Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complete Legal Ethics Case Digests Canons 7 22
Complete Legal Ethics Case Digests Canons 7 22
January 9, 1973
FACTS: In 1970, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Bar
Integration (CBI) to ascertain the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.
In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act Providing for the Integration
of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor). President Marcos
signed it and it became RA 6397.
the quality of the States legitimate interest. Even assuming that a lawyer is
compelled to join the Integrated Bar, it is still a justified compulsion as it is
an exercise of the police power of the State in regulating and controlling
the legal profession. Also, the inherent power of the Supreme Court to
regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate it.
NOTE: This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly
provided for in the case. However, the relation can be seen. Canon 7
provides that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. In
using the word shall, this Canon makes it mandatory for all lawyers to:
(1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and (2) support
the activities of the Integrated Bar. In being a member of the Integrated
Bar, a lawyer has certain responsibilities, which, if complied with, will
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Therefore, it is
neither unlawful to have a Bar Integration nor be a member of an
Integrated Bar.
RATIO: The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official unification
of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines, requiring membership
and financial support of every lawyer as sine qua non to the practice of
law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. It is based on
the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of the court. It improves the
position of the Bar as an instrument of justice and rule of law. It fosters
cohesion among lawyers and ensures the promotion of the objectives of
the legal profession.
FACTS: On June 3, 1989, the IBP held its election however, the winning
candidates were not allowed to take their oath of office on July 4, 1989
due to some reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers
who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse
comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the
intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the
main protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely,
Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged
use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public
officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the
IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities.
In 1972, the CBI submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation to
ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the
proceedings in Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments of
the Board of Consultants and the Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed for
such integration.
The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began
travelling around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as
April 1989. Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking
the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their
written endorsements.
The records of the Philippine National Bank show that Sec. Fulgencio S.
Factoran, Jr. Of the DENR borrowed a plane from the Philippine National
Bank for his Bicol Cabinet Officers for Regional Development Assistant,
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|1
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|2
On April 18, 1997, Santos filed a certification by the then IBP president of
the IBP that respondents last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since
then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership
fees up to the present.
On July 7, 1997, Llamas was required to comment on the complaint and in
his comment, Llamas alleged that he was exempt from payment of IBP
dues under R.A. 7432, Sec. 4, for being a senior citizen since 1992 and that
he was engaged only in limited practice of law. Llamas, also added,
that if despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and
if only to show that he never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed
and refused compliance with such dues, he is willing at any time to fulfill
and pay all past dues even with interests, charges and surcharges and
penalties.
On Dec. 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting
and approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for three months and until he pays his
IBP dues.
ISSUE/S: WON Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD: Yes, Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RATIO: Llamas violated Canon 7 which states that A LAWYER SHALL AT
ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Although Llamas
failure to pay his IBP dues may be in good faith, his act of indicating IBPRIZAL 259060 in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts the he had paid his IBP dues is contrary with the duty of
upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Llamas failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty.
However, in view of his advanced age, his express willingness to pay his
dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court
ruled to impose the penalty of one year suspension upon Llamas from the
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|3
practice of law and retention of his name in the Roll of attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
The Court stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the
Court, under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules
concerning the admission to the practice of law and in integration of the
Philippine Bar. The fee required by the IBP is a necessary consequence of
membership in the IBP for the integration of the Philippine Bar to defray
the expenses of regulation of the profession, Lawyers, which no one is
exempt.
CASE 5. In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao v.
Severino G. Martinez, A.C. No. 244, March 29, 1963
FACTS: Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. About two years later,
Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his
application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic
qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor
General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he
submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the
roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up
law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the
Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his
A.A. diploma therefrom which contradicts the credentials he had
submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his
allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal
education".
Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims that
although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of
the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which
(according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his
return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army
service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
ISSUE/S: WON Diao be admitted to the Bar despite his misrepresentation.
HELD: No.Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations.
RATIO: Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his
application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (19401941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from
the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified,
due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school
records.
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or
"confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed
his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have
disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his
law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to
take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the
Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law,
he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
(emphasis on "previous").
The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such
examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law;
taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is
equally essential.
CASE 6: Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No. 2505,
February 21 1992
FACTS: Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was
solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code as marriage of exceptional
character. Both of them kept their marriage a secret until Tabang finishes
his law studies, they had not yet lived as husband and wife.
Tabang, having finished his law studies, declared in his application to take
the bar that he was single. After Tabang passed the bar, Leda blocked
him of taking his oath by instituting a complaint, Bar Matter No. 78, that he
acted fraudulently in filling out his application. Thus, Tabang should be
considered as unworthy to take the lawyers oath for lack of good moral
character. Tabang admitted that he legally married Leda but that the
marriage was not yet made and declared public so that he could
properly take the Bar exams and ensure their future. Bar Matter No. 78 was
dismissed because Tabang said that it just arose out of misunderstanding
between him and Leda.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|4
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|5
ably argued the case of his client, invoking the benefits of Republic Act
No. 53, the first section provides that The publisher, editor or duly
accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general
circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report
or information appearing in said publication which was related in
confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a
House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded
by the interest of the state.
ISSUE/S: WON the court can compel Mr. Parazo to reveal the identities of
his informants
HELD: Yes, the court may demand the respondent to reveal the sources of
his information, in refusing to make the revelation which the Court
required of him, he committed contempt of court. The court orders his
immediate arrest and confinement in jail for a period of 1 month.
RATIO: RA No. 53 provides immunity to be accorded to a publisher, editor,
or reporter of any newspaper was absolute that under no circumstances
could he be compelled to reveal his source of information or news report.
The committee however, inserted an amendment by adding to the end
of section 1 of the clause unless the court finds such revelation is
demanded by public interest. The court is satisfied with that the present
case easily comes under the phrase interest of the state. Under Article
VII, section 13 of the Constitution, the SC takes charge of the admission of
members of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar
have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession,
both in academic preparation and legal training, as well as in honesty
and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally
interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of achieving
this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those
persons who are known to be honest, possess good moral character, and
show proficiency in and knowledge of the law by the standard set by this
Court by passing the Bar Examinations honestly and in the regular and
usual manner. And one important thing to bear in mind is that the
Judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the Justice of the Peace
Courts, provincial fiscalships and other prosecuting attorneys, and the
legal departments of the Government, draw exclusively from the Bar to fill
their positions. Consequently, any charge or insinuation of anomaly in the
conduct of Bar Examinations, of necessity is imbued with wide and
general interest and national importance.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|6
After due hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.
Alfredo Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he
be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|7
RATIO: Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. By engaging in acts that
undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes, respondent
clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects in his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession.
CASE 11:Mila Virtusio, vs. Atty. Grenalyn Virtusio, A.C. No. 6753, September
5, 2012
HELD: Yes. The Court finds Atty. Virtusio guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes upon her
the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one year.
RATIO: Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for the
administration of justice, expected to maintain not only legal proficiency
but also a high standard of morality, honesty, and fair dealing. Atty.
Virtusio has admitting misusing the money that Mila has entrusted to her.
Her use for personal purposes the money entrusted to her constitutes
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|8
exertion of his utmost learning and ability", to the end that nothing be
taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
As to second ground, it is alleged that the Atty. Cornejo in connivance
with one Gregorio Tapia, induced Severina Paz Teodoro to accuse Atty.
Javier before this court of malpractice. It appears that Atty. Javier was the
respondent in another case (A.C. No. 757) of the unlawful conversion of a
judgment fund amounting to P195 pertaining to his client, Severina Paz
Teodoro, which was dismissed. Now, Atty. Javier comes back against Atty.
Cornejo and charges him with having maliciously instigated the filing of
the complaint in the mentioned case (A.C. No. 757). We find that A.C. No.
757 was instituted in this court on March 18, 1936 and Atty. Cornejo
intervened as counsel for Atty. Javier on Dec 2, 1935. But long before
these dates, Severina Paz Teodoro and her son Feliciano Patea had
already been demanding from Atty. Javier the return of the amount
alleged to be due them. The last demand letter was made on March 23,
1931, and its receipt in the same month. This letter demanded the
payment of the remaining balance of P166.50 from the sum which Atty.
Javier had collected and received as judgment fund of his previous client
Severina Paz Teodoro, and also advised that upon his failure to remit the
amount demanded, the matter would be brought to the attention of this
court.
It should be observed, in this connection, that mutual bickering and
unjustifiable recrimination, between brother attorneys detract from the
dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this
court.
CASE 13: Manuel Y. Macias vs. Benjamin B. Malig
FACTS: This is an administrative case instituted by complainant Atty.
Manuel Y. Macias against respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Malig for
suspension or disbarment upon grounds of malpractice and violation of
the lawyer's oath.
The charge by Atty. Macias in his sworn Complaint dated 14 June 1982,
maybe summed up as follows:
1. He [Atty. Malig] acted as counsel for Rosario M. Llora in Special
Proceedings No. 70878 of the then Court of First Instance of Manila
although Atty. Macias was still her attorney of record.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|9
a-vis the other. Each party here has shown himself to be too ready to
believe the other guilty of serious misconduct in the practice of the
profession to which they both belong while vehemently asserting his own
good faith. Each party here was too anxious and willing to make serious
accusations against the other which the exertion of reasonable diligence
along with simple courtesy would have shown to be unwarranted by the
facts and the records. Each attorney here was too prone to use
intemperate and offensive language in describing the professional
behavior of the other. Complainant Macias insisted that respondent Malig
"extorted" P10,000.00 from him. The dictionary meaning of "to extort" is "to
obtain from an unwilling or reluctant person by physical force, intimidation
or the abuse of legal or official authority" (Webster's Third New
International [1981, ed.].) Clearly, extortion is an unethical act and may
well be criminal. "Harassment" and "intimidation" are other similarly
unethical and offensive acts that complainant Macias so freely ascribed
to respondent Malig "Corruption" with which complainant in Macias
accused both respondent Malig and the deceased Judge Tiangco is an
even more deplorable term. Upon the other hand, respondent Malig was
not to be outdone and referred to complainant Macias as "denizen" of a
"jungle" who "prey[s] upon his brother lawyer [and] his [own] clients" and
likened him to "a baneful snake biting the hand of the client who fed him"
The Court would also take judicial notice of the fact that complainant
Macias has more than once in the past been rebuked by this Court in
relation to his conduct vis-a-vis clients and former clients. We hold that
complainant Macias and respondent Malig are both guilty of conduct
unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the court. Lawyers must at all
times treat each other, and as well their clients, former clients and the rest
of the community, with that personal dignity, courtesy and civility rightly
demanded of members of the ancient and learned profession of the law.
CASE 14: Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao, vs. Atty. Virgil R. Castro, A.C. No.
6396, October 25, 2005
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Castro went to Atty. Rosalies (complainant)
office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784 had
already been remanded to the MCTC. Atty. Castro was not the counsel of
record of either party in the said civil case. Atty. Rosalie is the Clerk of
Court of the RTC of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya.
Atty. Rosalie informed Atty. Castro that the record had not yet been
transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of
Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|10
records to the court of origin. To this, Atty. Castro retorted scornfully, Who
will certify the Court of Appeals Decision, the Court of Appeals? You
mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified true
copy? Surprised at this outburst, Atty. Rosalie replied, Sir, its in the Rules
but you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be
representing. Atty. Castro then replied, Then you should have notified
me of the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been
frequenting your office since then, but you never bothered to notify
me. Atty. Rosalie replied, It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the said
requirement.
Atty. Castro then answered, You mean to say it is not your duty to
remand the record of the case? Atty. Rosalie responded, No, Sir, I
mean, its not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of the
Court of Appeals decision. Atty. Castro angrily declared in
Ilocano, Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay? (You
mean to say you dont care anymore? Is that the way it is?) He then
turned and left the office, banging the door on his way out to show his
anger. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by the people
at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place. After a
few minutes, Atty Castro returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed
his finger at Atty. Rosalie and shouted, Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti
kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah! (Vulva of your mother! If you
are harboring ill feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on
me!) Atty. Rosalie was shocked at Atty. Castros words but still managed
to reply, I dont even know your client, Sir. Atty. Castro left the office
and as he passed by Atty. Rosalies window, he again shouted,Ukinnam
nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!)
Atty. Rosalie suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it
happened in her office of which she was, and still is, the head and in front
of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and
diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her
staff.
The Complaint-Affidavit was supported by an Affidavit signed by
employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed the incident.
A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary Evidence was also filed.
The CBD-IBP issued an Order requiring respondent to submit his answer to
the complaint. The hearing for the administrative complaint before the
CBD was set. However, on day of the hearing, only complainant
appeared.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|11
FACTS: On May 18, 2000, Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a
client in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San
Jose, Antique, a woman approached them. Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara,
the incumbent District Public Attorney of the PAO in San Jose, Antique,
saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group and suggested
that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in
another room. At this point, Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting
nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying "Why
do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize
his mistake." Atty. Alcantara was surprised by the sudden outburst and
advised him to cool off but, to no avail Atty. Pefianco continued to scold
Atty. Salvani. To avoid any scene with Atty. Pefianco, Atty. Alcantara went
inside his office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside prohibiting
anyone from interfering with any activity in the PAO. Alcantara then went
out to attend a hearing, but when he came back he heard Pefianco
saying "Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO, what
an idiot." Pefianco upon seeing Alcantara, pointed his finger at him and
repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear.
Alcantara confronted Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to
leave the office if he had no business there. Pefianco resented this and
started hurling invectives at Alcantara. According to Alcantara, Pefianco
even took a menacing stance towards him. The incident caused a
commotion in the office. Atty. Pepin Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the
Chief of the Probation Office, tried to pacify Atty. Pefianco. Two guards of
the Hall of Justice came to take Pefianco out of the office, but before
they could do so, he tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him,
"Gago ka!" Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off Pefiancos blow
and Alcantara was not harmed.
Atty. Alcantara filed a complaint against Atty. Pefianco for conduct
unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and offensive
language and threatening and attempting to assault him. Complainant
Alcantara also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo
Del Rosario, Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and
Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that
the sight of the crying woman, whose husband had been murdered,
moved him and prompted him to take up her defense. He said that he
resented the fact that complainant Alcantara had ordered a employee
to put a sign outside prohibiting "standbys" from hanging round in the
PAO.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|12
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|13
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against
repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual
harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte;
a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal cases for
libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. In October
2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his
son who worked with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems,
Department of Justice. When Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer
repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory language.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|14
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating
Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the
charges against him.
2. WON if in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is
justified.
HELD: No. The IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating
Commissioner did not erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the
charges against him.
RATIO: Under theCanon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence
shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay
Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with
pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified
and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a
proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a
fellow lawyer.
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in
their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of
the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides:
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life
behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|15
he admitted that they came from a function, and that was the reason
why the cameraman was in tow with him and the plaintiffs.
Notwithstanding the flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the
cameraman after the Court took exception to the fact that although the
proceedings are open to the public and that it being a court of record
and since its permission was not sought, such situation was an abuse of
discretion of the Court. When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds
Concepcion manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right
then and there appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him, the case
was allowed to be called again. On the second call, Atty. Burgaring
started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary
evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that
he be allowed to submit a written pleading for his client, considering that
the Motion has so many ramifications and the issues are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his
documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already
perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished with his
manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure,
the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an
orderly proceeding.
While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt
like doing so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at which point,
Atty. Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the Court; such as:
'that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of
certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court;
that he was going to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for
allegedly being antagonistic to his client,' and other invectives were
hurled to the discredit of the Court.
Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt and
order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him under detention. To clear
his name in the legal circle and the general public, petitioner filed a
petition before the Court of Appeals praying for the annulment of the
Order. The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing held on December 5, 1996,
it was obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times
impertinent, and too argumentative, to the extent of being disrespectful,
annoying and sarcastic towards the court.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|16
CASE 21: Atty. Casiano U. Laput v. Atty. Francisco E.F. Remotigue & Atty.
Fortunato P. Patalinghug (1962)
Commissioner of the IBP held that Atty. Chiong had no ground to implead
Prosecutor Salanga. In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office
and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS: In 1952, a client (named Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera) hired Atty.
Casiano Laput (petitioner) to handle the case regarding the testation of
the estate of the clients deceased husband. In 1955, Atty. Laput,
contemplating to end the proceedings soon, prepared two (2) pleadings
for the Court. However, the client refused to sign these and instructed
Atty. Laput not to file these in Court.
Weeks later, Atty. Laput found out in the records of the proceedings that
another lawyer had entered appearance (and in writing, on January 11,
1955) for his client, namely: Atty. Patalinghug (one of the respondents).
Subsequently, on Feb. 5, Atty. Casiano voluntarily asked the Court to
relieve him as counsel. Only then (on Feb 7) that the other lawyer, Atty.
Remotigue entered his appearance (in writing, dated Feb 5).
Now, Atty. Laput complains before the SC that the two lawyers
(Patalinghug and Remotigue) conduct were unethical and improper.
Laput alleged that they did it with malice, desiring to be the new counsels
of Mrs. Barrera. He also alleged that the two lawyers intrigued him,
prompting the client to lose her trust.
It is also alleged that the two lawyers brought the client to their office,
asked her to sign documents (one including Revocation of Powers of
Attorney), and these documents were sent to corporations and other
offices belonging to the estate of the client. Atty. Laput alleged that the
two lawyers well knew that no such powers of attorney was granted to
him by client, and hence concluded that the purpose of the
dissemination of the documents was to embarrass him.
Finally, it was the entering of Atty. Patalinghugs appearance in Court,
without prior notice to Atty. Laput, that constituted the unethical act.
In defense, Atty. Patalinghug said that when he entered his appearance,
the client already lost confidence in Atty. Laput and, by that time, the
client herself had filed a pleading asking the Court to approve the
discharge of Atty. Laput as counsel. Meanwhile, Atty. Remotigue argued
that when he entered his appearance, Atty. Laput had already
withdrawn.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|17
The Solicitor General, upon referral by the Supreme Court, made the
following findings: (1) that the claim of Atty. Patalinghug regarding the
clients pleading to discharge Atty. Laput is true, and therefore, it is the
clients fault that Atty. Laput was not informed; and (2) that the client no
longer trusted Atty. Laput because she found out that the lawyer had
been doing things unauthorized by her, e.g. withdrawal from the bank
accounts (PNB and BPI) and dividend checks from the properties are
being delivered to Atty. Laput instead of the client.
ISSUE/S: WON the conduct of Atty. Patalinghug and Atty. Remotigue were
unethical and unprofessional to warrant disciplinary action
HELD: No. The court finds no irregularity in the conduct of the two lawyers.
RATIO: What happened cannot be considered as case-grabbing. The
investigation by the Sol-Gen revealed that it was the client herself that
sought the services of the two lawyers. In fact, a written contract was
executed so as to set the amount of fees for the legal services.
Also, Atty. Laput is estopped by his own actions he filed his voluntary
withdrawal from the proceedings and the motion he made for the
payment of his attorneys fees amounted to acquiescence (reluctant
acceptance but without protest). Atty. Laput cannot claim that Atty.
Patalinghug was unprofessional.
With respect to the alleged document (Revocation of the Powers of
Attorney) allegedly prepared by Atty. Patalinghug, the inquiry revealed
that there was no malice on the part of the lawyer. The only purpose is to
protect the interests of the client. The court recognizes that Atty. Laputs
pride was hurt and felt that he was intrigued (pictured as a dishonest
lawyer). He even filed cases with the City Fiscal of Cebu, charging the
client and Atty. Patalinghug with Libel and Falsification, but these were
dismissed.
With respect to Atty. Remotigue, he cannot be found guilty of any
unethical conduct because it was already two days after Atty. Laput
withdrew his appearance, when Remotigue entered his own.
CASE 22: GARCIA v. LOPEZ
FACTS: Petitioner Wilfredo Garcia was the counsel of the late Angelina
Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96 which was pending in the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|18
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|19
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|20
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|21
Philippine Bar and may only practice law before the Sharia Bar and is
referred to as counsellor. The title attorney is reserved to those who,
having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good
standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.
issued a decision. The Supreme Court holds that the dismissal of the
appeal was in order because of Felipe ecos adamant stand not to
submit to the formal investigation and clear indication of this attitude is
shown by his failure to appear at the investigation.A lso the Supreme
Court said that the said land was actually occupied by Tigman Lumber
Co. However, Felipe Eco was given a period of ninety days to conduct a
voluntary investigation by the Supreme Court
CASE 28: Felipe Eco vs. Juan De G. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-16731, March 30,
1960
FACTS:On September 11, 1957, a petition for certiorari was filed, which
Felipe Eco sought annulment of the proceeding, orders and decisions
rendered by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural resources and
director of forestry claiming that the said director and secretary
committed a grave ause of discretion in suspending his certificate.
