LEGAL ETHICS

1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO

2nd Sem 2005-2006

FACTS: ▪ Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros Occidental by COMELEC ▪ Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequately the defense. ▪ Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused. ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed HELD: No. RATIO: 1. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Then, even assuming that he continues his position, his volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. There is no excuse for him to shirk from his obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a profession and not a mere trade). Requires counsel of repute and eminence. In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed for 8 times)

2. 3. 4.

2 IN RE SYCIP FACTS:  This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed by the surviving partners of atty. Alexander Sycip and the other filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ovaepa. They pray that they be allowed to continue using the names of partners who had passed away.  Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments: o Art. 1840 of the Civil Code, o in regulating other professions, the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner, o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a deceased partner when permissible by local custom. ISSUE:  HELD:   W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased partners in their firm names NO! Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by the person who continues the business using the partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. Art. 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than a professional partnership whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its individual members. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is not a partnership formed for then purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding property. Thus, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partner’s name. Therefore, the cited provision on Canons of Professional Ethics is not applicable.

DISSENTING OPINION:  Petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip and Ovaepa are dead or the period when they served as partners sould be stated therein. 3 CAYETANO V MONSOD Facts:   Pres. Aquino nominated Christian Monsod to the position of COMELEC chairman. The Commission on Appointments affirmed the nomination and appointed Monsod to the position.

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
 Issue:  Held: 

2nd Sem 2005-2006

Renato Cayetano now assails the appointment. He says that Monsod is not qualified to the position because he has not been “engaged in the practice of law for ten years” (requirement is provided by Consti Art. 9-C Sec. 1(1)). W/n Monsod is qualified for the position of COMELEC chairman.

SC says yes. Monsod passed the bar in 1960 and had been consistently paying his professional fees. He worked in a law firm for several years after graduating but after that, had been more engaged in business and politics (for a list of his jobs, see p.238). Still, the SC said that he can still be considered as practicing law, if we consider the modern concept of the practice of law. This modern concept pertains to any act, whether in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.  SC now says that since most of Monsod’s jobs involved the law, even if he has not been engaged in traditional lawyering (i.e. making pleadings or appearing in court), he can still be considered as to have been engaged in the practice of law. Dissents:  Most of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti requirement pertains to habitual practice of law. The dissenters pointed out that for the past ten years, Monsod really seldom practiced law. This group believed that the Consti required that the practice of law be on a regular basis. Justice Padilla even came up with qualifications – habituality; compensation; application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure; and atty.-client relationship – to determine w/n a person has been engaged in the practice of law.. 4 CUI V CUI Facts:  The main concern in this case is the respective qualifications of Jesus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barii, a charitable institution established by Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui. Jesus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui, a nephew of the founders of the institution. Antonio’s claim to the position is based on a “convenio” where then administrator Teodoro resigned in favor of him. Jesus, however, had no prior notice of this. Jesus’s claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation (which recognized their father Mariano as a legitimate descendant to the position) as he is the older of the two. The deed, however, gives preference to a descendant who has a “titulo de abogado” or a doctor, or a civil engineer, or a pharmacist (in order). Or to the one who pays the highest taxes. Jesus holds the degree of Bachelor of Laws but is not a member of the Bar, while Antonio is a member of the Bar (he was formerly disbarred, though, by the SC and was just reinstated weeks before assuming the position)

 

Issue: Who has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose and Antonio? What does the term “titulo de abogado” mean? Held: Antonio. The term “titulo de abogado” is not just mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one to the practice of law. Possession of the degree is not indispensable to qualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way. It was also argued that Antonio is disqualified for having been previously disbarred since the deed also provided that an administrator may be removed if found to lack a sound moral character. However, Antonio was reinstated. This reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation after proving what was required by the Bar. Antonio’s restoration to the roll of lawyers wiped out restrictions and disabilities resulting from the previous disbarment. 5 ALAWI V ALAUYA PARTIES   FACTS  

ALAWI, sales rep of E.B. Villarosa ALAUYA, incumbent executive clerk of court Through ALAWI’S agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by ALAUYA of a housing unit A housing loan was also granted to ALAUYA by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) Subsequently, ALAUYA wrote a letter to the President of Villarosa advising termination of his contract on the grounds that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by ALAWI and proceeded to expound using acerbic language A copy of the letter, which bore no stamps, was sent to the VP of Villarosa ALAUYA also wrote the NHMFC repudiating as void his contract with Villarosa and asking for cancellation of his loan Finally, ALAUYA wrote 3 other letters to officers of the SC to stop deductions from his salary regarding the loan from NHMFC


  

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
  NHMFC also wrote the SC requesting it to stop said deductions Learning of the letters, ALAWI filed a complaint alleging that ALAUYA o Committed malicious and libelous charges o Usurped the title of attorney

2nd Sem 2005-2006

ISSUE HELD RATIO    ISSUE HELD RATIO 

W/N ALAUYA VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES YES, PARTICULARLY SECTION 4 Section 4 “public officials and employees at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, public order, public safety and public interest” ALAUYA, being a member of the Shari’a Bar and an officer of the Court, may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper His radical deviation from these norms cannot be excused W/N ALAUYA BEING A MEMBER OF THE SHARI’A BAR CAN USE THE TITLE “ATTORNEY” NO, RESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR Court has already had an occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and may practice law only before Shari’a courts ALAUYA’S wish of not using “counsellor” because of confusion with “councilor” is immaterial because disinclination to use said title does not warrant his use of the title “attorney”

6 IN RE CUNANAN Facts: This is the “Bar Flunkers Act of 1953” case. As per the Rules of Court. A bar candidate must have a general average of 75% in all subjects without failing below 50% in any subject. In spite of this, the court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only: • 72% in 1946 • 69% in 1947 • 70% in 1948 • 74% in 1949 • In 1950 to 53, the 74% was raised to 75% A few candidates who missed the above marks set by the courts approached Congress. Congress made a bill, which was allowed by the president to become a law without his signature. This is RA 972. Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in 1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955, will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent, which has been invariably followed since 1950. A breakdown of the numbers is on page 538. The additional candidates who want to be admitted claim that they suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and of inadequacy of preparation. Issue: W/N RA 972 is valid. Held: RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. The public interest demands of the legal profession, adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult. In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

suspend. and the admission to the practice of law. 7 ECHEGARAY V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE pp. or supplement the rules concerning pleading. After this decision has become final. that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. altered. Rivas. and procedure. practice. That. Beron. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in the SC. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952. increase. the disputed law is not a legislation. or modify substantive rights. are considered as having passed. suspend. and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. void and without force and effect. article VIII of the Constitution provides: "Section 13. Fernandez. article VII of the Constitution. practice and procedure in all courts. practice and procedure in all courts. for justifiable reasons. but the authority and responsibility over the admission. Consequently. whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the Chief Justice may set. Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. suspension. Anastacio. 111-112 The 1973 Constitution Article X.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. Calinisan. and not the legislative nor executive department. be admitted in mass to the practice of law. (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied. practice. modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter. which. Morada. it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. however. therefore. Mendiola. is valid and shall continue to be in force. Sec5 (5): The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. pleading. The 1987 Constitution Article VIII. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading.5 per cent or more. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive. Sarenas 2C . alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this court. and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. and the integration of the Bar. it is no less certain that only the SC. or modify substantive rights. it is a judgment — a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the years affecting the bar candidates concerned Although the SC certainly can revoke these judgments even now. shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71. may be repealed. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices. 1. the admission in the practice of law. or supplemented by the Batasang Pambensa. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit. Gana Lopez. increase. Congress may repeal. as in this case. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit. and are declared Rules of Courts." The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. There is no motive stated by the authorities for the qualification in RA 972 because of this. that may be so. in conformity with section 10. and procedure in all courts. without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Section 13. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish increase or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading. and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes. 2. disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions. shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession. if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. practice. alter. the Integrated Bar. the classification is fatally defective. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Its power is limited to repeal. the admission in the practice of law.

) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal liability. Mendiola. Lontok.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 The 1987 molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. In the case at bar. filed a rape case against the latter. Gutierrez was granted conditional pardon by the President. without doubt.  As a result if the sexual intercourse. 8 IN RE GUTIERREZ In re Gutierrez Facts: Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar. The degree of moral turpitude warrants disbarment. Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family. Rivas. While he was the municipal mayor of Calapan. Royong gave birth to a child  Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him. was granted absolute or unconditional pardon after conviction for the crime of crime of bigamy.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar. he and other coconspirators murdered the former municipal mayor of Calapan. It was not a full pardon which could have blotted out the offense committed. It was held that such pardon releases the punishment and blots out existence of guilt. for which they were held guilty and sentenced to the penalty of death. Calinisan. the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena. by taking advantage of his official position. the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal. Murder is. the investigators concluded that A. so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. Fernandez. But most importantly. are sufficient grounds to cause Oblena’s disbarment YES! Anastacio. his common-law wife. “Moral turpitude” includes everything contrary to justice. and procedure. In the Lontok case. the pardon granted was conditional. B. and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term. modesty. a married woman.  In her complaint. It also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. After serving a portion of the sentence. Morada. or supplement rules concerning pleading. even after he became a lawyer and C. The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted on condition that the shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. the court was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. such a crime. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must adhere to them or incur the risk of suspension or removal.    Under section 5 of Rule 127. Sarenas 2C . ISSUE:  HELD:  W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles. Issue: W/N the conditional pardon to Gutierrez places him beyond the rule of disbarment Held: NO. For the first time. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band. honesty. the respondent.  9 ROYONG v OBLENA FACTS:  Royong. alter. section 5. on which Gutierrez relies. or good morals. Gana Lopez. The widow of the murdered victim then filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking that Gutierrez be removed from the rule of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127. Upon review by the Supreme court the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua. and with the use of a motor vehicle.  The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident  The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in the province  Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition  After the hearing. practice. Beron.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles. Admission of a candidate to the bar requires academic preparation and satisfactorytestimonials of good moral character. It expanded the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.

Marcelina. tapos dinemolish na niya. President. Morada. Cordon’s ancestral home was demolished and Cordon was detained in a nipa shack. Miriam. Balicanta did not even try to redeem the properties and even sold the right to redeem to another person. Rivas. in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006   Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape. seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Sec 25.    10 CORDON v BALICANTA (complaint for disbarment against Balicanta) Facts:   Cordon and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City when Cordon’s husband died. Sometime after. Eliseo and Vicente and Felicisima (married to Rolando Torres))  Torres consented to the forgery of Isidra’s signature for an Extrajudicial settlement making it appear that his wife and Miriam were the only sole heirs. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the original complaint. he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation. Beron. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other people thinks he is. Balicanta cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation (wow. Lahat ng ginawa niya against The Code of Professional Responsibility. Balicanta’s complaint was dismissed. Sabi kasi ni Balicanta na he’s just going to have the house remodeled and repainted. 19 parcels of land was transferred in the name of the newly formed corporation. Balicanta was also able to obtain a loan from Land Bank using as collateral 9 parcels of land. Also. presented false testimony that Miriam and Felicisima were the only sole heirs  Torres presented the reconstituted deed to the RD to enable them to profit by selling the land Anastacio. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. Balicanta fought back and said that the investigation is prejudiced against him and filed a complaint for disbarment against the people who investigated his case and the lawyers of Cordon. Sarenas 2C . Gago talaga to si Balicanta. Mendiola.  Torres. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law. Balicanta enticed Cordon to organize a corporation to develop the properties. Oblena’s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed is untenable. piercing the corporate veil) Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client. One’s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. Fernandez.      Issue: • Held: • • • • 11 TING-DUMALI v TORRES FACTS:  Isidra Ting-Dumali charges Rolando Torres with violating his oath as a lawyer and canons of legal and judicial ethics. Calinisan. Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. Balicanta became the Chairman of the Board. American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law. General Manager and Treasurer of the corporation (kupal talaga) Balicanta was able to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Suy Ong through an SPA signed by Cordon. Oblena’s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is wrong. the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority. Cordon and daughter demanded that Balicanta return all the properties given by them to the corporation but Balicanta is unable to do so (napunta na sa ibang tao eh) IBP investigation recommended that Balicanta be disbarred. Gago talaga. Oblena took advantage of Royong’s trust on him. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment.  Isidra’s parents died intestate and left many parcels of land to their 6 children (Isidra. Gana Lopez. on a reconstitution hearing. W/N Balicanta should be disbarred Hello?! Siyempre he should be disbarred. Buti na lang at nadiscover ni daughter kung ano nangyari.

the duress has ceased after wedding day. 12 MACARRUBO v MACARRUBO Facts: Florence Macarrubo by herself and on behalf of her 2 children files a complaint for disbarment against Edmundo Macarrubo alleging that Edmundo deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen Esparza. The lawyer’s oath.  P3. And that his conformity through his signature was pro forma because the property was a paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006  Torres contends that his acts were done in good faith believing for himself that his and the siblings had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. Rivas. drift and hollow.  Ariola claims that the document he notarized was superfluous and unnecessary. of the JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management. Edmundo claimed that he left complainant and their 2 children w/ her consent. he entered into a 2nd marriage with complainant. this does not cleanse his conduct of impropriety. but that Florence dragged Edmundo against his will to a 'sham wedding'. but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. nor is it mere words. and prejudiced no one. Ariola of committing fraud. Held: Yes. 13 SICAT v ARIOLA Facts:  Arturo Sicat. the person who supposedly executed it. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor criminal but is rather an investigation by the court on the conduct of its officers. Issue: W/n Edmundo should be disbarred. Said company had a contract with the Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost houses. he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful. insisting instead that complainant Florence was fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage. 2.  What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the SPA was notarized more than 2 months after the death of Benitez. Sarenas 2C . Beron. Edmundo having freely cohabited with her and even begot a 2nd child. Edmundo denied the allegations.. and falsehood in notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The decision of RTC annulling their marriage is not res judicata on the final resolution of this case. Florence further averred that Edmundo entered into a 3rd marriage with Josephine Constantino. A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. dishonest. is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards. immoral or deceitful conduct. and Anastacio. Morada. While the marriage between complainant Florence and Edmundo has been annulled by final judgment. to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice. That the false testimony was a clear oversight. deceit. Edmundo submitted the decision of RTC declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio. 3. Facts show that while Edmundo has a subsisting marriage w/ Helen Esparza s/ whom he had 2 children. Gana Lopez.  Investigating Commissioner of IBP suggested disbarment ISSUE: WoN Torres should be disbarred? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. Gregorio E. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Calinisan.  Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito Benitez. Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal charged Atty.. Mendiola. Fernandez. Even assuming arguendo that Edmunod was coerced by complainant to marry her.700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and Technical Management for services not rendered (as consultants). and that he abandoned Florence without providing them w/ regular support.

15. Mesina committed dishonesty. interested in buying the property. Meanwhile.  But when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax.000 as penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son Anastacio. Rivas. Held:  Yes. Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale wherein the spouses would appear to resell the property to Felicisima.  When Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank. 14 CHUA v MESINA. Calinisan. Issue: Was Atty. Mesina violated his oath of office and Canons 1. in April 1984. June and August 1982 ‘Father’ took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive compensation However. Mesina borrowed the title of the property from the spouses and promised to transfer. hence legally there was no public document that existed. he committed dishonesty again. Morada. Gana Lopez. to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Mendiola. Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. There were also badges of fraud that can be attributed to Mesina as there were marked differences in the signatures of Felicisima. and not merely suspended for a year.  His assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. The spouses leased a building owned by Mesina’s family.  Notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them an personally appeared before the. Tecson filed charges for falsification of documents.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 therefore he should be exonerated – the document was cancelled the same day he notarized it. 15 DE YSASI III v NLRC FACTS This is a case filed by a son against his father ‘Father’ employed ‘Son’ as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao ‘Son’ suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions.  Later on. Clearly. himself. ‘Father’ ceased to pay ‘Son’s’ salary        ‘Son’ filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full back wages  NLRC dismissed case stating that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work and termination is for a valid cause though ordered ‘Father’ to pay P5. Issue: W/N Ariola can be held liable.  Not long after the title was handed over to the spouses. Fernandez. yet again.  Ariola is disbarred. and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. was actually mortgaged in favor of a bank for a loan obtained by Mesina’s mother—Felicisima Melencio (who was the registered owner as well). Beron. he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. The case was investigated by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be suspended for gross misconduct.  To avoid the falsification charge. the date of the transaction is 1979. His disbarment is warranted. A deed of sale was made conveying the property to the spouses. however. When he convinced Chua to execute another deed to make it appear that the property was conveyed back to Felicisima. the spouses were convinced by Mesina to help his mother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. The property. A new title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was entrusted in the hands of the spouses. 7. Jr Facts:  Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. which is before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.  But Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the property is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action. Atty Mesina suggested to execute another deed of sale—this time. Sarenas 2C . another lessee of the building—Tecson—questioned the transaction as he was. title in the name of the spouses. And when he obtained the title upon the misrepresentation that he will return the same after 4 months. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct? Held: Blimey! Of course! When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed of sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains tax.

end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement”  In the case at bar. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City. Mendiola. at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. the SC issued a resolution ordering Atty. Held:  SC says yes. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. Atty. Calinisan. Jr. is already sufficient punishment for his acts.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides “a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid. the suspension is lifted and Estacio is not anymore required to file the briefs but he is censured for negligence and inattention to duty.  Estacio failed to explain. Rivas. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. to constitute abandonment there must be a clear. Gana Lopez. Thereafter. He also said that the reason why he did not file the briefs was because the accused declared that they intended t withdraw their appeal for lack of money. deliberate and justified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence  In the case at bar. the reason for the ‘Son’s’ absence was due to his illness of which Father was aware of since he paid hospital and medical bills  ‘Father’ is ordered to pay ‘Son’ backwages in lieu of reinstatement and separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service ISSUE W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HELD NO RATIO  Rule 1. Atty. Eugenio Rosqueta and Citong Bringas.  SC commended what some lawyers would have done in that situation which was to be declared as counsel de officio so that the client remains properly represented by a lawyer who is already familiar with the case. records do not show that counsel of both parties took pains to initiate steps geared toward a rapprochment between their clients  In the same manner.  SC said that Estacio’s suspension for 5 mos. Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Beron. the parties not having submitted their position papers.. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. whose house was burned down along with the briefs. Atty. Morada.. Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and Anastacio. Lawyers do their job not for the sole consideration of money. for failure to prosecute. Estacio should have continued with his duties despite knowing that the accused did not have money anymore. Sarenas 2C . On appeal.  He then filed a motion for reconsideration saying that he did file the briefs but he sent it to Rosqueta Sr. Gregorio Estacio (counsel de parte of the accused) to explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for his failure to file the brief for appellants during the required period. the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit of the Labor Code as he did not exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of the labor dispute 16 PEOPLE v ROSQUETA Facts:  There was a criminal case against Antonio Rosqueta. so he was suspended from the practice of law. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the case. Thus. His acts were not consistent with the idea that the law is not a business but a profession.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 ISSUE HELD W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED YES RATIO  Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may valid terminate an employment  ‘Father’ banks on the fact that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work  However. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients. Issue: W/n Estacio’s acts should be punished.  The SC did subsequently receive affidavits from the accused withdrawing their appeal. Fernandez. 17 CANOY v ORTIZ  Facts: A Complaint was filed Canoy accusing Atty.

Morada. Beron. no matter how guilty or evil he appears to be. is liable to be sanctioned. Assist.01. The services of Atty.03 and 3. Ortiz’s election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City. Ortiz is to be sanctioned.  Khan. A lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Rule 18. Mendiola. Rule 2. filed a case against Simbillo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the client.  The abbreviated and aborted presentation of the prosecution evidence and the improvident plea of guilty was not in accordance with requirements of due process  Considering the gravity of the offense charged and the finality of the penalty. Rule 18.  Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. half of which is payable at the filing of the case and the balance after the decision has been rendered. Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month. and jurisprudence. Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. 18 PEOPLE v STA TERESA Facts: Angeles Sta. Sarenas 2C . As a lawyer sworn to uphold justice and the law. This duty becomes more compelling is his client is accused of a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life  The right to counsel means more that just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections.03–A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Court Administrator. His failure to do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. law. the procedures. Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct.” Issue: W/N Atty. Simbillo is for P48. and was given the penalty of death. Gana Lopez.  Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that solicitation and advertisement is not Anastacio. After 9 days. Issue: W/N counsel de officio discharged his duties properly Held: NO. There must be active involvement by the lawyer and he must be well-versed on the case.04–A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. counsel failed to appear and the trial judge had to appoint another counsel de oficio for the purpose of promulgation. Counsel must provide effective legal assistance and commit himself to the cause for the defense. there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark.  Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin. Rizalino Simbillo answered who said that his husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and guarantees a court decree within 4-6 month. 19 KHAN V SIMBILLO FACTS:  An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads: “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 5324333/521-2667. 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Held: Atty. Rivas. Calinisan. During the promulgation of RTC’s decision.000. as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior.” The prosecution no longer presented testimonial evidence and merely presented exhibits to which counsel de oficio did not comment nor object. CANON 18–A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.”  SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information. his counsel de oficio made a manifestation that the accused wanted to change his plea to “guilty. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence. the counsel de oficio’s performance was utterly wanting.LEGAL ETHICS as a practicing lawyer. Teresa was found by the trial court to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 12-year old daughter. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. When accused was arraigned. The case is now on automatic review. he pleaded not guilty. Fernandez. he had the duty to exert utmost efforts to defend his client and protect his rights.

is unprofessional. Gana Lopez. Beron. Fernandez. Everything confidential. Rivas. and asked for mitigation saying: o o I only did it once.01 states that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false. solicitation must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.Isabela. The use of calling cards is now acceptable. are permissible. IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition of similar act will be dealt with more severely. W/N the acts of Tagorda is advertising Yes. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. He also said that the interest of the public is not served by the prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted. The use of simple signs stating the name/s of the lawyers. Aside from advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist.     20 IN RE TAGORDA Facts:    Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela Previous to the last election. In essence he was informing the lieutenant that he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this information to the other people in his town. is the primary consideration. deceptive. Mendiola. not money. to dissolve their marriage. Morada. he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and notary public He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague. Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa yung code of professional responsibility. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements. Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the bar. as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data. It results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife.” his assurance of his clients that an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months from the filing of the case encourages people.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006   ISSUE:  HELD:   prohibited per se and that it is about time to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation. in the Buy & Sell Free Ads Magazine. misleading. Issue:  Held:       21 DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V BAYOT FACTS:  Bayot was charged with malpractice by publishing “Marriagelicense promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired. and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. for 2 times. Sarenas 2C . Tagorda suspended for a month. W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility YES! Rule 2. undignified. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. While the case was being investigated upon by the court. or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations. Calinisan. self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. fraudulent. 1929 case to) The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity. Simbillo again advertised his legal services. Consultation on any matter free for the poor.” In the Sunday Tribune Bayot first denied the publication but later on admitted. Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. It is a profession in which the duty to public service. However.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business while Rule 3. the office and residence address and the fields of expertise. who might other have 2nd thought. The gaining of livelihood should be a secondary consideration. I won’t repeat it again! I never had any case by reason of the publication  Anastacio.

