied the alle$ations and claimed that the) ha,e (een communicatin$ !ith each other casuall) and
innocentl) and not as lo,ers. 2e alle$es that he came to -no! of Sol !hen Sol en$a$ed his professional ser,ices prior to
appointment to the office of #TC Dud$e.
/SS0":
/s the Dud$e $uilt) of the char$e of immoralit)G
2"L3:
&'. /t must (e stressed that the respondent is not char$ed !ith immoralit) or misconduct committed (efore he !as
appointed to the Dudiciar). As to the post-appointment period !e find the e,idence for the complainant insufficient to
pro,e that the respondent and Sol continued their e5tramarital affair. /n fact no lo,e notes !ere presented durin$ trial
that are dated after the appointment. <roof of prior immoral conduct cannot (e a (asis for his administrati,e discipline in
this case. The respondent Dud$e ma) ha,e under$one moral reformation after his appointment.
The imputation of the se5ual acts upon the incum(ent must (e pro,en () su(stantial e,idence !hich is re+uired in admin
cases. This the complainant failed to do.
2o!e,er Dud$e should (e held lia(le for (ecomin$ indiscreet. Such indiscretions indu(ita(l) cast upon his conduct an
appearance of impropriet). #espondent and
Sol?s meetin$s could incite suspicion of either the relationship?s continuance or re,i,al. 2e ,iolated Canons 9 and 2
re+uirin$ Dud$e?s official conduct to (e free from appearance of impropriet).
Sentence to fine of <2000.
153 MACALINTAL 9 TEH
Facts:
Att). #omulo *acalintal filed a case a$ainst .ud$e An$elito Teh the "5ecuti,e .ud$e and the <residin$ .ud$e of
the #TC 6ranch ;J of #osario 6atan$as.
2is case stemmed from Att). *ac?s "lection case. /n that case Att). *ac recei,ed an ad,erse resolution from the
.ud$e Teh. *ac then +uestioned the resolution ,ia a petition for Certiorari !ith the Comelec.
1hile the case !as pendin$ !ith the Comelec .ud$e Teh acti,el) participated in the proceedin$s () filin$ his
comment on the petition and () also filin$ an ur$ent manifestation.
*ac filed a motion for inhi(ition (ut !hat .ud$e Teh did !as to hire his o!n la!)er and files his ans!er (efore his
'1& court.
Teh ordered that *ac pa) <400T in attorne)s fees and liti$ation e5penses.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
/ssue:
1=& .ud$e Teh?s actions !ere correct.
2eld:
&o.
.ud$e Teh !as found $uilt) of $ross i$norance of the la! and he is dismissed from the ser,ice !ith forfeiture of
all (enefits and !ith preDudice for reemplo)ment.
The acti,e participation of Teh (ein$ merel) a &'*/&AL or F'#*AL part) in the certiorari proceedin$s is not
called for.
.ud$es cannot also act as (oth part) liti$ant and as a Dud$e (efore his o!n court.
Teh?s $ross de,iation from the accepta(le norm for Dud$es is clearl) manifest.
154 8IGA 9 AREJOLA
Facts:
&elia Ni$a and #amon AreDola are t!o of the heirs of Fa(ian AreDola. The) inherited a land from Fa(iana and
(ecame co-o!ners 7!ith ; others8 of the propert).
#amon AreDola !as an attorne) in the <u(lic Attorne)?s 'ffice 7<A'8. 2e filed in (ehalf of his co-heirs an
application for re$istration of title of the land. The petition !as $ranted.
A su(stantial portion of the lot !as sold to the Cit) of &a$a. The unsold portion !as su(Dect to a dispute (et!een
the heirs and a 9
rd
part).
*ean!hile #amon AreDola !as appointed Dud$e of the *TC of 3aet Camarines &orte.
&ot!ithstandin$ such appointment .ud$e AreDola continued to appear in the Land re$istration case 7the dispute
!ith the 9
rd
person8. The court re+uested him to su(mit a !ritten authorit) from the SC to appear as counsel. 2e
did not compl). A second re+uest !as made (ut .ud$e AreDola insists that it is not needed.
Then .ud$e AreDola !rote the Cit) of &a$a for the terms of pa)ment for the sale of the land and his claim for
contin$ent att) fees.
&o! &elia Ni$a filed a complaint pra)in$ that .ud$e AreDola (e disciplined for appearin$ (efore the court !ithout
the SC?s permission and for as-in$ contin$ent att)?s fees and commission.
