Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics Compiled Syllabi Final
Ethics Compiled Syllabi Final
2015) Ethics
LEGAL ETHICS
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Respondent Court Stenographer Monilla prepared an extra judicial settlement of
estate for the complainant Arienda and her siblings. In ruling that the respondent is
guilty of simple misconduct, the Supreme Court held that the preparation of an
extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes practice of law as defined in Cayetano
v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991) to wit: Practice of law means any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. - Leticia A. Arienda vs. Evelyn A. Monilla, Court
Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City, A.M. No.
P112980, June 10, 2013
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it
necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.
A lawyer who paid another with a personal check from a bank account which he
knew has already been closed exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment
to the oath he took when he joined his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the image
of the profession which he should hold in high esteem. - Cecilia A. Agno vs. Atty.
Marciano J. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14, 2008
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to
cover the same constitutes such wilful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to
undermine the public confidence in the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of
issuing worthless checks by his dire financial condition. Moya II should have
contracted debts which are beyond his financial capacity to pay. If he suffered a
reversal of fortune, he should have explained with particularity the circumstances
which cause his failure to meet his obligations. His generalized and unsubstantiated allegations as to why he reneged in the payment of his debts promptly
despite repeated demands and sufficient time afforded him cannot withstand
scrutiny. - Jerry T. Wong vs. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6972,
October 17, 2008
The Court have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for
having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the
trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good
moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a
series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent,
unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public
order. It also manifests a lawyers low regard to her commitment to the oath she has
taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of
the profession she should hold in high esteem. - Walter Wilkie vs. Atty. Sinamar
E. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008
Page 1 of 13
A lawyer has the responsibility to diligently prosecute the case of his clients to the
best of his ability within the bounds of law. A lawyer, when he undertakes his
clients cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until
its final conclusion. - Cesar Talento and Modesta Herrera Talento vs. Atty.
Agustin F. Paneda, A.C. No. 7433, December 23 2009
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. - Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda vs. Atty.
Emmanuel F. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010
RE-ADMISSION TO THE BAR
It is well settled that the objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the
individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the
judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court.
Restorative justice, not retribution, is our goal in disciplinary proceedings. Constancia L. Valencia vs. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, A.C. No. 1302, June 30,
2008
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
By failing to comply with the conditions set for SC Circular No. 190 and violating the
provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, respondent judge failed to
conduct himself in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion. Judges are
enjoined by the Code of Judicial Conduct to regulate their extrajudicial activities in
order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. - Geronimo C.
Fuentes vs. Judge Romualdo G. Buno, A.M. No. MTJ991204, July 28, 2008
JUDICIAL ETHICS
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the timehonored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied. The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII,
mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission
within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon
3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to dispose of the courts business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the
disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court. - Re:
Judicial Audit Conducted In The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14,
Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13
Judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.
They are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Heirs of the Late Rev.
Fr. Jose O. Aspiras vs. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Agoo, La Union, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055,
December 17, 2009
The Rules of Court expressly prohibits the grant of preliminary injunction without
hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. In this case,
the judge has issued an order which was in effect a TRO ex parte in violation of the
rules, and thus, is found guilty of ignorance of law. - Mayor Hadji Amer R.
Sampiano, Somer Abdullah, Salic Tampugao, Anthony Abi, Saga Pole Inog,
Tororac Domato, King Maronsing, Margarita Solaiman, Hadji Acmad
Mamenting and Billie Jai Laine T. Ogka vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, Acting
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malabang, Lanao del Sur,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953, December 21, 2009
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the
law, high standards are expected of them. They are duty-bound to know and to
comply with the very basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of
execution. - Emma B. Ramos vs. Apollo R. Ragot, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Gingoog City, A.M. No. P-09-2600, December 23 2009
Absent any evidence showing outright bad faith, a judge should not be held liable
for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Thus, for committing acts that
manifested poor judgment and negligence, he is only guilty of simple misconduct
and a penalty of suspension for a period of three months shall be imposed upon
him. - Walter J. Aragones vs. Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Municipal Trial Court,
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752, March 10, 2010
A judge must not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor of a speedy
but reckless disposition of a case. A prudent judge should have ascertained the
facts before reaching conclusions and issuing orders. Thus, a judge is liable for
simple negligence in dismissing a case due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff on
the scheduled date for mediation, the latter being declared a regular holiday and
despite the request for the resetting of the same. - Cecilia Gadrinab Senarlo vs.
Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga, RTC, Branch 38, Cagayan De Oro City, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-2025, April 5, 2010
Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and
observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases
erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards
and brings it into disrepute. However, in imposing the penalty of fine, other
circumstances may be considered such as the judges continuous service in the
judiciary, his avowed dire need of funds, and his expressed willingness to abide by
whatever penalty the Court may impose upon him. - Re: Cases Submitted for
Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13
Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13
This Court has always emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the
constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. Any delay in the administration of justice,
no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his
case. Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it undermines the
peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it to
disrepute. A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day
requirement he/she should instead persevere in its implementation. Heavy
caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the
mandatory period for disposition of cases. The Court usually allows reasonable
extensions of time to decide cases in view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts.
If a judge is unable to comply with the 90day reglementary period for deciding
cases or matters, he/she can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such
request is generally granted. But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in
any of these cases. Having failed to decide a case within the required period,
without any order of extension granted by the Court, Judge Bustamante is liable for
undue delay that merits administrative sanction. In Office of the Court Administrator
v. Garcia-Blanco, the Court held that the 90-day reglementary period is mandatory.
Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a ground for
administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay. - Office of
the Court Administrator vs. Judge Borromeo Bustamante, A.M. NO. MTJ-121806, April 7, 2014
While it is true that respondent Sahi is merely human and may commit mistakes,
there is simply no excuse for making the same mistakes repeatedly despite her
superior constantly calling her attention to correct them. Granting that respondent
Sahi was not good at using computers in the beginning, she should have taken
steps to learn and hone her computer skills which were essential to her work. The
conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always
be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. - Presiding Judge Juan Gabriel Hizon Alano, Mary Annabelle A.
Katipunan, Suzee Wong Jamotillo, Analie Del Rio Balitung, Edwino Jayson
Oliveros and Roberto Babaodono vs. Padma Latip Sahi, A.M. No. P-11-302,
June 25, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
Page 13 of 13