Irrelevant info: the case above was an alleged violation of DCI of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protection Act. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct. 3. fair. in or out of court which requires that application of law. Sarenas 2C . without disclosing it as such.. for representing conflicting interests and for using the title “Judge” despite having been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct (in Zarate v Romanillos). That case. Beron. knowledge. Considering that Atty. (DCI). The advertisement in question is meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law. the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be.Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct. Roberto Romanillos. DCI sold a land designated as a school site. training and experience. issuing advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B (p381). legal procedures. Practice of law means any activity. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court since law practice is not limited merely to court appearances. 53 Phil. legal support services and legal services. Gana Lopez. Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machine. honest. Romanillos was previously an active board member as corporate secretary of Durano Corp. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. (page 106) Anastacio. Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements. The publication is tantamount to a solicitation of business from the public. in making known his legal services shall use only true. either personally or thru paid agents or brokers. The proscription against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. however. and objective information or statement of facts.) 22 ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC FACTS:  Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease. Code of Ethics. Mendiola. Inc (SJHAI) before the human Settlements Regulation Commission in a case against the same DCI. Calinisan. Exceptions: o Publication in reputable law lists. the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. 1. major stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine Bar.02 that is counseling illegal activities.LEGAL ETHICS ISSUE: WoN Bayot can be charged with malpractice? HELD: YES. the law firm. Apparently. common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the 2 terms." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares." (Canon 27. in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon o Ordinary. The card may contain only the statement of his name. Nogales who is the prime incorporator. Law is a profession and not a trade.. Applying the case Cayetano vs. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible. But it allowed itself to represent San Jose Homeowners Association. In In re Tagorda. ISSUE:   HELD:  W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice of law Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of According to the IBP. Monsod. the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the practice of law. Morada.     23 SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS V ROMANILLOS Facts:    This is a disbarment case against Atty. morals. public order and public policy. as he hereby is. the Code of Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer. was more serious than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent. 2nd Sem 2005-2006 2. Rivas. simple professional card. he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely. constitutes malpractice. Fernandez. Inc. even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a wellmerited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. The use of the name the Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers and that it renders legal services. reprimanded. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1. address and branch of law practiced.

a second disbarment case was filed. The penalty imposed on him in the Zarate case forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges: including the title judge. Thus. In spite of this. pending appeal with the DOJ. And later on. but he was merely reprimanded. Sarenas 2C . The order of Judge Villon on the arraignment. she filed the Information. an not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service. but the Yabuts were not arrested or were never brought unto the custody of the law. Gana Lopez. Calinisan. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. The lack of opposition does not mean consent. Beron. Judge Roura’s procedural lapses: o Deferred resolution on the motion for a hold departure order until “such time that all the accused who are out on bail are arraigned” o Denied the motion to defer proceedings for the reason that “private prosecution has not shown any indication that the appeal was given due course by DOJ” Judge Villon’s procedural lapses: o Ordered arraignment despite: a motion to defer proceedings. the SJHAI’s Board terminated Romanillos’ services. As long as the lawyer represents 2 or more opposing clients. Mendiola. and the subsequent arraignment of the Yabuts are void and set aside. with no bail recommended. They are servants of the law whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape and innocence shall not suffer. It would be more prudent to wait for the DOJ resolution.) And despite the pending appeal. o Alfonso-Reyes was aware of the private prosecution’s appeal to the DOJ from her resolution. W/N Romanillos should be disbarred Held:     Yes. (he was a judge before. o Office of the Prosecutor did not even inform the trial court of the pending appeal to the DOJ Secretary. he still continued to serve as counsel for Durano-Rodriguez. It is inconsequential that SJHAI never questioned the propriety of respondent’s continued representation of Durano-Rodriguez. Procedural irregularities in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor: o Warrants of arrest were issued by the MCTC. Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to file their counter-affidavits without first demanding that they surrender by virtue of the standing warrants of arrest. 24 DIMATULAC v VILLON Facts:     In the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac.01 and 3. It also included his use of “judge” although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct. (The subsequent resolution of the DOJ Secretary exposed her blatant errors. Fernandez. Issue: Can the orders of Judge Roura and Judge Villon be sustained despite procedural defects? Held: No. The orders of Judge Roura denying Motion to Defer proceedings are void and set aside. Asst Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes conducted a reinvestigation. incumbent and retired. but he resigned instead of being booted out) The title “judge” should be reserved only to judges. Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is ordered to comply with the DOJ Secretary’s resolution. Though a prosecutor may disagree with the findings of the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation (and conduct his own).LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006      Issue: When SJHAI’s petition over the land was denied. Anastacio. The IBP handled the case. the circumstance that the accused waived the filing of their counter-affidavits left Alfonso-Reyes no other choice but to sustain the MCTC findings—which she did not do.01. Also. Rivas. Morada. Romanillos acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for DCI. resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to comment on the complainants’ action. Prosecutors are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy. the Office of the Public Prosecutor (particularly the Asst Prosecutor) and two Judges (who handled the case) committed serious procedural flaws resulting in the impairment of due process (prejudicial to both the offended party and the accused). Thus. o Alfonso-Reyes recommended a bond of 20k for the Yabuts despite the fact that they were charged of homicide and that they were fugitives from justice (having avoided service of warrant of arrest). a disbarment case was filed for conflicting interests. His continued use of “judge” violated Rules 1. a ten-day period with which the complainants can file petition with the CA. and whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case but that justice be done. he is guilty of violating his oath. Yet.

The judge’s action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused. as consideration for the release of a check to the said corp. filed a report to the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) containing charges of violations of RA30191 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts) against Sec. former Head Executive Assistant of the Department of Public Information (DPI). 1980 – Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the PSC for investigation and report.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 The judge “should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice”. a private corporation owned by his brother –in-law unwarranted benefits. Anastacio. 1974 – Antonio de los Reyes. (a) Giving D’Group. 1979 – a formal complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan Apr. contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity. delivered and paid for by the Municipal Treasurer hence he cannot be guilty under the provisions of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act W/N TRIESTE IS GUILTY UNDER THE ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT NO TRIESTE already sold his shares to a certain MRS TUASON before he assumed office and despite the absence of it in the SEC records. for printing services rendered during the Constitutional Convention Referendum. 1. alleges that he signed the vouchers only after all the purchases had already been made. Manager of Amity Trading Corp. Mendiola. he awarded purchases of construction materials by the said municipality from the said corporation and signing the vouchers as evidence of said purchase   The Sandiganbayan found TRIESTE guilty and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification TRIESTE. Fernandez. Rivas. underdelivery or overpricing in the transactions Hence. Marcos and the charges became widely known. Dec. Calinisan. June 16. 25 TRIESTE v SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS  TRIESTE was charged with 23 separate violations of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act* because while being the Municipal Mayor and member of the Committee on Award of the Municipality of Numancia in Aklan and having financial or pecuniary interest in TRIGEN Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. nor the right of the State and offended party. and (c) failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers (h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business. Morada. 12. 1980 – report by PSC was submitted recommending the filing of charges for graft and corruption.. the court finds this fact immaterial as there is no law requiring submission of reports regarding sales and disposal of stocks (what is required is only submission of annual financial reports) The Municipal Treasurer testified that there was never a public bidding hence if there is no bidding then there could be no awarding by TRIESTE Testimonial and documentary evidence both confirm that TRIESTE signed vouchers after payment and since what is contemplated in the Anti-Graft Law is the actual intervention in the transaction which one has financial or pecuniary interest in. (b) receiving a check from Roberto Vallar. Gana Lopez. 1979 – Tatad had a falling out with then Pres. or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest 26 TATAD v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:      1 Oct. Sarenas 2C . of DPI Francisco Tatad. TRIESTE cannot be held liable under such Law TRIGEN did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction such that there is no complaint for non-delivery. TRIESTE should be acquitted ISSUE HELD RATIO      NOTE *Section 3. Beron. Gen. When the State is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. the acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is void. in his defense.

When a civil action arose because of #1. 1985 – Tanodbayan issued a resolution calling for the filing of charges against Tatad in the Sandiganbayan. Ong. A delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. the property was sold to the bank.000. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when. Calinisan. SC says yes they were violated by the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan. the Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo. Morada. Tatad now questions the propriety of the filing of charges.   Issue: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res adjudicata appplies) Held:   Cioco’s contention has no merit. the case was being handled by Atty. Rivas. of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant cause. who was the sole bidder. after leaving gov’t. after leaving the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner. in advance of the trial. Cioco. Cedo for violation of Rule 6. He also claims that even if it was his law firm handling the Almeda case. Fernandez. accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in said service. Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous case. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests. 263. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of the loan so the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the Court’s administrative powers. July 5. service. in behalf of one client. Ferrer.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. During Cedo’s stint with PNB.02 that states: A lawyer shall not. Issue: W/N violated Rule 6. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against his former client information given to him in a professional capacity. Records disclose that page four of the said Certificate was surreptitiously substituted. and the client. W/n Tatad’s rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated. Cioco was administratively proceeded against Anastacio. the mere fact that their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side. Mendiola. 1982 – all affidavits and counter-affidavits were in and the case was ready for disposition. The case was ready for disposition as early as 1982 but the informations were only filed in 1985. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law and substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by law is part of procedural due process. Ong and 2. A certificate of Sheriff’s sale was executed by Atty. Beron. are not that complicated to require 3 years before formal complaints are filed. 28 DINSAY v CIOCO Facts:  Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank) certain properties as security for the payment of its loan.02.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses Almeda. 25. 5 informations were filed against Tatad in 1985. He argues that there was res adjudicata due to the administrative case. The charges in the complaint. it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. At a foreclosure sale conducted by the sheriff. The new page lowered the bid price from the original amount of P3. Therein. Atty.LEGAL ETHICS    Issue:  Held:  2nd Sem 2005-2006 Oct. except by express consent of all the parties concerned after the disclosure of facts. 182. Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Also. when #2 was involved in a civil action. Cedo. Vice-President of the Asset management Group of PNB. Held: Cedo violated Rule 6. Gana Lopez. Cedo was the former Asst.02. specially his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty.67 to only P730. Cioco and the sheriff who conducted the sale had previously been administratively charged and dismissed from service. he became involved in 2 transactions: 1. Sarenas 2C . He alleges that his rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated. Ferrer.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation. and that disbarment was deemed adjudicated therein. then clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff. thus he may now longer be charged. Now. Ong’s case. as in this case.  27 PNB v ATTY CEDO Facts: PNB filed a complaint against Atty.

Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. He knows it is patently illegal to alter its contents after notarization. Genbank failed to recover. 1986: after EDSA I. Atty. Soriano asked for an additional P20. Nonetheless. Soriano: o It is unnatural for a person to give money to someone whom he does not know well and whom he met only for the first time o The money was offered gratuitously by Igoy o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to him on the SC parking lot for many employees were passing in that place o it is not Eng. Soriano’s offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty may be imposed on him. Atty. 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision – 28 pages lang ** merong history of Rule 6. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and is suspended from the practice of law. Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for public service is a public trust. there is no double jeopardy as both proceedings are administrative in nature. Gana Lopez.000 Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is pending in the CA Atty. Soriano which was received by his son. Taneo o if the SC finds that he is guilty. since it is already a public document. Soriano offered to prepare the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC. Cioco is disbarred. Eng. et al. Sarenas 2C . The exception is . Herein. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the CA. Rivas. Soriano violated Canon 6. SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality Igoy later found out that Atty. representing the government. he will retire from the service Atty.  30 PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN *kalokohan na kaso to.000 but the former reminded the latter the he will only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC Igoy’s case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty. resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts Resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative sanctions To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will open the floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption. William Redoblado introduced Atty. Fernandez. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Yes! Atty. Mactan Shangrila Hotel. Mendiola. Atty.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006     as an erring Court personnel under the supervisory authority of the court. his family and cronies. While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct. The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals that should e matched with actual deeds. vs. Morada. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616 W/N Atty. Cioco’s participation in changing the bid price in the Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale affects his fitness as a member of the bar. intervened with the liquidation of Genbank. Solicitor General Mendoza. if that misconduct affects his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency. 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. According to Igoy’s friend. However. Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20. 29 IGOY v SORIANO FACTS:            ISSUE:  HELD:      Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy. Calinisan. The general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. Redoblado who introduced him to Igoy but Mr.03 and other historical stuff sa case Facts:   1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Rule 6.  Anastacio. Beron. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this complaint against Igoy in the SC Arguments of Atty. Cioco is sought to be disciplined as a lawyer under the court’s plenary authority over members of the legal profession. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M).

The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial. it does not involve conflicts at all.67. SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza.66. In relation to this case. Mendiola. Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank.an alleged crime is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law.03 should have a prescriptive period  Tinga: Rule 6. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party Intervention – interference that may affect the interests of others    31 IN RE GALANG FACTS:  Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila  He took the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in 1972.63. And in 1966.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General.69 and 71.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza No. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar of the fact that he had been charged with.69 and 71… he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred? HELD: YES! RATIO: 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Fernandez. Sandiganbayan heard the case. because of his participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Gana Lopez. Beron. or indicted for. He is Anastacio. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. According to the Sandiganbayan. as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel Matter – any discrete. The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group. or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. probity and good demeanor. Apparently. Calinisan. The matter (see 3rd note). it does not apply to Mendoza. Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents. Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. 2. Kyle’s interpretation: PCGG getting desperate Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6. Sarenas 2C .03 will make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to one’s work as a government counsel. Issue:  Held:       Concurring Opinions:  Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6. he was allowed to do so only because he fraudulently concealed and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in 1962. Rivas. PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. And Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.03 yet)  Bottom line.67. BUT. Morada. no Rule 6. This is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.64. 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza. they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively Notes:  Adverse-interest conflicts – where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse Congruent-interest conflicts – the use of the word “conflict” is a misnomer. (Guilty of Fraud upon the Court) Galang’s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case (which he later admitted) and his failure to clear his name for 13 years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. The intervention contemplated in Rule 6. W/N Rule 6.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006    1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila).

as a graduate of Quisumbing Collge.   Issue: Held:     Yes. died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him. a neophyte. He then would have not been permitted to take the Bar. Cuevas prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the court's most convenient time. Gana Lopez. His discharge from probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions therefor and the various certification attesting to his righteous peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character. This resolution was due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. he claims that he really got his college diploma from Arellano University in April 1949. the education authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year HS. His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte shich resulted to the latter's untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an Anastacio. Also. the reqt on applicant’s educational attainment b. due to confusion. The conviction stemmed from Cuevas' participation in the initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS. Beron. Rivas. The Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao’s name be erased from the roll of attorneys. 33 DIAO v MARTINEZ Facts:     Telesfor Diao was admitted to the Bar in 1953. petitioner applied for and was granted probation. the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education: o Diao did not complete his HS training. Calinisan.. Lack of good moral character c. Issue: W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. Sarenas 2C .LEGAL ETHICS 3. Among other grounds for disbarment: a. is equivalent to a HS diploma. Fernandez. passed the General Qualification Test.” The fact that he hurdled the bar is immaterial. which according to him. Severino Martinez charged him for having falsely represented his application: that he had the requisite academic qualifications. W/N Diao should be removed from the roll. The court nonetheless is willing to give Cuevas a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al Caparros Argosino (case sa legprof). a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of Law. Thereafter. Diao’s name is removed from the roll. petitioner's coaccused below. it would have showed that he took up law 6 months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. In this petition. The “error” or “confusion” was to his own making. to take the lawyer's oath.. 2nd Sem 2005-2006 therefore unworthy to be a lawyer. where Raul Camaligan. recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Held: YES. Misrepresentations of. he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education as prescribed by the Department of Education. Mendiola. Diao has not completed BEFORE taking up law.. in his school records. or false pretenses relative to. Fraudulent passing of the Bar exams 32 IN RE CUEVAS Facts: Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr. Rule: “That PREVIOUS to the study of law. he entered the US Army. He says he was erroneously certified. and o Diao never attended Quisumbing College Diao claims that he left HS in his third year. and upon return to civilian life. His oath taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Exams subject to the condition that should he pass the same he shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the court. Morada. Two years after. (he did not offer any explanation for such omission). He was later discharged from probation and his case considered closed and terminated. Had his application showed that he graduated from Arellano.

The rape by a lawyer of his neighbor’s wife constitutes such serious moral depravity. LESLIE filed a motion to cite IRIS in contempt for making false allegations in her Answer to impress upon the IBP that her 1st child by CARLOS was within wedlock o IRIS indicated in Answer she got married to CARLOS in Oct 22. A complaint for disbarment was also filed by Calub before the SC. LESLIE found out CARLOS was having illicit relations with Atty IRIS Bonifacio and begot a daughter o CARLOS admitted this relationship with LESLIE who confronted IRIS o IRIS told LESLIE everything was over between her and CARLOS However. taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. 1987 W/N IRIS SHOULD BE DISBARRED NO o   ISSUE HELD RATIO Immorality  Requisites to admission to practice of law includes being a person of good moral character and possession of such must be continuous  Loss of good moral character is a ground of revocation of the privilege of the practice of law  In the case at bar. etc) but she did not do anything about it  However. Calinisan. 1985 o However. Fernandez. 34 CALUB v SULLER Facts:    Atty Suller raped the wife of his neighbor Cristino Calub. Certificate of Marriage certified by State Registrar revealed that date of marriage was actually Oct 22. not living together as husband and wife. Rivas. children by another woman. 35 UI v BONIFACIO FACTS  LESLIE’S side of the story o LESLIE Ui married CARLOS and had 4 children with him o Subsquently.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 attorney-at-law. she cut all ties with him In proceedings before the IBP Commission. Issue: Can Atty Suller be disbarred? Held: Yes. Mendiola. IRIS was imprudent in her personal affairs  Circumstances existed which should have at least aroused her suspicion that something was amiss (i. A criminal complaint for rape was filed against Suller. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. IRIS should not be disbarred False allegation  Any normal bride would recall date and year of marriage  Difficult to fathom how IRIS could “forget” the year of her marriage Anastacio. which shows that he lacks moral character to continue as officer of the court.e. Sarenas 2C . Beron. the fact remains that IRIS’ relationship with CARLOS was clothed with marriage and cannot be considered immoral  Moreover. The CFI acquitted Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Morada. such conduct to warrant disciplinary action must be grossly immoral that is so corrupt and false to constitute a criminal act or moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community  IRIS’ act of immediately distancing herself belies the alleged moral indifference and proves she has no intention of flaunting the law  Hence. Gana Lopez. Acquittal in a criminal case is not determinative of an administrative case for disbarment. they did not live together because CARLOS wanted his children with the Chinese woman to gradually know and accept his marriage with IRIS o When IRIS knew about the 1st marriage. whether in his professional or private capacity. LESLIE found out later the illicit relations continued and IRIS even had 2nd child with CARLOS o LESLIE filed a complaint for disbarment against IRIS on ground of immorality IRIS’ side of the story o Met CARLOS who represented himself as a bachelor with children by a Chinese woman with whom he had long been estranged o CARLOS and IRIS got married in Hawaii o Upon return to Manila.

in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes. any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading especially in this case since IRIS had personal knowledge of facts stated therein Hence. Royong gave birth to a child  Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with him. the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena. IRIS should be reprimanded for attaching marriage certificate with an altered date 36 ROYONG v OBLENA FACTS:  Royong.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal liability. From the evidence. it appears that Aznar was the Chairman of the Board of Southwestern University. Aznar assured her that she would pass. It appears that Atty. Aznar denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila. Aznar for gross immorality. Calinisan. Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence charged in the original complaint. even after he became a lawyer and C. Despite her plea. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. Morada. His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law. Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Sec 25.  In her complaint.  As a result if the sexual intercourse. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. They went to Manila. his common-law wife.      37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR Facts: Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty. Oblena’s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar examination is wrong. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other people thinks he is. As such. Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles. she approached Aznar for reconsideration. After dining in a restaurant. he slept at the house of his friends.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar. B. a married woman. she failed the subject. Sarenas 2C . Anastacio. Mendiola. filed a rape case against the latter. Delos Reyes failed her Pathology subject. Oblena took advantage of Royong’s trust on him. One’s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character.LEGAL ETHICS   2nd Sem 2005-2006 Moreover. Gana Lopez. Beron. the investigators concluded that A. Fernandez. the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority. he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation. Aznar told Delos Reyes that she should go with him to Manila or else she will flunk. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent. Also. American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law.  The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident  The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal husband in the province  Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition  After the hearing. ISSUE:  HELD:   W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles. are sufficient grounds to cause Oblena’s disbarment YES! Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape. Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next morning inside the Ambassador Hotel. Oblena’s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed is untenable. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of disbarment. Rivas.