On April 30 1958, the Supreme Court rendered judgment finding that
Felipe Eco who obtained from the bureau of forestry a certificate of
private wood-land registration a possessory information title covering 700
hectares but which it was made to appear in the sketch a total 1200
hectares of land. That Tigman Lumber Co, another licensee, protested
and filed a petition for reconsideration which was apparently granted
because the Director of Forestry suspended the operation of Eco's
certificate; that likewise, it was found that portions of the area released
from the forest zone were under occupancy by some 80 oppositors; that
after a series of protests and counter-protests, objections and counterobjections between the parties, the Director of Forestry recommended
cancellation of Eco's certificate of private woodland and the Secretary of
Agriculture & Natural Resources approved the recommendation; that
upon the appeal of Eco, the Secretary reopened the case and ordered a
formal investigation of the whole controversy to give the parties "ample
opportunity to formally present their respective sides of the controversy
and be given their 'day in court'"; that petitioner Eco refused to submit to
this, reinvestigation, insisting that it was not necessary; that in the face of
this attitude of Eco, the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources
ISSUE/S: WON the Supreme Court may grant the motion for excusable
negligence of the counsels clerk
HELD: No. Felipe Ecos counsel delegated the computation of the period
of filing an appeal within which the appropriate pleading. This act is
hardly prudent or wise. As the lower court aptly said: "the duty to compute
the period to appeal is a duty that devolves upon the attorney which he
cannot and should not delegate unto an employee because it concerns
a question of study of the law and its application, and this Court considers
this to be a delicate matter that should not be delegated" the negligence
here cannot, therefore, be considered excusable.
CASE 29: W.W. Robinson v. Marcelino Villafuerte Y. Raola
FACTS: The purpose of the suit filed by the plaintiff, W. W. Robinson, is the
collection of various sums owed by the defendant, Marcelino Villafuerte y
Raola, the payment of which is secured by a mortgage on the real
properties set out in the two notarial documents evidencing the debt,
exhibited under letter A and B, and inscribed in the property registry of the
Province of Tayabas. That by the said instrument duly executed the
defendant bound and pledged himself to pay to the plaintiff. The
complaint further alleged, as a first cause of action, that, notwithstanding
the repeated demands made upon the defendant, the latter had not
paid his debt nor the interest thereon. The plaintiff further prayed that an
order be issued directing the delivery to the plaintiff of the properties
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|22
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|23
ISSUE/S: WON Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief
of Guballa
HELD: Yes. Judge Caguioa properly denied petition for declatory relief of
Guballa.
HELD: No. 25% of the Attorneys Fees was awarded solely to Atty.
Fernandez
FACTS: In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into
an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and
in exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the
attorneys fees collected as the latters commission. Atty. David also
agreed not to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without
the latters consent. The agreement went sour due to allegations of
double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before
the Supreme Court but did not seek the enforcement of their agreement.
FACTS: On May 30, 1956, Florentino Arceo and 47 others together with
their union, Amalgamated Laborers Association lodged a complaint in
the CIR,for unfair labor practices against BISCOM and Fraternal Labor
Organization. At the hearing, only 10 of the 48 complainant labourers
appeared and testified. On November 13, 1962, CIR rendered a
judgement which provides that petitioners be reinstated to their former
positions with full back wages and benefits. Respondents BISCOM
appealed to the directly to the SC but it was dismissed. Meanwhile, Atty.
Fernandez(respondent) filed on July 15, 1963 a Notice of Attorneys Lien.
He alleged that he had been an attorney of record for the laborers CIR
Case since the inception of the preliminary hearings of said case up to the
SC, as chief counsel; that he had actually rendered legal services to the
laborers have voluntarily agreed to give him, representing attorneys
fees on contingent basis such amounts equivalent to 25% thereof which
agreement is evidenced by a Note; and that the 25% attorneys fees so
contracted is reasonable and proper taking into consideration the length
of services he rendered the nature of the work actually performed by
him. He further explained that it was supposed to be 30% but Arsenio
Reyes requested him to 25% to satisfy Atty. Carbonells lien of 5%. Atty.
Carbonell disputed this claim and even said the verbal agreement
entered into by the Union and its officers is that the 30% Lawyers Fees shall
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|24
was again opposed by the petitioner for the same reason (manifestation).
Subsequent MRs were also denied for lack of merit.
On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with clients supplied
by Beng directly: The professional services of a lawyer should not be
controlled or exploited by any law agency, personal or corporate, which
intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyers responsibilities and
qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the
performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A
lawyers relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibility
should be direct to the client. . . .
RATIO: The petitioners' position on the cut-off period for the reckoning of
private respondents' backwages had thoroughly been passed upon and
consistently been rejected by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter after
repeated reviews of the case. There was no hard or solid proof that
respondents had indeed made an unconditional offer or reinstatement.
The court finds no supervening event nor any meritorious reason to disturb
the amount of backwages awarded to the private respondents, which
have repeatedly been computed by the Research Unit of the Labor
Arbiter. Well settled is the rule that findings of fact of labor officials are
generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court when
supported by substantial evidence, as in this case
HELD: No.
CASE 34: Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez and Damaso Perez (petitionersdefendants) vs. Hon. Gregorio Lantin, Ricardo Hermoso
FACTS:This case originated from the civil case filed by the respondent
Ricardo Hermoso against the petitioner Damaso Perez and Gregorio
Subong for the recovery of unpaid purchases of leather materials used in
his shoemaking business. The defendants and their counsel did nothing
despite due notice to them. A judgment was rendered ordering them to
pay the said sum.
On August 23, 1961, the respondent sheriff of Manila levied upon 3,573
shares of common stock registered in the name of Damaso Perez with the
Republic Bank. This led to the series of petitions and motions and other
actions filed by the petitioner and caused the resetting of the public sale
for 6 times. The petitioners were not able to present evidence to support
their argument on Art 160 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE/S: Should the counsel be held liable for abetting the filing of his
clients?
HELD: Yes. The counsel is therefore ordered to pay for the treble costs
assessed against the petitioners.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|25
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|26
duped. Assuming that she received the P15M, it came from Estrada, not
from the coffers of the government.She had no power or authority to
receive monies or funds. Such power was vested with the Board of
Regents (BOR) as a whole.
The Ombudsman opposed the motion. Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the catch-all phrase in relation to office,
thus, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges against
her. Serana was a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she had the
general powers of administration and exercised the corporate powers of
UP. Compensation is not an essential part of public office. Compensation
has been interpreted to include allowances. Serana was compensated.
Serana filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in not dimissing
the case despite the fact that it has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged against Serana
HELD: No. Sandiganbayan has not committed a grave abuse of its
discretion in not dismissing the case against Serana.
RATIO: Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D.1606, as amended, rather
than R.A. No. 3019 that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D.1486, promulgated by then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11, 1978. It was promulgated to
attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and
employees, based on the concept that public officers and employees
shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people. P.D.
No. 1486 was, in turn, amended by P.D.1606 promulgated on December
10, 1978. P.D. No. 1606 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D.1861. Then, R.A.7975 made
succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended on
February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further
modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, as it now stands.
R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019
erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals. the two
statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended, defines graft and
corrupt practices and provides for their penalties.
We urge Seranas counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules stating that
a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent.
We admonish Seranas counsel to be more careful and accurate in his
citation. A lawyers conduct before the court should be characterized by
candor and fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if
lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts.
CASE 37: Walter T. Young vs. Ceasar G. Batuegas
FACTS: On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified
Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas,
Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for allegedly
committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer's oath.
Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for
Murder, entitled "People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr.",
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27. On
December 13, 2000, respondents Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for
accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the
"accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As such, he
is now under detention."2 Upon personal verification with the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered,
complainant learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as
shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty. Rogelio M.
Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI.
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, Branch 27,
calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing
irregularity and other formal defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing
to the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the
failure to attach the Certificate of Detention. Respondents filed their
respective comments, declaring that on December 13, 2000, upon
learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed
the Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then they
immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to
voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI
at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of detention indicated
that the accused surrendered on December 14, 2000. They argued that
there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|27
as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. As
regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend that complainant, as
private prosecutor, was not entitled to any notice. Nevertheless, they
furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of the motion with notice
of hearing thereof. Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice is
allowed under Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.For his part,
respondent Susa argues in his comment that he was no longer in court
when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. Ms.
Teofila A. Pea, Clerk III, received the said Motion and noticed that it was
set for hearing on December 15, 2000 and the Certificate of Detention
was not attached. However, the presiding judge instructed her to receive
the Motion subject to the presentation of the Certificate of Detention
before the hearing. Thus, the inclusion of the Motion in the court's
calendar on December 15, 2000 was authorized by the presiding judge
and, thus, was done by respondent Susa in faithful performance of his
ministerial duty.
ISSUE/S: WON the respondent lawyers are guilty of falsehood.
HELD: YES, they are guilty of falsehood.
RATIO: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.He swore upon his admission to
the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court" and he shall "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his clients."He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high
vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the
case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The
courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has
the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to display the
utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at
the expense of truth.
The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus proving
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.Evidently, respondent
lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from them as
members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied
by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|28
RATIO: The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to
order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on
September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for execution. This resolution
is being adopted not without making of record that the considered as an
example worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar. Atty.
Zamora showed truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becoming a
deserving member of the bar.
CASE 39: Paraluman B. Afurong vs. Atty. Angel G. Aquino, A.C. No. 1571
September 23, 1999
FACTS: Victorino Flores sought the assistance of the Citizens Legal
Assistance Office regarding a complaint for ejectment filed by Paraluman
B. Afurong which has already reached finality. His case was assigned to
Atty. Angel G. Aquino, an employee of said office at the time. Atty.
Aquino filed with the City Court of Manila a Petition for Relief from
Judgment with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order. However,
after due hearing, the petition was dismissed for having been filed out of
time. Atty. Aquino subsequently filed with the CFI of Manila a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition. Notwithstanding the fact that he was separated
from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office on October 1, 1975, Atty. Angel
G. Aquino filed on December 11, 1975, an Urgent Motion for
Postponement, signing his name as counsel for Victorino Flores and
indicating the address of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office in Sampaloc,
Manila, as his office address. Atty. Aquino stated therein that he would be
unable to attend the pre-trial conference on December 12, 1975 because
he needed to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the same day and hour.
However, a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court stated that a decision had been rendered on
the aforementioned special proceedings case, and that there was no
hearing in connection with the case on December 12, 1975, for there was
nothing more to be done in the proceedings and the same was declared
closed and terminated. Thus, on December 22, 1975, Afurong filed a
complaint with the Court for disbarment against Atty. Angel G. Aquino for
filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision,
committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement, and
misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance
Office. Respondent Aquino denied the allegations contending that such
acts had been done without malice. However, he admitted that at the
time of the pre-trial on December 12, 1975, he was no longer connected
with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, for he was included as one of
the employees purged. He reasoned, not wanting to remove the case
from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office by appearing as private counsel
for the petitioner and still unable to wait for his reinstatement which he
was informed was forthcoming, he decided to file a motion to postpone
the pre-trial conference of the case. He also conceded that, in order to
give more force to the motion for postponement, he indicated therein
that he had to attend the hearing of another case before the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court. He further admitted that the filing of the
motion with the facts so stated might have caused some delay, but
justifies such act by stating that such filing was prompted by some
circumstances which we can consider as inevitable and unavoidable at
the moment. He adds, If I shall be given another chance to continue
handling the case, I promise that this mistake shall never be repeated.
The court declared respondent guilty for making false allegations in his
Urgent Motion for Postponement. The Court referred the case to the
Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. It was
transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and disposition
as provided in the Revised Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Aquino should be punished/sanctioned for his actions
in the said case.
HELD: Yes, Atty. Aquino failed to perform duties expected of an attorney
as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Section
20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court in force at the time said acts were
committed.
RATIO: The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an
attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law. The decision in the complaint for
ejectment had reached finality and execution of such decision was being
effected. Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for
certiorari considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to
delay the execution of a valid judgment. Furthermore, Atty. Aquino
committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for
Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of a special
proceedings case the same day as the pre-trial on December 12, 1975.
Respondent Aquino admitted that he only included such statement in
order to give more force to the Urgent Motion for Postponement. Such
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|29
sleep with James for one night on the condition that he would not take
them away from Tanjay City. In the early morning of the following day, she
rushed to the hotel where James and the kids stayed before she learned
that he has plans of taking the kids to Bacolod. She took the children.
James filed with RTC a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting his right
to custody of the children pursuant to the alleged Resolution issued by the
CA. During the hearing, James did not appear and petition for habeas
corpus was dismissed.
Natasha filed a complaint alleging that James violated his oath by
manufacturing, flaunting, and using a spurious CA Resolution. This was
referred to the IBP-CBD and they recommended that James be
suspended from the practice of law for 3 years. The IBP governors
modified it and recommended a 6-year suspension from the practice of
law.
ISSUE/S: W/N James can be held liable administratively for his reliance on
and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of CA
HELD: Yes. Although he claimed that he acted in good faith, this is belied
by the fact that he used and presented the spurious Resolution several
times. First, in his petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Second,
when he sought the help of PNP of Tanjay to recover the custody of the
children from Natasha. The SC held that he is presumed to have
participated in the fabrication of the Resolution. Atty. James Florido
violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He was suspended for 2 years.
CASE 41: Re: Letter Of The Up Law Faculty Entitled "Restoring Integrity: A
Statement By The Faculty Of The University Of The Philippines College Of
Law On The Allegations Of Plagiarism And Misrepresentation In The
Supreme Court," A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011
FACTS: For disposition of the Court are the various submissions of the 37
respondent law professors in response to the Resolution directing them to
show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for
violation of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo in Vinuya, et al. v.
Executive Secretary was promulgated. The counsel for Vinuya, et al. (the
"Malaya Lolas"), Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel Regalado
Bagares filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration where they
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|30
posited their charge of plagiarism claiming that "in this controversy, the
evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but also of
twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit
the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition.
A statement entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" was submitted by Dean
Leonen to the Court.
The Ethics Committee was given a copy of the signed UP Law Faculty
Statement that showed on the signature pages the names of the full roster
of the UP Law Faculty, 81 faculty members in all. Indubitable from the
actual signed copy of the Statement was that only 37 of the 81 faculty
members appeared to have signed the same. However, the 37 actual
signatories to the Statement did not include former Supreme Court
Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza as represented in the previous
copies of the Statement submitted by Dean Leonen and Atty. Roque. It
also appeared that Atty. Miguel R. Armovit signed the Statement although
his name was not included among the signatories in the previous copies
submitted to the Court.
Dean Leonen was directed to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10 for submitting, for the
consideration of the Court en banc, a dummy which is not a true and
faithful reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement.
Dean Leonens predicament is the fact that he did not from the
beginning submit the signed copy, Restoring Integrity I, to the Court and,
instead, submitted Restoring Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted"
signature pages. It would turn out, according to Dean Leonens account,
that there were errors in the retyping of the signature pages due to lapses
of his unnamed staff.
"Restoring Integrity I" bears the entire roster of the faculty of the UP College
of Law in its signing pages, and the actual signatures of the thirty-seven
(37) faculty members subject of the Show Cause Resolution while
"Restoring Integrity II" does not bear any actual physical signature, but
which reflects as signatories the names of thirty-seven (37) members of the
faculty with the notation "(SGD.)".
In his Compliance, Dean Leonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrity
II was not a true and faithful reproduction of the actual signed
copy, Restoring Integrity I, because looking at the text or the body, there
were no differences between the two. He attempts to downplay the
discrepancies in the signature pages of the two versions of the Statement
(i.e., Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II) by claiming that it is but
expected in "live" public manifestos with dynamic and evolving pages as
more and more signatories add their imprimatur thereto. He believes that
he had not committed any violation of Canon 10 for he did not mislead
nor misrepresent to the Court the contents of the Statement or the
identities of the UP Law faculty members who agreed with, or expressed
their desire to be signatories to, the Statement.
ISSUE/S: WON Dean Leonen violated Canon 10, Rules 10.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. In due consideration of Dean Leonens professed good
intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish the former for failing
to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as
required under Canon 10.
RATIO: CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
To begin with, the Court said that live public manifesto or not, the
Statement was formally submitted to this Court at a specific point in time
and it should reflect accurately its signatories at that point. The value of
the Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies precisely in the identities
of the persons who have signed it, since the Statements persuasive
authority mainly depends on the reputation and stature of the persons
who have endorsed the same.
Dean Leonen has not offered any explanation why he deviated from this
practice with his submission to the Court of Restoring Integrity II. There was
nothing to prevent the dean from submitting Restoring Integrity I to this
Court even with its blanks and unsigned portions. Yet, Dean Leonen
deliberately chose to submit to this Court the facsimile that did not
contain the actual signatures and his silence on the reason therefor is in
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|31
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|32
findings or rulings, or, put a little differently, our own words. The truth is, the
quoted portion is just a part of the memorandum of the Court
Administrator quoted in the decision.
Rule
10.02
of
Canon
10
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
CASE 43: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU
v. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., FGU Insurances Group CPR 10.2
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|33
the Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of
their union membership and degree of participation in the strike.
On August 4, 1958 the Companies filed their answer denying all the
material allegations of the complaint, stating special defenses therein,
and asking for the dismissal of the complaint.
After trial on the merits, the Court of Industrial Relations, through Presiding
Judge Arsenio Martinez, rendered on August 17, 1965 a decision dismissing
the Unions' complaint for lack of merit. On August 31, 1965 the Unions
seasonably filed their motion for reconsideration of the said decision, and
their supporting memorandum on September 10, 1965. This was denied by
the Court of Industrial Relations en banc in a resolution promulgated on
October 20, 1965.
ISSUE/S: WON there was a violated made in the Canon 10.2 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
HELD: Yes. There was a violation made.
RATIO: Be that as it may, we must articulate our firm view that in citing this
Court's decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation
mark-for-punctuation mark. Indeed, there is a salient and salutary reason
why they should do this. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do
all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take their bearings. This is
because the decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which
reads, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," are
only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. We said in no uncertain
terms in Miranda, et al. vs. Imperial, et al. (77 Phil. 1066) that "[O]nly the
decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this
jurisdiction." Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and
exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their
proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers
and the public who may thereby be misled. But if inferior courts and
members of the bar meticulously discharge their duty to check and
recheck their citations of authorities culled not only from this Court's
decisions but from other sources and make certain that they are verbatim
reproductions down to the last word and punctuation mark, appellate
courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation, as well as be
saved precious time in finding out whether the citations are correct.
CASE 44: Eligio P. Mallari, vs. Government Service Insurance System And
The Provincial Sheriff Of Pampanga, G.R. No. 157659, Petitioner, January
25, 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Mallari obtained two loans totaling P34,000.00 from GSIS.
He mortgaged two parcels of land registered under his and his wifes
names. However, he paid GSIS about ten years after contracting the
obligations only P10,000.00 and P20,000.00 a few months after.
What followed thereafter was the series of inordinate moves of the Mallari
to delay the efforts of GSIS to recover on the debt, and to have the
unhampered possession of the foreclosed property.
GSIS finally commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against him
because he had meanwhile made no further payments.
Mallari sued GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga to enjoin them
from proceeding against him. The RTC decided in his favor, nullifying the
extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale.
GSIS appealed the adverse decision to the CA, which reversed the RTC.
When elevated to the SC, the Court affirmed CAs decision. CA decision
became final and executory, rendering unassailable both the extrajudicial
foreclosure and auction sale.
The sheriff failed to serve the writ of exectution on Mallari, however, partly
because of the Mallaris request for an extension of time within which to
vacate the properties. It is noted that GSIS acceded to the request.
Yet, the petitioner did not voluntarily vacate the properties, but instead
filed a motion quash the writ of execution and commenced a second
case against GSIS and the provincial sheriff.
ISSUE/S: WON Mallari was guilty of misconduct for dilatory tactics to stall
the execution of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 7802
which has already been resolved with finality by the Supreme Court.
HELD: Yes. Mallari wittingly adopted his aforedescribed worthless and
vexatious legal maneuvers for no other purpose except to delay the full
enforcement of the writ of possession, despite knowing, being himself a
lawyer, that as a non-redeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn
both the extrajudicial foreclosure and the ex parte issuance of the writ of
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|34
execution cum writ of possession; and that the enforcement of the dulyissued writ of possession could not be delayed. He thus deliberately
abused court procedures and processes, in order to enable himself to
obstruct and stifle the fair and quick administration of justice in favor of
mortgagee and purchaser GSIS.
ISSUE/S: WON the failure of Atty. Pimentel to inform the Court of the
change in his address, to which all court documents shall be sent, is
excusable
CASE 45: Vill Transport Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, The Energy
Corporation, and the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC of Makati (1991)
FACTS: In a civil case, Vill Transport was found guilty of breach of contract
(with Energy Corp.) and was ordered to pay damages. On June 7, 1985,
the court decision was sent via registered mail to the address of Atty.
Amante Pimentel (Mandaluyong), the counsel of Vill Transport. However, it
was returned to the court with a note that Atty. Pimentel had moved out
without leaving a forwarding address. Three months after, Energy Corp.
motioned the court for a writ of execution of the decision, and the same
was granted on September 19, 1985. A month later, Vill Transport filed an
urgent motion for reconsideration and manifested to the court an
intention to appeal the decision ordering Vill Transport to pay for
damages. It argued that it was only on October 21, 1985 that they knew
of the decision (the one sent to the address of Atty. Pimentel on June 7),
and they did not receive a copy of the writ of execution. Energy Corp.
opposed this MR.
Without waiting for the MR to be resolved by the lower court, Vill Transport
filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, to
have the first judgment set aside. This was denied by the CA. It held that
Atty. Pimentel was duty-bound to notify the court of any change of
address and his failure to do so could not be excused. Hence, the present
appeal.
Atty. Pimentel had his address recorded with the Court so that the latter
may serve him official documents there. Such is required for legal
counsels, in accordance with the Rules of Court. However, when Atty.
Pimentel moved out, he failed to notify the court of his new address. This is
negligence on his part.
Vill Transport admits the negligence on the part of its counsel, Atty.
Pimentel. However, it continues to argue that because their legal counsel
was not served a copy of the decision, the five-day period for appeal the
court observed in this case cannot be valid. Also, they invoke their right to
due process, arguing that they were deprived of their right to appeal.