.ud$e AreDola?s defense !as that there !as no need for the SC?s permission as he !as appearin$ as
representati,e of the heirs and not as counsel. 2e ar$ues that he !as a part)-in-interest (ein$ one of the heirs.
2e also said that the complaint !as filed merel) to harass him and that complainant Ni$a had a distur(ed mind.
The e5ecuti,e Dud$e of the #TC found the char$e of unauthori%ed le$al practice to (e !ithout (asis. The 'ffice of
the Court Administrator recommended that .ud$e AreDola (e found $uilt).
/ssue:
1as .ud$e AreDola $uilt) of ,iolatin$ the Code of .udicial Conduct () en$a$in$ in the unauthori%ed practice of la!G
2eld:
Ies and F/&"3 40000. A<ractice of la!B is not confined to appearance in court as it also co,ers the preparation of
pleadin$s and $i,in$ of ad,ice to clients. 6ased on the records #amon AreDola en$a$ed in the practice of la! after he !as
appointed *TC .ud$e 7And e,en if the complaint !as filed (efore he (ecame Dud$e the fact that he continued to act as
counsel after the appointment sustains his lia(ilit)8. /t !as sho!n that he: prepared and si$ned pleadin$sF appeared for
applicants in the caseF !rote a letter to the (u)er as-in$ for chec-s and att)?s feesF etc. The representation made ()
AreDola !as not Dust isolated as there !as a succession of acts. 2is ar$ument that he appeared as co-heir !as (elied () the
tenor of the pleadin$s and letters sho!in$ that he !as actin$ in representation of the heirs.
.ud$e AreDola ,iolated the #ules of Court and Code of .udicial Conduct !hich prohi(its mem(ers of the (ench from
en$a$in$ in the pri,ate practice of la!. &ote that the purpose of the prohi(ition is founded pu(lic polic)Lthat is to ensure
that Dud$es $i,e their full time and attention to Dudicial duties and pre,ent them from ad,ancin$ pri,ate interests.
The Ci,il Ser,ice #ules re+uire him to secure a !ritten permission to appear as counsel from the SC. .ud$e AreDola !as
e,en re+uested () the #TC to procure this !ritten authorit). 6ut he did not compl). /t appeared from the records that he
tried to $et a !ritten authorit) later on. 6ut !hen he !as told () the Court Administrator to pro,ide the details of the case
in !hich he is appearin$ he failed to compl). &e,ertheless his act of tr)in$ to procure authorit) !as an admission that he
!as appearin$ as counsel and that he !as a!are that he is re+uired to present such (efore the court.
Tside issue: .ud$e AreDola ar$ues that he !as not afforded due process as there !as no hearin$ conducted () the
"5ecuti,e .ud$e. 6ut due process does not re+uire a hearin$. 'pportunit) to (e heard is sufficient. /n this case he !as
$i,en ample opportunit) to (e heard !hen he !as made to file oral ar$uments throu$h pleadin$s.
155 OCA 9 SARDIDO
FACTS
/n a 3eed of A(solute Sale *A@6A&0A alle$edl) sold 2 parcels of land to 3AHA' #"ALTI represented () '&@
!ith <A@0&SA& as (ro-er
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
.ud$e 20#TA3' !ho at that time !as cler- of court and e5 officio notar) pu(lic (ut no! an #TC Dud$e notari%ed
the said deed
2o!e,er *A@6A&0A denies si$nin$ the 3eed of A(solute Sale !hich states that the consideration for the sale
!as <600000 and asserts that !hat she si$ned !as a deed !ith a stated consideration of <46000000
*A6@0&0A filed a case of falsification a$ainst <A@0&SA& '&@ and .ud$e 20#TA3'
The case !as raffled to .03@" SA#3/3' then presidin$ *TC Dud$e
.ud$e 20#TA3' filed a motion pra)in$ that the criminal complaint a$ainst him (e for!arded to the SC pursuant
to Circular U 9-;C re+uirin$ all cases in,ol,in$ Dustices and Dud$es of the lo!er courts !hether or not such
complaints deal !ith acts apparentl) unrelated to the dischar$e of their duties for!arded to the SC
<ro,incial <rosecutor opposed ar$uin$ that .ud$e 20#TA3' is not !ithin the scope of Circular U 9-;C (ecause the
offense char$ed !as committed !hen he !as still a cler- of court and e5 officio notar) pu(lic
.03@" SA#3/3' issued an 'rder e5cludin$ .ud$e 20#TA3' from the criminal /nformation filed () *A@6A&0A on
the $round that Circular U 9-;C does not +ualif) !hether the crime !as committed (efore or durin$ his tenure of
office and since the la! does not +ualif) he must not +ualif) 7Athis Court cannot and shall not tr) this case
a$ainst .03@" 20#TA3' unless the Supreme Court shall order other!ise8
Court Administrator 6"&/<AI' issued a *emorandum pointin$ out that Circular U 9-;C refers onl) to
administrati,e complaints filed !ith the /6< a$ainst Dustices and Dud$es of lo!er courts and does not appl) to
criminal cases (efore trial courts
Court as-ed .03@" SA#3/3' to e5plain in !ritin$ !h) he should not (e held lia(le for $ross i$norance of the la!