Velasco presented affidavits of his wife and Lucy Matienzo ISSUE:  W/N Atty. he did not present any evidence to show where he was on that date.’s finding that Aznar committed gross misconduct. since Villanueva had procured the motion by means of threat and intimidation. 3 lands of Atty. where Villanueva is practices his profession. Mendiola. Velasco. Soon thereafter. It is the duty of the lawyer. Velasco was bought by Rau Sheng for P3. Purog o He refused to deliver the certificate of stocks and the land titles because of the Rau Sheng’s incomplete payment of the purchase price o As to the immorality claim. Morada. Angeles Velasco as his legal consultant and counsel of his company Foreign Investors Consultancy and Management.  Also. Soberano sent another letter saying that her mother has arrived and that the case must case. Inc (FICMI). these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act. Velasco as its director and stockholder. Fernandez. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle on to continue in the practice of law 38 SOBERANO v VILLANUEVA Facts:      Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging that after Atty. Gana Lopez. entered into a management agreement with FICMI  Atty Velasco sold to Rau Sheng his 10. nor so unprincipled as to warrant a disbarment of disciplinary action.  Haru Gen Beach Resort and Hotel Corporation . 39 RAO SHENG v VELASCO FACTS:  Rau Sheng Mao is a Taiwanese national who engaged the services of Atty. whenever his moral character is put into question. prayed that her motion to withdraw the petition be denied. Velasco wherein the latter was asking money from the former to be given to judges hearing his cases  An additional charge for immorality because of his illicit relationship with Lucy Matienzo who is not his legal wife was filed by Rau Sheng wherein he presented the baptismal certificate of Jenny Velasco which listed Atty. Velasco is guilty of all the allegations made by Rau Sheng HELD:  YES! Atty. former Chairman of Agricultural Tenancy Commission. to satisfy the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy continued membership in the bar. While Aznar denied having taken Delos Reyes to the Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her. Rau Sheng presented as evidence letters made by Atty.3M with a remaining balance of P300. then Judge of CFI and Court of Agrarian Relations. Sarenas 2C .LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Held: Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct. Rivas. distinguished members of the bar had attested to Villanueva’s good moral character. Velasco denied all the allegations of Rau Sheng with these arguments: o He could not deceive Rau Sheng for the Taiwanese was always represented in all their transactions by Atty. Soberano again wrote a letter saying that the filing of the petition was not sincerely her own wish.000 but the former refused to deliver the certificates to the Taiwanese despite complete payment made by the Taiwanese  Also. Villanueva abandoned them. Beron. One is no less than the Executive Judge of the CFI of Negros Occidental.000. Atty. and that she was finally withdrawing her complaint the last letter written by Soberano to the court however.000. and subsequently. Calinisan. Velasco still refused to deliver the titles  Rau Sheng filed an administrative case against Atty.represented by Atty. Velasco as its father together with the affidavits of several people confirming Velasco’s illicit relationship with Lucy as evidence  Atty. He cannot dispense with the high exacting moral standards of the profession. The court agrees with the Sol. Issue: W/N Villanueva should be disbarred Held: NO  The letters of Soberano to Villanueva clearly indicated that intimate relations had existed between them prior to the date when the alleged fake wedding occurred. Soberano sent a letter to the court asking that no action be taken on her petition until her mother has arrived and decided whether it should push though. Gen. These indicate that there was o need for Villanueva to stage a fake wedding to induce Soberano to cohabit with him. but Atty. the latter cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and wife. The last one is Hon. Guillermo Santos. SC held that in light of the circumstances in this case. Villanueva had induced her to take part in a fake wedding. As a consequence of this. Velasco was found guilty of the having illicit relationship with Matieza and giving Rau Sheng the Anastacio.000 shares in Haru Gen for P1. The other is the Dean Montemayor of the Ateneo College of Law.  Some of the letters showed that Soberano reminded him of his promise to marry her after he passed the bar  As to whether the extra-marital relations between Soberano and Villanueva warrants disciplinary action. she bore him two children.

acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in the amount of P10K. Deciembre is found to be lacking good moral character. Sarenas 2C . A lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Morada. Mendiola. This shows the vileness and wretchedness of his soul. Purog in all the dealings But Atty. Rule 1. W/N Deciembre should face disciplinary sanctions Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule 7. 41 GRANDE v DA SILVA FACTS:  Emilio Grande is the private offended party (of estafa and BP 22) against a certain Sergio Natividad.03 He committed falsification when he filled up the blank checks even if this was not agreed upon and despite knowledge that the loan had already been paid. Franklin was even detained for 3 months because of the cases. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. No profession offers greater opportunity for public service than that of a lawyer. What is more. Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank checks to respondent to serve as collateral. For the privilege conferred upon him. Velasco violated Canon 1. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyer’s moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to continue in the practice of law. Fernandez. They are even saying that some of their officemates suffered the same fate under Deciembre. Anastacio. Lourdes. Velasco is guilty of having an adulterous relationship with Matienza with whom he has 3 children all bearing his surname as seen in all the school records of the children. Gana Lopez. Deciembre filled up the blank checks in the amount of P50k each. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. with the help of Deciembre. the client of Atty. ISSUE: WoN de Silva should be suspended? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. He even filed BP22 cases against the couple. Velasco in all their transactions for he was always represented by Atty. Siyempre tumalbog yun mga cheke. Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. Beron. A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which gave the appearance of influencing the courts and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril.  The check was returned with the notation that the ACCT CLOSED  Grande filed a suit against De Silva for violation of BP 22 and Estafa (sha naman ang nakasuhan tuloy hehe)  De Silva refused to comment on notices of complaints sent to her. Calinisan. Investigating officer: Deciembre’s version of the facts is highly doubtful. Subsequently.  IBP recommended that de Silva be suspended for two years. Velasco violated one of the basic tenets of legal ethics by giving Rau Sheng the impression that he was in the position to influence the courts. The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment. Deciembre. Velasco claimed that he has connections with judges and they were claiming money from Rau Sheng. Lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with the greatest caution. Rivas. Deciembre then filed BP22 & estafa cases against the Olbes spouses. Notwithstanding payment. 40 OLBES v DECIEMBRE Facts:         Issue:  Held:      Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Office in Manila.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006       impression that he was in the position to influence the court and he was ordered suspended from the practice of law for 2 years The court found it unlikely that Rau Sheng was deceived by Atty. There are discrepancies between his oral and written testimonies. Deciembre is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.101 by engaging in unlawful and immoral acts. a lawyer was tasked with the equally greater responsibility of upholding the ideals and ethics established. De Silva  De Silva tendered a check to Grande as settlement of the civil aspect of the case. The penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for 2 years is too mild. The nature of the office of an atty requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Lourdes paid Deciembre the amount of the loan plus interest and surcharges. They filed this case for disbarment against Atty.

Palma married Lisa in Hongkong. Respondent's culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just 22 years old and was under psychological treatment for emotional immaturity. Mendiola. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based fishball. Wihtout the knowledge of complainant Cojuangco's family. Palma's relationship with the Cojuangcos became intimate. Complainant was shocked.LEGAL ETHICS 2. How else would a lawyer endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even simple directives. the first division of SC issued a resolution setting aside the CFI Decision declaring the marriage null and void and remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding.. Anastacio. Thereafter. He did not establish it. Rivas. Held: YES. Therefore he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. Atty. Atty Reyes. Also. Xu. Cojuangco fileed with the SC the instant complaint for disbarment. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Fernandez. Canon 1 says that a lawyer shall uphold the consti. Xu then filed a case of estafa against Pan. Complainant filed with CFI a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondent Palma and Lisa. Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer worthy member of the Bar. 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession. Meanwhile. Sarenas 2C . the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the legal processes. He frequented theis house and even tutored Cojuangco's 22-year old daughter Maria Luis Cojuangco. Chiong then filed a motion to quash.. but he also filed a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against Xu. Morada. For a lawyer’s professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. and so Xu asked that his money be returned. Jr for Chia Hsien Pan. Ramon Reyes counsel for Zonggi Xu. Atty. It was only the next day that Palma informed complainant of such fact. Calinisan. Good moral character is always an indispensabel requirement. Issue: W/n Palma should be disbarred. Beron. Held:  Yes. The subsequent judgment of annullment of marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. a Chinese-Taiwanese went into a business venture with Pan. Her deliberate refusal to accept the notices served on her stains the nobility of the profession. The truth is respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Herosisima. knowing fully well that Palma is a married man and has 3 children. Facts:         Issue: Atty. W/N Chiong should be suspended. CFI delared that marriage null and void. 43 REYES v CHIONG JR. Atty. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a subpoena against Pan. and Prosecutor Salanga. Gana Lopez. whether it be professional or non-pro. He alleged that Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation he still filed the complaint against Pan in spite of Pan’s motions. To this date. 42 COJUANGCO v PALMA Facts: Complainant Cojuangco wa a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices and Palma was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life. IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years. Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the estafa case which was baseless. justifies disciplinary action. Victoriano Chiong. tempura and seafood products factory.

and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Atty Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. Though he thought that this is righteous. A complaint was filed against Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and for using improper and offensive language. Morada. talked to Pefianco. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy. A commotion in the office ensued (Pefianco even tried to attack Alcantara). as head of the agency. 45 CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN FACTS  9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published objectionable features or articles in the school paper  Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549  CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case  While the civil case was still pending. his public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect for it. Calinisan. letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge of CAMACHO  CAMACHO filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge they procured and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to waive all kinds of claims they may have with AMA  CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension  PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case ISSUE HELD RATIO   W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED/DISBARRED YES It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were formalized. While Atty. One day the private offended party went to the Public Attorney’s Office to have her civil claims (in the criminal case) settled. It was Pefianco’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so that caused the untoward incident (shouting at Salvani and the woman). Atty Salvani attended to her. Rivas. As a lawyer. Gana Lopez. he could have instituted disbarment proceedings. Pefianco says that he was just moved by the sight of a crying woman whose husband had been murdered. Fernandez. Salvani was talking to the woman. 44 ALCANTARA v PEFIANCO Facts:       Atty Pefianco is counsel in a criminal case. dignity and civility. CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the expelled AMA students PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO Anastacio. Sarenas 2C .LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006      Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. Beron. If Chiong believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. Issue: Did Pefianco violate the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues. District Public Attorney Alcantara. Atty Pefianco was fined and reprimanded. Atty Pefianco shouted at them and questioned the actions of the woman (pertaining to the settlement). Thus the filing of the cases had no justification. But Pefianco called Alcantara an idiot and a stupid (loud enough for other people to hear). Mendiola. He also averred that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid. Chiong should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies.

Held: The lawyer is guilty. Ireneo Torres against Atty. Mendiola. According to the Commissioner. the allegations stem from statements/remarks made by Javier in the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA) (Torres is the President). much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him but should only deal with his counsel. Third. however false or malicious they may be. She also alleges that the Atty. in violation of Rule 9. inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer’s oath. She says that her firm is a sole-proprietorship. Calinisan. Torres alleges that Javier used language that was clearly abusive.    47 CAMBALIZA v CRISTOBAL-TENORIO Facts: Cambaliza. Javier implied that Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get certain documents. cooperated in illegal practice. This was with regard to Javier’s “Reply to Respondents Answer/Comment” in the “attorney’s fees case” where Javier made a comment on the intellectual capacity of Torres. are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry. offensive. For the first cause of action. petitions and motions. cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband Felicisimo. These statements give a possible scenario as to the reason for the burglary in the UEFA office. Cambaliza alleged that Atty. has been falsely representing herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio. Atty. The court made mention that it is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy. utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings. the SC held that such statements made by Javier were necessary in order to resolve the petition for audit filed. she had no partners in her law office. IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him. Atty. charged the latter with grossly immoral conduct. Fernandez. hence.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006 This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates. who is not a member of the bar. the Court ruled that the statements made regarding Torres’ intellectual aptitude were not relevant to the “attorney’s fees case”. Gana Lopez. As to the third cause of action. Torres finds fault in Javier’s statement that implies that it is normal for notaries public to let their relatives sign the documents for them. There were 3 causes of action First. Morada. denies all the allegations. whether by design or oversight. the SC gave Javier the benefit of the doubt that he issued these statements only in the defense of his client. The issue in the said case was whether the 10% attorney’s fees “checked off” from the initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal (I don’t really understand this pero yan lang yun nakalagay). It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law. evidence: (1) letterhead of Cristal- Anastacio. Issue: W/N the lawyer is guilty of cooperating in the illegal practice of law. At the helm of her complaint was the allegation that the Atty. The SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility instructs that respondent’s arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. a former employee of Atty. Second. is an excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case was belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to terminate ALL civil. and improper.). got a fake marriage license. As to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty). Beron. Jose Javier for malpractice. including all kinds of pleadings. SC says only as regards the second cause of action. Javier has disobeyed such mandate and is thus suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.01 based on the ff. when in fact Felicisimo was already married to another woman (Atty. W/n Javier should be held liable for his acts. 46 TORRES v JAVIER Facts:      Issue:  Held:  This is an administrative case filed by Atty. Torres says that this statement is demeaning to the legal profession and the notarial service. Sarenas 2C . caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit against a Makati Councilor. The court agrees with the finding of the Commissioner on Bar Discipline. criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against AMA arising from their previous dismissal” Hence. PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months   DOCTRINE A lawyers should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel. Cristal-Tenorio. Rivas.

But notwithstanding their disqualification to be admitted to the bar. Respondents clearly defied and challenged the orders of the SC by willfully taking the lawyer’s oath before the notary public despite the resolution of the SC denying their petition to be admitted to the bar. for all intent and purposes. and acting as such without authority.” In the same contract. The purpose is to protect the public.” is only one of the grounds under Rule 64. by taking the oath of office as attorney-at-law and notifying the SC of what they had done and their intent to practice law in all courts of the Philippines. section 3.  The agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is “the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. Held: NO. Sarenas 2C . Although they sought admission under the Bar Flunkers Act. He did not file any action to enforce the agreement. with Felicisimo as senior partner. Morada. ET al.” “35. David also agreed not to deal directly with their clients. (2) Sagip Radio Comm.    Issue: W/N the agreement was valid. personal or corporate. The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last since there were mutual accusations of doublecross. and to the Supreme Court. except with another lawyer. the respondents had. Any lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer is guilty of violating rule 9. the bar. While the case was being investigated by the Solicitor General. we shall divide fifty-fifty. Tan Tek Beng accused David of not complying with the agreement and denounced the latter to then Presidential Assistant Ronaldo Zamora. x x x.. held out to the public as such as attorney-at-law The case is remanded to the court of origin  50 PHILIPPINE LAWYERS v AGRAVA Anastacio. Mendiola. No division of fees for legal services is proper. based upon a division of service or responsibility. 48 TAN TEK BENG v DAVID Facts:  Tan Tek Beng is a non-lawyer while David is a lawyer. The lawyer’s duty to prevent or not assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Group card of “Atty. 49 PEOPLE v DE LUNA FACTS:  De Luna. Tan Tak Beng died. Felicisimo Tenorio” (3) an ordered by the MTCC where Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel. Beron. Calinisan. He is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. Also. respondents. Gana Lopez. The ruling of the lower court is wrong for “assuming to be an attorney. either personally or through paid agents or brokers.01. David drafted a contract signed by him and Tan Tek Beng stating among others that “On all commissions and attorney’s fees that we shall receive from our clients. to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame. Rivas. not a business. the client. they took their oaths as lawyers before a notary public and formally advised the SC of such oath taking and that they will engage in the practice of law in all courts of the Philippines  RTC: not guilty of contempt of court unless the respondents actually engaged in the practice of law or held out to the public that they are lawyers by means of circulars ISSUE:  HELD:      W/N the act of the respondents of taking their oath before a notary public constitutes contempt of court YES! The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only before the SC by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Tenorio Law office. The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law agency. which intervenes between client and lawyer…”  David should have known better than to enter and act upon such void and unethical agreement. know that they did not pass the bas examination. This case was submitted for decision. they were notified of the decision of the SC denying their petitions.  The commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association: “34. and the court from the incompetence and dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice.” This meaning is in consonance with the principle that the practice of law is a profession. Fernandez.

HOWEVER. which requires the application of law. Although it is admitted that there is some technicality involved in the work for PPO. Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor. Calinisan. Morada. Sarenas 2C . thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP due. 52 FAR EASTERN SHIPPING v CA Facts: M/V Pavlodar owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC) arrived at the port of Manila. PLA: one who passes the bar is licensed to practice law and is qualified to practice before the PPO. fairness and good faith to the Court d. Rule 1. Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. Fernandez.and that Llamas believed in good faith that he is only allowed a limited practice ISSUE: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable? HELD: YES.LEGAL ETHICS Facts:      2nd Sem 2005-2006  Issue:  Held:      Agrava is the Director of the Philippines Patent Office (PPO). training and experience. Canon 7. Agrava issued a circular announcing that there will be an examination to determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the PPO. and support the activities of the IBP c. Rule 10.Rizal xxxx in his pleadings. And moreover. Francisco Llamas  Santos bases his claims on the grounds that 1) Llamas has been dismissed as Pasay City Judge and 2) his conviction for estafa  Llamas contends that 1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside 2) that his principal occupation was a farm. Beron. dishonet. Lawyer’s Assoc. Nowhere in the Philippine law is it provided for that the director has the power to require additional examinations for attorneys. but everything still goes back to the Patent law as well as other laws. beside him. practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge. As to Agrava’s contention that he has the authority just like his US counterpart. is guilty of violating… a. he was exempt in paying (in pursuant to Sec 4. nor consent to the doing of any court. in or out of court. Rivas. as appropriate. it is still within the ambit “practice of law”. the Court held a penalty of 1 year suspension or until he paid his dues. The practice of law embraces any activity. a member of the Bar filed a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues against Atty. The SC has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.A lawyer shall not do any falsehood. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the additional qualification Agrava: prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge. Phil. RA 7432). in view of Llamas’advanced age. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by an artifice 2) a lawyer’s failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings that he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty --. this contention is wrong.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. (PLA) filed this case for prohibition and injunction against Agrava. with the master of the vessel. Gavino stationed himself in the bridge. The Phil. When the vessel was already about 2000 feet from the pier. his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction when he requires an additional examination for lawyers. he can require additional requirements to practice before the PPO. That like his US counterpart. legal principle.A lawyer shall at all timed uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. which he had declared in his Income Tax Return. 51 SANTOS v LLAMAS FACTS:  Soliman Santos. since he was a senior citizen. Take note – Agrava has been issuing examinations before but it was only now that this power has been contended W/N appearance before the PPO constitutes or is included in the practice of law Yes. Victor Kavankov. Kavankov relayed the Anastacio.01. Mendiola. RATIO: 1) a lawyer by indicating ÏBP. Patent law and the US Patent law are different as to the sections involving the powers of the director. Gana Lopez. immoral or deceitful conduct b. Senen Gavino was assigned by the Manila Pilot's Association (MPA) to conduct docking manuevers for the safe berthing of the vessel.

a public school principal and other public school teachers for having violated the Omnibus Election Code: for having engaged in partisan political activities. Calinisan. In GR no 130068. it would aready have received a copy of the copy of the petition by MPA. Reviewing the records. Jose Balbuena from the Comelec legal department. Comelec wanted to prosecute Amor et al. but erroneously: o What he used: “Alberto Naldeza”/Alberto o Alberto Naldoza He said the case was in volume 245 of the SCRA. thus unduly delaying the resolution of these cases. commenced with the filing of a verified motion for extension of time which contained a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel Tria stating that to the best of his knowledge there is no action or proceeding pending in the SC. However the anchor did not hold as expected. an ordinately and unreasonably long period of time to file its comment. the court disregarded such error. The original members of the legal tean of the OSG are admonished and warned tha a repetition shall also be dealt with more stringently. Fernandez. PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against FESC. The judge dismissed the cases. it took 210 days before the OSG filed its comment. FESC was not even furnished with a copy. MPA and FESC are declared solidarily liable with MPA entitled to reimbursement from Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the amount equivalent to 75% of its prescribed reserved fund. but it was really in volume 254. not with RTC but with MTC. The case was against Diosdada Amor. In his Motion for Reconsideration (see p 263). Baka lang itanong kung ano ruling: The decision of the CA is affirmed. It wa therefore encumbent upon FESC to inform the court of the pending action. It would be fair to conclude that when FESC filed its petition GR no 130068. Sarenas 2C . it being unnecessary to file such certification of non forum shopping with a mere motion for extension. using as basis the Judiciary Reorganization Act: Not exceeding 6 years. But the Omnibus Election Code states that the regional trial court shall have the “exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this code XXX” A closer reading of the Judiciary Reorganization Act (in its first sentence says): “Except in cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court XXX” The Omnibus Election Code is an older law v the Judiciary Election Act Judge Noynay “did not read at all the opening sentence of the Judiciary Election Act” when he dismissed the cases. is the the counsel of record for FESC in both GR no 130068 and GR no 130150. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. Beron. The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario thru its associate. Rivas.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 orders to the crew of the vessel. Comelec’s lawyer was Atty. 130150 then pending with the third division was duly filed with a copy thereof furnished by registered mail to counsel for FESC (atty Tria). Gana Lopez. he quoted the memorandum of te Court Administrator (not the SC) and made it appear that these were the words of the SC. In Gr no 130150 it took 180 days before comment was filed. representing PPA. On the other hand it took the OSG. But considering that it was a superfluity at that stage of the proceeding . When Gavino inquired about the commotion. GR 130068 which is assigned to the Court's second division. (This case is irrelevant to the main case) Apparently. the court finds that the petition filed by MPA in GR no. Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it. Counsel for FESC. specifically its asscociate Tria is reprimaded and warned that a repetition of the same acts shall be dealt with severely. the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed 6 years. Mendiola. CA ruled in favor of PPA holding them liable with MPA (employer of Kavankov) entitled to reimbursement from Gavino. He cited a case. A commotion ensued between the crew members. Gavino. Atty Tria. The bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. This disinclination of the OSG to seasonably file required pleadings constitutes deplorable disservice to the public and can only be categorized as inefficiency on the part of the govt law office. the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario. CA or any other tribunal. Morada. Issue: Are the counsels for the parties committed acts which require the exercise of the court's disciplinary powers? Held: YES. Gavino and MPA. 53 COMELEC v NOYNAY Facts:          Judge Tomas Noynay ordered the records of a certain election case to be withdrawn and directed to the Comelec.     Anastacio.