Energy Corp., on the other hand, argues that Sec. 8, Rule 13 of the [Old]
In one case (Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz), the Supreme Court adopted the
more stringent rule of requiring not only that the notice of the registered
mail be sent but that it should also be delivered to and received by the
addressee. However, with the element of negligence present in this case,
the same rule cannot be applied. Also, in Antonio vs. Court of Appeals,
the SC categorically stated that the requirement of conclusive proof of
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|35
receipt of the registry notice "presupposes that the notice is sent to the
correct address as indicated in the records of the court. It does not apply
where, as in the case at bar, the notice was sent to the lawyer's given
address but did not reach him because he had moved therefrom without
informing the court of his new location. The service at the old address
should be considered valid.
To tolerate this negligence will be injurious to the administration of justice;
there will be non-termination of cases. The Court cannot tolerate the
negligence and ineptitude of lawyers who wantonly jeopardize the
interests of their clients.
A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice. He should so arrange matters that official and
judicial communications sent by mail will reach him promptly and should
he fail to do so, not only he but his client as well, must suffer the
consequence of his negligence.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|36
ISSUE/S : WON respondent violated the Lawyers Oath to not delay any
man for money or malice.
HELD : YES. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice.
RATIO:The cause of the respondent's client is obviously without merit. The
respondent was aware of this fact when he wilfully resorted to the gambits
summarized above, continuously seeking relief that was consistently
denied, as he should have expected.
By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of
arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining
the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings
as appear to him to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any
man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable
profession and has proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by
law as an officer of the Court
For this serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he
deserves to be sanctioned, not only as a punishment for his misconduct
but also as a warning to other lawyers who may be influenced by his
example. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR from the
practice of law and from the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges
appurtenant to membership of the Philippine bar.
FACTS: Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to reason why he should not be
punished for contempt in connection with his written statement of the
Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Angel Parazo's case, which was
published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in the locality.
FACTS: Atty. Mario Fortes challenged the courts decision in a case filed by
his client, petitioner Aguido Lacson, Jr. He alleged that the court
committed a reversible error. He filed the instant petition but the court
denied it because he failed to prove his allegation.
Sotto was given ten days besides the five days originally given to him to
file his answer, and although his answer was filed after the expiration of
the period of time given him the said answer was admitted. He does not
deny the authenticity of the statement as it has been published. He
nevertheless, asserts that under Sec 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
which confers upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, the Supreme Court has
He then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, stating that: (1) the petition
was denied wholly on the basis of technicality, (2) the denial did not
consider the fraud sought to be stopped, and (3) the court disregarded
the purpose of judicial proceedings, that of seeking the truth in upholding
the fake and falsified OCT of the Tuazons. In a Resolution, the court
denied the Motion for Reconsideration with finality.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|37
The court then directed Fortes to show cause as to why he should not be
held in contempt of court and liable for misconduct for his apparent
malicious and unfounded accusation that the court did not read the
petition and for suppressing from the petitions body the final decision of
Lacsons case. Fortes admitted the charge but explained that it was his
first time to file a petition of such nature and his enthusiasm got the best of
him.
The court recognizes that a lawyer, in defending the cause and rights of
his clients, has the duty to do so with all fervor and energy. However, this is
not enough reason for him to resort to intimidation or proceed without
propriety and respect the dignity of the courts requires. The respect of the
courts is required of lawyers because it guarantees the stability of their
institution. Without such guaranty, this institution would be resting on a
very shaky foundation.
On the other hand, the court said that Fortes should know, or ought to
know, the nature, character and scope of a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court. Fortes should have been candid enough in the
petition for review to disclose in its body the fact that the case he handled
was actually a petition to annul a decision. The court considered that the
suppression of the antecedents must have been deliberate since Fortes
must have known that a voluntary disclosure would be fatal to Lacsons
cause.
In the case of Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, the court held
that a lawyer is an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice
and he has the duty to preserve faith in the courts. He has the sworn and
moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem
and regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of
justice.
Fortes argument that it was his first time to file such a petition is not an
excuse. It should even give him more reason to demonstrate utmost
candor and respect for the court. A clients cause does not permit a
lawyer to cross the line between liberty and license as a lawyers duty is
not only to his client but also with the courts.
CASE 50: Spouses Tiongco v The Honorable Severino C. Aguilar
ISSUE/S: WON Fortes failed to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to its judicial officers.
HELD: Yes. Fortes failed to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to its judicial officers. He is ordered to pay a fine and warned
that a commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
RATIO: Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
In the case of Salcedo v. Hernandez, the court held that a lawyer is duty
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court and defend its
integrity not only because he is conferred with a privilege of being a priest
of justice but also because in doing so, he neither creates nor promotes
distrust in the administration of justice. He helps in preventing anybody
from harboring and encouraging discontent, which is the source of
disorder that undermines the foundation of judicial power.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|38
CASE 52: Socorro Abella Soriano, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
100633, August 28, 2001
FACTS: Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes pleaded that they were employed
by Socorro as manager and administrative assistant of her property and
real estate in 1968. As payment for their services, in 1973, Socorro gave
them one apartment unit to use as their dwelling for the duration of their
lifetime and a token monthly rental on P150 was imposed. In the same
building, another unit was occupied by the spouses which was improved
and converted by them into a pub and restaurant. For the use of the
premises, the token amount of P1500 monthly was imposed. On October
17, 1988, Socorro gave Deogracias and Rosalina notice to vacate the said
two units. Deogracias and Rosalina owned two commercial lots with
improvements. On May 28, 1968, they becameindebted to Socorro in the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|39
amount of P638,635.36. The parties agreed to pay for the debt by selling
the two lots for P2.5M. While looking for a buyer, Deogracias and Rosalina
conveyed the property to Socorro by way of first mortgage. A deed of
absolute sale was executed in place of a real estate mortgage. Action
was initiated by the spouses but the court released the two lots in favor of
Socorro having presented the deed of absolute sale in her name. On
October 28, 1988, the spouses paid the filing fee and legal research. On
November 29, 1988, Socorro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
two grounds: the first cause of action was barred by the pendency of an
ejectment case between the same parties over the same parties; the
second cause of action was premature
On December 8, 1988, the Carmelite Sisters on behalf of their benefactress
filed with the trial court an urgent ex-parte motion for restraining order.
They talked to respondent judge Naval in his chambers and requested
him to immediately act on Socorros urgent ex-parte motion for a
restraining order. On December 16, 1988, the Trial Court denied the
motion. On January 16, 1989, Socorro, through counsel, filed a motion to
inhibit Judge Naval; while still a law practitioner and politician, he was a
frequent customer of the restaurant of the spouses and was a good friend
of his; he was also a good friend of the attorney of the spouses, Trial Court
denied motion to inhibit
ISSUE/S: WON the Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to
inhibit
HELD: No. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides only
the following grounds for the disqualification of judges- No judge or
judicial officershall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child,
ispeculiarly interested as heir, legatee, creditor orotherwise, or in which he
is related to either partywithin the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity,
orto counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of
the civil law, or in which hehas been executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee orcounsel, or in which he has presided in any inferiorcourt when his
ruling or decision is the subject ofreview, without the written consent of all
parties ininterest signed by them and entered upon the record.A judge
may, in his exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in
a case, for just or validreasons other than those mentioned above.
A litigant may not demand that a judge inhibit himself. Specially so in this
case where there is a finding of fact that respondent judge has not as
yet crossed the line that divides partiality from impartiality. Besides, the test
Atty.
Sorreda
violated
the
Code
of
professional
HELD: Yes, heis found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an
officer of the court and member of the Bar. He is hereby indefinitely
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|40
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|41
honorable court and of each and every member thereof in the eyes of
the public. But, at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous
decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters
will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of "sakdalism" and
make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice. The court
required Atty. Francisco to show cause why he should not be found guilty
of contempt, giving him a period of 10 days for that purpose. In his
answer, Atty. Francisco reiterated them several times contending that
they did not constitute contempt because, according to him it is not
contempt to tell the truth.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Francisco can be held in contempt
HELD: Yes, He is ordered to pay a fine of P200 within the period of 10 days
and was reprimanded.
RATIO: As a member of the bar and an officer of the court, Atty. Francisco
is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and defend its integrity,
not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege not a right
of being what he is now, but also because in doing so, he neither creates
nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice. It is right and plausible
that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client, should do
so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and
never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or
proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the
courts require. The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees
the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would
be resting on a very shaky foundation.
Dissenting Opinion Malcolm, J.:
Human sensitiveness to an attorney's unjust aspersions on judicial
character may induce too drastic action. It may result in the long run in
making of lawyers weak exponents of their clients' causes. Respect for the
courts can better be obtained by following a calm and impartial course
from the bench than by an attempt to compel respect for the judiciary by
chastising a lawyer for a too vigorous or injudicious exposition of his side of
a case. The Philippines needs lawyers of independent thought and
courageous bearing, jealous of the interests of their clients and unafraid of
any court, high or low, and the courts will do well tolerantly to overlook
occasional intemperate language soon to be regretted by the lawyer
which affects in no way the outcome of a case.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|42
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|43
RATIO: (1) Atty. Santiagos accusations has no basis in fact and in law. He
did limit his slurs to the Chief Justice and Justice Castro, but the whole
court, pleading all who have received favors from any of those
connected to the petitioners of that cse to inhibit themselves. There is the
not too well concealed effort on the part of a losing litigants attorney to
downgrade the court. Counsels words are intended to create an
atmosphere of distrust. A lawyer is an officer of this court; he is, like the
court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice.
Atty. Santiago justifies his language stating that it was necessary for the
defense of his client. A clients cause does not permit an attorney to cross
the line between liberty and license. Discipline and self-restraint on the
part of the bar even under adverse conditions are necessary for the
orderly administration of justice. The Court finds in the language of Atty.
Santiago a style that undermines and degrades the administration of
justice.
CASE 59: Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072,
January 9, 1970
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Santiagos language in his pleadings can be equated to
contempt.
CASE 60: British Co, Inc., et. al. v. De los Angeles, et. al.
FACTS:On June 12, 1970, a fire broke out in the premises of Tapia at San
Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. Being holders of fire insurance policies
from different companies, among them the British Co, Inc., and having
failed to secure extrajudicial settlement of their claims, they filed
corresponding civil actions in the CFI of QC. All were assigned to Hon. De
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|44
Los Angeles. British and Cibeles were served summons in separate civil
cases with different dates. The counsel for British and Cibeles asked for an
extension of their answers due to events. Tapia filed separate motions in
two cases praying that the petitioner be declared in default, due to a
delayed filing of answer. Judgments were released for service to
petitioners counsel. According to Atty. Felix, he found in the delivery
neither his motion for extension to file answer nor the joint answer they had
filed with Cibeles, but only the orders of default. Two days later, he filed a
joint motion, dated May 25, 1971, to lift the order of default, unverified
and unaccompanied by any affidavit of merit. Hon. De Los Angeles, after
reading in the presence of undersigned counsel that Joint Motion, asked
him to set it for hearing anew and told him that it was always his practice
to give parties a chance to present evidence.
A notice was received by Atty. Felix, Jr. advising him that the motion had
been set for hearing, but on June 22, 1971, respondent judge issued an
order cancelling this notice for the reason that "for failure of defendants to
comply with the requirement imposed by Sec 3 of Rule 18, Rules of Court
and pursuant to the decisions of the SC, this Court can no longer set aside
its order dated April 24, 1971. Certifications for proof of service have been
presented, showing that the orders and copies of decisions were
delivered by the postmaster, completed after the expiration of 5 days
from the date of 1st notice. The period of 30 days within which to interpose
an appeal from these decisions rendered by this Court commenced on
May 25, 1971 the day after the 5th day from May 19, 1971 and expired
after June 23, 1971. From May 25, 1971 to June 23, 1971, no appeal from
these decisions was taken by the defendants. They are by law now final,
unappealable and, as matter of right, British and Cibeles are entitled to
their immediate execution.
Pursuant to the writs issued under this order, the Hongkong & Shanghai
Banking Corp paid to respondent Sheriff P294, 750 for British and the First
National City Bank of New York the sum of P75, 000 for Cibeles, but all paid
were returned to the respective banks by virtue of the writ of preliminary
injunction. British and Cibeles filed a joint "Petition for Relief from
Judgment", but before its execution, the instant petition was filed with this
Court on July 2, 1971 and summons, together with the writ of preliminary
injunction was served on the respondents. On the same day that the
petition for relief was set for hearing, Hon. De Los Angeles found it to be
"sufficient in form and substance" and ordered the respondents "to answer
the same within a period of 15 days from receipt.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Felix has maintained his candor and good behavior
before the Court, with regard to the orders and notice of default
delivered to them, when according to him there was none
HELD: No. He did not maintain it.
RATIO: The contention of British and Cibeles that they were erroneously
declared in default has no merit. As regards Cibeles, there can be no
question that even its motion for extension to file its answer filed out of
time. It was served summons on April 2, 1971, and it is not disputed that its
motion for extension was filed on April 19th, two days late. With respect to
British, its answer admittedly due on April 13, 1971, and although it asked
for an extension of 15 days it was given only 5 days ending April 19,1971,its
answer jointly filed with Cibeles on April 22, was undoubtedly out of time.
Counsel suggests that he was not given enough time, considering that
there was the Holy Week to take into account, but His Honor ruled that
precisely, counsel would have more time because of the holidays.
Besides, it is settled that parties and counsel should not assume that courts
are bound to grant the time they ask for compliance with the rules, and
therefore, the fact that counsel received the order of extension by mail
only on April 26, 1971, is no reason for him to complain. Likewise, that he
was not notified of the motion to declare his clients in default is not
against the rules, for he had no right to such notice. Motions to lift orders
of default may be filed only before judgment, and petitioners' joint motion
was filed only on May 26, 1971, whereas the judgments in question were
rendered on April 28, 1971.
A party who by inaction or negligence allows himself to be declared in
default offends the rule requiring him to answer the summons without
unnecessary delay to the end that the issues may be duly joined and the
litigation be expeditiously terminated. Counsel only makes reference to
the joint answer he had filed on behalf of the British and Cibeles but,
neither the motion itself nor the joint answer is supported by any
corresponding oath. Particularly, when it is considered that counsel has
never pretended that he had actually made inquiries and asked the
proper personnel of the court about them, which he would naturally have
done, considering that before then he had filed motions for extension
followed by the joint answer. Such lack of candor bordering on conscious
misstatements of fact which has actually misled the Court calls for at least
an appropriate explanation from counsel
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|45
FACTS: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil
case. The trial court, after due hearing, rendered judgment against his
client, but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the
opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and
place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then
appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with
the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually,
Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which
also denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
Almacen called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed
before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of
title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession
when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for
justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further
alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay
P120, 000 without knowing the reasons why and that he became one of
the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that
justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is
not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the
Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate.
Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now
argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be
permitted to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing. He said he
preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE/S: WON Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely.
RATIO: The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed
because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full
opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be
unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of
the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present questions
whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|46
out of the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for the
second time.
After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw Battung at the hall of
the courthouse, apparently waiting for him. Atty. Battung again shouted in
a threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not
afraid of you!" He kept on shouting, "I am not afraid of you!" and
challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the
building. Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the
courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of
the Clerk of Court.
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment with the Commission on
Discipline of the IBP against the respondent, alleging that the latter
violated Canons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended that he be reprimanded.
Respondent Atty. Battung filed his Answer, essentially saying that it was
Judge Baculi who disrespected him. He stated that I only told Judge
Rene Baculi I will file Gross ignorance of the Law against him once inside
the court room when he was lambasting me. According to Battung it
was Judge Baculi who disrespected me. Judge Baculi did not like that I
just submit the Motion for Reconsideration without oral argument because
he wanted to have an occasion to just humiliate me and to make appear
to the public that I am a negligent lawyer, when he said: you justify your
negligence before this court, making it an impression to the litigants and
the public that as if I am a negligent, incompetent, mumbling, and
irresponsible lawyer. Respondent Battung claims that he was provoked
by the presiding judge that is why he shouted back at him. Atty. Battung
asked that the case against him be dismissed.
The IBP conducted its investigation based on the tape of the incident at
the courtroom and the transcript of stenographic notes of the matter
stating that both parties merely reiterated what they alleged in their
submitted pleadings.
ISSUE/S: WON the respondent Atty. Melchor
reprimanded for his actions in the said case.
Battung
should
be
HELD: Yes, Atty. Melchor Battung violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall abstain from
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|47
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|48
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|49
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|50
However, The Court agrees with petitioner that in the absence of any
administrative action taken against him by this Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the
Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
FACTS: Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala of Judge
Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30. In an Order dated
March 14, 2002, Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the
accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution
was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of
murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix
the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then
Senior State Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case,
objected thereto mainly on the ground that the original charge of
murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail under
Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order dated November 12, 2002, which motion was
denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10, 2003. In October,
2003, respondent appealed from the Orders dated November 12, 2002
and February 10, 2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA). In an Order dated
August 21, 2003, the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, directed respondent
and the writer of the article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily, to appear in court on September 20, 2003 to explain why they
should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of
the article which degraded the court and its presiding judge with its lies
and misrepresentation.
The said Order stated that contrary to the statements in the article, Judge
Buyser described the evidence for the prosecution as not strong, but
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused only for homicide. Moreover, it
was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an
unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an Order dated August 30, 2002,
declared in open court in the presence of respondent that he was
inhibiting himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation of respondent
that he lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Respondent
posted the required bond and was released from the custody of the law.
He appealed the indirect contempt order to the CA.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|51
RTC ruled in favor of Lim, and declared that the deed of sale was an
absolute and unconditional conveyance of subject property by the
plaintiff in favor of such defendant. On motion for reconsideration,
however, the trial court reversed itself and declared that the sale was in
fact an equitable mortgage.
Lim appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which reversed the ruling
of the RTC. The aggrieved party elevated the matter to this Court which
affirmed the Court of Appeals.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|52
Atty. Montano should have realized that the ruling of the Court in Tuazon
v. Court of Appeals effectively determined with finality the rights and
obligations of the parties under the questioned deed of sale.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in
violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in
the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede
or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.
CASE 69: MARIBETH CORDOVA and CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA v. HON.
EMMA C. LABAYEN, Presiding Judge, Branch 54, RTC, 6th Judicial Region,
Bacolod City; HON. BETHEL KATALBAS-MOSCARDON, former Presiding
Judge of Branch 54, RTC, 6th Judicial Region, Bacolod City, et.al. (1995)
FACTS: Maribeth Cordovas mother was involved in an ejectment case.
When the mother died, they (present petitioners) became the party in
interest. They hired Atty. Salvador Sabio as their legal counsel. When the
municipal trial court rendered a decision adverse to them (ordering their
ejectment and the payment of rental fee until they vacate it), they
appealed. However, the petitioners in that case motioned for the
issuance of the writ of execution, arguing that while the party had
appealed, they did not file a supersedeas bond [a kind of surety bond
that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a
judgment until the appeal is over] or made a deposit every month of the
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land from which they
are ordered ejected, as required by the [old] Rules of Court. On this
ground, despite their appeal, the court proceeded with the execution of
judgment.
Cordova, thru Atty. Sabio appealed the decision to the RTC and later on,
the CA, arguing that the writ of execution is not valid and illegal
according to the Rules of Court, on the ground that they have a pending
appeal. However, the Regional and Appellate Courts upheld the decision
of the MTC. Hence, the present case charges the Judges Labayen and
Moscardon with manifest partiality and breach of judicial trust, and with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess in jurisdiction.
The Court in this case required Atty. Sabio to show cause why he should
not be disciplined for violation of the CPR, particularly Rules 1.02 and 1.03.
In his answer, he asserted that the writ of execution was issued pending
appeal despite the filing of a supersedeas bond and the payment of
advance rentals, and this was illegal, and constituted the charged
violations by the impleaded judges.
It is now alleged that Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of the groundless
accusations against the impleaded judges.
ISSUES:
1. WON Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of the present charges against the
judges;
2. WON Atty. Sabios act constitutes violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
1. Yes
2. Yes. Atty. Sabio is suspended for six months.
RATIO: (1) Upon review of the rules of court, it is clear that the judges
acted in conformity with the rules, and in good faith. It was too manifest
that a lawyer like Atty. Sabio could not have known that. The Court finds
that the actions of the impleaded judges are correct and in accordance
with law and existing rules of court.
In his response to the show-cause order, Atty. Sabio averred that he was
not given a copy of the court order (writ of execution), so the same could
not take effect. That bad faith attended the filing of this administrative
charge was unwittingly disclosed by the allegations of Atty. Sabio in this.
No explanation was made by him nor did he invoke any authority of law
or jurisprudence, since decidedly there is none, to support his theory that
execution should not issue where the adverse party is not served a copy
of the order even where the grant thereof had become a matter of right.
The inescapable conclusion is that the filing of the present complaint was,
at the very least, ill-conceived and malicious, and was resorted to as a
last-ditch effort and a face-saving recourse of counsel.
It must be noted that the administrative complaint was filed only after the
Court of Appeals had rendered a decision. This in itself is already a clear
indication that the acts of the judges are valid and legal. Yet, Atty. Sabio
persisted in instituting these baseless charges to their proven prejudice. As
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|53
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|54
informed the OCA that Atty. Joyas failed to complete the requirements in
support of her application for retirement. Thus, the OCA recommended
that Atty. Joyas be dropped from the rolls and her position declared
vacant.