for e5cludin$ .ud$e 20#TA3' from the /nformation filed () *A@6A&0A
ISSUE W<N JUDGE SARDIDO COMMITTED GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
HELD YES
RATIO
0nder Circular U9-;C the Court has directed the /6< to refer to the SC for appropriate action all administrati,e
cases filed !ith the /6< a$ainst Dustices of appellate courts and Dud$es of lo!er courts
Thus Circular U 9-;C does &'T refer to criminal cases a$ainst errin$ Dustices and Dud$es so trial courts retain
Durisdiction o,er the criminal aspect of the offenses committed
/n the case at (ar the case filed a$ainst .ud$e 20#TA3' is not an administrati,e case filed !ith the /6< (ut a
criminal case filed !ith the trial court
Eto na an( &(a pan(aral ni lola *as+an(?
A Dud$e is a called upon to e5hi(it more than Dust a cursor) ac+uaintance !ith statues and procedural rules
such that he must (e con,ersant !ith (asic le$al principles and !ell-settled doctrine
.03@" SA#3/3' failed in this re$ard !hen he e5cluded .ud$e 20#TA3' as one of the accused in the
/nformation and instead for!arded the criminal case to the Supreme Court
*oreo,er in a num(er of cases .03@" SA#3/3' !as reprimanded fined and e,en dismissed from ser,ice
1ith an unflatterin$ ser,ice record .03@" SA#3/3' eroded the people?s faith and confidence in the Dudiciar)
The Court still imposes a fine of <40000 for $ross i$norance of the la! despite his dismissal from the ser,ice
156 CASTILLO 9 CALANOG
Facts:
- /n a s!orn complaint filed !ith the SC "mma Castillo char$ed .ud$e *anuel Calano$ <residin$ .ud$e of the
#e$ional Trial Court of Xue%on Cit) 6ranch J6 !ith immoralit) and conduct un(ecomin$ of a pu(lic official.
- Castillo alle$es that !hen she inter,ened for the intestate estate of her deceased hus(and a friend of hers
referred her to Calano$ !ho !as supposedl) $oin$ to help her.
- Castillo also alle$es that !hen she met !ith Calano$ the latter (rou$ht her to a motel and made se5ual ad,ances
on her. 1hen she refused she sa)s that Calano$ offered to her the proposition that he (e her su(-hus(and and
that he !ould $i,e Castillo his condominium unit in XC as !ell as pro,ide financial support for her t!o minor
children and place them in an e5clusi,e school for $irls. Castillo a$reed to such a proposition. Their relationship
also (ore a son !ho !as alle$edl) named .erome Christopher Calano$.
- Castillo is no! complainin$ that Calano$ has rene$ed on his promise. She sa)s that Calano$ is not an)more
$i,in$ support that her t!o children are not in an e5clusi,e $irls school and that Calano$ has failed to pa) the
monthl) installments on the condominium.
- 1hile the complaint !as (ein$ in,esti$ated on Castillo filed an affida,it of desistance !ith the SC. She !as
sa)in$ that e,er)thin$ in the complaint !ere all lies. 2o!e,er the Court had t!o !itnesses 7"rnesto 6ustamante
and .ose .a,ier8 attestin$ to her earlier complaint. <lus the &ational 6ureau of /n,esti$ation /ntelli$ence Ser,ice
upon the instruction of the Court carried out a discreet ,erification of the facts raised in the testimonies and
found them to (e true.
/ssue:
- 1=n Calano$ should (e held lia(le despite the desistance of the complainant Castillo.