Balbuena should also be admonished. The judge should be reminded of his duty to be studious of the principles of law. On March 13. Rule 10. ET AL ARE GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND SHOULD BE SUSPENDED     ISSUE Anastacio. The Court finds that Atty Corral violated his oath by engaging in unlawful. Rivas. is not entitled to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said recommendation W/N BATUEGAS. Rivera filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Corral for tampering the court’s records without such court’s permission or knowledge. Mendiola. Issue: Can Atty Corral be suspended? Held: Yes. (RC Note: parts of the SC decision were in the “Facts” portion. 55 YOUNG v BATUEGAS FACTS  YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana   BATUEGAS. 2000 and not 13 o As to lack of notice. Gana Lopez. Contrary to Corral’s claim that he was not afforded due process. YOUNG being a private prosecutor. they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail o They immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender o However. His secretary received the decision on Feb 23. upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. he was in fact given the opportunity to present his evidence during the course of the proceedings. and to maintain professional competence. or deceitful conduct. Corral went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to change the date of receipt of the decision from Feb 23 to Feb 29 (which was later changed to Feb 28 when Corral realized that there was no Feb 29 that year). He cannot now claim that he was denied due process. A suspension for 1 year is warranted.   54 RIVERA v CORRAL Facts:      A decision in a case for ejectment was sent to Atty Corral. Corral claims he was not afforded due process or hearing. Later on. Balbuena should also be admonished for his utter carelessness in his references. Fernandez. is now under detention Upon verification with the NBI. Morada. It should be remembered that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. dishonest. Beron. Sarenas 2C . 2000. since you will not understand the case if I placed it in the bottom” Yes. But he did not appear on the scheduled hearings. to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself. et al in their defense alleged that o On Dec 13. Judge Noynay and Atty. due to heavy traffic.02 mandates that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. the hearings had to be rescheduled several times to accommodate his requests. By altering the material dates to make it appear that the notice of appeal was timely filed. Corral committed an act of dishonesty. According to the records. Calinisan. 2000 (not 13) BATUEGAS. 1990 Atty Corral filed a notice of appeal.LEGAL ETHICS Issue:  Held:     2nd Sem 2005-2006 W/N Judge Noynay has the jurisdiction to handle the election cases in his sala. the IBP Board ordered Corral’s suspension. The IBP investigating committee affirmed the charges and recommended suspension. YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. as such. The next day. to be faithful to the law. they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day o That was why the Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14. Para hindi siya ma-disqualify ng 15-day appeal period. 1990. et al are the counsels for the accused in the said criminal case On Dec 13. BATUEGAS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and. 2000.

while H-F and her children were in the ABC Learning Center. BATUEGAS.02. called the police. Calinisan. H-F doubted the authenticity of the CA resolution so she did not give her children to Florido. But when H-F heard of news that Florido was planning to take the children to Bacolod. The IBP has recommended that Florido be suspended from the practice of law for 6 years. W/n Florido should be held liable for his actions. et al should be suspended for 6 months 56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO v FLORIDO Facts:  Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido (H-F) filed this administrative complaint against her husband James Florido for violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing. Sometime in Dec. his conduct must never be at the expense of truth In the case at bar.  The SC thinks that suspension of 6 years is too much so they lowered the penalty to just a 2-year suspension.LEGAL ETHICS HELD RATIO           YES.  Florido then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the CA resolution he presented to H-F earlier. flaunting and usng a spurious and bogus CA resolution/order. fearing for her children’s safety. Florido went to H-F’s house and showed her a photocopy of a resolution issued by the CA apparently giving to Florido the legal custody of their children. H-F. on the other hand. et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception Hence. et al feel short of the duties and responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused. BATUEGAS. They have two children. 2001. He violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Sarenas 2C . H-F agreed to let the children sleep with Florido just for one night at a hotel. Beron.01 and 10. Morada. Mendiola. his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion The courts. Issue:  Held:  SC says that Florido should be held liable. CONCEALED TRUTH 2nd Sem 2005-2006 A lawyer must be a disciple of truth He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court As officer of the court. Florido demanded that H-F surrender custody of their children to him. Fernandez. In the police station. by his act of making up a spurious CA resolution and using such false resolution to his aadvantage. are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them His a lawyer’s solemn duty is to defend his client. Rivas. Florido arrived accompanied by armed men. this present action. 57 ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN Anastacio.  Then in 2002. This petition was dismissed because Florido did not appear and H-F presented a certification from the CA that there was no resolution granting Florido with legal custody of their children. Gana Lopez.  H-F admits that she and her husband live separately. she immediately took them away. particularly Rule 10.  Thus. they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns BATUEGAS.

thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and in the judiciary. Beron. According the Atty. it is the act of the Supreme Court. and that Atty. The criticism must be bona fide. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality. Fernandez. the justices have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and authorizing the assumption of office by President Arroyo. As such. 58 TIONGCO v AGUILAR (Canon 10 Morada) Facts:   Atty. o It was because Atty. if the act of the justices is lawful.” “perfidious. Tiongco to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for the violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. argued that: o It has never been their intent to be disrespectful o It was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. etc. obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.” “a hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Tiongco did not at all show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively. which prohibits judges from participating in partisan political activities. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against Estrada. this right must be exercised responsibly. Paguia. without using language that would tend to create or promote distrust in judicial administration and undermine the people’s confidence in the integrity of the members of this Court. Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5. 59 RHEEM OF THE PHILS v FERRER FACTS:  The SC issued an order directing Atty. While Tiongco tried to justify as true his descriptions of the Judge as “liar. Held: YES  Atty. Atty. For that reason. Atty. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers.” he did not offer any excuse for the other intemperate words and phrases he used. Held: Atty. Morada.LEGAL ETHICS Facts: 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Atty. Armonio who thought best to focus the attention of the court to the issue in the case and was not in any way meant to slight or offend the court. the court asked him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.” and “abetter of graft and shady deals.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party. being born and raised amongst the non-propertied class” Tiongco also filed a pleading with the SC stating that “it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition and hold that the same failed to sufficiently show that the respondent Court had committed grave abuse of discretion. and he thereby promoted distrust in judicial administration. Tiongco exhibited gross disrespect and attempted to discredit the Members of the First Division. Paguia attacked the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada vs. The petition contained malicious and intemperate language. Atty. Armonio became emotionally involved in the case o Not one of the partners was able to pass upon the draft or final form of the said motion. agencies. the SC required Atty. Sigiuon Reyne.  Although a lawyer has the right—even the duty—to criticize the courts. In Tiongco’s Compliance. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede. he alleges that the SC failed to mention that he also called the judge a “robber. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13. Gana Lopez. Tiongco stated that the decision of the trial court Judge was “crafted to fool the winning party. Tiongco filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a review of a lower court’s decision.” “it was the devil who dictated it. The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Atty. He charged them with violating their duty to render justice. Atty. Arroyo. Sarenas 2C .” “a rotten manipulator. Rivas.  He also showed disrespect to and contempt for the respondent judge. and if the act of the judges is not lawful. integrity. Atty.” “thief.”    Issue: W/N Tiongco must be held administratively liable. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court should inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.” and “blasphemer.  By insinuating that this Court did not at all read the petition. Issue: W/N Atty. Paguia should be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada vs. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and print media. He is indefinitely suspended from practice of law. Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs. Atty. Mendiola. Calinisan.” “the Judge was confused. Armonio and the senior partners in his law firm to show to cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court  The law firm of Ponce Enrile. Jose B. is not the act of the SC. and authority of the members of the court. Neither did he show their relevance to the petition.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin. it is not the act of the Supreme Court.” In a previous resolution.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Paguia is sanctioned. Anastacio.

Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney. Judgment was rendered in favor of Hermoso. Implicit in the quoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to respect. Gana Lopez.44 representing unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing business of Hermoso. thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power . or which could have the effect of “harboring or encouraging discontent which. Pikon yung Supreme Court. It is proscribes to use unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts. It detract much from the dignity of and respect due this court. for recovery of sum of P17. She dismissed a case filed by Cabrera’s mother against a certain Atty. (and they managed to have the Anastacio. supreme stupidity. One cannot escape responsibility by claiming his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning. creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration. In Cabrera’s reply he still used unfit language (e. signed and filed the motion without clearing it with any one of the partner of the firm ISSUE:  HELD:  W/N Atty.309. prepared. The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against Andres (graft and corruption. Calinisan. It is the duty of lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.g. unparalleled stupidity. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. in many cases. In subsequent motions by Cabrera. Rivas. Perez. incivil and uncouth language (e. Sarenas 2C . calling Atty. Morada. The SC decided that Atty. huwag niyo silang subukan. Armonio and the partners in his firm must be held in contempt because of the disrespectful language contained of the pleading prepared by Atty. Cabrera filed an apology but guess what.  The Sheriff of Manila levied upon the shares of common stock registered in Damaso Perez’name with the Republic Bank. the language he used were still unfit and even insincere. The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Armonio. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977. Atty. he used the words “a victim of the court’s inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction” 1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath-taking until he has shown that he has changed his ways. Armonio that his statements was not in any way meant to slight or offend this court. It is his obligation to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude.” The claim of Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile.g.g.   Issue:  Held:    61 COBB-PEREZ v LANTIN FACTS:  Ricardo Hermoso commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez and Gregorio Sumbong. us the source of disorder. it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the point of perpetuation. moronic.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Armonio. Beron. And guess what. degradation of the administration of justice) Napikon yata yung SC. Andres a moron). Fernandez. an associate. ordering the defendants to be held jointy and severally liable. idiotic) Cabrera’s oath-taking was therefore postponed. Because of the dismissal. he still used unfit language (e. they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in contempt.  Petitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the execution of judgment.      60 ANDRES v CABRERA Facts:      Stanley R. want of intention is no excuse for the language employed. Mendiola. W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days. falsification of public documents) Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Armonio be warned that repetition of the incident will be dealt with more severely and that necessary attention must be employed by the partners in exercising adequate supervision and control of the pleadings submitted by its associate The pleading which contained “one pitfall into which this court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question” and the sweeping charge that the decisions of this court “blindly adhere to earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statues” implies that the court is so patently inept in determining the jurisdiction of the industrial court. not for the sake of the temporary incumbents of the judicial office. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court.

Rivas. The petitioners and their counsel. Montero used procedure to circumvent the administration of justice) Pacfica Millare. far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice. By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment. only to be abandoned or withdrawn... 62 MAGAT v SANTIAGO Facts: For delaying the termination of an unlawful detainer case by filing multiple petitions before the SC. Montero is also guilty of forum shopping. Inherent in that obligation is the duty to assist in the speedy disposition of cases. The summary of which is in page 8. The case was for ejectment filed with the MTC. Numerous appeals/complaints/petitions were filed to frustrate the execution of the MTC judgment.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 sale suspended 6x) o They alleged that levy was highly excessive and unjust o Even the wife of Damaso Perez. Gana Lopez. Mendiola. The court in ruling for the suspension of Magat stated that a lawyer owes the duty of good faith and honorable dealing to the judicial tribunal before whom he practices his profession. 63 MILLARE v MONTERO Facts:     (RC Note: The first part of the case is pointless. which efforts were all rebuffed. No. There is no need to know what they are though. Judging from the number of actions filed. The court is satisfied that Magat appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necesary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law. Held: YES. Calinisan. in view if the said family's financial and economic difficulties to his inability to earn his livelihood as a lawyer. at some stages alternatingly. sneaky and maneuvering tactics to thwart the ends of justice? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. the mother of the complainant. ISSUE: WoN petitioners restored to tricky. filed to lift the writ of execution alleging that the shares of stock were conjugal assets and that the debt was a personal obligation. The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 1986. Atty Magat and members of his family is now praying for judicial clemency. Issue: W/n the suspension should be terminated. as recommended by the IBP which found him guilty of malpractice. respondents violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws. It just wants to impress on you that Atty. Some of the actions were filed.  64 ETERNAL GARDENS v CA Anastacio. Montero’s acts are justified. During the protracted litigation. involving the same subject matters and cause of action. which were attempts by the same party and his counsel to delay enforcement of a judgment that has long become final and executory. Beron. Issue:  Held:     W/N Atty. the SC suspended Atty Magat from the practice of law . obtained a favorable judgment against Elsa Co. the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions. for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. And disregarded the canons in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was rendered: thus abused procedural rules to defeat the ends of substantial justice. Montero has made a mockery of the judicial process. Morada. Montero should be suspended for one year. This plea has been reiterated for a period of more than 2 years since his suspension. expressing their profound regret for his past misconduct and his avowal ot amend his ways. Sarenas 2C . Fernandez. abetted by their counsel.

65 SPS GALEN v PAGUIRIGAN Spouses Galen. Although the failure to file the appellee’s brief in a case is not a ground for an adverse ruling. *what’s relevant to ethics: The case has delayed the execution of a final judgment for 17 years. And of course. 1997. Mendiola. So nag-file ng certiorari si Eternal sa CA. that he did not file an appellees brief since the filing of the same though required is not mandatory and that the Court granted his motion for extension belatedly. Hence. Rasdas and Villa (COMPLAINANTS) were defendants in a civil case for recovery of a residential lot. However. Beron. Moreover. Fernandez.LEGAL ETHICS Facts:   2nd Sem 2005-2006    Seelin spouses filed a case against Central Dyeing for quieting of title. The CA. the lawyer assured them that he would seek a review of the decision of the CA. the order of the court shows that it took into account the interests of such lot owners—in fact certain limits were provided. On Oct 14. the appellate court. being a transferee. When the spouses filed a Motion for an Immediate Writ of Possession. the COMPLAINANTS were surprised to receive a writ of execution issued by the trial court. He admits that he failed to file the appellees’ brief which just shows the cavalier attitude he took towards his clients’ cause. Trusting in the able representation of Atty PAGUIRIGAN. PAGUIRIGAN was their attorney. they should not forget that they are officers of the court. The COMPLAINANTS were informed that the CA reversed the trial court’s decision. The COMPLAINANTS gave PAGUIRIGAN P10. 1997 but the SC acted on it only on Nov 19. the COMPLAINANTS found out Atty PAGUIRIGAN failed to file an appellees’ brief in their behalf. the COMPLAINANTS continued the services of the said lawyer when the plaintiff in the civil case appealed. Dahil sa makulit (not to mention optimistic) si Eternal Gardens. the failure to submit these pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of the client. Eternal Gardens is the former’s successor-ininterest who will be bound by the judgment. When COMPLAINANTS confronted PAGUIRIGAN. Rivas. Gana Lopez. PAGUIRIGAN alleges that he agreed to represent the COMPLAINANTS without remuneration when their former counsel withdrew. On Nov 20. Hence. it does not have to be included or impleaded by name in an action against the transferor—according to the Rules of Court. But the trial court favored the spouses and dismissed Eternal Garden’s claim since the judgment (in the queting of title case) was binding upon the latter.000 for docket fees. So Seelin spouses filed for a second writ of execution. on the same grounds. can only place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. Calinisan. 1997. PAGUIRIGAN did not only fail to file an appellees’ brief but after being granted a 30 day extension Anastacio. bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. such should first be resolved before a writ of possession be issued to the spouses. Thus. 1997. being the successor-in-interest of Central Dyeing. nag-file pa ito ulit ng motion reconsideration. Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp opposed claiming that it is the true and registered owner of the property—having bought the same from Central Dyeing in good faith. the execution of the judgment need not necessarily desecrate these properties. the due date being Nov 14. Issue: Is Eternal Gardens bound by the decision in the quieting of title case? Held: Yes. Morada. PAGUIRIGAN filed the petition. Said motion was initially granted but was later denied. Upon inquiry in the CA. As to the fear that owners of the grave lots will be disturbed by the writ. this petition. denied Eternal Garden’s appeal. Subsequently. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their client’s rights. It further contended that since there is a pending issue on possession (a different case). The spouses won and the decision in their favor became final an executory. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case. FOR FAILING TO FILE PETITION AFTER BEEN GRANTED EXTENSION OF TIME PAGUIRIGAN was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties. they filed the case to the SC. To make matters worse. or impede the execution of a judgment. Having admitted that they bought the property from Central Dyeing. Judgment was rendered in favor of the COMPLAINANTS. Sarenas 2C . it was denied for having been filed out of time. essentially with the same arguments. PAGUIRIGAN filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari which the SC granted in its resolution dated Nov 19. 1997. ISSUE HELD W/N PAGUIRIGAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR NEGLIGENCE YES. 1997. considering that the 30 day extension was to expire on Nov 14. It also argued that it was not bound by the decision since it was not impleaded in the case. the importance of filing an appellees’ brief cannot be gainsaid because upon appeal.

which says that a lawyer should avoid testifying in behalf of his own client.  Despite of this.  As to the affidavit executed by Rafanan in favor of his client. Fernandez. all in violation of the Revised Administrative Code. 66 SANTIAGO v RAFANAN Assignment no.  Santiago also points out that Rafanan made an affidavit in favor of his (Rafanan) client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he (Rafanan) was actively representing his client. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.000 with a warning that repitition of the same act will be dealt with even more severely. he again lost through default by failing to file said petition. Since. Edison Rafanan. people would automatically think that his testimony as a witness is biased in favor of his client. The IBP found Rafanan guilty of violating the requirements of the Notarial Law and imposed a fine of 3.  In the end. Anastacio. PAGUIRIGAN is thus guilty of violation of Rule 12. memoranda and briefs. Rivas. These requirements are mandatory due to the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. Rafanan is supposed to do everything in his power.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 of the time to file a petition for review of the decision of the CA. First. his affidavit is essential to the defense of his client. because of the latter’s failure to (a) make the proper notation regarding the community tax certificate of the affiants. Mendiola.000. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. Beron. Thus. second. The law also says that a notary public should keep a notarial register to record all affidavits they have notarized. What he should have done though was to exempt himself from being counsel. that any extension granted is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period which is Oct 14. And PAGUIRIGAN’S allegation about the SC’s belated action on the petition only succeeds in showing his ignorance of 2 basic principles: first. The SC explained that appearing both as counsel and witness of a client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested. a notary public. Sarenas 2C . Obviously. because of his violation of the Notarial Laws and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Calinisan.  Issue:  Held:  SC says yes. Morada. the SC considered that it is the duty of a lawyer to assert every remedy and defense for the benefit of the client. (b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register.” Hence. Having violated these requirements.08 of Canon 12. Rafanan cannot be made administratively liable. Gana Lopez. Rafanan should be fined. if a lawyer appears as client and counsel. It is mandated by the Notarial Law that a notary public should enter the number. the SC says that this is in violation of Rule 12. that a party cannot presume that his motion will be granted. and (c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized. in defense of his client. PAGUIRIGAN is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and ordered to refund the COMPLAINANTS P10. he is a witness to the crime. 1997 (not from the day the resolution was dated). W/n Rafanan’s acts were contrary to law. 11 Santiago vs. This would ensure his credibility as a witness. They are required to enter the number of the register and the page where a particular affidavit has been recorded. and. Rafanan – Lopez Facts:  This administrative complaint was brought by Jonar Santiago against Atty.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides “a lawyer shall not. place of issue and date of the Community Tax Certificate of the affiant in his affidavit.