FACTS: The case originated in the Antique CFI where after due trial
judgment was rendered in favor of respondents-plaintiffs upholding their
action for quieting of title with recovery of possession and damages.
Petitioners-defendants appealed the adverse judgment to the Court of
Appeals. On June 25, 1970, petitioners as appellants received notice
through their counsel Benjamin M. Valente to submit the appellants' brief
within the reglementary forty-five day period to expire on August 9, 1970.
On August 10, 1970 (the last day of the reglementary period, August 9
being a Sunday), petitioners' counsel, Atty. Valente, filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel because he was employed as technical assistant in
the Supreme Court, with a prayer that appellants' newly engaged counsel
be given sufficient time to file their brief. Said new counsel, Atty. Esdras F.
Tayco, filed on August 18, 1970 his appearance with the appellate court.
On August 27, 1970, the appellate court received respondents-appellees'
motion to dismiss the appeal dated August 5, 1970 for appellants' failure
to file their brief within the reglementary period.
On September 12, 1970, the appellate court required both counsels of
appellants, Atty. Valente and Atty. Tayco to comment on the dismissal
motion. Valente filed his manifestation alleging inter alia that he had not
received a copy of the dismissal motion and could not comment thereon
and submitting the signed conformity of his clients to his withdrawal and
reiterating his prayer for the court to grant his withdrawal and to grant
appellants sufficient time to file their brief. New counsel Tayco filed no
comment whatsoever.
On June 25, 1971 or after the lapse of more than eleven without
appellants having filed their brief at all, the appellate court's special sixth
divisionissued its resolution granting the dismissal motion and dismissing the
appeal on the ground stated by appellees in their motion that appellants
had failed to file their brief within the reglementary 45-day period.It was
only then that Tayco apparently stirred from almost a year of inaction and
filed a motion dated July 13, 1971 for reconsideration of the dismissal of
the appeal on the ground that he as new counsel had not received the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|55
notice to file brief. The appellate court denied the motion for
reconsideration, pointing out "Attorney Tayco's appearance was entered
on August 18, 1970 after the period for filing brief had already expired on
August 10, 1970. Tayco filed a second motion for reconsideration still
without having filed appellants, brief, which the appellate court denied
in not having filed their brief for a year since receipt of due notice to file
the same.
FACTS: Late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos left their 6
children a lot in Cebu. The said lot was to be divided equally among their
children. However, the estate of the Alejandrino spouses was not settled in
accordance with the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|56
FACTS: On September 25, 1984, Dynetics, Inc. and Antonio M. Garcia filed
a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against the PISO, BPI,
LBP, PCIB and RCBC or the consortium, seeking judicial declaration,
construction and interpretation of the validity of the surety agreement
that Dynetics and Garcia had entered into with the consortium and to
perpetually enjoin the latter from claiming, collecting and enforcing any
purported obligations which Dynetics and Garcia might have undertaken
in said agreement. In a series of proceedings, the trial court as well as the
Court of Appeals both rendered their decisions adverse to the consortium
on Dec 19, 1989 and Mar 5,1990.
On 6 April 1990, the PCIB separately filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, likewise, assailing the very same
orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990.
On 26 March 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision denying due
course to and dismissing PCIB's petition for certiorari on grounds that PCIB
violated the rule against forum-shopping and that no grave abuse of
discretion was committed by respondent Regional Trial Court in issuing its
assailed orders dated 19 December 1989 and 5 March 1990. PCIB's motion
for reconsideration was denied on 11 January 1994
ISSUE/S: WON PCIB resorted to forum shopping
Held: Yes. PCIB resorted to forum shopping in filing for a separate petition
for certiorari.
Ratio: PCIB's contention that it did not join the consortium because it
"honestly believed that certiorari was the more efficacious and speedy
relief available under the circumstances, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court is not difficult to understand. Certiorari is available only if there is no
appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Hence, in instituting a separate petition for certiorari, PCIB
has deliberately resorted to forum-shopping.
PCIB cannot hide behind the subterfuge that Supreme Court Circular 2891 was not yet in force when it filed the certiorari proceedings in the Court
of Appeals. The rule against forum-shopping has long been
established. Supreme Court Circular 28-91 merely formalized the
prohibition and provided the appropriate penalties against transgressors.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|57
HELD: No, CSA did not violate the anti forum-shopping rule.
FACTS: Since 1969, private respondent Colegio San Agustin (CSA) has
operated a school within the premises of Dasmarinas Village and was
exempt from paying village dues. Thereafter, petitioner Dasmarinas
Village Association (DVA) inquired from Colegio San Agustin if it was
interested in becoming a special member with the corresponding
responsibility of paying membership dues, to which the latter agreed. In
1975, DVA informed CSA that it was increasing membership dues by 25%
to which the latter agreed.
RATIO: For forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same
transactions; same essential facts and circumstances and must raise
identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. In this regard, forumshopping exists where the elements litis pendentia are present or where a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The
requisites of litis pendentia not having occurred in the two cases filed by
CSA shows that there was no violation on the part of CSA of the anti
forum-shopping rule under Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|58
CASE 76: Julia L. Tan, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97238, July 15,
1991
FACTS:This case arose from the refusal of the petitioners to admit and
enroll certain students for the school year 1987-1988 because heated
controversies, acts of misbehavior, and a refusal to dialogue with the
school administration led the school authorities to believe that it would be
best for all concerned if these children enrolled in other schools. Because
the parents of the Children refused to pay the 15% tuition fee increase
granted to Grace Christian School by the Ministry of Education, Culture
and Sports
Two separate petitions for mandamus with prayers for preliminary
mandatory injunction were eventually filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The first case docketed as Civil Case No. Q-51039 was
assigned to Branch 79 of the court. The second case which led to the
present petition was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-2357 and was
assigned to Branch 88.Petitioner Julia L. Tan is an 84 year old widow who is
the Principal of Grace Christian High School offering both elementary and
secondary courses while petitioner James L. Tan is the Administrative
Consultant of the school. The latter case was filed by Vicente Luy and his
daughter Vonette Luy, who were also petitioners in Civil Case No. Q51039.
On June 13, 1989, Judge Tirso Velasco ordered the petitioners to comply
with the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction or he would act on the
motion for contempt. Julia Tan and James Tan opposed this order stating
that Judge Legaspi had just denied the similar motion for contempt in the
other case (Civil Case No. Q-51039). In this opposition, the petitioners
again charged Mr. Luy with forum shopping contending that the first case
he filed with others should take precedence over Civil Case No. Q-892357.
ISSUE/S: WON Vicente Luy and his daughter were engaging in forum
shopping
HELD: Yes. The Court deplored the action of Vicente Luy and his counsel
for filing Civil Case No. Q-89-2357 in 1989 when exactly the same issues
were already before Branch 79 in Civil Case No. Q-51039 filed by, among
others, Mr. Luy in 1987. This results not only in unnecessarily clogging the
heavily burdened dockets of our courts but also in the unseemly sight of
two Branches of the same trial court and two Divisions of the Court of
Appeals issuing contradictory decisions one in favor of the school and
the other in favor of the students and their parents.
Pending any amendment of the Rules or a circular remedying this
problem, lawyers and litigants alike are warned to be more candid with
courts of justice and not engage in forum shopping through deliberate
splitting of actions or appeals in the hope that even as one case is
dismissed, another would still be open.
CASE 77: Francisco A. Achacoso, in his own behalf and in behalf of
Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., v. the Hon. Court of Appeals, Cotram,
S.A., Capital Life Assurance Corp., Joaquin G. Garrido.
FACTS:Upon the filing on December 15, 1972 of the petition at bar for
review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing petitioner's petition for
mandamus filed with said court to compel the Manila court of first
instance to allow petitioner's proposed appeal from its adverse judgment
dismissing plaintiff's complaint, the Court per its resolution of December 22,
1972 required respondents to comment thereon.
Respondents filed on February 8, 1973 an extensive eighteen page
comment and petitioner's counsel, Rodrigo M. Nera, filed on February 12,
1973 a motion for leave to file reply within 15 days from notice alleging
that there was need for such reply "in order that this Honorable Court may
be fully and completely informed of the nature of the controversy which
gave rise to the instant petition." The Court granted such leave per its
resolution of February 23, 1973 and notice of such leave was served on
counsel on February 27, 1973.
On the last day for filing of the reply, viz, March 14, 1973 counsel asked for
an additional 15 days averring that "due to the pressure of urgent
professional work and daily trial engagements of the undersigned counsel
during the original period granted, March 29, 1973 counsel again asked
for still another 15-day extension stating that "due to the pressure of urgent
professional work and daily trial engagements of the undersigned
counsel, he has not had sufficient material time to complete the
preparation of petitioners reply. The counsel explained to the Court that
the reason for the extensions was because of finances.
ISSUE/S: WON counsel violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|59
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make
an appellees brief for Ford
HELD: Yes. Atty. Daitol should be suspended due to his failure to make an
appeallees brief for Ford.
RATIO: In failing to file the appellee's brief on behalf of his client,
respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts
every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exertevery
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
CASE 78: Craig L. Ford vs. Atty. Escolastico Daitol, A.C. No. 3736 November
16, 1995
FACTS: Ford engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Daitol in a
case against the Philippine Commercial International Bank ("PCIB") in the
Regional Trial Court. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of
Ford. PCIB thereupon appealed said judgment to the Court of Appeals
("CA"). After PCIB had filed its appellant's brief, the CA directed Ford to file
his appellee's brief. Despite several inquiries by Ford about the status of
the brief and reminders from him to file the same, Atty. Daitol never filed
the appellee's brief with the CA. CA had issued resolution that the case
was filed without a brief. Ford was aggrieved by this and worried that this
may prejudice him in the case, Ford filed a complaint against Daitol
before IBP and a complaint of disciplinary action before the Court.
Atty. Daitol alleged, in his response to the complaint against him, that
before he could finish the draft of the appellee's brief, Ford allegedly
terminated his services due to "various difficulties and misunderstanding"
between them. Ford denied this allegation stating that he had already
advanced an amount of P600.00 as attorney's fees to Atty. Daitol who
had assured him that he was preparing the appellee's brief. Commission
on Bar Discipline found Atty. Daitol to have been remiss in the
performance of his duties as counsel of Ford. Daitol was particularly
faulted for his failure to secure a written discharge from Ford before
considering himself relieved of his duty to file the appellee's brief. The case
went to the Supreme Court for Decision.
After careful consideration of the records of the case, the court finds that
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper. The Court
agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the performance
of his duties as counsel for complainant. A lawyer engaged to represent a
client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest
with utmost diligence.
CASE 79: Bergonia v. Merrera
FACTS: Arsenia Bergonia filed a case for the quieting of title against her
niece Josephine Bergonia, as well as the Paraynos. After due trial, the RTC
of Urdaneta ruled in favour of the Parayno. The CA affirmed the ruling of
the trial court and the decision became final and executory. Since the
disputed land was still in the possession of the complainant, the Paraynos
instituted a civil case to recover its possession. After due trial RTC ordered
Bergonia to vacate the premises and to surrender possession thereof to
the Paraynos. Thereafter, complainant appealed the RTC judgement to
the CA. Respondent, as counsel, received a Notice of File Brief on
December 17, 1997. Acting on his Motion for extension, the CA granted
him until March 17, 1998. Even before the extension had lapsed, he again
filed an Urgent Second Motion for extension to file brief, the CA again
granted the motion. Eventually, the deadline, which had already been
extended twice, lapsed without his filing the appellants brief. CA
dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Merrerra is guilty of inexcusable negligence
HELD: Yes, Atty. Merrera is found guilty for violating Canons 12 and 18 of
the Canons of Professional Responsibility and is Suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|60
RATIO: Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A
lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for his failure to do so." A lawyer who requests an
extension must do so in good faith and with a genuine intent to file the
required pleading within the extended period. In granting the request, the
court acts on the presumption that the applicant has a justifiable reason
for failing to comply with the period allowed. Without this implied trust, the
motion for extension will be deemed to be a mere ruse to delay or thwart
the appealed decision. The motion will thus be regarded as a means of
preventing the judgment from attaining finality and execution and of
enabling the movant to trifle with procedure and mock the administration
of justice.
CASE 80: Edrial v. Quilat-Quilat
FACTS: Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao - all surnamed
Quilat-Quilat -- filed an action for recovery of a parcel of land against
Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr., Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean - all surnamed Edrial -- and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 6315 and raffled to Branch 39 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City.
The CA dismissed petitioners' appeal because, in issuing the questioned
Orders, the trial judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction. In giving petitioners more than ample time to
complete their presentation of evidence and in granting their Motions for
Postponement, the judge was accommodating them more than they
actually deserved.
ISSUE/S: WON the CA erred in denying the petitioners prayer due to their
inexcusable delay.
HELD: No.
RATIO: Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The CA
ruled that petitioners were given "more than enough time" to complete
their presentation of evidence. Respondents rested their case as early as
September 1992. Petitioners' lawyer, at his own request, was allowed to
start presenting evidence only on April 12, 1993. From that day until April
26, 1996 or for a period of three years, counsel presented only two
witnesses. The trial judge was in fact liberal in granting petitioners' Motions
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|61
There is no reason why the decision would have been served on some
other counsel if there were no such misinformation, if there were no such
attempt to mislead. It is one thing to exert to the utmost ones ability to
protect the interest of ones client and it is another thing to take
advantage of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create one, to delay
if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable,
especially so, when as in this case, the oblige is a necessitous and povertystricken man suffering from a dreaded disease, that unfortunately afflicts
so many of our countrymen.
CASE 82: Spouses Aguilar vs the Manila Banking Corporation
FACTS:This is a case regarding how the execution of a final judgment was
forestalled by the perpetual dilatory tactics employed by the litigant, and
makes a blatant mockery of justice. These series of actions originated from
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property by the Manila Banking
Corporation because of the petitioners failure to pay their loan of Php
600,000.00. The following are the procedural antecedents:
1.
On May 30 1983, the petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of
the foreclosure sale of the property before the RTC instead of redeeming
the property. This resulted to the parties entering into a compromise
agreement. However, the petitioners failed to pay the balance and the
respondent filed for a motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to enforce
the earlier decision.
2.
The petitioner filed a Manifestation praying for the deferment of
the enforcement of the execution because according to them, they have
a pending proposal for the settlement of their debt. No settlement was
reached by the parties however during the deferment period. A year and
4 months later, the petitioners were still unable to pay.
3.
The respondent filed again for a Motion to Recall the Courts
Order claiming that their obligation was novated by the Letter. The
respondents contend however that the said letter did not novate the
obligation, rather it was just an accommodation for the more liberal terms
of payment for the petitioners.
4.
The respondents prayed then for the resolution of pending
incidents. The petitioners filed their Opposition claiming that Section 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court bars the execution, by mere motions, of
judgment which is more than 5 years old. The respondent argued that the
circumstances of their cases should allow them to be exempted from the
said rule, specifically because it was the petitioners who caused the delay
5.
The petitioners filed on March 6, 2001 in the RTC an Omnibus
Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. The RTC denied the said Motion.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|62
ISSUE/S: Did the counsel abuse the judicial process and should be held
liable?
HELD: the court cannot countenance, and in fact, condemns, the
outrageous abuse of judicial process by the petitioners and their counsel.
Without a doubt, the present case is an instance where the due process
routine vigorously pursued by the petitioners is but clear- cut devise meant
to perpetually forestall execution of an otherwise final and executory
decision. Aside from clogging the court dockets, the strategy is
deplorable a common course resorted to by losing litigants in the hope of
evading manifest obligations.
RATIO:The Court reminds the counsel of the duty of the lawyers who, as
officers of the court, must see to it that the orderly administration must not
be unduly impeded. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client,
ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit
or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless,
then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit,
rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims
and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. A
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his
client; its primacy is indisputable.
CASE 83: The United States vs. Leoncio Ballena, G.R. No. L-6294 February
10, 1911
FACTS: Ana Ramirez was charged with the crime of perjury, and was
consequently found guilty thereof. The basis of the prosecution was the
false testimony given by Ana in a certain criminal case, wherein she
testified under oath before the fiscal, Seor Bailon, that the accused in
that case caused the death of her husband by means of blows inflicted
by him. However, during the trial of said case she testified that her
husband died of illness.
During the trial of this perjury case, Anas mother, Estefania Barruga, stood
witness for herein defendant Leoncio Ballena. Under the latters
instigation, Barruga testified that the fiscal, Bailon, at the time he was
making his investigation into the cause of death of Anas husband,
attempted to rape her daughter and asked for the hand of the girl in
marriage, which she refused for he was a married man.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|63
The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the
balance of P11, 574.33, with interest at 7% per annum from August 1, 1930.
Uy Teng Piao alleged that he waived his right to redeem the land
described in the TCT of the first parcel of land, in consideration of an
understanding between him and the bank that it would not collect from
him the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground that the trial court
absolved Uy Teng Piao from the complaint.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there is an agreement between Uy Teng Piao and the bank not
to collect from him the remainder of the judgment
2. WON the appearance of one of the lawyers of PNB as a witness is
recognized
HELD:
1. None. Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove that there was an agreement.
2. No. He must not testify as a witness for his client, unless it is necessary as
provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility
RATIO:Uy Teng Piao has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part
of the bank not to collect from him the remainder of the judgment. The
alleged agreement rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of the
defendant. When asked on cross-examination if Pecson was not in Iloilo at
the time of the execution of Uy Teng Piao's waiver of his right to redeem,
he answered that he did not know; asked when Pecson had spoken to
him about the matter, he replied that he did not remember.
One of the attorneys for PNB testified that Uy Teng Piao renounced his
right to redeem the parcel of land in Calle Ronquillo, because his friend
(Mariano Santos) was interested in buying it. The bank ought to have
presented Pecson as a witness, or his deposition if he was not residing in
Manila at the time of the trial.
With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, although the law
does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an
attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a
witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the
active management of the case.
Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics:When a lawyer is a witness for his
client, except as to merely formal matters, such as the attestation or
custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave the trial of the case
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|64
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|65
of Pangasinan. Pedro Bravo was ordered to vacate the lands and pay the
plaintiffs damages only with respect to the land located at Bayambang.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for the immediate execution of the judgment
which motion was granted by respondent Judge Masaquel and, upon
the plaintiffs' having posted a surety bond in the sum of P2,000.00, the
sheriff placed them in possession of the lands located at San Carlos.
Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, a former assistant or associate of Judge Masaquel,
when the latter was still in the practice of law before his appointment to
the bench, entered his appearance as the new counsel for defendant
Pedro Bravo. Through Atty. Sicat, Bravo then filed a supersedeas bond to
stay the execution of the judgment, which was later on granted by Judge
Masaquel. Austria had asked for the appointment of a receiver over the
parcel of land located at Bayambang, which prayer was granted by
Judge Masaquel, but upon the filing of a bond by Bravo for the nonappointment of a receiver, the order receivership was set aside. Pending
the approval of the defendant's amended record on appeal, Atty. Sicat
filed a motion for new trial. Judge Masaquel granted the said motion. The
hearing on the retrial was finally set.
Before the opening of the court's session, Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel
for Austria and his co-plaintiffs, saw Judge Masaquel in his chamber and
verbally transmitted to him the request of Austria that he (the Judge)
inhibit himself from further hearing the case upon the ground that the new
counsel for the defendant, Atty. Mariano C. Sikat, was his former
associate. Judge Masaquel, however, rejected the request because,
according to him, the reason for the request of his inhibition is not one of
the grounds for disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules of
Court. Judge called Domingo Austria, and inquired from the latter if it was
true that he asked his lawyer Atty. Macaraeg to approach the Judge in
chambers and to ask him to disqualify himself from trying this case
because defendant's lawyer, Atty. Sicat was formerly associated with the
said Judge. Austria was also asked if he has lost faith in the sense of
fairness and justice of the Presiding Judge of this Court simply because of
Judge Masaquels former association with the defendant's lawyer.
Domingo Austria answered both in the affirmative. Judge Masaquel
declared said plaintiff Domingo Austria in direct contempt of court and he
was ordered to pay a fine of P50.00.
Petitioner Domingo Austria, accordingly, paid the fine of P50.00 under
protest. He filed this instant petition for certiorari before this Court.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|66
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|67
FACTS: Manuel Monroy was killed in 1953 and a number of persons were
accused of such killing. These persons were found guilty sentenced to the
penalty of death. They all appealed. Pending the appeal, President
Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case which was conducted
by the intelligence agents of the Philippine Constabulary and investigators
of Malacanang. The result of the reinvestigation also points to the
convicted persons as the real killers of Monroy.
The counsel of the defendants wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct a
reinvestigation of the case on the basis of the affidavits and confessions
obtained by the investigator of Malacanang which was made available
to him. Salva formed a committee composed of himself as the chairman
and two assistant city attorneys. Salva subpoenaed Cruz to appear at his
office for the investigation.
Atty. Baizas, counsel of Cruz, questioned the jurisdiction of the committee
to conduct the investigation considering that the case was pending
appeal in SC. Salva contended that he subpoenaed Cruz et al because
of their request to do so and that were it not for his request, he would not
conduct the investigation. Although Cruz denied having made such
request, the SC believed that he indeed made a request of
reinvestigation.
However, the Supreme Court was interested in the manner to which the
investigation headed by Salva was conducted. The investigation was
made not in Salvas office but in the session hall of the Municipal Trial
Court to accommodate a big crowd that wanted to witness the
proceeding, including members of the press. Microphones were installed.
There were reporters everywhere and photographers were busy taking
pictures.