2eld:
- SC sa)s I"S and Calano$ is dismissed from the roll of Dud$es.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
- @enerall) the Court attaches no persuasi,e ,alue to affida,its of desistance especiall) !hen e5ecuted as an
afterthou$ht as in the case at (ar. ",en if "mma Castillo had not filed her SAffida,it of 3esistanceS the SC sa)s
that the) !ould not ha,e (een s!a)ed solel) () her alle$ations and the) actuall) found from the testimon) of
.ose .a,ier that the CastilloOs char$es indeed rest on sufficient $rounds.
- /t is of no import that the e,idence on record is not sufficient to pro,e (e)ond reasona(le dou(t the facts of
concu(ina$e ha,in$ indeed e5isted and (een committed. This is not a criminal case for concu(ina$e (ut an
administrati,e matter that in,o-es the po!er of super,ision of this Court o,er the mem(ers of the Dudiciar).
- The Code of .udicial "thics mandates that the conduct of a Dud$e must (e free of a !hiff of impropriet) not onl)
!ith respect to his performance of his Dudicial duties (ut also to his (eha,ior outside his sala and as a pri,ate
indi,idual.
- /t is !orth notin$ here that the respondent Dud$e in ,iolatin$ a Dudicial precept has also committed a $ra,e
inDustice upon the complainant !ho had sou$ht his assistance in e5peditin$ the intestate estate proceedin$s of
her deceased common-la! hus(and. The Dud$e !ho !as in the first place prohi(ited () the Code of .udicial
Conduct from inter,enin$ in a case in an) court too- ad,anta$e of the complainantOs helplessness and state of
material depri,ation and persuaded her to (ecome his mistress. The e5ploitation of !omen (ecomes e,en more
reprehensi(le !hen the offender commits the inDustice () the (rute force of his position of po!er and authorit)
as in this case.
@utierre% 3issent:
- 2e is mainl) sa)in$ that Calano$ should not (e held solel) lia(le and that the penalt) of dismissal is too harsh.
- 2e (elie,es that Castillo is a li(erated !oman !ho !as at that time !illin$ to enter into the se5ual relationship
for the per-s it included.
- 2e is also sa)in$ that Castillo and Calano$ are (oth offenders and ,ictims. Thus he thin-s that the dismissal of
Calano$ is too se,ere considerin$ the situation.
157 DIONISIO 9 ESCANO
Facts:
3ionisio filed a complaint a$ainst .ud$e "scano char$in$ the .ud$e of ille$all) usin$ court facilities in ad,ertisin$ the hirin$
of attracti,e !aitresses and persona(le !aiters and coo-s in the restaurant of the Dud$e. Admissions to the effect that he
!as hirin$ the !aitresses for his pu( that !ill cater to the prurient desires of males !as ac+uired throu$h the help of the
pro$ram S2o) @isin$.S The Dud$e in his comment said that he !as onl) esta(lishin$ a restaurant -- some sort of !aterin$
hole for friends. The Dud$e said that the reason he posted the ad at the Court 6ulletin 6oard !as due to the fact that
conductin$ the inter,ie!s in his office in the court !ill (e more con,enient for him. 72e sa)s that his house is too far from
the $ate and difficult for the applicants to locate.8 The Dud$e further alle$es that he immediatel) ordered the remo,al of
the ads !hen he learned of the displeasure of some people re$ardin$ his use of the Court 6ulletin 6oard.
The /n,est$atin$ .ustice of the CA !ho hadled the case recommended that the Dud$e (e fined in the amount of 45000 for
the misuse of the court facilities.
/ssue:
1=& the .ud$e is $uilt) of misuse of court facilities.
2eld:
Ies the Dud$e is $uilt) of misuse. Suspended for 6 months !ith a !arnin$.
/t is of no import that the Dud$eOs act of usin$ court facilities (e moti,ated () $ood cause no matter ho! honora(le. The
moment such act de,iates from purposes not directl) related to the functionin$ and operation for !hich the courts of
Dustice ha,e (een esta(lished
it must (e immediatel) rectified. .ud$es are not onl) to a,oid impropriet) (ut must also a,oid the appearance of
impropriet). 2is act of
postin$ the ads at the Court 6ulletin 6oard tend to corrode the respect and di$nit) of the courts as the (astion of Dustice
(ecause there occured an interference in the Dudicial duties of .ud$e "scano () reason of his o!n (usiness interests.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana
Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C