Daen. it was stated that court officials and employees must “never use their offices…for any other purpose that for court or judicial functions. 01-99. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty. Fernandez. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary. Barcelona and gave P10. There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. Barcelona. Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a member of this court. Paas. In support of this charge. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty. Its intention is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the misconduct of the officers of the court.000. The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not presented at the hearings. Atty. Anastacio.000. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. who is a private practitioner. Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Paas. In SC Administrative Circular No.” Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others. Daen was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. Calinisan. Daen. When the spouses visited Atty. SC Circular No. Atty. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes. Daen as their atty. particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded. Rivas. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. It violates canons 3. and 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000. The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Sarenas 2C . and from the Supreme Court This was admitted by Judge Paas. the court held that this elicits the suspicion the Judge is just fishing for more evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against Almarvez. Daen the next day. 13. Atty. neglect in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and often being absent from work). demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that he had connections to secure the release of Atty. 68 ALMARVEZ v PAAS Facts:  Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged Almarvez. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty. Beron. Because the heirs could not produce the total amount. with discourtesy to his fellow employees.700. Commissioner Bautista found Atty. Daen. Gana Lopez. Paas should be penalized for allowing the latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private practice. Morada. Held:      YES Using the Judge’s address is a subtle was of sending a message that Atty. The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24. it was found that Judge Paas’ husband. Atty. Barcelona regarding the “grease money” to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. Barcelona should be disbarred. documents were submitted such as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty.-in-fact. Issue: W/N Atty. a Court Aide/Utility Worker. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer’s prestige.     Issue: W/N Judge Paas and Atty. they learned that Atty. 10. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for residential or commercial purposes. Atty. Regarding this. Held: Atty. but she claims that this was done only to ensure and facilitate the delivery of those notices. On another occasion. they merely gave P15. Barcelona reached P64. and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC. Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him. was using his wife’s office address in his law practice. In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case. Thus he was suspended for 3 months. to be guilty of malpractice and breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred. Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be given special treatment by other judges or court personnel.000. and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving them their Release Orders. The heirs were recommended to Atty. In this case. Barcelona. Barcelona should be disbarred.LEGAL ETHICS Rafanan is fined 3. the heirs went to the house of Atty. 67 BERBANO v BARCELONA Facts: 2nd Sem 2005-2006 The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty. Mendiola. and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential information in advance of its unauthorized release). The heirs of Hilapo tried to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Atty.

”.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006 Atty. Morada. they took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loudspeakers ISSUE:  W/N the rallyists must be held with contempt HELD:  The contempt charges were dismissed  The Counsel of the union members apologized to the court and promised that the incident will not be repeated again  The picketing was actually done by the members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan). 0033 – “RP v. 70 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:    Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara. this motion for certiorari W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Yes. PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients During the proceedings. 0033. the picketing continued  The union members are obstructing the access to and egress from the court’s premises. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals. Sarenas 2C . Beron. Gana Lopez. which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. union members of Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. an unregistered loose allegiance of about 75 unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by either the Union of Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor Union. Concepcion.  Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection. Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nomineestockholder The ACCRA lawyer’s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG’s offer) by the PCGG and the court. In keeping with the office practice. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients. ACCRA lawyers acted as nomineesstockholders.  But the court will not hesitate in future similar incidents to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court to acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was. Hence. Anong kalokohan yan? o Civil Case No. and that any such efforts to influence the court constitutes contempt of court. Mendiola. Rivas. set up kitchens and littered the place. petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. Fernandez. while Judge Paas shall pay a fine of P12. free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.000 69 NESTLE v SANCHEZ FACTS:  From July 8-10. which includes shares of stock in certain corporations PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3 rd amended complaint. Calinisan. PCGG has no valid cause of action W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients      Issue:  Held:   Issue:  Held: Anastacio. al. for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA) ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders As members of the law firm. who filed a case in court intensified their pickets that they had been conducting since June 17 in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC  Despite of the warning given by the court to their leaders and counsel. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law. Eduardo Cojuangco et.  The court is entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner. They have also constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks. Abello.

which Atty. Legaspi should be disbarred because he violated the relation between attorney and his client? HELD: YES! RATIO: 1. Atty Mutuc assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter. It turned out that Atty.00 which he had collected for them. Rivas. thereafter.000 as attorney’s fees. The president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands collected for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received. Calinisan. Sarenas 2C . Teofilo Legaspi that the money deposited could be withdrawn. The complainants. Further investigations revealed that the alleged debt of Dewey had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy. They prayed that he be disbarred  FACTUAL EVIDENCE: Complainants hired Atty. Legaspi to represent them in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the spouses Gonzaga. The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped.000. 72 DEE v CA Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty Mutuc to seek his advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner’s brother Dewey Dee. and not in this disbarment proceeding. Mendiola. ISSUE: WoN Atty. The complainant-heirs in a joint petition. Petitioner Dee ignored said letters. Legaspi signed as counsel agreed that the coconut land left by the decedents would be divided into 6 equal parts and that the proceeds of the sale of the land would be distributed among them. the account of Dewey was cleared. 2. In re: Canon 14  the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary  the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client 71 DAROY v LEGASPI FACTS:  Complainants charged Atty. In view of that special relationship. Legaspi wrote to the father of Mrs.000. Gana Lopez.  Atty. Atty Mutuc filed a complaint against petitioner Dee for the collection of attorney’s fees. The P50. Atty Mutuc sent demand letters to petitioner demanding the balance of P50. Dee insists that the visits made to Atty Mutuc was merely informal and that Atty Mutuc had not been specifically contacted to handle the problem. Legaspi was also an heir (although it wasn’t shown how). Ramon Sy acknowledged the obligation. requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. Atty Mutuc talked with the president of Ceasar’s palace and advised the president that for the sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. to Ceasar’s Palace. The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a professional relationship which Anastacio. However. have to recover the money in an ordinary action. Fernandez. Ramon Chavez. 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. Beron. however.000 given to Atty Mutuc was alleged to be given not in the nature of attorney’s fees but merely pocket money. with Dewey merely signing for the chits. Morada.Legaspi with malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of P4. exacting and confidential character.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006   General rule: a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering. Petitioner’s father was apprehensive over the safety of his son. Daroy. after which his services were reportedly contracted for P100. Dewey having heard of a link between the mafia and Ceasar’s Palace and his possibility that his son may be harmed at the instance of the latter. Issue: W/n there was a lawyer-client relationship… Held: YES. Legaspi had already withdrawn the money (therefore he acted in bad faith). Petitioner denied the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between hin and Atty Mutuc. Dewey would be exculpated from liability. The relation between an atty and his client is higly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate. Atty.

Much later. The confusion in the office of the law firm following the death of Aty Crispin Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the brief. Gana Lopez. The responsibility of the associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. From such documents. Anastacio. It alleged that as a result of the death of Atty Crispin Baizas. Mutuc’s representations in behalf of petitioner Dee were not in resistance to the casino’s claim but were actually geared toward proving the liability of true debtor. 73 BR SEBASTIAN v CA Facts:        Eulogio Reyes. while Ohnick et al filed an answer for Assad. It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that the former turned over papers to the latter. senior partner. the affairs of the aid firm are still being settled between Atty. Delgado et al. and only for the purpose of explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case. Issue:  Held:       74 HILADO v DAVID Facts:        Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilado’s husband. but the Director of Public Works was exonerated.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 merits attorney’s fees for professional services rendered. To establish the relationship. Said judge reasoned that no attorney-client relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco. BR Sebastian (BRS) was held to be liable. was counsel for Hilado. Alberto and Associates) failed to file the brief. no fraud is involved. around 5 months after the deadline. sought to disqualify Francisco from representing Assad in the case. Later on. and BR Sebastian. From these ultimate facts. Only simple negligence on the part of the BRS’ counsel. No. Mutuc is entitled to receive a reasonable compensation. Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad substituting Ohnick et al. before he died filed an action for damages against the Director of Public Works. Or it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer. Sarenas 2C . Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado. Since makulit si Francisco. He was substituted by his heirs (the Reyeses). BRS appealed. And that the written opinion was made by his assistant. The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the other party (Hilado) in the same case.  Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado? Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad? Held: The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case (with Francisco’s signature). Therefore. Morada. He added that when Hilado left documents in their office. Beron. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting on behalf of his client in pursuance of a request from the latter. During the pendency of the appeal. BRS received notice to file Appelant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt. Fernandez. In this case. it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. this opinion was reached on the basis of papers submitted at his office. the lawyer who handled this case in the trial court and who is believed to have also attended to the preparation of the Appelant’s Brief but failed to submit it through oversight and inadvertence. Delgado et al. In 1974. which he signed without reading. The law firm should have assigned the case to another associate. David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for disqualification against Francisco. had also left the firm. W/N the appeal of BR Sebastian should be reinstated. and that Hilado’s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Francisco’s professional services. The negligence of the counsel binds the client. Calinisan. The appeal was then dismissed. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin) and Atty Ruby Alberto. Counsel for BRS (The Baizas. Rivas. Mendiola. Francisco’s defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when the latter informed him about the case. Ramon Sy. an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have ensued. Baizas Law Office (different daw from the former one) file a motion for reconsideration. Atty Mutuc did not represent conflicting interests as claimed by Dee when Dee alleged that Mutuc was acting as agent of Ceasar’s Palace. Reyes died. And that Atty Espiritu. he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm would not handle her case.

W/n Atty. By his act of excluding the property from the estate and including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit) as claims. Fernandez. Calinisan. promised. The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year. Sarenas 2C . neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. Gana Lopez. Rivas. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts. Beron.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. When Jose Nakpil died. When a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests which is proscribed by Canon 15 Rule 15. The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the latter agreed to use his professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. then the professional employment must be regarded as established. What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets of Jose Nakpil (he actually transferred the property to his company. 76 NAKPIL v VALDES Facts:        Issue:  Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran. and to permit it be used in the interest of another. What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its Held:    Anastacio. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional advice from which emerged the relation. An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to the employment to which it pertains. The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor of Nakpil. and induce him to act for the client. and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation. The failure to object to counsel’s appearance does not operate as a waiver of the right to ask for counsel’s disqualification. In the case at bar. 75 SANTOS v BELTRAN US…. namely: o Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil. Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the property in trust for Nakpil. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. While the case was pending. Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. Morada. The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case. The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon). *A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services. The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents submitted by Hilado will not preclude the existence of an attorney-client relationship. the Caval Realty Corporation) while including the loans he contracted. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the property in trust for Jose. Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of Valdes and his accounting and law firms for the settlement of the estate of Jose Nakpil. which was represented by his law firm. It was clear that Jose Nakpil and Atty. or charged for. The CA reversed the CFI. Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him (they had a close relationship since the 50’s). The SC held that Valdes only held the lots in trust for Nakpil. Imelda also filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Valdes. Mendiola.03. The lands’ titles were transferred to his name. As to the third charge. The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. And an information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm. Baguio. The letter binds and estops him in the same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of confidence which forms the basis of an attorney-client relationship. and o Apparently. which was the basis for Imelda’s decision to use his services. o Including his loans as claims on the estate. representing conflicting interests when his accounting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN against the estate of Jose Nakpil. He went into an agreement with Atty. Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed.

Salunat’s engagement as counsel of PPSTA  Complainants. Morada. Issue: W/N Atty. Issue: W/N Atty. She alleged that Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed. a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be the counsel-of-record of the adverse party. computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. and he delivered to him various documents including the decision of the previous court on the partition of the property of Santiago. sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10. Salunat entered his appearance as counsel for the board members in said cases. specifically Hacienda Minit. According to Artezuela. Held: YES. Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo.  In a derivative suit such as the one filed by the complainants against the BOD of PPSTA. filed an intracorporate case against its Board of Directors. Atty. of which complainants were members. and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.Salunat entered his appearance in behalf of ASSA Law Firm doesn’t exonerate him. the answer by Echavia was only printed in his office.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 creditors are adverse to each other. Gana Lopez. Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client. Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. According to him. Held: Atty. which was received by Maria. who are members of PPSTA. 77 ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO Facts: Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. Atty. Artezuela also alleged that Atty. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of another party who is claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of the original client.000 as attorney’s fees and P2. Maderazo claims that the document of Echavia was not prepared by him. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela.  That Atty. 79 NATAN v CAPULE FACTS:  Natan is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Patero.  Natan had filed an action against Santiago. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. He admitted that ASSA was the retained counsel of PPSTA.  Atty.000 as filing fee. since that would give rise to a conflict of interest. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and. Atty.  Partial payments were received by Capule from Natan amounting to P275 but Capule was unable to attend the Anastacio. withdrew his services without obtaining Artezuela’s consent. respondent is admonished to observe a high degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.  Since this is the first offense. Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia. Maderazo prepared Echavia’s answer. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor. Atty. Fernandez. She says that while acting as her counsel. Beron. at the same time. the husband of Maria Patero to recover Maria’s share in the conjugal property. Salunat engaged in conflicting interests. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests. did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty. which approved Atty. Suspension of 6 months. Echavia was driving a Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-in-law Villapez. 78 HORNILLA v SALUNAT Facts:  Salunat was a member of the Phil. Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) Board. Salunat pointed out that he entered his appearance as counsel for the board members for and in behalf of ASSA Law and Associates.  Complainants contend the Atty. Agustin who handled the case. Sarenas 2C . the prevailing rule is that the lawyer engaged by the corporation may not represent the directors. He does not have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by the interest of the individual corporate officials. Salunat was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by PPSTA. atty. Mendiola. ½ of Santiago’s share in Hacienda Minit was ordered to be delivered to Maria  Capule was contracted by Natan to file an action of forcible entry against Edonga. He also stated that it was another partner of the firm. etc. Rivas. Calinisan.

 The important fact in this case is that Atty. he may not. 81 GAMILLA v MARIÑO FACTS:  Atty Marino. Natan handled the case personally.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such clain to the members of the UST Faculty Union. Atty. claiming that he is the sole heir of Santiago Patero and in possession of Hacienda Minit. Rovero later on refused to comply with the terms of the deed. In 1989. The fact the Capule retired from the forcible entry case prior to retaining the case of Olimpio did not relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and loyalty to his former client. first. as president. at any time. Marino was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. and thereafter. Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35 Milllion. Supposing that Barrios was indeed representing both Bautista and Rovero. was disqualified to accept the case of Olimpio who claims ownership over Hacienda Minit. Rivas.  80 BAUTISTA v BARRIOS Facts:     Issue:  Held:    Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Suspended for 2 years.  The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking compensation from the UST for their illegal dismissal. Calinisan. Capule represented Olimpio Patero. Marino. Morada. knowledge and information that he had received from his former client Natan in connection to the Hacienda Minit against Natan and for the benefit of his new client Olimpio Patero Capule. and filed an administrative case against Natan asking the court to order Natan to return ½ of Hacienda Minit. In the same year. When Bautista approached Barrios to enforce the deed. Barrios defense: it was Rovero who engaged his services in preparing the deed and not Bautista W/N Barrios may handle a case nullify a contract which he prepared No. Since the Judge refused to grant postponement. Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests. The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino. Sarenas 2C . when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president. Jr. being an attorney himself. Thereafter. Anastacio. Instead of representing Bautista. nor may he.000. even though he was an interested party since he was one of the officers who were dismissed (conflict of interests) ISSUE: WoN Marino should be reprimanded? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. Beron. The test of conflict of interest among 2. union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution. because of his previous relationship with Natan. Gana Lopez. Mendiola. use against his former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of his previous relationship. the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment to settle backwages.200. when he obtained the attys fees of P4. Barrios did not inform her that he was already representing Rovero. Barrios prepared the deed. negotiated with UST as union attorney. he could not appear for one as against another. W/N Capule violated his duty as a lawyer YES! And the court sentenced him to be suspended him from the exercise of his profession for the period of 2 years Capule had utilized the papers. Barrios to draft an extra-judicial partition between Bautista and her brothers and sisters and Rovero on the other side. Fernandez.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006  ISSUE:  HELD:     hearing. Barrios merely said that she has no cause of action. The inconsistency between his position as attorney of Natan and that of Olimpio is so apparent that it could not have escaped his attention An attorney may not do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he formerly represented him. Bautista sued him. Barrios instead appeared for Rovero.

Atty Sntay acted as counsel of Magno Dinglasan. Limon was the Docena spouses’ lawyer for their appeal in a Forcible Entry case. Complainant testified that he consulted Atty Suntay about the demand made by Dinglasan.     Issue:  Held:    Anastacio. Morada. Complainant alleged that Atty Suntay ‘s possession of the TCT and the blueprint plan of the property while he was still counsel for complainant provided him with the information that there used to be 2 creeks traversing the fishpond In one case. actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. eroded the peoples' confidence in the judicial system. Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines. or worse. alleging that respondent was his legal counsel who was privy to all his legal. Atty Suntay.. Samar Branch of the Philippine National Bank. In addition. which is reflective of his depraved character. the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. complainant Suntay alleged that respondent Atty Suntay pursued a case against him for violation of PD 296 for the alleged disappearance of 2 creeks traversing complainant’s fishpond.000 as consideration for the destruction of complainants record in the BIR. He then required the Docena spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10. To make the passing of confidential information a condition precedent would not enhance the welfare of the litigants.00 allegedly to stay the execution of the appealed decision The Docena’s obtained a loan of P3. When complainat declined the demand. 83 DOCENA V LIMON Facts:  Atty. in which Dinglasan is an officer. they discovered that no such bond was ever posted by Limon. so low and dishonorable. When The Docena’s went to the CFI to withdraw the bond after the case. respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a level so base. Rivas. He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has.000. Since they parted ways. Magno Dinglasan demanded from complainant P150. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him at the expense of the other faculty members. tsk bad. and political affairs. It is also not necessary to specify the alleged confidential information used. borrowed P2.000. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of the attorney-client relation. Dinglasan charged complainant with the crime of false testimony and grave oral defamation. it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an atty to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts. During the preliminary investigation. Issue: Whether the acts of Atty Suntay in filing the complaints constitute malpractice… Held: YES. By his reprehensible conduct. Atty Suntay acted as counself for clients in case involving subject matters regarding which he had either been previously helped complainant to administer as the latter’s counsel and confidant. Fernandez.00 from the Borongan. He should be DISBARRED! By extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation. and applied for an agricultural loan of P4.860.00 from a private individual.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 3. Limon claims that the P10T was just his attorney’s fees. Atty Suntay is suspended for 2 years.00 from the Borongan. wherein Limon himself acted as guarantor. Atty Marino. and most contemptible.140. Gana Lopez. W/N Limon should be sanctioned. indirectly. Mendiola.) 82 SUNTAY v SUNTAY Facts: The complaint for disbarment was filed by Frederico Suntay against his nephew. Calinisan. In the same manner. He also ought to have disclosed his interest (which he only did only years after the consummation of his share. Hence. Atty Suntay had been filing complaints and cases against complainant making use of confidential information gained while their attorney-client relationship existed. lawyers is “whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. Both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound to protect and advance the interest of the union members and the bargaining unit above his own. respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys. Beron. Sarenas 2C .

failed to keep up with the exacting standards of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The fact that he was eventually appointed as Judge will not exculpate him from taking responsibility of the consequences of his acts as an officer of the court. prior to being a judge. Beron. Upon advice of Salubre. engaged the services of ATTY RIMORIN in the matter of settling his “overstaying alien status” with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation so tat he could attend the funeral of his son. Salubre violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to return the funds of his client upon demand. Administrative cases against lawyers can still proceed despite the dismissal of civil and/or criminal cases against them. Andrew For the 1st partial payment.000 today” CUNANAN indeed received P30. There was an allegation of violation of Canon 17 but this was not substantiated. Instead of consigning it to the court. CUNANAN filed an administrative case with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for the disbarment of ATTY RIMORIN and for failing to render the accounting of P200. Andrew Cunanan. the amount due was around P77k (45k as principal and 32k as interest). Mendiola. Later on. in exchange for an exclusive interview regarding the story of CUNANAN’S son.01 Anastacio. ABS-CBN deposited the balance of P100.LEGAL ETHICS 84 SEVILLA v SALUBRE Facts:     2nd Sem 2005-2006    Salubre. By the time the case was referred to the Office of Court Administrator. a retired US citizen. in the United States CUNANAN verbally agreed to pay ATTY RIMORIN P40. 85 CUNANAN v RIMORIN FACTS  CUNANAN. represented by NOLI DE CASTRO. The primary object of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline erring lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers. Salubre’s appointment as judge did not extinguish the obligation incurred by him when he was still a trial lawyer. he bombarded complainant with a long line of promises hoping that the latter would allow the matter to be. issued a check for P100. Salubre’s defense was that the complaint was a result of misunderstanding and the filing of an Affidavit of Desistance is proof that the matter was already resolved. was Sevilla’s counsel in a civil case for repurchase and damages. eventually. Fernandez. It was shown that Salubre later returned the funds to Sevilla after the case for estafa was filed. Calinisan. His defense that the money was supposed to be Sevilla’s payment for his services should have been made known to the latter at the earliest time when the demand was made. Sevilla gave P45k to him to be consigned with the court as repurchase money. The Affidavit of Desistance did not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to impose administrative sanctions upon Salubre. by delaying payment of his obligation. He even issued a promissory note for said amount. Morada. Salubre. Gana Lopez. Sarenas 2C . left unsettled. Instead. Salubre deposited the money in his own account and later used personally by him. the 2 payments were intended for CUNANAN ATTY RIMORIN sent a letter to CUNANAN stating “due to rains there is no way of checking whether the check deposited by ABS-CBN has been cleared…I’ll try my very best to produce the other P30. Several extensions were sought by Salubre but he still failed to pay.000 in the bank account of ATTY RIMORIN According to the affidavit of NOLI. Salubre promised Sevilla that he would pay the sum of money.000 which the lawyer received in trust for him]         ISSUE HELD W/N ATTY RIMORIN SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED YES.000 but after that there was no more communication from ATTY RIMORIN Hence. and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer’s oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.000 payable to ATTY RIMORIN To complete payment.000 This amount was to be paid out of the goodwill money to be paid by ABS-CBN. But these were dishonored on the ground “account closed”. Rivas. Complainant’s voluntary desistance does not confirm nor deny Salubre’s non-culpability. Salubre also claimed that the money he received from Sevilla was supposed to be the latter’s payment for his appearance and other litigation expenses Issue: Should Salubre still be held liable for his acts despite the desistance of the complainant? Held: Yes. checks were issued to cover the indebtedness. Salubre is fined and given a stern warning. His appointment as Judge is not a valid reason not to properly address the demand of complainant. VIOLATED CANON 16 RULE 16. NOLI acting in behalf of ABS-CBN.