ISSUE: W/N Salva violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. The way Salva conducted the investigation is reprehensible. He
publicized and sensationalized the case. He committed what was regard
a grievous error and poor judgment. His actuations went well beyond the
bounds of prudence, discretion, and good taste. Salva was publicly
reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and
sensationalism he had given to and allowed in connection with his
investigation which is considered and found to be contempt of court.
CASE 89: Eduardo L. Martelino, et. al. vs. Jose Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894,
March 25, 1970
FACTS: This case presents another aspect of the court-martial proceedings
against the petitioner, Major Eduardo Martelino, alias Abdul Latif
Martelino, of the AFP, and the officers and men under him, for violation of
the Articles of War, as a result of the alleged shooting of some Muslim
recruits then undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor.
At the hearing, petitioner Martelino sought the disqualification of the
President of the general court-martial, following the latter's admission that
he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident which had come to
be referred to as the "Corregidor massacre". The petitioner's counsel
referred to a news item appearing in the July 29, 1969 issue of the Daily
Mirror and cited other news reports to the effect that "coffins are being
prepared for the President (of the Philippines) in Jolo," that according to
Senator Aquino "massacre victims were given sea burial," and that
Senator Magsaysay, opposition Vice President candidate, had gone to
Corregidor and "found bullet shells." In addition the petitioners cite in this
Court a Manila Times editorial of August 26, 1969 which states that "The
Jabidah [code name of the training operations] issue was bound to come
up in the course of the election campaign. The opposition could not
possibly ignore an issue that is heavily loaded against the administration."
The petitioners argue that the case had received such an amount of
publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being
exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential election
as to imperil his right to a fair trial. The petitioners further allege that the
adverse publicity given in the mass media to the Corregidor incident,
coupled with the fact that it became an issue against the administration
in the 1969 elections, was such as to unduly influence the members of the
court-martial. In support of their contention they invoke the rulings of the
United States Supreme Court in Irvin v. Dowd, Rideau vs. Louisiana, Estes v.
Texas, and Shepard v. Maxwell.
In their answer, the respondents as members of the general court-martial
assert that despite the publicity which the case had received, no proof
has been presented showing that the court-martial's president's fairness
and impartiality have been impaired.
ISSUE/S: WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was
such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|68
HELD: No. The spate of publicity did not focus on the guilt of the
petitioners.
RATIO: Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against
a party.
An examination of the cases cited, however, will show that they are
widely disparate from this case in a fundamental sense.
In Irvin, for instance, the Supreme Court found that shortly after the
petitioner's arrest in connection with six murders committed, the
prosecutor and police officials issued press releases stating that the
petitioner had confessed to the six murders and that "a barrage of
newspaper headlines articles, cartoons and pictures was unleashed
against him during the six or seven months preceding his trial." Irvin marks
the first time a state conviction was struck down solely on the ground of
prejudicial publicity.
In the earlier case of Shepherd v. Florida, which involved elements of
publicity, the reversal of the conviction was based solely on racial
discrimination in the selection of the jury, "It is hard to imagine a more
prejudicial influence than a press release by the officer of the court
charged with defendants' custody stating that they had confessed, and
here just such a statement unsworn to, unseen, uncross-examined and
uncontradicted, was conveyed by the press to the jury.
In Rideau, the petitioner, suspect in the robbery of a bank and in the
kidnapping of three of its employees, and in the killing of one of them, was
similarly given "trial by publicity." Thus, the day after his arrest, a moving
picture film was taken of him in an "interview" with the sheriff. The
"interview," consisted of interrogation by the sheriff and admission by
Rideau that he had perpetrated the bank robbery, kidnapping and
murder. The interview was seen and heard on television by 24,000 people.
His lawyers promptly moved for a change of venue but their motion was
denied and Rideau was convicted and sentenced to death to the
spectacle of Rideau personally confessing in detail to the crimes with
which he was later to be charged.
In the third case, Estes, the Court voided a televised criminal trial for being
inherently a denial of due process. The state ... says that the use of
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|69
(Yung case na nilagay ko, MAGLASANG vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 90083
October 4, 1990)
FACTS: On June 22, 1989, a petition for certiorari entitled "Khalyxto Perez
Maglasang vs. People of the Philippines, Presiding Judge, Ernesto B.
Templado (San Carlos City Court) Negros Occidental," was filed by
registered mail with the Court. Due to non-compliance with the
requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, specifically the nonpayment of P316.50 for the legal fees and the non-attachment of the
duplicate originals or duly certified true copies of the questioned decision
and orders of the respondent judge denying the motion for
reconsideration, the Court dismissed the petition on July 26, 1989.
On September 9, 1989, Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano, as counsel of the
petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the
petition. This time, the amount of P316.50 was remitted and the Court was
furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision, and
also the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his membership
dues. The motion for reconsideration did not contain the duplicate
original or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Thus, in a Resolution
dated October 18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was denied "with
FINALITY."
Three months later, or on January 22, 1990 to be exact, the Court received
from Atty. Castellano a copy of a complaint dated December 19, 1989,
filed with the Office of the President of the Philippines whereby Khalyxto
Perez Maglasang, through his lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant,
accused all the five Justices of the Court's Second Division with "biases
and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or
resolution."
The complaint was signed by Atty. Castellano "for the complainant" with
the conformity of one Calixto B. Maglasang, allegedly the father of
accused-complainant Khalyxto. By reason of the strong and intemperate
language of the complaint and its improper filing with the Office of the
President, which, as he should know as a lawyer, has no jurisdiction to
discipline, much more, remove, Justices of the Supreme Court, on
February 7, 1990, Atty. Castellano was required to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for
improper conduct.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|70
this Court then that he was misled into assuming that he had also likewise
taken the necessary steps to file a motion for extension of time for the
submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the resolution from the
Court of Appeals granting him such extension.
ISSUE/S: WON violated the Canon 14.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: Yes. The respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RATIO: Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent did offer. By his own
confession, he was woefully negligent. Considering that the accused is
fighting for his life, the least that could be expected of a counsel de
oficio is awareness of the period within which he was required to file
appellant's brief. The mere fact that according to him his practice was
extensive, requiring his appearance in courts in Manila and environs as
well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga, should not have
lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his
responsibility. What is worse is that by sheer inattention, he would confuse
the proceedings in a matter pending before the Court of Appeals with this
present case. Such grave neglect of duty is deserving of severe
condemnation. It is clearly unworthy of membership in the Bar which
requires dedication and zeal in the defense of his client's rights, a duty
even more exacting when one is counsel de oficio. On such an occasion,
the honor and respect to which the legal profession is entitled demand
the strictest accountability of one called upon to defend an impoverished
litigant. He who falls in his obligation then has manifested a diminished
capacity to be enrolled in its ranks.
CASE 92: The United States vs. Calixto Laranja, G.R. No. 6789, February 16,
1912
FACTS: Calixto and four or five companions went to the house of one
Candoy one night and that a quarrel and fight ensued there which
resulted in the death of Candoy and Ando.
Criminal complaints were filed against appellant Calixto and one Iyon,
charging them with the crime of homicide.
When the case against Calixto was called, a certain agreement with
reference to admitting the testimony taken in the case against Iyon was
entered into by counsel for the defendant and the provincial fiscal. This
agreement, was as follows:
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|71
Counsel de oficio, Mr. Lozano, stated that he would submit the case and it
was within the knowledge of the court, that he had been present all
during the trial, assisting the fiscal in the case against Iyon and that
Laranja had been present and heard all the testimony in the case against
Iyon, and that he was willing for the record in the case against Iyon to be
used in the trial of this case. The fiscal agreed to this, and the defendant,
after being sworn, went upon the stand.
Again, if the lawyer had been appointed before the trial of Iyon, he could
have consulted with Calixto and obtained from him all the facts about
how the killing occurred, and the defense of this appellant.
The case was submitted upon the testimony of the appellant and that
taken in the case against Iyon.
Counsel for the defendant now insists that the trial court erred in admitting
the testimony taken in the Iyon case.
Viewed from any standpoint, there was an opportunity for the attorney to
have acted in double capacity. The appearance of such injustice to
clients must be avoided. Courts will give approval in no agree to the
conduct of Mr. Lozano. He should have called the attention of the trial
court to these facts, and the court would then no doubt have relieved
him as attorney de oficio for the appellant.
On the other hand, the Attorney-General insists that no such error was
committed for the reason, as he says, that the defendant waived his right
to be confronted with and to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Lozano could legally represent Calixto t in the court
below.
HELD: It must be borne in mind that Atty. Lozano was appointed by the
court to represent Calixto.This method is followed in order to divide the
work equally among the attorneys, and we see no objection to such a
method. But generally, the attorney appointed is not selected by the
defendant, who is given no choice in the matter. The defendant must
accept whosoever is designated.
If the attorney was appointed after the Iyon case was closed, he would
have had no reason, of course, for developing the testimony in the case
against Iyon which would have aided the defense of the appellant.
Public policy prohibits him from defending the appellant under these
circumstances; the reason for this prohibition is found in the relation of
attorney and client, which is one of confidence and trust in the very
highest degree. An attorney becomes familiar with all the facts
connected with his client's cause. He learns from his client the weak points
of the case as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be
considered scared and guarded with great care.
We believe there are sufficient reasons in this case under the facts and
circumstances as presented to hold that Mr. Lozano was disqualified and
could not legally represent the defendant in the court below.
The judgment appealed from must be set aside and a new trial ordered.
CASE 93: People v. Felipe Malunsing, et. al., and Manuel Villegas (1975)
The record in the Iyon case shows that there was no attempt on the part
of Attorney Lozano to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the
defendant in that case from the viewpoint of the defense in the case at
bar. The record does not disclose whether Mr. Lozano was appointed to
represent this appellant before or after the trial of Iyon.
FACTS: There was a hearing for the crime of murder, with several accused,
including Manuel Villegas, the appellant in this case. They were all found
guilty of murder. However, Manuel Villegas claims that his constitutional
right to be heard by counsel was violated. He now seeks reversal of the
decision convicting him for murder.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|72
court then said that it was appointing Atty. Pajarito as Manuels counsel
de officio, and as such, they can proceed with the trial. The court also
asked Atty. Pajarito if he wanted an hour or so to confer with Manuel.
However, Atty. Pajarito simply said, I think I know the case. So, the court
proceeded with the trial.
When the court rendered a decision, it noted that it was only Manuel who
did not present any witness nor took the witness stand for himself. It was
alleged in the present petition for review of the decision that during the
trial, Manuel did not understand what was going on. Manuel is
uneducated. The court did not even bother to see to it that Manuel is
substantially receiving his right to counsel, nor did the court inquire why of
all the accused, it was only Manuel who did not present witnesses or
evidence, and why did he not testify on the witness stand.
ISSUE/S: WON the constitutional right of Manuel as accused was violated
because of the conduct of his counsel de officio, Atty. Pajarito
HELD: Yes, it was violated. The court has decided to set aside the lower
courts decision finding him guilty of murder, and orders a re-trial, this time,
with direct orders to make sure that all the safeguards and protection an
accused is entitled to be made available to Manuel
RATIO: First, on the part of the trial court, it is not enough that, in order to
secure the accuseds right to counsel, a counsel de officio was
appointed. Manuel had manifested that he wanted a lawyer of his own
choice, because perhaps he had lost confidence in Atty. Pajarito.
Second, on the part of Atty. Pajarito, there is no respect for the right of the
accused to be heard by counsel when he (Pajarito) said I think I know
the case. He did not even availed of the opportunity to confer with the
client. Instead of conferring with the accused, Pajarito just blithely inform
the judge that he was already fully prepared for his exacting responsibility.
It was unintended, of course, but the result could not rightly be
distinguished from pure travesty.
Manuel is therefore entitled to a new trial where he can be duly
represented either by a counsel of his choice or by one appointed de
officio, one who would discharge his task in a much more diligent and
conscientious manner and would not readily assume that he need not
bother himself unduly with familiarizing himself further with all aspects of
the case. Only in such way there could be an intelligent defense for the
accused.
Note: The court did not impose any disciplinary action on Atty. Pajarito,
but simply ordered a new trial. The court also made no reference to
Canon 14.02 (under which this case was assigned, in our syllabus),
because this case was decided in 1975, but the Code of Professional
Responsibility was promulgated only in 1988.
CASE 94: PEOPLE v. DAENG
FACTS:On or about 13 December 1970, in the New Bilibid Prison in
Muntinlupa the accused/respondents George Daeng, Conrado Bautista,
Gerardo Abubin and Rolando Castillo while the confined at the said
institutiion, conspiring, confederating and acting together and each
armed with improvised deadly weapons did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault and wound therewith one Basilio Beltran,
another convicted prisoner serving final sentence in the same institution. In
the process of serving breakfast to the respondents, inflicting upon Beltran
multiple stab wounds, while then unarmed and unable to defend himself
from the attack launched by the respondents and as a result Beltran died
instantly.
On 28 June 1971 the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge but
before the trial was adjourned to another date, the trial judge addressed
them that he understands that the respondents are confused and not
ready to plead guilty therefore giving them 24 hours for sole searching.
By the virtue of the crime that was committed, there is no alternative
except to impose death penalty which is the maximum penalty. Therefore
on the following day, the 4 respondents pleaded guilty assisted by their
counsel de oficio. The trial judge forthwith dictated and promulgated his
decision in open court and all 4 respondents were sentenced to death.
In the review of this case on automatic appeal, the Solicitor General
found that the records do not show that it was explained to the
respondents the full import and meaning of their plea of guilty not did it
conduct any inquiry to remove all reasonable possibility that said
respondents might have entered their plea of guilty improvidently or
without clear and precise understanding of the exact nature of the
charge preferred against them and the import of an inevitable conviction
thereof.it was also observed that when the respondents entered the plea
of guilty, the trial court rendered the decision without requiring the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|73
presentation of evidence.it was also found that the counsel de oficio was
appointed to at least three criminal cases where the respondents plea of
not guilty is changed to guilty.
ISSUE/S:WON the conviction should be set aside
HELD: Yes. The case is remanded to the court of origin for a new
arraignment of the respondents.
RATIO: Courts are cautioned for frequent appointment of the same
attorney for counsel de oficio for two basic reasons: (1) it is unfair to the
attorney concerned, considering the burden of his regular practice that
he should be saddled with too many de ofio cases (2) the compensation
provided for by section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court might be
considered by som e lawyers as a regular source of income, something
which the rule does not envision.the accused also stands to suffer
because the overburned counsel would have too little time to spare for his
de oficio cases and also would be inordinately eager to finish such cases
in order to collect his fees within the earliest possible time.
CASE 95: Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco
FACTS : Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an
accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On
October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his
duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de
parte. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as
counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed
a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the
Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted
this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE/S: WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio
due to appointment as Election Registrar.
HELD : No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of
fidelity to the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have
known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal
profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|74
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|75
In March 1998, the court referred the disbarment complaint to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation. IBP Commissioner Lydia
Navarro issued a Report and the IBP Board of Governors released a
Resolution, both of which found the complaint meritorious and suspended
Atty. Marino from the practice of law until he can give the detailed
accounting of the questioned remittances.
In May 1999, the Regional Director issued an Order for the expulsion of
Atty. Marino and the other officers and directors. In March 2000, the
Bureau of Labor Relations set aside the Order because there was full and
adequate accounting of the P42M allotment, but also directed the
distribution of the P4.2M among the faculty members. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The
decision is appealed to the Supreme Court.
In September 2002, the detailed Report and Recommendation of IBP
Commissioner Navarro and the IBP Resolution lifted Atty. Marinos
suspension for sufficiently accounting for the funds.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Marino violated Canon 15, among other laws found in
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Marino violated Canon 15, among other laws found in the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is reprimanded for his misconduct
with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him
upon repetition of the same act.
RATIO: Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
Canon 15 requires a lawyer to have a bigger dose of service-oriented
conscience and a little less of self-interest. A lawyer or any other person
occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly
disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his
custody for management. The rule stands on the moral obligation to
refrain from placing oneself in positions that ordinarily excite conflict
between self-interest and integrity.
Necessarily, a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or
any proceeding against a party even with the client's consent after the
lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|76
RATIO: The mere fact that respondent had acted as counsel for Benito
Bolisay in the action for specific performance should have precluded
respondent from acting or appearing as counsel for the other side in the
subsequent petition for cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of
the spouses Generosa and Benito Bolisay.
This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner
from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from
unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. It is founded on principles
of public policy, on good taste.
The absence of monetary consideration does not exempt the lawyer from
complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a conflict of
interest exists.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|77
counsel for both parties. Ocampo prepared the answer in the said
ejectment case and made Tiana sign a Compromise Agreement without
the latter reading it. Two years after, Tiana was shocked when she
received an order to vacate the property subject of the ejectment suit.
With regards to the second case, the complainants the Angel Spouses
allege that sometime in 1972, they sold their house in favour of the same
Mrs. Blaylock in the first case, for the amount of P70,000. Ocampo acted
as their counsel and prepared the Deed of Sale of a Residential House
and Waiver of Rights Over a Lot. The Angel spouses then bought another
parcel of land, to which Ocampo again prepared the Deed of Sale.
Ocampo allegedly made the Angel spouses sign two or more documents
which, accordingly, were made parts of the sale transaction. The spouses
then learned because of a complaint against them that the two
documents were a Real Estate Mortgage and a Promissory Note, both in
favour of Blaylock.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interests?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interests.
RATIO: Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, A
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The act of
Ocampo of representing both Tiana and Blaylock in the first case and
again representing the Angel spouses and Blaylock in the second cases
constitutes a violation of Rule 15.03 against conflict of interest.
The test of the conflict of interest in disciplinary cases against a lawyer is
whether or not the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof.
Ocampo is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
CASE 100: Benedicto Hornilla, et. al. vs. Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat, A.C. No.
5804, July 1, 2003
FACTS: An SEC Case was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of
Directors. Atty. Ernesto Salunat admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he
is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he
appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in
the said case. Benedicto Hornilla contend that Atty. Ernesto Salunat was
guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of
which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its
corporate funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being
told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused
to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Ernesto Salunat is guilty of conflict of interest
HELD: Yes. Rule15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
In other jurisdictions, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer
represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably
gives rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of the corporate client is
paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual
corporate officials. The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon
us. After due deliberation on the wisdom of this doctrine, we are
sufficiently convinced that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a
corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board
of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be
tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
CASE 101: Robert Victor G. Seares, Jr. vs. Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. GonzalesAlzate, Adm. Case No. 9058, November 14, 2012
FACTS:Respondent Atty. Gonzales-Azalte is the former lawyer of
complainant Seares Jr. Seares Jr. ran for position of Municipal Mayor of
Dolores, Abra in May 2007 and lost, then respondent lawyer filed a protest
in the RTC on behalf of complainant but was dismissed for being Fatally
Defective. Respondent lawyer again filed the protest ibn the RTC and
was dismissed for being time barred and on ground of forum shopping.
Complainant ran again for the same position on May 2010 and won.
Later he learned that his opponents retained Respondent lawyer as their
counsel and one Turqueza charged complainant with abuse of authority,
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|78
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|79
consel is different from the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the
Gatcheco spouses.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Marcelino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: Yes. Atty. Marcelino is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RATIO: The Court finds Atty. Marcelino guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not
only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice. The representation
of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of
interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this
Court cannot allow. Atty. Marcelino is Fined and given a Stern Warning.
CASE 103: Regala v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines instituted a Complaint before the
Sandiganbayan (SB), through the Presidential Commission on Good Govt
(PCGG) against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal
defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes
shares of stocks in the named corps. in PCGG Case No. 33 (CC No. 0033)
entitled "RP vs. Eduardo Cojuangco, et al." Among the defendants named
in the case are herein petitioners and herein private respondent Raul S.
Roco, who all were then partners of the law firm Angara, Abello,
Concepcion, Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law Offices. ACCRA Law Firm
performed legal services for its clients and in the performance of these
services, the members of the law firm delivered to its client documents
which substantiate the client's equity holdings. In the course of their
dealings with their clients, the members of the law firm acquire information
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|80
attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege generally pertains to the
subject matter of the relationship. Finally, due process considerations
require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary. "A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent
is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces.
The general rule is, however, qualified by some important exception. 1)
Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing
the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity for which
he sought the lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure would open the client
to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3) Where the government's lawyers
have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's
name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain
of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the client's
name is privileged.
Vitug, J., Concurring Opinion:
The legal profession, despite all the unrestrained calumny hurled against it,
is still the noblest of professions. It exists upon the thesis that, in an orderly
society that is opposed to all forms of anarchy, it so occupies, as it should,
an exalted position in the proper dispensation of justice. In time, principles
have evolved that would help ensure its effective ministration. The
protection of confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship is one, and it
has since been an accepted firmament in the profession. It allows the
lawyer and the client to institutionalize a unique relationship based on full
trust and confidence essential in a justice system that works on the basis of
substantive and procedural due process. To be sure, the rule is not
without its pitfalls, and demands against it may be strong, but these
problems are, in the ultimate analysis, no more than mere tests of vigor
that have made and will make that rule endure.