The agreement was that Marquez was to pay Meneses a fee of P100 whether the case was won or lost.02. Mendiola. the amount of P5. malpractice and gross misconduct in office. to Licuanan. 16. Pineda filed an action for damages (on the ground of besmirched reputation and mental anguish) against Licuanan because Pineda believed that she had already paid her debt by paying to Melo. he should be sanctioned. He deserves the severest punishment. says that Atty. depriving her of its use. Pineda paid the rentals to Melo (worth P5. Meneses should return the amount of P 50.’s fee of P175 is unconscionable. ATTY RIMORIN fell short of his duty as a lawyer under Canon 16 Rule 16. Gana Lopez. In fact. Meneses should return the amount. It is highly improbable that Marquez would agree to pay P175 as fees to atty. The acts of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period. Licuanan never got the payments so she filed an administrative complaint against Pineda before the Chief of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society accusing her of moral turpitude. Meneses must return the amount of P50 to Marquez. Meneses to claim P50 of the P75 that the latter got.01. After being threatened with another lawsuit. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice. Manuel Melo.01 and should be penalized accordingly JUDGMENT Suspended for 1 year and to render an accounting of P170.000 86 LICUANAN v MELO Facts:     Leonila Licuanan won in an ejectment case against Aida Pineda.03). and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics (16. in arrears and succeeding. Gen. the SC disbarred him. Meneses contends that Marquez owes her money because he was entitled to the retainer fee (P100) and whatever contingent fees that may be awarded by the court. In response. W/n Melo should be sanctioned for his acts. because those funds properly belong to the latter From the time of the filing of the administrative case until the present. Atty. Held: Atty. Beron.000 representing the balance of P200. Sol. Peralta to Atty. Yes. also recommended the suspension of Atty. Marquez went to see Atty. as corroborated by NOLI in his affidavit The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that ATTY RIMORIN should promptly account for the said funds which he received and held for the benefit of his client. considering the fact that the claim was only for P210. Licuanan then files this complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator against Melo for breach of professional ethics. Meneses for at least 6 months.   Issue:  Held:    87 MARQUEZ v MENESES Facts: Marquez was introduced by Atty. Morada.LEGAL ETHICS RATIO   2nd Sem 2005-2006   It was established that the P200. It was Melo who demanded payment from Pineda. Rivas. CUNANAN. Gen. Marquez claims that Meneses was only entitled to P25 of the amount paid because she had already given the Atty. Issue: W/N Atty. The decision of the Justice of the Peace Court was in favor of Marquez. Meneses as a prospective client. P75. Her counsel in that case was Atty. Licuanan. CUNANAN’S demand for accounting has not yet been satisfied by ATTY RIMORIN Thus. Marquez retained the services of Atty. 16. Calinisan. An atty. then finds out that the money paid by Pineda was with Melo. The Sol. Marquez received a letter from her brother saying that Igdanes had paid the P75 to the sheriff as partial satisfaction and that Atty. Marquez advanced the amount from time to time. After 1 year. through another lawyer. and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made by her.220). ordering Igdanes to pay the P210 claim and P75 as attorney’s fees. the SC was constrained to find him guilty of deceit. Suspension of 1 month. Melo then gives the rentals to Licuanan. Meneses had gotten all of the P75. The judgment ordered Pineda to pay rentals. Meneses to prosecute a claim of P210 against Igdanes. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. totaling P75. which is disbarment. Sarenas 2C . Licuanan. Respondent's unprofessional acts considered.220 received by him on behalf of his client. Fernandez.000 were received by ATTY RIMORIN for the benefit of and in trust of CUNANAN. is a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance. It is well-settled that money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client is money held in trust and must be immediately turned Anastacio. besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court.

LEGAL ETHICS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

over. Atty. Meneses should have made an accounting with his client of the amount he received. 88 CASTILLO v TAGUINES Facts:  Castillo alleged that Atty. Taguines failed to delver to him P500 representing the monetary settlement of a civil suit between Castillo and Licup.  Taguines was the counsel of defendant Licup in the said case, where Castillo was the plaintiff. It was agreed that Licup will give P500.00 for the settlement of the case to Taguines, and Taguines will give the amount to Castillo. For this consideration, Castillo had the case against Licup dismissed.  No money was given to Castillo, and the latter only found out in the second week of January ’79 that Licup had already given the money to Taguines since Dec.16, ‘78  Castillo found out when Licup showed him a certification signed by Taguines that the latter received the amount.  Taguines defense is that although he received the money from Licup, he never bound himself to go out of his way to personally deliver the money to Castillo or his lawyer, and Taguines said he does not know personally Castillo or his address.  Castillo states that Taguines set a date to meet with him but never showed up nor called afterwards.  Taguines later on gave Castillo a bouncing check worth P500. Issue: W/N Taguines must be held administratively liable for not delivering the money to Castillo and for “fooling the complainant” by giving a bouncing check. Held: YES.  Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the same canon provides that a lawyer shall deliver the funds or property of his client when due or upon demand.  Taguines is suspended for one year. 89 LEMOINE v BALON FACTS:  Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance.  His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon’s services as his counsel  Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon successful recovery. An advance payment of P50,000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully collected. P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to Lemoine’s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee.  Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s claim as well as to negotiate, sign, compromise, encash and receive payments  Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine’s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer  December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525,000 which was received by Balon  When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350,000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation  December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon.  Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney’s lien pending Lemoine’s payment of his attorney’s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.  Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon  Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years ISSUE:  W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:   YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of attorney’s fees to e charged. In case of disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action with the proper court to fix the fees Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorney’s fees, after receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%. under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts , must observe fairness

 

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

in all his dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the client’s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession.

90 MELENDRES v DECENA Facts: (1st cause of action) • Aug. 5, 1975: Complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez) obtained from Atty. Reynerio Decena (Decena) a loan of P4K. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage. • It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K. Decena assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality, and due to this assurance the spouses signed the REM. • Despite the assurance, Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as usurious interest. The spouses paid such usurious interest for 3 months. • Because of their failure to pay the amounts, Decena drafted a new REM o New contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum o A special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged property in public auction • Spouses never knew the implications of the new REM. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena acquired their property in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K • Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their property back. Decena then informs them that their debt has soared to P20.4K. • With shattered hopes and grief in their hearts (andrama!), the spouses filed this case for disbarment. (2nd cause of action) • Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K • Decena entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. Pineda then paid P500 to Decena. This settlement was never brought to the attention of the spouses nor were they ever consulted about such. Issue: • Held: • W/N Decena’s acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred Yes, Decena shall be disbarred The acts of Decena as to the 1st cause of action constitute deception, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. As to the 2nd cause of action, Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before entering into a compromise. Decena also failed to inform the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as downpayment for the settlement of the case. Decena’s failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients

• •

91 JUNIO v GRUPO FACTS:  Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the redemption of a land belonging to her parents. She gave P25,000 to be used in the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property and has continuously refused to refund the money given.  Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct  Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore, and that since Junio knew that the mortgage has already expired, she knew that it was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Atty. Grupo then borrowed some of the money for himself to help defray his children’s educational expenses. (personal request evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio – Atty. Grupo contends that their families were really very close and intimate with each other – Junio’s sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo…)  Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further contends that he did not ask for any fee, not even charity. He claims that his services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he claims that he is willing to pay, though)  IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless the client’s interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice and suspended him

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

indefinitely.  what he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his client. And that Atty Grupo did Not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of the money, as evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupo’s claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan ISSUE: WoN Atty. Grupo violated Rule 16? HELD: YES RATIO:  What he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his client. ( he did not give security for the loan and he refused to pay the amount)And that Atty Grupo did not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of the money, as evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupo’s claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan  But in the dispositive portion, sabi he violated… so ayun.  As to the contention that no atty- client relationship exists: it is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. All is needed is when a person consults with his atty in his professional capacity to obtain professional advice.  Atty Grupo is suspended from practice of law for 1 month and to refund the money 92 BUADO v LAYAG Facts: Herein complainant Lising and her sister Rosita de Guzman ( mother of herein complianat Susana Buado) were the plaintiffs in a civil case which was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Atty Layag represented the said plaintiffs in that case. Inland Trailways, the defendant in that case, issued checks: (1)payable to Atty Layag for P15,000 (2) payable to Lising for P30,180 (3) payable to De Guzman, who had by then passed away (for P45,000). The checks were received by Atty Layag. Atty Layag did not inform the plaintiffs about the checks. Instead he gave the checks to one Marie Paz Gonzales for encashment on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney, purportedly executed by De Guzman constituting Gonzales as agent. After discovering that checks have already been issued, Lising and Buado, as heir of De Guzman demanded the delivery of the checks. Gonzales, the agent gave Lising P10,000. No furhter amounts were remitted. Issue: W/n Atty Layag's act of delivering the checks to Gonzales, the purported agent, constitutes malpractice... Held: YES. As a lawyer, with more than 30 years in practice, respondent is charged with knowledge of the law. He should know that it was error for him to rely on a Special Power of Attorney after the death of the principal, De Guzman. When De Guzman died, the Special Power of Attorney ceased to be operative. With respect to the check payable to Lising, Atty Layag should have delivered it directly to Lising. The Power of Attorney did not cover Lising's case. He is therefore, suspended indefinitely, subject to further orders by the SC. 93 DALISAY v MAURICIO Facts:     This is the case against “Batas” Mauricio, the TV host. Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorney’s fees but did not take any action on Valerina Dalisay’s case. Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee. In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff: o Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash. o P3,000.00 as appearance fee notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. She terminated their attorneyclient relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused. The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.

 

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

000. HERNANDEZ engaged the legal services of ATTY GO ATTY GO advised HERNANDEZ to give him land titles of lots in Zamboanga City belonging to her so that he may sell them to enable her to pay the creditors Then. he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. Morteras filed an action because Pagatpatan refuses to surrender the money despite the successive Orders of the RTC and CA. Pagatpatan’s defense is that the Morteras and their mother owed him money for services he previously rendered the family. by Pagatpatan. This money was later deposited. although he is entitled to a lien over the funds in order to satisfy lawful fees. is bound to account whatever money received for and from them. Fernandez. After judgment was rendered.  But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record. Beron. his actions are inexcusable. Gana Lopez. it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter’s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. Sarenas 2C . Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): “there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case. 95 HERNANDEZ v GO FACTS       Sometime in 1961. From then on. Pagatpatan is ordered to return the P150k and is suspended for 2 years.LEGAL ETHICS Issue:  Held:  2nd Sem 2005-2006 W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The penalty of 1-year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the fault done. and that he wouldn’t be paid if he did not do what he did. care and devotion. As counsel he: owes candor to his clients. Pagatpatan failed to observe Canon 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Counsel’s actions were clearly tainted with bad faith. creditors of HERNANDEZ’S husband demanded payment of his loans Fearful of mortgage foreclosures. is obligated to keep his own money separate from his clients and. and utter contempt of his sworn duty as a lawyer. When respondent accepted P56. He should be suspended for 6 months. ATTY GO persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable consideration ATTY GO also persuaded HERNANDEZ to execute deeds of sale involving the other lots in Zamboanga City which Anastacio. Calinisan. it was expected of him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity. Pagatpatan was counsel for the Morteras. They secured a favorable judgment in which they are to receive P155k. However. in his personal account without the knowledge of the Morteras. 94 MORTERA v PAGATPATAN Facts:      The Morteras sued their mother. Several factors warrant a more severe penalty: Considering that Pagatpatan is a seasoned practitioner. a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. HERNANDEZ’S husband abandoned her and her son Shortly thereafter. He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services. No. he entered into a secret agreement with Aguilar where he received P150k as partial payment of the judgment sum.00 from complainant.”   when a lawyer takes a client’s cause. Issue: Should Pagatpatan be held administratively liable? What is the proper penalty? Held: Yes. Just like any other professional. Morada. The claim that he need to protect his interests since there were other people claiming the money from the Monteras was not proved. and 2 other persons—Aguilar and Bradfield—for the rescission of a contract of sale. Mendiola. Counsel tried to subvert both law and proper procedure to recover his fees. he is bound to give prompt notice to his clients of such liens and to deliver the funds to them upon demand or when due. Rivas. deceit.

Canon 18. regardless of his own personal views. Mendiola. A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. Anastacio. Ibadlit only filed the notice of appeal after the reglementary period for appeal. De Liano appealed the decision to the CA. the penalty recommended by the IBP is too light   JUDGMENT ATTY GO is disbarred 96 REONTOY v IBADLIT Facts:   Corazon Reontoy lost a decision in a civil case in the RTC with Atty. a dereliction of duty. a forbidden act. The CA decided that the Appellant’s Brief does not contain a Subject Index or a Table of Cases and Authorities. of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Calinisan. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18. depriving her of real property worth millions HERNANDEZ filed a complaint with the IBP IBP: ATTY GO violated Canon 17 and should be suspended for 3 years W/N ATTY GO SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED YES. Morada. Ibadlit is suspended for 1 year. willful in character and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment o Such conduct on the part of ATTY GO not only degrades himself but also the honor of the legal profession ATTY GO violated Canon 17 o Records show that HERNANDEZ reposed high degree of trust and confidence in ATTY GO that when she engaged his services.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006    ISSUE HELD RATIO  were redeemed by HERNANDEZ when their mortgages fell due In 1974. Sarenas 2C . CA – Mendiola Facts: The prior case involves the cancellation of 2 real estate mortgages in favor of San Miguel executed by Tango. Gana Lopez. a grievous wrong. FOR VIOLATING CANONS 16 AND 17 ATTY GO violated Canon 16 o His acts acquiring for himself HERNANDEZ’S lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct. Fernandez. This statement was refuted by the testimony of Proculo saying that he was not given such info. Reontoy also said that he would never authorized Proculo to represent her to the court or to her lawyer because Proculo was unlettered. Atty. The prior case was decided against SMC. abused this trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself o ATTY GO is duty bound to render a detailed report to HERNANDEZ on how much he sold the lots and the amounts paid to her creditors but failed to do so In previous cases. the appeal was instantly dismissed. He says that he informed Reontoy’s brother. Obviously. Rivas. SC says yes. the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public. HERNANDEZ came to know that ATTY GO did not sell her lots as agreed but instead he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name. however. and that these lapses justify the dismissal of the appeal.03. she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell the same o ATTY GO. to inform Reontoy of his opinion that he did not think that an appeal would prosper. Ibadlit received the notice of the decision but he opted not to file an appeal. He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause. Liberato Ibadlit as her counsel. Tango noticed this flaw of the Brief and immediately moved for the dismiss of De Liano’s appeal."   Issue:  Held:    97 DE LAINO v CA De Liano vs. thus. Afable filed an Appellant’s Brief which failed to comply with the Rules of Court. De Liano was a senior executive of SMC. Proculo Tomazar. W/n Ibadlit should be sanctioned. In the full discharge of his duties to his client. warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. Beron. A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client. Their counsel. the Court disbarred and expelled lawyers from the practice of law in similar circumstances.

Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty. His notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years. SMC’s board resolution attests to that. Atty. Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. That Atty. Afable may be said to be SMC’s counsel.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 De Liano asserts that the CA erred in declaring that the appeal be dismissed on the basis of the lapses in complying with the technical requirements in making of brief. Gana Lopez. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. Afable. and that he had no available means of ascertaining their real identities. Santuyo had a dispute with Danilo German over the ownership of the land  Germen presented an affidavit of Hidalgo denying the authenticity if his signature on the deed of sale and that it was forged  Santuyo argued that: o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a duly notarized document o They had no access to the dry seal of Hidalgo  Hidalgo on the other hand claimed that: Anastacio. and asked the latter to prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards. This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again. Morada. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Relevant to the topic: Generally. Held: YES. Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of persons appearing before him. Even if Atty.    Issue: W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before him. Subsequently. SMC must be held bound by the actuations of its counsel. Beron. they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. 98 TABAS v MANGIBIN Facts:    A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. this does not operate in favor of De Liano.  Notarization is invested with public interest. Held: The dismissal of the brief was proper. It converts a private document into a public one. Afable was clothed with sufficient authority to bind SMC is undisputable. administrative agencies. Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain her identity. Issue: W/N the dismissal of the Appeal was proper. Calinisan. A corporation is an artificial being whose juridical personality is only a fiction created by law and it can only exercise powers and transact its business through its board of directors and its agents. Fernandez. who was a notary public. He even threatened to file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him. and the public must be able to rely upon an acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document. the negligence of the counsel binds the client. this time to a rural bank Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.    99 SANTUYO v HIDALGO FACTS:  Santuyo purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed of sale which was notarized by Hidalgo and was entered in his notarial register  6 years after the date of notarization. thus. Sarenas 2C . a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and appeared before Mangibin. making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). Courts. Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment. As such. These technical rules like the inclusion of the “statement of facts” or the “subject index” in the brief are meant to enable the appellate court to have a better grasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal. All appeals are merely rights that arise from statutes. The deed of mortgage was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union. Rivas. Mendiola.

The case was appealed to RTC. The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the case were not reall parties-in-interest. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law. An answer was prepared by a Mr. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyerclient relationship is terminated. o SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision (liar!). Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Calinisan. For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the court. Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper. Oca: o In his comment. Oca’s story shows his appalling indifference to his clients’ cause. judgment shall be rendered on the case.      Issue:  Held:        101 DE JUAN v BARIA III FACTS: Anastacio. At the beginning of the preliminary conference. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses.LEGAL ETHICS o o o 2nd Sem 2005-2006  ISSUE:  HELD:    He was on vacation at the time that the deed was allegedly notarized An examination of the document will prove that his signature was forged He would have remembered Santuyo for he requires that the parties exhibit their community tax certificates and made them personally acknowledge the documents before he notarize documents IBP: the signature was really forged but Hidalgo must be suspended for 2 years as a notary public W/N Hidalgo must be suspended YES! The responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive. Beron. Gana Lopez. W/N Oca committed professional misconduct Yes. Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. o The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Bakit hindi disbarred? o Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer o Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. spouses appeared without counsel. Hidalgo is negligent not only in the supposed notarization but foremost in having allowed the office secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone and should not have relied on somebody else. Mendiola. 100 ENDAYA v OCA Facts:     A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. Hidalgo should have been more discreet and cautious I the execution of his duties as such and should not have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries. Oca once again failed to file anything. Motion was denied. Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the answer. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Guess what. o In the IBP investigation. The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. Oca failed to submit anything again. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary. Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. At the continuation of the prelim conference. Morada. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing. Rivas. Nonetheless. Ramirez for the spouses. Oca once again failed to submit anything. Oca was assigned to handle the case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim. respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Fernandez. Upon checking with the clerk of court. Sarenas 2C . Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Hence this administrative complaint. Atty. Oca filed motion for amendment of answer.

Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client. iha eh hindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration?" and the secretary of Atty. she asked Atty Baria as to what to do next. Sarenas 2C . Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. which made him lose his appeal. Calinisan. If it were true that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent Edquibals.". Also.  When an adverse NLRC decision was rendered against de Juan. he still failed to appear in the case of Antolin Cuizon. Rivas. 102 EDQUIBAL v FERRER FACTS: Edquibal charged Atty Ferrer with professional misconduct and neglect of duty.  After that. Atty Ferrer then advised complainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is P4. (Too cheap.  May incident pa re: Raffy Tulfo (pero d na kelangan un.. Anastacio. He claimed that he never agreed to handle the appeal. he alleges that De Juan pocketed the money that Triple AAA has already paid off. She asked for the assistance of Banahaw Broadcasting Company (BBC) to search for a lawyer. When complainant Edquibal informed respondent Atty Ferrer that he does not have enough money.  Atty. the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Beron. RATIO: 1. In spite of everything.. Suspended for 3 mos. Gana Lopez.. 3.000 is sufficient. The resolution of the CA clearly states that the "notice sent to counsel for defendants-appelants requiring him to file appelants brief wihtin 45 days from receipt thereof. Fernandez. Atty Baria remains counsel of record and whether or not he has valid cause to withdraw from the case.03 provides that the negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable. and bought it for only P85T. Baria can be administratively charged? HELD: Yes. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appelant's brief.. Since they cannot pay.. Edquibal followed up the appealed case. In one of the cases. Morada. the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. However. BAria contends that he forewarned his client not to expect too much from him because of his limited legal experience since he was a new lawyer.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006  Emma de Juan dwas dismissed by Triple AAA without notice. The Cuizon’s got another attorney. and Atty. All that is required is ordinary diligence expected of a bonus pater familias. Records show that respondnet was the counsel of record for Edquibal. Mendiola. 2. gusto nya kasuhan ng libel kasi may sinabing bad against him) ISSUE: WoN Atty. why did he not file with the CA a motion to withdraw as their counsel? The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence.000. he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold. Rule 18. Sec2 rule 44 of the Rules of CivPro provides that the counsel of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered their counsel in the CA. 103 CUIZON v MACALIN Facts:     The legal services of the Atty Rodolfo Macalino was sought by the Susan Cuizon in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of Dangerous Drug Act."  De Juan charged Atty Baria with negligence and threats to her person. he suggested that he be given possession of their Mitsubishi car. was received by him. Oscar Barria III. Baria accused de Juan that she lied re: her employment. even if this happened during the early 90’s).. ISSUE: W/n Atty Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct. the NLRC decision was reversed. who worked with BBC offering free legal services to indigents became the counsel of de Juan in the NLRC case against Triple  AAA for illegal dismissal. Edquibal engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his sister Delia involving a certain property. He then offered to buy. Atty replied "Paano ba yan. Atty. The new lawyer. respondent failed to file the appellants' brief despite receipt of such notice. Baria told de Juan and the husband "wag na tumawag uli dahil galit. Atty ferrer said P2. HELD: YES.. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel.

together with her SON. Baria III asserts that he did not commit any breach of his oath and that he has vigorously pursued his client’s cause. A lawyer should carry the case of his client until its termination or until it has become final and executory.   104 DE JUAN v BARIA III Facts:     De Juan was an employee of Triple AAA. And when the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Based on a performance evaluation she was terminated. Gana Lopez. Rivas. went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed against her (Collection of Sum of Money) Anastacio. Atty Baria III was her counsel. And when her husband called the office of the lawyer. He also cited that he was lambasted on air by a radio announcer--Raffy Tulfo. And that he received death threats after De Juan’s husband called their office and gave a warning to his secretary. He did not obtain the written consent of his client or the permission of the court to withdraw from the case. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of De Juan. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. De Juan blamed Baria III for the reversal of the decision. Fernandez. filing a motion for reconsideration is not that complicated. Calinisan. that would warrant disciplinary action.03. who was not able to serve the warrant against him (allegedly. and was fined by the SC for P1000. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Baria III did fail to file a motion for reconsideration. He should be DISBARRED and not just suspended. Morada. Anyway. When the company appealed to the NLRC. It is his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and should exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his client. He was warned and fined in the amount of P5k. Negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable (Canon 18 Rule 3). The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes. in failing to file for De Juan motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC. She said that she only came to know of the reversed decision a month after it was promulgated. he owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Beron. 105 ROLLON v NAVAL FACTS  ROLLON. this cannot absolve him. After his client expressed her desire to file such motion. Baria III abandoned the cause of his client without a just reason.LEGAL ETHICS    Issue:  Held:    2nd Sem 2005-2006 He (Macalino) was sanctioned by the lower courts. He was ordered to be arrested by the NBI. Held: Yes. he no longer resided in his place) The IBP wanted to suspend him for 3 years. Sarenas 2C . And when she asked counsel what to do. W/N Atty. He also claimed that did not fail in informing his clients regarding the development of the case. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion The respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule 18. which he did not pay. the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court As an officer of the court. A lawyer is expected to be familiar with the rudiments of the law and procedure. the latter said that he did not know how to make a Motion for Reconsideration. it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. De Juan filed a case for illegal termination against the company. So he remained De Juan’s counsel in the case. the secretary told them not to talk with said counsel anymore. Baria III’s defense was that he forewarned his clients that he was just new in the profession and that they should not expect much from him. There was no proper revocation of authority and withdrawal by Baria III. Macalino should be sanctioned. Mendiola. it is incumbent upon him to familiarize himself with the procedure to carry out such task. the decision was reversed. he advised De Juan to get a more experienced lawyer. Though he did inform his client of his lack of experience.  Issue: Whether Baria III committed culpable negligence. By his repeated cavalier conduct. He further averred that it was De Juan’s negligence and folly that caused her to lose the case. In sum. His excuse that he did not know how to make one is inexcusable. A lawyer may only abandon his client and withdraw his services for a reasonable cause and only upon appropriate notice.

Beron. SC says YES. gross misconduct or violation of the lawyer’s oath. 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. 17 & 18 Ordinarily.000). Mendiola.05 and Canons 16. Phils.000 W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED YES. within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision. through Atty. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation. Aguirre ordered ILCOPHIL to post a bond to stay the execution of the decision and ordered a trial to determine the correct amount of backwages and benefits to be awarded to Miraflor. as the Executive Labor Arbiter. attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal. diligence. Hagad can never be faulted for having filed said motion for reconsideration. after going through her papers. However. Rivas. ROLLON’S SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy After several follow-ups and still no action. But once they agree to handle a case. lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client. ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and the P8. skill and competence. Calinisan. The Minister of Labor and Employment initially denied the petition but the NLRC reversed the ruling. Hence. (ILCOPHIL) for illegal dismissal. Mirfalor now complains to the SC that the respondent-lawyers conspired to thwart the execution of the decision of the OP which may constitute malpractice.000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case would be acted upon. As counsel for ILCOPHIL. Furthermore. Aguirre lowered the amount adjudged by the OP (from 27k to 14k). Otherwise. records show that after receiving P8.LEGAL ETHICS        ISSUE HELD RATIO  2nd Sem 2005-2006 After going through the documents. ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from ROLLON and even demanded P8. until fully paid. Gana Lopez. ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite ROLLON’S repeated demands. which was affirmed by the Office of the President (OP). he has the duty to pursue with zeal and dedication the best interests of his client and the filing of the motion for reconsideration was well within the scope of his authority and prerogatives as such counsel. Sarenas 2C .05 AND CANONS 16. 2000. FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15. Apparently. ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLON’S lawyer and required her to pay P8. complainant’s eight thousand pesos (P8. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15. at the rate of six percent per annum.000 paid by ROLLON because he has no money ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18 IBP BOARD OF GOVERNOR’S RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8.000 as filing and partial service fee As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL. filed a complaint against Insular Lumber Co. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a client’s cause. from October 18. Respondent Atty. W/n Aguirre and Hagad acted properly as lawyers. Juan Hagad. issued a writ of execution to enforce the decision of the OP. Eventually. if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively and competently. Morada." Anastacio. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and had long become final executory. ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and status of the case. practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. their clients would be prejudiced.000.    JUDGMENT  Atty. ILCOPHIL. 106 MIRAFLOR v HAGAD Facts:     Issue:  Held:   Nilo Miraflor. Fernandez. filed a motion for reconsideration. In the case at bar. Jose Aguirre. plus interest thereon. Respondent Atty. with the help of Primo Miraflor. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention. he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE. effective upon his receipt of this Decision. care and utmost devotion. ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him Furthermore.

. a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Co. de officio that he would like to be relieved for obvious reasons. Rivas. Jr. Aguirre. because of lack of evidence. including the presumption that the accused was not denied the right to have counsel. Fernandez. 109 PHIL LAND v CEBU PORTLAND FACTS: PLASLU asked the Court of Industrial Relations to order Cebu Portland to pay overtime compensation and differentials due to them under the RA 1880 or the 40 Hours a Week Law. and 7.  Montero is also guilty of forum shopping. 5. According to CA. Complainants. The statement of the counsel in the court below did not necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to protect Prieto.  Issue: W/N Millare should be disbarred for violating Canons 12 and 19 Held: Montero is suspended for one year. appealed the decision to the RTC. Mendiola. 3. 6. 2. considering the number of actions he filed. Held: Prieto was not denied the right to counsel. Sarenas 2C . However. The court places reasonable presumption in favor of the legality and regularity of all the proceedings of the trial court. Prieto was found guilty on count 4. appointed by the trial court to aid Prieto in his defense expressed reluctance to accept the designation (because he did not sympathize with Prieto’s cause) is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. 3. through Montero as counsel. The court also finds the Prieto is not guilty of counts 1. Beron. the mother of complainant. As a matter of fact. and 7. She neither filed a supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC. never offered any satisfactory evidence to warrant the conclusion that Atty. Co should have filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal. Morada.  Canon 19 requires a lawyer to represent his clients within the bounds of the law. The Company argued that the sucurity guards are not under the said law and thery are not entitled to additional compensation Anastacio. The fact that the atty. the judgment of the MTC had already become final and executory. Atty. except for their unsubstantiated allegations. His guilt in count 4 is maintained and the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua due to aggravating (torture) and mitigating (plea of guilt) circumstances. 108 MILLARE v MONTERO Millare v Montero Facts:     This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Prieto seeks the reversal of the conviction alleging that the court failed to appoint another counsel de officio to him in "spite of the manifestation of the atty. He entered a plea of guilty on counts 1. and 7despite the fact that the prosecutor only presented evidence on count 4. 2. Co’s counsel filed four more defective and dilatory petitions before the RTC. 1. 129 and with the Interim Rules and Guidelines. Calinisan. acted maliciously in allowing ILCOPHIL to file the questioned motion for reconsideration. He must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. He must not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case." Issue: W/N Prieto was denied the right to counsel. Thus the appeal was dismissed. In short. obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case. and SC for the purpose of delaying the execution of judgment by MTC. and made a plea of not guilty on counts 4. Aguirre. 107 PEOPLE v PRIETO Facts: Prieto was prosecuted in the People’s Court for 7 counts of treason. his explanation is reasonable and satisfactory. Montero Pacifica Millare. Jr.2. Aguirre was merely complying with the presidential directive to have a further adjudication on Nilo's salary differentials and other benefits due him. Gana Lopez. The CA also dismissed Co’s appeal from the RTC decision for failure to comply with BP Blg. in allowing said motion for reconsideration. 3. CA. His explanation that he "merely complied with due process by granting the respondent company ILCOPHIL an opportunity to present evidence relative to its claim that complainant (Nilo Miraflor) had gainful employment during the time he was dismissed" is well taken.  The appeal from MTC to RTC was sufficient to protect Co’s interest and fully ventilate her defenses. After the dismissal.LEGAL ETHICS  2nd Sem 2005-2006 With respect to respondent Atty.

Anastacio. Plaintiffs filed for reconsideration saying that they were never made to participate in the preparation and formation of the stipulation of facts W/N the stipulation of facts is valid The case is remanded to court of origin for further proceedings and the amended complaint should be accepted. Morada. no proper indications and markings on the wheels. Mendiola. Attorneys cannot. According to PLASLU. the CFI rendered decision in favor of the defendants (that Deiparine owns the whole lot). compromise their client’s litigation. The stipulation was only signed by Atty. the condition to reopen a case is: it must be upon grounds not already directly or indirectly litigated and the grounds must not be available to the aprties in the previous proceedings and the reopening must not affect the period already elapsed at the time the order to reopen was issued. PLASLU through their new counsel made ot of record that their former counsel was not authorized by them to enter into stipulations of facts. Land was never transferred thru title. Calinisan. weight load limits. It is puzzling why the petitioners’ signatures were not affixed in the stipulation. etc)  FASGI instituted an action against PAWI and FPS for breach of contract and recovery of damages where I  was stipulated that PAWI and FPS would accept the return of not loess than 8. defendants (Raga’s) are the children by the second marriage of Vicenta Bucao. PLASLU filed a petition to reopen the case CIR: denied the motion to reopen the case ISSUE: W/N the court can reopen the case after it has long been final and executory HELD: NO! It has been settled that clients are bound by the acts and even mistakes of counsel in procedural techniques. Deiparine acquired the whole lot through purchase from Tomas Raga. without special authority. The stipulation of facts which was made the basis of the decision was null and void as it contained serious unauthorized admissions against the interest of the plaintiffs who had no hand in its preparation. Guba in entering into a compromise agreement without the knowledge and consent of his clients is not in keeping with the sworn duty of a lawyer to protect the interest of his clients. Guba(for plaintiffs) and Atty.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 CIR: PLASLU are not within the coverage of RA 1880 After 2 years form the decision of the CIR. Beron. The conduct of Atty. o Later on. ¼ of this land was sold to Antonio Caballero (one of the plaintiffs). TCT was issued to Deiparine. the stipulation of their previous attorney which states that "they were required by the company to work for 56 hours a week was due to the nature of thier services and in the interest of public notice" is a legal conclusion and were not authorized by them therefore. o Vicenta Bucao and Tomas Raga acquired land in Cebu. The facts that were agreed upon were unfavorable to the client does not detract from the binding effect of the stipulation. From the stipulation of facts. Gana Lopez.100 wheels after restoring to FASGI the purchase price via 4 irreovable letters of credit. Fernandez. It amounts to fraud. Davide(for respondents). INC v FASGI FACTS:  FASGI and PAWI entered into a distributorship contract wherein PAWI obligated itself to ship wheels for FASGI (foreign company)  FASGI paid PAWI the FOB value of the wheels but later found the shipment to be defective and in non-compliance with their stated requirements (non stamping of country of origin. not fitted to the automobiles. Deiparine Facts:  There was a stipulation of facts stating the following: o Plaintiffs are the children by the first marriage. 110 CABALLERO v DEIPARINE Caballero v.    Issue:  Held:      111 PHIL WHEELS v FASGI PHIL ALUMINUM WHEELS. Rivas. Sarenas 2C .

FASGI would immediately have a right to apply to the Court for entry of judgment. Calinisan. A party. ISSUE: WoN the decision is binding against PAWI? HELD: YES RATIO: 1. HELD: YES. Fernandez. settle the action or SM of the litigation even when he honestloy believes that such settlement will best serve his client's best interest. fails to promptly repudiate the action of his atty. Thomas Ready). he will not afterwards be heard to complain about it. should not. Morada. 113 GARCIA v CA Anastacio. FURTHERMORE. counsel for PAWI. Thomas Ready. In the instant case. Manalang alleged that they were the complainants in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against their employer.(PAWI was spared from possibly paying substantial amount of damages and incurring heavy litigation fees. it is clear that an atty cannot without a client's authorization. Atty Angeles failed to show any such authority. 30% was agreed to be paid ot respondent as his attorney's fees. Mendiola. In this jurisdiction. Atty Angeles was their counsel. Atty Angeles compromised the award and was able to collect P5500 only. upon becoming aware of the compromise and the judgment thereon. while FASGI was not ordered to return the wheels. in the amount of P6500. (case was decided against PAWI to pay)  FASGI filed with the Makati RTC for enforcement of foreign judgment but the latter held that there was unjust enrichment since PAWI was to pay.THis was  executed by the FASGI president and PAWI Counsel (Mr. but the lawyer refuese and offered to give them only the sum of P2650. Beron. Atty Angeles. after its opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an agreement. and not have waited for more than a year to mention the alleged lack of authority) 2. (PAWI could have sent a disclaimer. ISSUE: Whether respondent Atty Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds. and was even afforded time to reimburse FASGI) 112 MANALANG v ANGELES FACTS: This is an administrative case agaisnt Atty Angeles for grave misconduct as a lawyer and he stanes charged with infidelity in the discharge of fiduciary obligations to his clients. without authority from his clients. Suspended for 6 months. Alleging difficulties in collecting te full amount awarded. respondent compromised the award on execution and collected only P5500 from the losing party. stated the he refused because he was ordered to deduct from his attorney's fees the amount of P2000 representing the amount discounted by counsel of the Phil Racing Club Restaurant together with sheriff legal fees. without the latter's authorization. be allowed to later disown the arrangement when the terms thereof ultimately would prove to operate against its hopeful expectations. BUT when a client.  PAWI still defaulted so FASGI filed with the US District Court of the Central District of California. in his defense. Rivas. Manalang made several demands upon Atty Angeles to turn over to them the amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of 30%. However. This compromise was allegedly without authority from his clients. it held that the supplemental settlement agreement were a  NULLITY for having been entered into by Mr. Atty Angeles exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defence of their rights. Sarenas 2C . Gana Lopez. there is no dispute that complainants were awarded P6500 for unpaid overtime and separation pay.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006  PAWI was unable to comply with the foregoing agreement alleging that it was due to a restriction by the Central Bank (for approval of the L/C)  PAWI and FASGI undertook a STIPULATION OF JUDGMENT agreeing that if PAWI still failed to undertake its  obligation. Judgment was rendered in favor of Manalang. the Phil Racing Club Restaurant. herein complainant Manalang.

where the ring was allegedly bought. Apparently. Apparently. owner of La Bulakena Restaurant. counsel tried to rely on procedural doctrines—particularly citing that de los Santos has no interest in the case. Her explanation that her counsel misunderstood her is puerile (This means silly) because the liability to error as to the identity of the vendor and the exchange of the ring with another ring of the same value. should be ignored. were filed by the oppositors. Beron. was rather remote. Now. they still failed to show open. ET AL stating that the pre-trial will be held on May 29   On May 29. through his cousel. Defendant (De Garcia) is refuted by her own extra-judicial admissions. Rebullida. and this includes the authority to make admission for the purpose of the litigation. JUDGE NAVARRO was still on leave and entered similar minutes noting the notification to ATTY Anastacio. the property appeared to be a part of the public domain. and adverse possession in the concept of an owner. as the authority to manage the cause. Guevarra’s ring was stolen from her house in February 1952. while talking to Consuelo De Garcia. The lower court is constrained to dismiss the application. Mendiola. Aling Petring was just a hoax. And that the ring of Guevarra might just be similar to hers. and by a certain Pacita de los Santos. She inquired where she bought it. peaceful. Garcia claims it was lost. Motions to Dismiss (the application). there was open and uninterrupted possession in the concept of an owner). Gana Lopez. There was really no Aling Petring. 115 PINEDA v CA FACTS  JOSE VICTORIA filed a complaint for recovery of possession of 2 parcels of land in Taguig against EMMANUEL VICTORIA. It should be noted that technicalities should give way (and even aid) to substantial justice. Sarenas 2C . is binding on her.  114 SANTIAGO v DE LOS SANTOS Facts:      Luis Santiago filed an application for registration of a piece of land in San Mateo. counsel wants to reverse the decision. uninterrupted. even if such was admitted. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands. Fernandez. who later on didn’t return the ring anymore. However. This admission led to the dismissal of the application. They brought the ring to Mr. In a desperate effort to save the case. Upon examination of the records. During which an extra-judicial admission by Garcia was done. Morada. the ultimate source being Aling Petring. whether objection is interposed by the party or not…” (Justice JBL Reyes in Joe’s Radio v Alto Electronics). The court has adhered to the doctrine that “an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive to him. Director of Forestry. Rizal. ET AL praying after notice and hearing that the latter be ordered to vacate the premises  Clerk of Court of Branch II issued a notice of pretrial to ATTY VICTORIA for JOSE VICTORIA and ATTY GONZALES AND ASSOCIATES for EMMANUEL VICTORIA. and that all proofs submitted by him contrary or inconsistent therewith. JUDGE NAVARRO was on leave so the Clerk of Court of Branch II entered the following minutes: “Presiding Judge of this Court being on leave and as prayed by ATTY VICTORIA and ATTY CAPISTRANO* let the pre-trial be transferred to July 3” On July 3. the pleading contained attachments showing that the land is indeed part of the public domain (court said that counsel probably wanted to prove that despite the public character of the property. Even if there would be a full hearing of the case. Calinisan. recognized her (Guevarra’s) ring in the finger of Mrs Garcia. As per the case: “mysterious and ephemeral figure”. on the ground that the property was public domain. and he concluded that it was indeed the ring that Guevarra bought from him in 1947. She claims there that she bought the ring from different persons. A case was filed. Rivas. (Mrs de los Santos’ was actually a lessee of the land by virtue of a Pasture Lease Agreement) (What’s funny is that…) When Santiago’s counsel—the firm of Luna and Manalo—requested that the case be calendared for hearing. Counsel’s admission binds the client. W/N the extra-judicial admission of De Garcia. But the ring was returned to Garcia. the designated judge.LEGAL ETHICS Facts:      2nd Sem 2005-2006  Issue:  Held:   Angelina Guevarra. For an attorney who acts as counsel of record and is permitted to act as such. the result would still be the same. Garcia handed the ring to Guevarra and it fitted her finger. although made by counsel.  Issue: Can Santiago (more appropriately his counsel) properly call for the reversal of the decision? Held: NO. So Santiago was ordered to show cause to support his application.

(Astra) leased its property to Alelie Montojima. He was ordered arrested until he obeys the orders and judgment of the Court. Gana Lopez. Mendiola. Salonga started operating Metro Disco on the subject property. application in a given case should be looked into and adopted according to its surrounding circumstances. The CA affirmed. who are required to appear thereat. Paul Geneve was totally left out. this petition Main argument of EMMANUEL VICTORIA. presence of parties is a must because one of the purposes of a pre-trial is to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement (which a counsel cannot compromise absent express authorization) so notice to the parties is necessary Records show that since only the counsel for EMMANUEL VICTORIA. ET AL was notified of the pre-trial. the Bel-Air Village Homeowner’s Association filed a complaint for violation of some municipal ordinances. he suggested that he (along with his company – Solid Intertain) and Paul Geneve enter into a joint venture enterprise. (Paul Geneve) where the latter purchased the lease rights of Montojima over the property.not mentioned but I presume he is an associate of ATTY GONZALES 116 SALONGA v CA Facts:     Astra Realty Development Corp. neither EMANNUEL VICTORIA. Paul Geneve filed a complaint for specific performance against Salonga and his company. it may foster dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice The case at bar involves Section 1 and 2 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Court which state “In any action after the last pleading has been filed.        Issue: Anastacio. Calinisan. The idea was to form a new corporation to be named Solidisque Inc. Sarenas 2C . Salonga was also adjudged guilty of civil contempt for his failure to appear in an earlier hearing. such notification is neither adequate nor sufficient for purposes of a pre-trial Judgment of CA affirmed ISSUE HELD RATIO        NOTE *ATTY CAPISTRANO . Rivas. the court shall direct the parties AND their attorneys to appear…” The Court interpreting these provisions. Since Salonga had no money. Paul Geneve signed the papers but Dalonga didn’t. Oct 16. ET AL elevated the matter to the CA who reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered JUDGE PINEDA to proceed with the pre-trial Hence. Montojima then entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Paul Geneve Entertainment Corp. ET AL nor ATTY CAPISTRANO appeared so JUDGE PINEDA entered a default order against EMMANUEL VICTORIA. No corporation under the name Solidisque Inc. otherwise. that the parties as well as their counsel. Garlitos for Salonga and Atty. Sadili for Paul Geneve). Having possession of the unsigned papers. ET AL is that the minutes prepared by the clerk of court merely singles out ATTY CAPISTRANO as having been notified so since no notice was sent to them.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006         CAPISTRANO as to the new date. Morada. All the documents were prepared by the counsels of both parties (Atty. Now comes George Salonga who was interested in buying the lease rights of Paul Geneve. was ever registered as agreed upon in the Securities and Exchange Commission. of the pre-trial The case was transferred to the sala of JUDGE PINEDA without knowledge of EMANNUEL VICTORIA. must BOTH be notified of the same In other proceedings presence of parties is not necessary so notice to counsel operates as notice to client but in a pre-trial. a motion for execution pending appeal was granted EMMANUEL VICTORIA. Paul Geneve paid Montojima but when it was about to start its business. Salonga and his counsel failed to appear in the trial dates so he was declared in default and judgment was rendered by the RTC in favor of Paul Geneve. ET AL filed a verified motion to reconsider and/or set-aside the order holding them in default but the same was denied On the contrary. uniformly emphasized that the pre-trial is mandatory. an associate in the office of ATTY GONZALES while appearing in another sala of the same court stumbled upon the scheduled reception of evidence of JOSE VICTORIA as ordered by JUDGE PINEDA EMMANUEL VICTORIA. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE NOTICE TO THE CLIENT Generally. ET AL or their lawyer On Oct 16. ET AL and commissioned the deputy clerk to receive evidence for JOSE VICTORIA and to submit a report A few days later. Beron. The latter tried to open a restaurant but it was not a success. Fernandez. the whole proceeding cannot stand the test of validity W/N NOTICE TO COUNSEL REGARDING SCHEDULED DATE OF PRE-TRIAL IS NOTICE TO CLIENT NO. notice to counsel operates as notice to the party/parties represented However.