Davide, J., Dissening Opinion
The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a
cause to exclude a party. It is merely a ground for disqualification of a
witness (Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court) and may only be invoked at the
appropriate time, i.e., when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer as
witness, as when, having taken the witness stand, he is questioned as to
such confidential communication or advice, or is being otherwise
judicially coerced to produce, through subpoenae duces tecum or
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|81
Section 19 (e) of Rule 127 imposes upon an attorney the duty "to maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client." There is no law or provision in the Rules of Court
prohibiting attorneys in express terms from acting on behalf of both parties
to a controversy whose interests are opposed to each other, but such
prohibition is necessarily implied in the injunctions above quoted. (In re De
la Rosa, 27 Phil., 258.) In fact the prohibition derives validity from sources
higher than written laws and rules. As has been aptly said in In re Merron,
22 N. M., 252, L.R.A., 1917B, 378, "information so received is sacred to the
employment to which it pertains," and "to permit it to be used in the
interest of another, or, worse still, in the interest of the adverse party, is to
strike at the element of confidence which lies at the basis of, and affords
the essential security in, the relation of attorney and client."
It was argued that only copies of pleadings already filed in court were
furnished to attorney Agrava and that, this being so, no secret
communication was transmitted to him by the plaintiff. This would not vary
the situation even if we should discard Mrs. Hilados statement that
papers, personal and private in character, were turned by her.
Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of
attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the
opposite partys retainer in the same litigation regardless of what
information was received by him from his first client.
CASE 105: Mercado vs. Atty. Virtolo
FACTS: Herein complainant is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the
Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards. The
respondent on the other hand, is a Deputy Executive Director of CHED.
Complainants husband filed a Civil Case for the annulment of their
marriage with the RTC of Pasig, which was dismissed by the TC and the
dismissal thereof was final and executory on July 15,1992. In August 1992
however, the counsel of complainant died and on February 1994,
respondent entered his appearance before the trial court as
collaborating counsel for complainant. He also informed the RTC that he
has been appointed as counsel for the complainant. It also appears that
respondent filed criminal cases against complainant for allegedly
falsifying the birth certificates of her children.
Consequently, complainant filed other charges against respondent that
are pending before or decided upon by other tribunals including a libel
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|82
suit, administrative case for dishonesty and grave misconduct, and the
violation of R.A. 6713 also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and employees before the SB. Complainant
Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for falsification of public
document disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil
case for annulment, then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her
counsel. This prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action against
respondent claiming that, in filing the criminal case for falsification,
respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyerclient relationship, and should be disbarred.
Respondent maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint for
falsification of public documents against complainant does not violate
the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client
because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth
which are public documents and in no way connected with the
confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel. In
February 9, 2000, the Court referred the AM to the IBP for investigation. The
hearings were set but complainant failed to attend both. On June 21,
2003, the Board approved the report of investigating commissioner and
finding the respondent guilty for violating the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and client. However, complainant,
upon learning of the punishment, issued a desistance letter and explicitly
forgives respondent.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent violated the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case against his
former client.
HELD: No.
RATIO: The Court held that in engaging the services of an attorney, the
client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their
relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The
relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is
required by necessity and public interest. Thus, the preservation and
protection of that relation will encourage a client to entrust his legal
problems to an attorney, which is of paramount importance to the
administration of justice. The communication made by a client to his
attorney must not be intended for mere information, but for the purpose
of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights or obligations.
Furthermore, the communication must have been transmitted by a client
to his attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Complainant did
not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by
respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked
specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged
communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for
falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint
disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by
respondent. Complainant did not even specify the alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims
were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that
respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he
instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public
documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the
civil case for annulment then handled by respondent.
CASE 106: Donald Dee vs CA and Amelito Mutuc
FACTS: The petitioner and his father went to the residence of the
respondent to seek the latters advice regarding the problem of the
alleged indebtedness of the petitioners brother, Dewey Dee, to Ceasars
Palace, a well-known casino in Las Vegas. His services were reportedly
contracted for php 100,000.00. Because of the respondents work, the said
indebtedness was answered by Ramon Sy. He brought to the Casino the
letter of Ramon Sy owning the said debt.
Having settled this account of the petitioners brother, the private
respondent sent several demand letters to the petitioner for the balance
of Php50,000.00 as attorneys fees. The petitioner ignored the letter and
this caused the respondent to file a complaint against the petitioner in the
RTC of Makati.
The petitioner contends that there was no lawyer-client relationship
existing between them and their engagement was merely informal. The
first half of the 100,000php that was given by the petitioners were not
attorneys fees but were just pocket money. The RTC decided adversely to
the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that at the time
when he was rendering services to the them, he was a consultant and
agent of the Caesars Palace and is therefore representing conflicting
interests. The RTC then reconsidered its decision. The private respondent
filed for the reconsideration of the said decision by the RTC with the Court
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|83
of Appeals and the said court reversed the decision of the RTC. Thus, the
petition.
ISSUE/S: Is the respondent not entitled to receive the other half of his
renumeration because he was representing conflicting interests.
HELD: Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained,
private respondent's role therein was not ethically or legally indefensible.
Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with
contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy
before it reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests
with the consent of the parties. A common representation may work to
the advantage of said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest
motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions,
may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their
differences, being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the
cooperation and confidence of said parties.
RATIO:It is not completely accurate to judge private respondent's position
by petitioner's assumption that the interests of Caesar's Palace were
adverse to those of the petitioners. True, the casino was a creditor but that
fact was not contested or opposed by Dewey Dee, since the latter, as
verifications revealed, was not the debtor. Hence, private respondent's
representations in behalf of petitioner were not in resistance to the
casino's claim but were actually geared toward proving that fact by
establishing the liability of the true debtor, Ramon Sy, from whom
payment was ultimately and correctly exacted.
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable
compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request
of his client and as long as he is honestly in good faith trying to serve and
represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound his just fees.
CASE 107: Alfonso C. Choa, vs. Judge Roberto S. Chiongson, A.M. No. MTJ95-1063 August 9, 1996
FACTS: In a previous case, Atty. Quiroz, counsel for Choa, filed a
complaint against respondent judge for allegedly his bias towards Choas
wife who was his neighbor. The Court dismissed the complaint and
directed Atty. Quiroz to show cause why he no disciplinary action be
taken against him.
In his pleading, which was more of a motion for reconsideration (and must
be noted that such filing of the same was filed beyond the reglementary
period was denied forthwith), he asserts that he never had the intention to
sue or prosecute under any groundless, false, or unlawful suit; that he
assisted the complainant in the honest belief that the latter really had a
cause of action against the Judge Chiongson; that he was only raising the
matter to show that indeed, the Judge Chiongson was being biased due
to such next-door relationship.
The Court interjected that Atty. Quirozs motive was to unduly influence
the course of the appeal in the criminal case of his client by injecting in
the mind of the appellate judge, that indeed, something was definitely
wrong with the appealed decision because the pontente thereof is now
facing a serious administrative complaint.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Quirozs assertion that it was in his honest belief that
his clients had a cause of action may excuse the same from
administrative sanction.
HELD: No. Any criticism against a judge made in the guise of an
administrative complaint which is clearly unfounded and impelled by
ulterior motive will not excuse the lawyer responsible therefor under his
duty of fidelity to the court. Atty. Quiroz is hereby FINED.
RATIO: While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full
devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of law.
He must give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable
results of his clients case with the end in view of promoting respect for the
law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him be just, and such defense only as he
believes to be debatable under the law. (Rule 15.05)
The time of an officer of a court should not be wasted in answering or
defending groundless complaints; every minute of it is precious and must
be reserved for the enhancement of public service.
CASE 108: MERCADO V. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|84
FACTS: On April 22, 1993, spouses Teofilo and Agnes Mercado obtained a
loan of P35M from the Security Bank Corporation. To secure the loan, they
executed in favor of respondent bank a real estate mortgage over their
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 169833. When they
failed to pay the loan, respondent foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially. The spouses filed with the RTC a complaint for declaration of
nullity of extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the grounds of lack of
notice and non-compliance with the publication requirement. In its
decision, the trial court declared that the foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage is void and awarded petitioners P2M by way of moral damages
and attorney's fees. In the same Decision, the trial court granted the
counterclaim and awarded SBC: amount of the loan covered by the Real
Estate Mortgage, percentage of P35M until fully paid as interest, intereston the loan until fully paid, and on the loan and of the interest until fully
paid as penalty.
SBC filed a notice of appeal but it was dismissed by the trial court for its
failure to pay the appeal fee. The spouses did not appeal When the
decision became final and upon the SBC's motion, the trial court issued an
order of execution. Mercados filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied. Spouses filed with the trial court an urgent motion to quash the
notices of levy and the sheriffs sale but it was denied. Hence, the
scheduled execution sale was conducted and the property was sold to
SBC, being the highest bidder. On May 23, 2001, the certificate of sale
issued by the sheriff was registered in the Registry of Deeds. Undaunted,
they filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the trial court's Decision
granting SBC's counterclaim. During its pendency, the trial court issued a
writ of possession in favor of the bank. In their petition, spouses Mercado
alleged, among others, that they were denied their right to due process,
claiming that their failure to appeal from the Decision of the trial court was
due to their former counsel's gross negligence. The CA dismissed the
petition. Spouses filed a 2nd motion for reconsideration but was denied for
being prohibited.
On October 18, 2004, petitioner Mercado wrote Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. stating the inconsistencies of the trial in granting and denying
their petition. They have pointed out his act of calling their counsel, which
Atty. Villanueva had stated that the ponente informed him that she has to
deny their petition on the same ground because of the pressure from the
Chief Justice to favor SBC. Their counsel and the ponente were very close
to each other. It was also very suspicious that after a few days after the
conversation, he and his family left for London, leaving the case to the
care of one of his Associates. Later on, the ponente herself left for
the U.S.A. to visit her children.Before the receipt of the Resolution, denying
their petition on the basis of SBCs unsubstantiated Comment, SBC sold
the spouses property to a corporation and got a permit to demolish
4 buildings erected in their property from the Forbes Park Association,
even if the case is still pending and Motion for Reconsideration with the
Supreme Court has not yet been filed. The buyer already paid the
property because SBC told him that the ponente already had a go-signal
to sell the property. Few days thereafter, all the improvements in our
property were totally demolished by a construction company.
CJ Davide required Mercados lawyer, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to
comment on the letter and show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court. Moreover, the court ordered Mercado to personally
appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
On the scheduled date, Mercado, with Atty. Pablo G. Macapagal, his
new counsel, appeared before the Third Division and swore to the truth of
the letter he wrote. He manifested that he only stated what Atty.
Villanueva told him. He further manifested that during the wake of Atty.
Villanuevas mother, he (Atty. Villanueva) pointed to Justice Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez, bragging that she is a very very good, close and
long time friend of his. However, while stating this, Mercado referred
to Justice Conchita Carpio Morales as Justice Gutierrez. Atty. Villanueva
denied it, as well as the correlation between their trip in London and the
ponentes trip in US.
Justice Dacudao investigated the case and found Mercado guilty of
improper conduct tending to bring the authority and the administration of
justice by the Court into disrespect when he openly belittled, degraded,
and embarrassed the Highest Court of the land, particularly the Chief
Justice; however, has not acted with bad faith/malice
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Villanueva has violated Canon 15.06 of CPR,
stating the influence of a member of the Judiciary to the approval and
dismissal of a petition the case at bar
HELD: Yes. He revealed the information previously stated by Mercado.
Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Atty. Jose P. Villanueva are
declared GUILTY of indirect contempt of court.
RATIO: As for Atty. Villanueva, while Justice Dacudao did not categorically
state that he (Atty. Villanueva) told Mercado that Chief Justice Davide
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|85
name. It was the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer house. When
Jose Nakpil died on July 8, 1973, respondent acted as the legal counsel
and accountant of his widow, complainant IMELDA NAKPIL. On March 9,
1976, respondent's law firm, Carlos J. Valdes & Associates, handled the
proceeding for the settlement of Jose's estate. Complainant was
appointed as administratrix of the estate. The ownership of the Moran
property became an issue in the intestate proceedings. It appears that
respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose's
estate. On February 13, 1978, respondent transferred his title to the Moran
property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation. On March 29,
1979, complainant sought to recover the Moran property by filing with the
then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Baguio City an action for
reconveyance with damages against respondent and his corporation. In
defense, respondent claimed absolute ownership over the property and
denied that a trust was created over it.In this case the atty.s accounting
firm also handles the affairs of the Nakpils. respondent insisted that
complainant cannot hold him liable for representing the interests of both
the estate and the claimants without showing that his action prejudiced
the estate. He urged that it is not per se anomalous for respondent's
accounting firm to act as accountant for the estate and its creditors. He
reiterated that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for he acted
not as lawyer, but as accountant for both the estate and its claimants. He
alleged that his accounting firm merely prepared the list of claims of the
creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN, Inc. Their claims were not defended by
his accounting or law firm but by Atty. Enrique Chan. He averred that his
law firm did not oppose these claims as they were legitimate and not
because they were prepared by his accounting firm. He emphasized that
there was no allegation that the claims were fraudulent or excessive and
that the failure of respondent's law firm to object to these claims
damaged the estate.
ISSUE/S: WON there was conflict of interest and WON the IBP has
jurisdiction since he was acting as accountant not a lawyer.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|86
time, allowing his law firm to represent the estate in the proceedings
where these claims were presented. The act is a breach of professional
ethics and undesirable as it placed respondent's and his law firm's loyalty
under a cloud of doubt. Even granting that respondent's misconduct
refers to his accountancy practice, it would not prevent this Court from
disciplining him as a member of the Bar. The rule is settled that a lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to
his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.Possession of good moral
character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a
continuing requirement to the practice of law. Public confidence in law
and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of
a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by
acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity
of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up
to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as
the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in
nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.In the case at bar,
respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his clients.
CASE 110: Emilia O. Dahiwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing, A.C. No.
9390, August 1, 2012
FACTS: Complainant Dhaliwal engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Dumaguing in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land from FilEstate Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate). Upon the instruction of Atty.
Dumaguing, complainant
Dhaliwals
daughter
and
son-in-law
withdrew P 342,000.00 from the PNB and handed the cash over to Atty.
Dumaguing. They then proceeded to BPI Family Bank Malcolm Square
Branch where Atty. Dumaguing purchased two manager's checks in the
amounts of P 58,631.94 and P 253,188.00 both payable to the order of FilEstate Inc. When asked why the manager's checks were not purchased at
PNB, Atty. Dumaguing explained that he has friends at the BPI Family Bank
and that is where he maintains an account. These manager's checks were
subsequently consigned with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) after Dhaliwals request to suspend payments to Fil-Estate had
been granted. Atty. Dumaguing, on behalf of Dhaliwal, filed with the
HLURB a complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate.
After a week, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew the two manager's checks that
were previously consigned. Dhaliwal informed the HLURB through a letter
that Atty. Dumaguing was no longer representing her. HLURB promulgated
its Decision, adverse to complainant, finding the case for delivery of title
and damages premature as there was no evidence of full payment of the
purchase price. Thereafter, Dhaliwal made demands upon Atty.
Dumaguing to return and account to her the amounts previously
consigned with the HLURB. Atty. Dumaguing did not comply. Thus,
Dhaliwal prays that Atty. Dumaguing be disbarred.
In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it
not proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion
for reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it.
Atty. Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion for reconsideration.
The Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Dumaguing violated Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It also found respondent to
have submitted a false and fabricated piece of documentary evidence,
the Motion for Reconsideration. The Commission recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year. IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting with
modification the Commission's Report and Recommendation.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. He violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
RATIO: Atty. Dumaguing is in violation of Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which states, among others, that: A lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as payment for
the balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land as in the present
case, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. "A
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of
his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act
is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment."
CASE 111: Sevilla vs. Salubre, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1336, December 19, 2000
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|87
FACTS: Petra Sevilla and Sancho Sevilla hired Atty. Ismael L. Salubre as
legal counsel in a civil case for Repurchase and Damages with Prayer for
the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction against Shem J. Alfarero et, al. On
December 26, 1990, upon the advice of Atty. Salubre, the Sevillas turnedover to the Atty. Salubre the amount of P45,000.00 to be consigned with
the trial court as repurchase money. Instead of consigning the said
amount, the Salubre deposited the money in his name with the Family
Savings Bank in Panabo, Davao Province. Without the consent of the
Sevilla spouses, the said amount was withdrawn from the said bank,
misappropriated and used by Salubre for his own purposes and benefit.
This was followed by a series of promises and pleas for extension to pay.
Several promissory notes as well as pleas for extension were initiated by
Atty. Salbure promising to pay the said amount with interest on a certain
date however, it was not fulfilled stating that his loan with the PNB, Tagum
Branch was still being processed. On August 1, 1995, he once again asked
for an extension based on the same ground and promised to pay before
he assumes his post as judge of the MTC.
Atty. Salubre assumed office as judge of the MTC on August 1, 1995. He
issued two checks regarding the said amount due. However, on
November 4, 1997 both checks were dishonoured on the ground
"account closed".The Sevillas, through counsel, sent a demand letter
asking Salubre to make good the value of his two checks within five days
from receipt of the letter.
Sevilla spouses filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Salubre
charging him with violations of Cannons 16 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The case was referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation. The
OCA recommended that respondent Salubre be allowed to file his
Comment. The OCA opined that although the complaint focuses on acts
of respondent prior to his appointment as judge of the MTC, the charges
falls as one of the serious charges in Rule 140, Section 6 of the Rules of
Court, to wit, willful failure to pay a debt. The obligation was not
extinguished by his appointment as a Judge.
Respondent Atty. Salubre answered that that the amount he received
from complainant was in payment of his appearance fee and other
litigation expenses. He cited the case he handled with the complainants
in 1990 and 1991. Sometime in the middle part of 1990, complainant paid
him the amount of P45,000.00 for litigation expenses and appearance fee
in the above-mentioned cases which he (respondent) deposited in his
name with the Family Savings Bank, Panabo, Davao. However,
complainant caused him to sign a receipt which stated that the purpose
thereof is for the repurchase of the property subject of the case she filed
against Shem Alfarero. Atty. Salubro claims that this amount is not for the
repurchase of the said property considering that the value of the property
subject in the said case is P200,000.00.
Upon Atty. Salubres assumption of office as judge of the MTC, he paid the
amount due without interest. Since he failed to pay the full amount,
complainants filed a case of Estafa before the RTC. To avoid
embarrassment, respondent paid the amount demanded and eventually
complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance on August 9, 1999 with
the assistance of her counsel. Later, the trial court ordered the dismissal of
the said criminal case of Estafa.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. Ismael L. Salubre should be disbarred for
his actions in the case at bar.
HELD: Yes, Atty. Ismael L. Salubre violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
RATIO: The OCA found the contention of respondent to be without merit.
The Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the OCA with
exception to the amount of the fine. The Court recommends that it should
be increased. Respondent Judge Ismael L. Salubre is liable for violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to return
the funds of his client (complainant herein) upon demand. As noted
earlier, respondent finally returned the funds to his client but only after the
latter sued him for estafa.
The Court cited Judge Adoracion G. Angeles vs. Atty. Thomas C. Uy, Jr.,
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it
requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is designed to remove
all such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from being
done for the protection of the client.
Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. Furthermore, Rule 16.01 of the Code also states
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|88
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|89
transfer of parcels of land. She violated part of her oath as a lawyer that
she shall not do any falsehood. She violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Overall holding: Suspension of 6 months for having violated Art 1491 of the
Civil Code another 6 months for violation of lawyers oath and Rule 10.01.
Total of one year suspension.
CASE 113: Domingo D. Rubias vs. Isiaias Batilier, G.R. No. L-35702, May 29,
1973
FACTS: Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located
in Iloilo and filed an application for the registration of the title of the land.
The CFI heard the land registration case and dismissed the application for
registration. Militante, appealed to the CA. Pending the disposal of the
appeal, Militante sold to the plaintiff, Domingo Rubias the land. The CA
confirmed the decision of CFI dismissing the application for registration.
Defendant Isaias Batiller argued that he andhis predecessors-in-interest
have always been in actual, open and continuous possession since time
immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question.
Batiller 's counsel filed a motion to dismiss Domingo's complaint alleging
that the latterbought from his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, the
property in dispute which was the subject matter of the land registration
case filed in the CFI of Iloilo, which case was brought on appeal in which
Domingo was the counsel of Francisco Militante. Batiller claims that
Domingo could not have acquired any interest in the property in dispute
as the contract he had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void.
Invoking Arts. 1491 of the Civil Code which reads:
'ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase, even at a
public auction, either in person of through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior
courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights of in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory
they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
acquiring an assignment and shall apply tolawyers, with respect to the
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which
they may take part by virtue of their profession.'
ISSUE/S: WONthe contract of sale between Domingo and Francisco over
the property was void.
HELD: Yes because the sale was made when Domingo was counsel of
Francisco in a land registration case involving the property in dispute.
RATIO: CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Article 1491 of our Civil Code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the
relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring
such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even
at a public or judicial auction," among which are prosecuting attorneys,
and lawyers.
The deed of sale executed by him in favor of Domingo at a time when
Domingo was concededly his counsel of record in the land registration
case involving the very land in dispute was properly declared inexistent
and void by the lower court, as decreed by Article 1491 of the Civil Code.
CASE 114: Leonila J. Licuanan vs. Atty. Manuel L. Melo, A.M. No. 2361,
February 9, 1989
FACTS: An affidavit-complaint, dated November 11, 1981, was filed by
Leonila J. Licuanan with the Office of the Court Administrator on 5
February 1982 against respondent, Atty. Manuel L. Melo, for breach of
professional ethics, alleging that respondent, who was her counsel in an
ejectment case filed against her tenant, failed to remit to her the rentals
collected by respondent on different dates over a twelve-month period,
much less did he report to her the receipt of said amounts. It was only
after approximately a year from actual receipt that respondent turned
over his collections to complainant after the latter, through another
counsel, acquired knowledge of the payment and had demanded the
same.
In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted having received
the payment of rentals from complainant's tenant, Aida Pineda, as
alleged in the complaint, but explained that he kept this matter from the
complainant for the purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting
the rentals.
ISSUE/S: WON there was unreasonable delay on the part of the
respondent in accounting for the funds collected by him for his former
client, the complainant herein, for which unprofessional conduct
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|90
counsel in order to recover the amount rightfully due her but which
respondent had unjustifiedly withheld from her.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|91
the deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount
including interest on June 25, 1985. Respondent, however, failed to return
the money on June 25, 1985.
Valdez argues that he did not abandon his client. He claims that he gave
periodic status reports on the result of his work, that he returned the
documents in connection with the case, and that he rendered an
accounting of the money that he actually received.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for failing to account for
all money or property collected or received for or from Overgaard.
HELD: Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for failing to account for all
money or property collected or received for or from Overgaard.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|92
abroad. The clients (represented by Atty. Ramon) along with the five other
parties considered to succeed their relative who died intestate came to
an agreement that the coconut land they will inherit is to be divided into
six equal parts; that the administrator of the property will be authorized to
sell it, and the proceeds will be equally divided to the parties.
The property was subsequently sold, but the clients came to know about it
thru a letter sent by Atty. Ramon to their father on Nov 28, 1969. The first
letter informed them that the money had been deposited in the bank and
that they may withdraw it on December 8, 1969, at 9am. However, they
were not able to get the money because a day before, on Dec 7, they
received another note, this time telling them not to proceed to the bank
and instead, go to Cagayan de Oro city on Dec 10 to get the money. On
Dec 9, clients received a note from one Atty. Sugamo telling them not
to proceed to CDO because their checks will be ready on Thursday or
Friday yet. However, on the afternoon of the same day, the clients
received a note from Atty. Ramon, telling them that he hopes for
understanding; that the money is now in his custody; that he previously
had a case where he had to use their own money; that in order to repay
the amount he used, he had sold his jeep, but the buyer was not yet able
to fully pay him. He asks for a few more days until the buyer had delivered
the complete amount.
The truth is, Atty. Ramon received the amount of P4,000 from the deputy
provincial sheriff on October 20, 1969. He even signed a receipt, and the
lawyers of the five other parties were able to get their shares as well,
which they successfully delivered to their clients. The client of Atty. Ramon
made several demands for the delivery of the amount, but he
continuously broke his promises to do so. Hence, the client filed this
complain for disbarment on March 13, 1970. They even pleaded the Court
for immediate action because Atty. Ramon was allegedly bragging that
nothing will happen to this case. The Court referred the case to the
Solicitor General, and the Sol-Gen referred the case to the City Fiscal, but
Atty. Ramon did not appear in any of the proceedings.
Atty. Ramons version of the story is this: he admitted receiving the amount
but allegedly wired (sent a telegram) to the clients father to talk about
the proper disposal of the cash. The father supposedly went to see him
a day after and at their meeting, allegedly agreed that P700 will be
deducted from the 4k to cover the expenses which was to cover
expenses involved in the litigation. It was also alleged that according to
an agreement, the remaining P3,300 will be divided into six: four of the
clients, then their father, then Atty. Ramon. He allegedly gave the P412
share of the father, but Atty. Ramon did not present any receipt to prove
it. It is also claimed that the father told him to keep the share of one of the
clients (Vivencio, who is abroad), but later on, the father allegedly got the
share, but there was no receipt presented to prove this. After all these, an
amount of P2,476 was allegedly left with Atty. Ramon, and the clients
refused consistently to receive the balance because they wanted the
full 4k. He now claims he had paid 2k and that only P476 was left with him.
No proof was presented with regard to this.
ISSUE/S: WON the conduct of Atty. Ramon constitutes breach of trust
(Note: the clients charged him of malpractice for having misappropriated
the sum of 4k, and seeks his disbarment)
HELD: Yes. Atty. Ramon is guilty of deceit, malpractice and professional
misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of his clients. His
manufactured defenses, his lack of candor and his repeated failure to
appear at the investigation conducted by the City Fiscal and at the
hearings scheduled by the SC, thus causing this proceeding to drag on for
a long time, demonstrate his unworthiness to remain as a member of the
noble profession of law.
RATIO: Note that the Court did not specifically cite a Canon from the CPR
because this case was decided in 1975 while the CPR was promulgated
only in 1988.
A lawyer, under his oath is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity
to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients
that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his
private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's
consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to
private trust (Pars. 11 and 32, [Old] Canons of Legal Ethics). Money
collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is
held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them (Aya vs.
Bigornia).
"The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its
nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character,
requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith" (7 Am. Jur. 2d 105). In
view of that special relationship, "lawyers are bound to promptly account
for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and
failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The fact that a lawyer
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|93
When he wrote the letter to the father of the clients, as well as the
succeeding letters, he obviously acted in bad faith because he admitted
receiving the cash more than a month earlier. The truth is, he did not send
any wire (message) to the father of the clients asking for a meeting. That
meeting never happened. That the respondent in his testimony and
memorandum forgot that note (the one telling them to withdraw the cash
from the bank at 9am), which is attached with the complaint and which
he admitted in his answer, is an indication that he does not know the facts
of his own case and that he had no scruples in trying to mislead and
deceive the Court.
It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his oath pledges himself not to
delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with
all good fidelity to his clients. He is obliged to report promptly the money
of his clients that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it
with his private property or use it for personal purposes without his clients
consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to
private trust.
HELD:Yes. By converting the money of his clients to his own personal use
without their consent and for collecting P2000 to be used as a bond which
is not required, Ricafort is undoubtedly guilty of deceit, malpractice and
gross misconduct therefore the court resolves to disbar him.
RATIO:According to Rule 16.02 a lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|94
exclusion of the other Samaban members. The land was ultimately sold to
Rivera at a cheap price of PI5 per square meter or a total consideration of
P41,961.65. The prevailing price of the land in the vicinity then was P1 00 to
P1 20 per square meter. Father Escaler had been made to believe that
Rivera represented the squatters on the property.
In 1972, thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed the case against
Rivera, et. al. The CFI, however, dismissed the case.
To prosecute the appeal in the CAl, the Samahan members hired as their
counsel Atty. Santiago R. Robinol for which the latter was paid P2,000.00
as attorney's fees on. Atty. Robinol was also to be given by the members a
part of the land, subject matter of the case, equal to the portion that
would pertain to each of them. What was initially a verbal commitment
on the land sharing was confirmed in writing.
On 14 November 1978, the Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision
and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
To raise the amount of P41,961.65 ordered paid by the Court of Appeals,
plus expenses for ejectment of the non-plaintiffs occupying the property,
conveyance, documentation, transfer of title etc., the five officers of the
Samahan collected, little by little, P2,500.00 from each head of family. The
Treasurer, Luis Agawan, issued the proper receipts prepared by Atty.
Robinol.
On 18 May 1979, the sum of P68,970.00 was turned over to Atty. Robinol by
the officers; on 31 May 1979 the amounts of P1,030.00 and P2,500.00
respectively; and on 2 June 1979, the sum of P2,500.00, or a total of
P75,000.00.
After almost a year, the five officers discovered that no payment had
been made to Rivers. When queried, Atty. Robinol replied that there was
an intervention filed in the civil case and that a Writ of Execution bad not
yet been issued by the CFI of Quezon City. However, it turned out that the
motion for intervention had already been dismissed. After confronting
Atty. Robinol with that fact, the latter gave other excuses, which the
officers discovered to have no basis at all.
Plaintiffs later on decided to change their counsel, Atty. Robinol, to
terminate his services as Atty. Robinol had delayed paying for their land
notwithstanding the Decision of the Court of Appeals in their favor. They
then approached Atty. Montemayor who agreed to be their counsel.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|95
made himself scarce, the University was prompted to withdraw all the
cases it had entrusted to him and demand the return of the P500, 000.00 it
gave him. The University eventually terminated respondents services.
Commissioner Funa recommended a) that Mijares be held guilty of
violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule 15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01
and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and meted out the penalty of disbarment; b) that he be
ordered to return the P500, 000.00 and all the pertinent documents to the
University; and c) that Mijares sworn statement that formed part of his
Answer be endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation
and, if warranted, for prosecution with respect to his shady dealing with
Deputy Chairman Lacuna however the IBP Board of Governors modified it
to indefinite suspension.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500,
000.00 that the University entrusted to him for use in facilitating and
processing the titling of a property that it claimed
HELD: Yes, he is guilty of violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule
15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes on him the penalty of
disbarment.
RATIO: Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the
interests of his client such that he must promptly account for whatever
money or property his client may have entrusted to him. As a mere trustee
of said money or property, he must hold them separate from that of his
own and make sure that they are used for their intended purpose. If not
used, he must return the money or property immediately to his client upon
demand; otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have
misappropriated the same in violation of the trust reposed on him. A
lawyers conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of
professional ethics
CASE 121: Teresita Bayonla v. Atty. Purita Reyes, AC No 4808, November
22, 2011
FACTS: Petra Durban and Paz Durban were sisters who had jointly owned
a parcel of land in Butuan City. They died without leaving a will. Their land
was then expropriated when the Bancasi Airport was constructed. An
expropriation compensation amounting to about P2.4M was to be paid to
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|96
their heirs. Pazs son, Alfredo Tabada, and Tabadas nephew, petitioner
Teresita Bayonla, were the compulsory heirs. Tabada and Bayonla
engaged the legal services of Atty. Purita Reyes to collect their share in
the expropriation compensation. They all agreed that Atty. Reyes would
have 10% of whatever amount they will collect as her attorneys fees.
In November 1993, Atty. Reyes had collected P1M. She continuously failed
to deliver the right amount to Bayonla despite repeated demands.
Hence, Bayonla charged Atty. Reyes with gross dishonesty, deceit,
conversion and breach of trust.
On the other hand, Atty. Reyes argued that they all agreed that she
would receive 40% of whatever amount the heirs would receive. She
added that she even incurred travel and other expenses in collecting
such share.
In June 1998, the court referred the complaint to the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation. In April 1999, IBP Commissioner Lydia
Navarro recommended against Atty. Reyes. Navarro said that as counsel
of the heirs, Atty. Reyes should have given the heirs a breakdown of
whatever amount she received or would come to her knowledge as their
counsel in accordance with Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Reyes had the chance to rectify her errors but she
failed to do so.
Navarro then required Atty. Reyes to: (1) render an accounting or
inventory of the collected shares, (2) have the heirs confirm it, and (3)
remit said shares. Unless Atty. Reyes did all these, she was to be suspended
from the practice of law. In a Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved Navarros report.
Atty. Reyes moved for reconsideration but it was denied. She then filed a
motion for reinvestigation but it was also denied. In August 2002, the IBP
Board of Governors informed the court that Atty. Reyes had neither
rendered an accounting nor remityed the amount to Bayonla. In May
2010, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended the final
resolution of the case.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Reyes is guilty violating Canon 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Reyes is guilty of violating Canon 16.03 of the Code of
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|97
proceeding and there was no agreement the respondent and his said
clients as to the amount of his fees; but that they paid to him upon
demand on different occasions the sums of 30 and P25 as attorney's fees.
After making the payments, Ruste again demanded of the complainant
and his wife as additional fees the sum of P25, but they had no money to
pay, him, and so he asked them to execute in his favor a contract of
lease, and a contract of sale, of their share in said lot No. 3764 in order
that he may be able to borrow or raise said sum of P25.
In accordance with Rustes request, the complainant and his wife
executed on Sept. 22, 1930, a contract of lease, whereby in consideration
of P100, they leased to him their coconut and banana plantation in lot
No. 3764 for a term of five years, and also a deed of sale, whereby in
consideration of P1,000, they sold and transferred to him their undivided
eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in said lot No . 3764, although, in fact and
in truth, neither of the consideration mentioned in said contracts of lease
and sale were ever receive by them.
On Mar 21, 1931, the respondent executed a deed of sale, whereby in
consideration of P370 he sold and transferred to Ong Chua said undivided
eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in lot No. 3764 excluding the house and its
lot, occupied by the complainant and his wife; and on Mar 28, 1931, the
respondent executed another deed of sale, whereby in consideration of
the same amount of P370 paid to him by the same Ong Chua, he sold
and transferred to the latter the same undivided eleven-twentieth (11/20)
share in lot No. 3764.
On Oct 10, 1933, however, the respondent notified the complainant and
his wife in writing that the said house still belonged to the respondent, and
requires said spouses to pay, the sum of P40.50, representing ten months'
rental in arrears, and thereafter a monthly rental of P1.50.
Ruste did not turn over to the complainant and his wife the P370 paid by
Ong Chua.
ISSUE/S: WON Melchor E. Ruste violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by raising the fund due him through
machinations similar to lending/borrowing.
HELD: Yes. Melchor E. Ruste engineered the machination that led him to
acquire his clients property.
RATIO: In July, 1930, the respondent acted as counsel for the complainant
and his wife when the latter laid claim of ownership, eleven-twentieth of
said lot having been eventually adjudicated to the wife, Severa Ventura,
on December 20, 1933. On September 22, 1930, that is, during pendency
of said cadastral case, the spouses purportedly leased a part of said lot to
Ruste for P100, which lease was cancelled and superseded by a deed of
sale executed on the same date, whereby the said spouses, in
consideration of P1,000, conveyed eleven-twentieth of the same land in
favor of Ruste.
The property being thus in suit, which the respondent was waging on
behalf of his clients, his acquisition thereof by the deed of sale, Exhibit B,
constitutes malpractice.
CASE 123: Bautista v. Gonzales
FACTS: On May 19, 1976, Complainant Angel L. Bautista charged
respondent Ramon A. Gonzales with malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Bautista alleged that Gonzales
committed certain acts, among others, accepting a case wherein he
agreed with his clients, the Fortunados, to pay all expenses, including
court fees, for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in
litigation.
On Sept. 29, 1976, Gonzales filed an answer, denying all the allegations
against him. The Court then resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor
General on March 16, 1983. On May 16, 1988, Gonzales filed a motion to
dismiss, claiming that the long delay in the resolution of the complaint
against him constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to due process
and speedy disposition of cases. The Solicitor General filed a comment on
the motion to dismiss on Aug. 8, 1988, explaining that the delay was due
to the numerous requests for postponement of scheduled hearings by
both parites. On Jan. 16, 1989, the Court required the Solicitor General to
submit his report and recommendation within 30 days upon receipt of
notice.
On April 11, 1989, the Solicitor General submitted his report and
recommendation that Atty. Gonzales be suspended for six months.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Gonzales is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Gonzales is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|98
RATIO: Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 16.04 which states that A lawyer
shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither
shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client. The act of Gonzales paying all the expenses of
the litigation in consideration of 50% of the amount of the property in
litigation is contrary with Canon 16.04. An agreement whereby an
attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients
rights is champertous and violates the fiduciary relationship between the
lawyer and his client.
The Court resolved to impose the penalty of suspension for 6 months from
the practice of law upon the respondent Atty. Gonzales for committing
serious misconduct.
CASE 124: Ruby Mae Barnachea vs. Atty. Edwin T. Quicho, A.C. No. 5925,
March 11, 2003
profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may
come to his possession. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him
by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of
public confidence in the legal profession.
The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a
very delicate, exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is dutybound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an
attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting
in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In this case,
respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard
expected of him.
CASE 125: Ma. Libertad SJ Cantiller v. Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano
FACTS: Complainant lost an ejectment case and was issued to vacate the
rented premises. Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a
certain Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced
them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the parties "impliedly
agreed" that respondent would handle their case.
In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to sign by
respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly
conceived, and haphazardly composed 3 petition for annulment of
judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the
necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the judge
who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend). However,
when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding
judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the
ground of their friendship.
Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter
which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue
the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in
locating the judge.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|99
Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed
complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case
with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession of the
apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00) allegedly to be deposited
with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment
and another one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00) to cover the expenses of
the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and urgency
of filing the new complaint.
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 on
October 30, 1987, respondent, contrary to his promise that he would
secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel for
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was
obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046
was eventually enforced and executed.
Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that there was
really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P l0,000.00)
relative to Civil Case No. 55210. After further inquiry, she found out that in
fact there was no such deposit made. Thus, on December 23,1987,
complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of
the total amount of eleven thousand pesos (P 11,000.00) which the former
earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never answered and the
money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this
administrative complaint against herein respondent.
ISSUE/S: WON
Responsibility.
HELD: Yes, this Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the
charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has
rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
RATIO: When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that
he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure
to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes
such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him.
The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles
of professional ethics.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|100
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|101
Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's motion, the
complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to
present his evidence ex-parte.
The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and
to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court, but
to no avail.
ISSUE/S: WON the respondent committed a culpable negligence, as
would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complaints an
answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
HELD: Yes. He is liable for inexcusable negligence.
RATIO: The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil
Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a "losing cause" for the complainants since
the claims therein for damages were based on the final decision of the
Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from
the union to be illegal. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly
persuades us. If indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility of
any defense therein, he should have seasonably informed the
complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility expressly provides:
(A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion
on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating
nor understanding the prospects of the case.)
CASE 129: People vs. Sevilleno
FACTS: On 22 July 1995, at around 10:00 in the morning, Paulino Sevilleno y
Villanueva alias Tamayowent to Barangay Guadalupe, San Carlos
City. He brought with him bread and ice candy for his 9-year old and 8year old nieces, Virginia and Norma, both surnamed Baquia. He then
invited Virginia to accompany him to Sitio Guindali-an "to see (a) beta
show." To reach the place, Paulino and Virginia passed through the
sugarcane fields. At around 11:00 in the same morning, Rogelio, father of
Virginia arrived home and upon learning from his daughter that Paulino is
with Virginia, Rogelio immediately looked for them. Rogelio did not find his
daughter but he bumped into the accused and upon questioning where
his daughter was, Paulino denied although Rogelio noticed the wounds
and scratches on Paulino.
Rogelio then continued the search and the second encounter with the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|102
counsel failed to take any action for the case. So the property was sold by
the sheriff thru public auction. After one year redemption period expired
w/out the petitioner redeeming the property and the sheriff issued a final
deed of sale. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events, petitioner
prevailed upon her counsel to seek the appropriate relief.
ISSUE/S: Was her counsel negligent of the case? If he was, should she be
bound by such negligence?
HELD: Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this case, he has
miserably failed in his duty to exercise his utmost learning and ability in
maintaining his client's cause. The gross negligence of the late Dean
Coronal in handling, nay mishandling, petitioner's case, docketed as Civil
Case No. Q-43811 in the court a quo, is actually beyond question as this
Court had declared in a per curiam Resolution dated June 10, 1992, 34
where Coronel was meted a six (6)-month suspension from the practice of
law, which suspension order was renewed for another six (6) months in
another Resolution dated March 31, 1993.
RATIO: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth
and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of
his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be taken or
withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He should
present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his
client's cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of
his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that
he may displease the judge or the general public.
It is not only a case of simple negligence as found by the appellate court,
but of reckless and gross negligence, so much so that his client was
deprived of her property without due process of law. The Court finds that
the negligence of counsel in this case appears to be so gross and
inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact, that after petitioner gave
said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by asking him to
file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate court, again
counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he received a
copy of the adverse judgment of the appellate court, he did not do
anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. He
allowed the judgment to lapse and become final.
She should be bound by the decision because neither Cathay nor
Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of Legardas
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|103
counsel. The common law maxim finds application in this case, between
two parties innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong
to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
CASE 131: Mario S. Mariveles vs. Atty. Odilon C. Mallari, A.C. No. 3294
February 17, 1993
FACTS: Mariveles (petitioner) engaged the services of Atty. Mallari
(respondent) to handle his defense in the RTC where he was charged for
violating B.P. Blg. 22. After an adverse decision was rendered therein,
Mariveles instructed Atty. Mallari to appeal said the decision to the CA,
which the latter did.
However, in the CA, despite numerous extensions of time, totaling 245
days, Atty. Mallari failed to file the appellants brief, resulting in the
dismissal of the appeal. Mariveles discovered his lawyers desertion only
when he was subpoenaed by the trial court to appear before it for the
execution of the decision which had become final.
Through new counsel, Mariveles filed a petition to reinstate his appeal,
cancel the entry of judgment and accept his brief, but it was denied. He
sought relief in the SC which granted his petition, ruling that: the failure of
petitioners former counsel to file the brief xxx amounted to deliberate
abandonment of his clients interest which justified the reinstatement of
Mariveles appeal through a new counsel.
ISSUE/S: WON what Atty. Mallari committed (or what he failed to do) is a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. He is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his
client and is hereby DISBARRED.
RATIO: Atty. Mallari demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack
of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard
to his duties as a lawyer.
A lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that
practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation
of his client and thus disgrace the law profession.
CASE 132: CARINO V. DE LOS REYES
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|104
May 4, 1998) On the other hand, Atty. Delos Reyesclaimed that he was
hired by Carino to file a case for partition, but, because the Atty. Delos
Reyes failed to give him the documents to be used in filing of the case, he
decided to withdraw his representation.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Delos Reyes has neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him, in this case was the filing of complaint-affidavits against the relatives
of Carino for slander by deed, threats and physical injuries claiming that
his services were hired to file a case for partition
HELD: Yes. He was not able to provide and submit the complaint-affidavits
for the filing of criminal complaints against the relatives of Carino, not to
the case for partition as he alleged; Reprimanded with warning
RATIO: The Court finds Atty. Delos Reyes' explanation flimsy. His services
were hired by Carino 6 days after the occurrence of the incident giving
rise to the filing of the charges and counter-charges for physical injuries,
threats, and slander by deed filed by the parties before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of their barangay. It is improbable that she, at that time,
would hire the services of the lawyer for a purpose other than in
connection with petitioner's pressing legal concern, i.e., the filing of the
criminal complaints with the prosecutor's office.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides - A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Santiago v. Fojas: 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 latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of law, legally applied.
The fact that, as claimed by him, he is a member of the IBP commission
investigating complaints against members of the bar all the more should
have impressed on him his duty of fidelity to his client's cause. That he
returned the money paid to him does not diminish his responsibility but
only mitigates the penalty.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|105
its Resolution, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|106
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|107
Such circumstances do not exist in this case. We may also add that
appellant, while invoking the interest of justice, has not shown how it
would stand to be prejudiced from the loss of its right to appeal. From the
record no such prejudice can be gathered, especially because the
judgment provided for reimbursement in appellant's favor by third-party
defendant Jacobo Lampa and the latter has not appealed therefrom.
CASE 136: Agravante v. Patriarca
FACTS: A case was set for pre-trial but before it was held, a fire broke out
on June 26, 1976 in the capitol building. The records of the court were
burned, including the present case. The record was reconstituted and was
rescheduled for pre-trial on January 25, 1978. The defendants counsel
move for the cancellation of this setting. The Court reset the pre-trial to
February 27, 1978. But again, the defendants counsel pleading illness,
sought this be cancelled and rescheduled again. This motion was dated
February 14, 1978 but was only filed on February 22, 1978. This motion
contained no notice of hearing, but a photocopy of a medical certificate
dated January 30, 1978 stating that Atty. Pacamarra has headache and is
advised to take a rest. The motion filed was denied for being not in
accordance with the rules because of lack of notice to the adverse party,
lack of setting of the date of hearing, and the attached medical
certificate was only a photocopy. At the scheduled pre-trial on February
27, neither the counsel nor the defendants appeared. The Court declared
them in default. On March 4, the Court was informed of Juana Patriarcas
death and her heirs requested that she be substituted which was granted.
The heirs of Juana moved for reconsideration of the three orders dated
February 22, February 27, and March 4. But this was denied by the court.
Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari to the SC contending that they
had been denied their day in court.
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty. Pacamarra violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes. He neglected his duties to legal matters. His petition for the
rescheduling of the pre-trial set on Feb 27, 1978 is untenable. A party or
counsel desiring a postponement of a pre-trial must comply with the
requisites set out in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. It shall be made in writing.
It shall state the grounds upon which it is based, and if necessary, be
accompanied by supporting affidavits or papers. It shall specify the date
of hearing. It shall be served by the applicant on all parties concerned 3
days before the said hearing. These requisites were not complied with by
the defendants. The SC also noted that the character of illness of Atty.
Pacamarra is not so severe as to render his non-attendance excusable.
The notice of the denial of his motion for postponement was served to him
in Feb 24, 3 days before the pre-trial date. The SC also held that
defendants contention that the demise of Juana Patriarca prevented
the trial courts acquisition of jurisdiction over her is untenable. The death
of Juana does not affect the Courts jurisdiction. She was substituted. The
defendants actuations give rise to the conclusion that they were
motivated by a desire to delay the disposition of the case. Petition for
certiorari dismissed.
CASE 137: Tomas Alcoriza vs. Atty. Alberto Lumakang, A.M. No. 249,
November 21, 1978
FACTS: An administrative complaint for disciplinary action was filed
against Respondents Attys. Pablo Salazar and Alberto Lumakang. This
case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General, for investigation,
report and recommendation. Since the respondents were residents of
Davao, the case was referred to the City Attorney of Davao City. The
latter submitted that the whole case emanated from the decision of the
MTC for sum of money, between Juana V. Antonio vs. Tomas Alcoriza. The
trial was conducted in the absence of the defendant and or his counsels
despite the fact that they have been duly notified.
Atty. Lumakang explains his failure to appear in the trial:
Early in the morning as usual as I used to, I reported to the office at 7:30
believing that Tomas Alcoriza would come to the office. I waited for him
until 9:00. I know that the hearing of Judge Hofilea will be 9:00 and that
as I said if he will not appear in my office I will not appear for him as I
would be going there without any preparation, so that on that day
though I was jittery I did not go to the court. I stayed in the office waiting
for Alcoriza.
Atty. Lumakang contended that when he asked Alcoriza why he did not
go to the office or to the Court to attend to the trial of his case, Alcoriza
merely answered that he is busy. He then told Alcoriza that the Judge has
become impatient because of the many postponements, that an order
was issued giving him last postponement and that if he will be absent
again on the day of the trial, the Court will proceed to try the case ex
parte. Alcoriza assured that he will go and Atty. Lumakang told him that if
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|108
he will not come to the office on the date of the trial, Atty. Lumakang will
not appear in Court as his appearance would only be useless.
CASE 138: Emilio Capulong, et. al. vs. Manuel G. Alino, A.M. No. 381,
February 10, 1968
Atty. Lumakang suspected that Alcoriza had already lost his interest in the
case. This suspicion came true because on the date set for hearing of his
case as Alcoriza did not appear at the office of the respondent neither to
the Court. Such being the case, it is the honest belief of Atty. Lumakang
that a lawyer cannot be more interested in his client's case than the client
himself.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|109
respondent
violated
the
Code
of
Professional
RATIO: While this Court is cognizant of the rule that, generally, a client will
suffer the consequences of the negligence, mistake or lack of
competence of his counsel, in the interest of justice and equity,
exceptions may be made to such rule, in accordance with the facts and
circumstances of each case. Adherence to the general rule would, in the
instant case, result in the outright deprivation of their property through a
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|110
technicality. The Court cannot close its eyes to the petitioner wife's
affirmative and special defense, under oath in her Answer before the
respondent trial court that her transaction with private respondents was
not a pacto de retro sale but an equitable mortgage. The Court cannot
also but take note of petitioners' evidence to support such verified
defense, notably the incriminating note signed by the agent of both
parties in which the real nature of the questioned transaction is revealed.
CASE 140: Olegario Blanza, et. al. vs. Atty. Agustin Arcangel, A.C. No. 492,
September 5, 1967
FACTS: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask this Court to
take disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel for
professional non-feasance.
Way back in April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their
respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their
husbands, soldiers, and for this purpose, they handed over to him
documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers
They noticed that since then, Atty. Arcangelhad lost interest in the
progress of their claims and when they finally asked for the return of their
papers six years later, Atty. Arcangel refused to surrender them.
Atty. Arcangel submits that he was not obliged to follow up complainants'
pension claims since there was no agreement for his compensation as
their counsel.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Arcangel should be held liable.
HELD: The Court finds the evidence adduced insufficient to warrant the
taking of disciplinary action against Atty. Arcangel. There is no clear
preponderance of evidence substantiating the accusations against him.
Complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their
respective claims
Atty. Arcangel, however, overlooks the fact that he volunteered his
professional services and thus was not legally entitled to recover fees. 2 But
having established the attorney-client relationship voluntarily, he was
bound to attend to complainants' claims with all due diligence.
FACTS: Atty. Aparicio was hired as counsel by an employee who has been
complaining at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for
alleged illegal dismissal. The NLRC arranged for a mandatory
mediation/conciliation conference to be attended by both parties. Atty.
Aparicio, in behalf of his client, filed a claim for separation pay and
damages, during the conference, but the company (represented by the
complainant, Pea) rejected these as baseless. The company thru Mr.
Pea sent a letter to the employee and Atty. Aparicio, requiring an
explanation as to her absences, and to return to work. However, Atty.
Aparicio, representing his client, made a response reiterating their
arguments re: illegal dismissal. The letter also contained the following
threats to the company:
But if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be constrained to file
and claim bigger amounts including moral damages to the tune of
millions under established precedence of cases and laws. In addition to
other multiple charges like (1) Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of
income not reported to the government, (2) Criminal Charges for Tax
Evasion, (3) Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents, and (4)
Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws. These
are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above
amounts as settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).
Mr. Pea then filed this complaint for disciplinary action with the IBP,
believing that the letter was unethical. Atty. Aparicio claimed that the
complaint is malicious; that it must be dismissed because of procedural
matters which were not complied with, e.g. certification against forum
shopping. Atty. Aparicio also claims that the issuance of demand letters
had been an accepted practice in the legal profession. There was a
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|111
ISSUE/S: WON the demand letter made by Atty. Aparicio is unethical and
the act, violative of the CPR
Coloma denied the allegations and claimed that the matters covered
therein were untrue, unfounded and imaginary. Coloma claims that her
services were contracted for such case and that there was agreed upon
fee. Coloma also claims that there is record to show that she was able to
file dozens of papers and pleadings and went to trial with the assistance
of her sister.
ISSUE/S:WON Coloma can collect her attorneys fees
HELD:Yes. The Solicitor General found that the genuineness and due
execution to pay respondent her attorneys fees.
RATIO:Any counsel, who is worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully
recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains
and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in
expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any
judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape
payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is
in him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himslef would not
get his due.
CASE 143: QUIRANTE vs. IAC
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|112
FACTS:In the case of Dr. Casasolas claim against its erring building
contractor, the trial court ruled in favor of the former who eventually
died.Here, petitioner Atty. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the
confirmation of his attorneys fees. According to him, there was an oral
agreement between him and the late Dr. Casasola with regard to his
attorneys fees, as confirmed in writing by the latters surviving spouse and
two daughters to be computed as follows:
In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorneys fees of
the undersigned counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be P30,000.00;
In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the
P120,000.00 bond, it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of Dr.
Casasola, Atty. John C. Quirante and Atty. Dante Cruz.
The trial court granted the motion for confirmationdespite an opposition
thereto.In the petition for review on certiorari, the respondent court (IAC)
ruled that the confirmation of attorneys fees is premature.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Quirante is entitled of the attorneys fees.
HELD: NO. Ruling of respondent court affirmed.
RATIO: Since the main case from which the petitioners claims for their fees
may arise has not yet become final, the determination of the propriety of
said fees and the amount thereof should be held in abeyance.
The orderly administration of justice dictates that such issue be likewise
determined by the court a quo inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the
same contingencies in determining the propriety and assessing the extent
of recovery of attorneys fees. The alleged confirmation to attorneys fees
should not adversely affect the non-signatories in the petition, since it is
also premised on the eventual grant of damages to the Casasola family.
decision which would have finally resolved the case in your favor,
remembering me then will make me happy. In the meantime, you will
make me happier by just keeping the check. David continued to fight for
Corpus case and got a favorable judgment. Corpus refused to pay
David contending that since David refused the first check given by him,
he gave his services gratuitously.
ISSUE/S: WONprivate respondent Atty. Juan T. David is entitled to
attorney's fees
HELD: Yes because there was at least an implied agreement for the
payment of attorney's fees
RATIO: Payment of attorney's fees to respondent David may be justified by
virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give which
is based on the principle that "no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the
expense of another." Innominate contracts have been elevated to a
codal provision in the New Civil Code by providing under Article 1307 that
such contracts shall be regulated by the stipulations of the parties, by the
general provisions or principles of obligations and contracts, by the rules
governing the most analogous nominate contracts, and by the customs
of the people.
Jurisprudence provides Where one has rendered services to another,
and these services are accepted by the latter, in the absence of proof
that the service was rendered gratuitously, it is but just that he should pay
a reasonable remuneration therefor because 'it is a well-known principle
of law, that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the damage
of another.
CASE 145: Traders Royal Bank Union-Independent v. NLRC, GR 120592,
March 14, 1997
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|113
adverse party. All that the non-inclusion of attorney's fees in the award
means is that the Supreme Court did not order TRB to pay the opposing
party attorney's fees in the concept of damages. He is not therefore
precluded from filing his motion to have his own professional fees
adjudicated.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Cruz should be awarded attorneys fees.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Cruz should be awarded attorneys fees.
RATIO: Rule 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
This Rule requires that a lawyer shall first and foremost take care of his
clients interest before he concerns himself with his personal
compensation. And in times when there are controversies about it, he has
the remedy of judicial action to claim the amount for the services he
rendered. In the case at bar, the controversy started when the Union
refused to pay Atty. Cruz attorneys fees for the latters render of service in
the litigation of a particular case because they were already paying him
a retainers fee. It is therefore imperative to distinguish an attorneys fee
from a retainers fee.
An attorneys fee is either ordinary or extraordinary. In its ordinary
concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The
basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his
agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, an attorney's fee is
an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing
party in a litigation. The basis of this is any of the cases provided by law
where such award can be made.
The controversy of this case started when the Union had the false
conception that NLRC has jurisdiction over claims for attorneys fees only
before its judgment is reviewed and ruled by the Supreme Court. This is
false because it is a well settled rule that a claim for attorneys fees may
be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had
been rendered or in a separate action.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|114
With respect to the first situation, the remedy for recovering attorney's fees
as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something
is due to the client. Attorney's fees cannot be determined until after the
main litigation has been decided and the subject of the recovery is at the
disposition of the court. The issue over attorney's fees only arises when
something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid. While a
claim for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered,
the determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount
thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main case from which
the lawyer's claim for attorney's fees may arise has become final.
Otherwise, the determination to be made by the courts will be premature.
Of course, a petition for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment
in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the
client.
In the case at bar, Atty. Cruz demanded the first type of attorneys fees.
Heneither filed any claim for attorneys fees before the NLRC when the
latter acted on the Unions money claims nor before the Supreme Court
when it reviewed the NLRC decision. It was only after the Supreme Court
modified the NLRC decision that he demanded his claim before the NLRC
for it would be impossible and improper for the NLRC and for the Supreme
Court to make an award for attorneys fees when no claim for it was
pending before them.
The Union argued that the retainer fee they paid Atty. Cruz was already
the attorneys fees. Atty. Cruz disagreed and said that they had no such
agreement. The contract provides that the P3000 retainer fee does not
cover the services the latter actually rendered before the labor arbiter
and the NLRC in behalf of the former. The monthly payment is intended
merely as a consideration for the law firms commitment to render the
services (general and special legal services) of the retainer agreement.
A general retainer, or retaining fee, is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure
his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that
may arise in the routinary business of the client and referred to him for
legal action. The future services of the lawyer are secured and committed
to the retaining client. For this, the client pays the lawyer a fixed retainer
fee which could be monthly or otherwise, depending upon their
arrangement. The fees are paid whether or not there are cases referred to
the lawyer. The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived
of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or
other parties. In fine, it is a compensation for lost opportunities.
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|115
On May 29, Attorney Dizon, in the name of his firm, wrote Attorney
Francisco urging him to discontinue representing the defendants on the
ground that their client had consulted with him about her case, on which
occasion, it was alleged, "she turned over the papers" to Attorney
Francisco, and the latter sent her a written opinion.
In Atty. Franciscos answer to plaintiff's attorneys' complaint, Atty.
Francisco alleged that on about May, 1945, a real estate broker came to
his office in connection with the legal separation of a woman who had
been deserted by her husband, and also told him (Francisco) that there
was a pending suit brought by Mrs. Hilado against a certain Syrian to
annul the sale of a real estate which the deceased Serafin Hilado had
made to the Syrian during the Japanese occupation; that this woman
asked him if he was willing to accept the case if the Syrian should give it to
him; that he told the woman that the sales of real property during the
Japanese regime were valid even though it was paid for in Japanese
military notes; that this being his opinion, he told his visitor he would have
no objection to defending the Syrian.
Attorney Francisco's law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over
his signature on the merits of her case; that this opinion was reached on
the basis of papers she had submitted at his office; that Mrs. Hilado's
purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Attorney Francisco's
professional services.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Francisco violated Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by providing the respondents with his opinion
regarding Hilados case.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Francisco violated Canon 21 by providing the respondents
to Hilados case with opinions that he may have acquired through
consultation with Hilado.
RATIO: Section 26 (e), Rule 123 of the Rules of Court provides that "an
attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in
the course of professional employment;" and section 19 (e) of Rule 127
imposes upon an attorney the duty "to maintain inviolate the confidence,
and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client.
Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of
attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|116
handle the case himself, being a lawyer. On Nov. 21, 1949, Capule filed a
petition to withdraw as attorney for Natan, to which the latter agreed.
On Jan. 13, 1950, Olimpio Patero filed a motion to intervene in the civil
case of forcible entry filed by Natan against 3 individuals. On Feb. 27, 1950
Capule filed on behalf of Olimpio a petition in the administration
proceedings, alleging that Olimpio Patero is the sole heir of Santiago and
that he is in possession of Hacienda Minit; that the administrator of the
estate, his former client Natan, had been encroaching upon the land
constituting the Hacienda Minit, interfering with its use and occupation
and depriving Olimpio of the harvest of coconut and palay; and praying
that Natan be restrained from interfering with the occupation and
enjoyment of Hacienda Minit by Olimpio. It also appears that during the
filing of the forcible entry case in 1949, Natan gave various documents to
Capule, which the latter used in this petition against his former client.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Capule is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD: Yes, Capule is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RATIO: Capule violated Canon 21 which states that A LAWYER SHALL
PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED. In this case, Capule used the
documents given to him by his former client Natan during their attorneyclient relationship, in his petition against the latter, after the attorney-client
relationship between them was ended in Nov. 21, 1949. He did actually
utilize the papers, knowledge and information which he had received in
the course of his employment as lawyer for Natan. An attorney is
forbidden to do either of two things after severing his relationship with the
former client. He may not do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client in any matter in which he formerly represented him, nor may
he at any time use against his former client knowledge or information
acquired by virtue of the previous relationship.
The court ruled to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for 2 years upon the respondent Atty. Capule for his misconduct.
CASE 148: Genato vs. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078, July 14, 2003
FACTS: The conflict between the parties started when Atty. Essex Silapan
borrowed two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) from William Genato
which he intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new
car. In return, Atty. Essex Silapan issued to William Genato a postdated
check in the amount of P176,528.00 to answer for the six (6) months
interest on the loan. Atty. Essex Silapan likewise mortgaged to
complainant his house and lot in Quezon City but did not surrender its title
claiming that it was the subject of reconstitution proceedings before the
Quezon City Register of Deeds. With the money borrowed from William
Genato, Atty. Essex Silapan purchased a new car. However, the
document of sale of the car was issued in William Genatos name and
financed through City Trust Company.
Subsequently, Atty. Essex Silapan failed to pay the amortization on the car
and the financing firm sent demand letters to William Genato. William
Genato tried to encash Atty. Essex Silapans postdated check with the
drawee bank but it was dishonored as respondents account therein was
already closed.
Atty. Essex Silapan failed to heed William Genatos repeated demands for
payment. William Genato then filed a criminal case against Atty. Essex
Silapan for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage. In reply to the allegation of William
Genato, Atty. Essex Silapan said, where he (William Genato) wanted Essex
L. Silapan, his former counsel in that case, to offer bribe money to the
members of the review committee of the Department of Justice where a
petition for review of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was
pending at the time
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Essex Silapan committed a breach of trust and
confidence by imputing to complainant illegal practices and disclosing
complainants alleged intention to bribe government officials in
connection with a pending case.
HELD: Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that
an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in
his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the
inception of their relationship.[3] The protection given to the client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|117
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|118
FACTS: Alegria, Strebel Figueras, together with her stepsons, Eduardo and
Francisco, filed a Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her
deceased husband Jose Figueras. While settlement of the estate was
pending, she died and Eduardo assumed administration of the joint
estates of Don Jose and Doa Alegria. Hardly had the proceedings in
both intestacies begun when Eduardo was served a Petition for Probate
of what purported to be Doa Alegria's Last Will and Testament, filed by
Felizardo S. Obando, a nephew of Doa Alegria. The alleged Will
bequeathed to Obando and several other members of the Obando clan
properties left by the Figueras couple.
After this, the NBI, upon insistence of Eduardo, has found that the alleged
Will is a forgery. Obando was indicted and convicted of Estafa through
falsification of a public document. Eduardo then sold two parcels of land
from the estate to Amigo Realty Corp despite probate courts denial to
sell these lands. Obando, as co-administrator of the joint estate filed a
petition for the nullification of the sale. He was subsequently removed by
the probate court of this said position. Then Figueras field a Joint Motion to
Dismiss after Obandos removal. They alleged that Obando does not
anymore possess legal standing in this case. Obando then claimed that
when Atty. Yuseco filed the Motion to Dismiss for the Eduardo, he no
longer represented him as shown by Eduardos Manifestation and Motion
dispensing with said counsels services in the proceeding in view of a
previously-done Compromise Agreement with Obando.
ISSUE/S: WON The trial court could act on a motion filed by a lawyer who
was allegedy no longer Eduardos counsel of record
HELD: Yes. The trial court could act on a motion filed by t lawyer who was
allegedly no longer Eduardos counsel of record.
RATIO: Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services
of counsel in accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Counsel may be validly substituted only if the following requisites are
complied with: (1) new counsel files a written application for Substitution;
(2) the client's written consent is obtained; and (3) the written consent of
the lawyer to be substituted is secured, if it can still be; if the written
consent can no longer be obtained, then the application for substitution
must carry proof that notice of the motion has been served on the
attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules. In this
case, we are convinced that Eduardo did not dismiss Attorney Yuseco. In
LEGAL ETHICS| ATTY. GUZMAN| CASE DIGESTS| CANONS 7-22| YEAR I BLOCK 2|119