(According to Nia. however. Atty. SC says NO. SC said that extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party which is committed outside the trial of the case. Calinisan. holding a knife against Nia’s neck. There is no question about the credibility of the Nia as a witness. The alibi of Villanueva is also self-serving. by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. Held: Villanueva is not entitled to a new trial. Villanueva is still guilty of rape." None of these exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case. or when its application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality. threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone of the odious act. Garlitos constitute extrinsic fraud (see p. and to indemnify the offended party the amount of P250. However. If this were to be allowed. Aguilar. it was too big. Issue: W/N Villanueva is entitled to a new trial. In this mandatory review by the SC. found Villanueva guilty of raping Nia and imposes the death penalty. Atty. (The filing of the complaint was brought about by a kiss mark that Nia’s brother saw on her neck. Rivas. Onofre G. The trial judge had occasion to determine the demeanor of the witness. In his defense. Mendiola. then there would be no end to suits so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege that the previous counsel had not been diligent. Both were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. 118 AGUILAR v CA Facts:  Aguilar and Salvador were charged with Estafa in an Information filed before the RTC. Villanueva. Beron. Unfortunately. The error of his defense counsel is neither an error of law nor an irregularity that will merit a new trial. Consequently. 543 for list of acts). the charge cannot qualify as qualified rape. The lower court. Villanueva attempted to insert his penis. The Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent acts attributed to petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were in no way shown or alleged to have been caused by private respondents. because it is not an element of rape. it is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client.    117 PEOPLE v VILLANUEVA Facts: Villanueva was accused of raping his 11 year-old stepdaughter Nia. Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter. necessarily requires that its cause be traceable to some fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial of the case. What is important is that there was contract between the peis and the labia of the vagina. the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.000. thru his former counsel. Morada.Arandia.) It was alleged that one night. Sarenas 2C . It doesn’t’ matter if Villanueva’s [penis did not penetrate. whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case. Gana Lopez. On the other hand. Atty. he is merely a surrogate father and there exists no legal relation of step-father and step-daughter) was not averred in the complaint. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. because the allegation that the accused is the stepfather (in fact he is not. The failure of the defense to present Nia’s mother by reason of the alleged inexperience of his lawyer is not a ground for new trial. The client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had his counsel proceeded differently. timely appealed to CA. Villanueva alleges that he is entitled to a new trial because of his counsel’s failure to present his common-law wife (Nia’s mother). Petitioners George Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation allege that the "inimical and antagonistic acts" of their counsel Atty. as discussed previously. Villanueva gives an alibi that he could not have raped her and that the semen found on the victim’s vagina could not have been his (he already had vasectomy). In fact. Due process was never denied petitioners Salonga and Solid Intertain Corporation because the trial court had given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present their side in all the proceedings before it.LEGAL ETHICS  Held:  2nd Sem 2005-2006 W/n Salonga’s allegation of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process obtain to justify annulment of the default judgment rendered by the RTC. The fact that Nia’s hymen was intact does not negate rape. Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law.) Villanueva contented himself to licking Nia’s genetalia. The nature of extrinsic fraud. Arandia failed to file  Anastacio. but it would not fit. petitioners were declared in default only on the third ex parte motion filed by private respondents. Fernandez.

Legarda refused to sign the contract. Morada. Talo naman sila eh Facts:   New Cathay House. Rivas. salonga was held in default and cited in contempt Salonga is now claiming that he received a copy of the decision only on 10-7 yet a motion for reconsideration was filed on 7-28 ISSUE: W/N the decision must be annulled on the ground of fraud on the part of Salonga's counsel HELD: NO! a decision can be annulle donly on 2 grounds: A. Inc. 120 LEGARDA v CA *mahaba. Gana Lopez.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006    petitioner’s brief on its due date. lawyer of Salonga. Sarenas 2C . Fernandez. He neither communicated to Aguilar nor withdrew his appearance as counsel. not when the circumstances of the case it becomes a hindrance to justice. new trial may be granted if the defendant satisfies the court that: 1) he has a good defense. Held: YES. Calinisan. Salvador was granted an extension of time to file her brief. He cannot lose his liberty because of the gross irresponsibility of his lawyer. to see all the negligent acts of Atty Garlitos see page 543 1st paragraph. and the latter entered his appearance in the case and asked an extension of 45 days to submit the appellant’s brief.  CA should have considered the fact that the appellant’s brief was already filed and is already in the records of the case. 119 SALONGA v CA FACTS: Astra owned a propert located at Bel-Air Village. Mendiola. The said rule must only be applied to advance the ends of justice. simple negligence would not amount to a deprivation of right to due process. Montojima received 1M Bt before PGEC can open the business. Montojima leased this property and opened a restaurant which did not prosper Montojima thereafter entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with Paul Geneve Entertainment Corp (PGEC) with the consent of Astra under the following term: Montojima will sell all his rights over the property to PGEC for 3M. Issue: W/N CA committed GAD when it dismissed Aguilar’s appeal for failure to file his appellant’s brief on time. Salonga did not appear and was held in contempt salonga also asked for 2 motions foe extension of time but no answer was filed becasue of salonga's failure to file an answer. although he failed to file a timely answer. but the new corporation never existed and PGEC asked for specific performance from Salonga during the scheduled hearing. where certain evidence was not presented because of counsel’s error or incompetence. This shows earnest efforts of counsel and petitioner to be heard and lack of intention to cause delay. di ko na sinama mga dissenting. the homeowners association of Bel-Air filed a complaint against PGEC for violation of some municipal ordinances PGEC and Salonga entered into a JVA wherein the corporation of Salonga and PGEC will form a new corporation.  In a criminal proceeding. Their cases rest on the same facts. it was obtained by fraud there is no extrinsic fraud in the case the negligence of counsel binds the client. Arias as his new counsel.  Aguilar faces a jail term of 17 yrs and 4 mos to 20 yrs. Cathay made a deposit and downpayment of rentals then Anastacio. Beron. hus efforts at defending thier cause is real. Both allegedly conspired in committing the crime of estafa. Aguilar hired Atty. On the other hand. For some reason. judgment is void for want of due process or jurisdiction and B. CA subsequently denied Aguilar’s motion to dismiss and his appeal. Aguilar’s attempts to contact his counsel were futile. Equal protection of the law demands that persons situated similarly be treated alike.  Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. this is based on the rule that any acts performed by counsel within the scope of his general authority is deemed as an act of the client. Makati. Garlitos. (Cathay) and Victoria Legarda entered into a lease agreement for a property in QC owned by Legarda. is only guilty of simple negligence. The motion was denied for having been filed out of time.  There is no reason to treat the two appellants differently. and the brief was admitted even though filed beyond the grace period. and that 2) acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence.

W/N Legarda can be bound by the gross negligence of her counsel Yes. If indeed Legarda is innocent. Coloma likewise denied that she could have been removed for her failure to comply with her obligations as counsel as she served "faithfully. Morada. he himself would not get due. then all the more that Cathay is innocent. Decision was res ipso final due to failure to appeal the decision. 2. after benefiting from the valuable services of atty COloma. Coloma intervened in the case to collect her atty's fees and presented a document showing that the complainants promised to pay her a contingent fee of 33 1/3% of whatever could be recovered whether in land or damages.. accdg to her. inexcusable and gross negligence of Dean Coronel. she cannot be said to have been denied due process of law. Perpetua Coloma as their counsel. New lawyer asked for annulment of judgment upon the ground that the old lawyer was negligent in his duties. it is the complainants who. But Dean Coronel failed to file an answer within that period. Sarenas 2C . continuously and to the best of her knowledge and capacity". The SolGen further saight that if there was anyone guilty of bad faith in  this case. Cathay won the case (Katay si Legarda). Cathay’s manager. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was made on the order of denial (ibang klase ka dean!) So. the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss. Cabrera. Gana Lopez. Petition was denied. The SC said that there was unjust enrichment on the part of Cathay because of the reckless.000 in consideration of the Atty Cruz's undertaking to render the services enumerated in their contract.  Atty. 121 ALBANO v COLOMA FACTS:  Angel Albano alleges that when he and his mom retained the services of Atty. na wala na yung lupa). Counsel is entitled to full recompense for his services He is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. The petition was granted and the sale of the QC property to be set aside. Original decision is reinstated (Legarda=loser) As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend her interests in due course. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents. Between two innocent parties. was made without cause and without her consent and when she had already won the case for them in the CFI and the CA. Beron. Her dismissal. NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the union Anastacio. by attempting to impugn the authenticity and genuineness of their written agreement for the payment of atty's fees ISSUE: WoN Atty COloma is entitled to her atty's fees (as agreed upon in their written agreement of contigent fee) HELD: YES RATIO: 1. Legarda still did not lose faith in her counsel. tried to renege on their agreement for the payment of the latter's contingent atty's fees by dismissing her as their counsel after she had already won for them in the trial court and the CA. Service of decision was made on Dean Coronel but he still did not do anything. 122 TRADERS ROYAL BANK UNION v NLRC FACTS: Petitioner Union and private respondent Atty Cruz entered into a retainer agreement whereby the former obligated itself to pay the latter a monthly retainer fee of P3. Atty Coloma failed to expediet the hearing and termination of the case. Mendiola. Legarda did not redeem the property within the 1 year period. mid year and year-end bonuses against their employer Traders Royal Bank (TRB). Dean Coronel then filed a petition for annulment of judgment.  The facts as found by the SolGen in so far as the services of Atty Coloma as counsel for the complainants reveal the utmost diligence and  conscientiousness on her part.  Atty. Also. and later. Petitioner Union referred to Atty Cruz the claims of its members for Holiday. Atty COloma has good reputation. efficiently. Legarda hired a new lawyer. Legarda misjudged and hired the services of Dean Coronel who in the end sort of abandoned her case. Kahit natalo na sila dahil walang ginagawa si Dean (hindi nga niya sinabihan si Legarda kung ano na nangyari sa kaso nila. Dean Antonio Coronel. Calinisan. Hence this motion for reconsideration of SC decision. The QC property was then levied and auctioned off to pay for the judgment debt. requested a 10-day extension to file an answer which was granted. Fernandez. was the highest bidder in the auction. Legarda’s counsel. Cathay presented evidence ex parte. SO his reputation as a lawyer must be protected. resulting to their having to procure another lawyer. Rivas.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006         Issue:  Held:      filed for specific performance.

The P3. The P3. The measure of compensation should be addressed by the rule of quantum meruit. Yes. Rivas. the TRB management and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney's lien over the award of holiday pay. NLRC ruled in favor of Atty Cruz. His infraction is rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a resident of QC. This is a gross betrayal of the fiduciary duty: failure to look after the client’s welfare. The union insists that it is not guilty of unjust enrichment because all attorney's fees due to Atty Cruz were covered by the retainer fee of P3. The monthly fee is intended merely as a consideration for the counsel's commitment to render the services. (bottom part of p 5) (irrelevant) W/N Grijaldo should be disbarred. Atty Cruz.000 which it has been regularly paying to Atty Cruz under their retainer agreement. That was the reason why Ong hired a Bacolod-based lawyer. since it was drawn on the checking account of the opposing party’s counsel.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 members. but Ong instructed Grijaldo to file it with the court. Grijaldo already received the money from Reyesm but he used it to pay for his (Grijaldo’s) financial obligations. the complainant. On appeal to the SC. notified the union . Hence this case. Were it not for complainant’s vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case. Bank complied with such decision.000. Ong went to Bacolod (where the case was filed) to find out for himself the status of the case and to seek payment. Gana Lopez. Grijaldo deliberately withheld the fat from her. but they reached a compromised in the amount of P180T. Grijaldo claims that the check is good. The fact that petitioner union and counsel failed to reach a meeting of the minds with regard to the payment of professional fees for special services will not absolve the client of civil liability for the corresponding remuneration. Mendiola. A quasi contract arose between the union and counsel. Grijaldo breached his futy wwhen he failed to inform the complainant of the status of the criminal case. Union opposed the demand. it contends that there must be separate mutual agreement prior to the performance of the additional services of the counsel. voluntry and unilateral prosecution of union's cause. As long as the lawyer was in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the client. 123 ONG v GRIJALDO Facts:   This is a case for disbarment of Atty. Sarenas 2C .000 retainer fee.000 was a general retainer. the court modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of mid year and yearend bonus. Jose Grijaldo. An attorney is entitiled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. but was made to accept it. Calinisan. initially had Grijaldo as his counsel for a BP 22 case. she would have not know that the case was already dismissed. Goretti Ong. Ong filed a number of affidavits by other disinterested persons who complained of Grijaldo’s mischief. he should have a reasonable compensation for such services. It is not payment for counsel's execution or performance of the services of the counsel. Later on. The opposing party owed Ong. provided he be paid in cash. thereafter.000 which the union pays monthly does not cover the services the counsel actually rendered before the labor arbiter and the NLRC. from the counsel's lawful. only when the check has been cleared. It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. Reyes. Worse. Ong agreed to a compromise. his negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required of every lawyer. But the check bounced. to protect her interests. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it accepted and benefited from counsel's services. Fernandez. He demanded the payment of 10% of the total award. Issue: W/n Atty Cruz is entitled to compensation other than the P3. Grijaldo (who facilitated the compromise deal) handed over P100T in cash and an P80T check. meaning "as much as he deserves". He is entitled to P10. Atty. after many excuses.        Issue:  Held:    Anastacio. Morada. Ong initially refused. HELD: YES. To be entitiled to additional attorney's fees. Ong was made to execute an affidavit of desistance. Beron. but the case was filed in Bacolod. When the time of payment came. Ong found out that the affidavit was already filed in court and the case was already dismissed. And it is also a breach of the trust and confidence which was reposed on him.

FLORENCIO sought the assistance of ATTY MURILLO to recover the San Salvador property • FLORENCIO and ATTY MURILLO entered into a Contract for Services wherein o If the property is awarded to FLORENCIO. CA affirmed. ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the proceeds of the mortgage o If leased. When a lawyer takes his oath. 10 of the employees asserted that they only agreed to give 40% of their back salaries to Sesbreno. and reasonable amount for attorney’s fees. It is a settled rule that what a lawyer may charge and receive as attorney’s fees is always subject to judicial control. This was granted. Mendiola. the existence of an unreasonable fee (no matter the degree) does not bar recovery. RTC granted employees’ petition. Sesbreno was not satisfied by the decision so he went to the CA. Cebu released P2. a compromise was made between the employees and the Province of Cebu whereby said employees waived their right to reinstatement. Beron. Rivas. ATTY MURILLO will have the option of occupying or leasing to any interested party 40% of the said property • ATTY MURILLO filed a case for FLORENCIO against GREGORIO which ended in a compromise settlement wherein FLORENCIO was declared owner not only of the San Salvador property but also of the Pugahanay property • ATTY MURILLO proceeded to implement the contract by taking possession of 40% of the properties and even installed a tent in the Pugahanay property • • • FLORENCIO claimed exclusive right over the properties which prompted ATTY MURILLO to file a complaint LOWER COURT: ATTY MURILLO is owner of 40% of the properties FLORENCIO argued that the contingent fee of 40% is excessive. gratuity pay) to Sesbreno for the employees as “Partial Satisfaction of Judgment”. he submits himself to the authority of the court and subjects his professional fees to judicial control. Held: Yes. Leyte (Pugahanay property) • FLORENCIO filed a petition for probate of JUSTINA’S will who approved of the partition placed a reservation on the ownership of the San Salvador property • 2 years later. Sarenas 2C . Fernandez.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 124 SESBREÑO v CA Facts: • • • • • • • Raul Sesbreño replaced Atty Pacquiao as counsel for 52 employees in a case against the Province of Cebu and Governor Espina for reinstatement to work and backwages. Nevertheless. ATTY MURILLO will be constituted as attorney in fact to sell and convey said property and will be given 40% of the purchase price o If mortgaged. Employees filed an MR asserting that there was inadvertence in placing 60% where it should only be 50%. public policy demands that the contract be disregarded to protect the client. A stipulation on a lawyer’s compensation in a written contract for professional services ordinarily controls the amount of fees that the contracting lawyer may be allowed. “Quantum Meruit” which means “as much as he deserves” is often the court’s basis for determining the amount. a much higher compensation is allowed in a contingent fee agreement (as in this case) in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. equitable. Later on. Considering it’s a labor case. terminal leave pay. And kawawang Sesbreno nabawasan pa lalo ang bayad…CA deemed the award of 20% of the back salaries as the fair. The 20% award is justified. an award of 50% of back salaries is excessive. 125 FABILO v IAC FACTS • JUSTINA Fabillo bequeathed to her brother FLORENCIO Fabillo a house in lot in San Salvador St. Leyte (San Salvador property) and to her husband GREGORIO Brioso a lot in Pugahanay. Lower court agreed with them and fixed attorney’s fees for Sesbreno at 40% plus the 20% expenses. It is only that the courts will fix a reasonable amount. 32 of the employees agreed that Sesbreno would be paid 30% of the backwages as attorney’s fees and 20% for expenses of litigation. But contingent fee contracts are under the supervision of the court in order that clients may be protected from unjust charges. ATTY MURILLO will be entitled to 40% of the rentals o If the property is just occupied by FLORENCIO. UNLESS the court finds such stipulated amount unreasonable or unconscionable.3M (representing back salaries. Though generally. Gana Lopez. Calinisan. Morada. An attorney’s fee is unconscionable when it is so disproportionate compared to the value of the services rendered. Its validity rests largely on the reasonableness of the stated fees under the circumstances of the case. unfair and unconscionable Anastacio. Judgment became final. Punta siya ngayon sa Padre Faura…Supreme Court… Issue: Whether the court acted properly in reducing Sesbreno’s attorney’s fees despite a pre-existing contract between the parties. When the courts find the amount to be excessive or unreasonable.

o Submitting to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement" and submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City. claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados. mortgaged and leased as ATTY MURILLO is entitled to 40% of the purchase price. is one of the defendants and. said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment takes place during the pendency of litigation involving the client’s property Following that principle. the contract is vague and only provides that ATTY MURILLO shall have the option of “occupying or leasing to any interested party 40% of the properties The ambiguity of said provision should then be resolved against ATTY MURILLO as it was he himself who drafted the contract Moreover. the length of time and effort exerted by ATTY MURILLO. which properties are the subject of the litigation. mortgaged or leased. Yes. Second. For the first allegation. CONTINGENT FEES NOT COVERED BY ARTICLE 1491 Article 1491 prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase even at a public auction. while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction. Morada. Jr. Such contract is against public policy because it gives undue leverage in favor of the lawyer.000 as reasonable attorney’s fees (nyek lugi!) 126 BAUTISTA v GONZALES Facts: Angel Bautista filed a complaint against Ramon Gonzales for the following acts: o Accepting a case where he agreed to pay all expenses for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation. to enter into a contract with him for the development of the land involved in a case into a residential subdivision. Fernandez. Calinisan. acting as counsel for Lopez in another case. a contract between a lawyer and his client stipulating a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491 because payment of said fee is not made during the pendency of litigation but only after judgment has been rendered Hence. mortgaged or leased. Third act. who was his former client. the Court said that such is a violation of Art. the Contract of Services entered into by FLORENCIO and ATTY MURILLO having provided for contingent fees is not violative of Article 1491 W/N FLORENCIO IS OWNER OF 40% OF THE PROPERTIES NO.LEGAL ETHICS ISSUE HELD RATIO • • • • ISSUE HELD RATIO 2nd Sem 2005-2006 W/N THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES PROVIDING FOR CONTINGENT FEES VIOLATED ARTICLE 1491 NO. W/n Gonzales should be punished for these acts. Sarenas 2C . without said case being terminated. proceeds of the mortgage or rentals respectively However. Rivas. Gana Lopez. the Court holds that ATTY MURILLO is entitled to P3. the Court found that Gonzales did not violate any law because the Fortunados consented to his appearance for Lopez. Mendiola. the value of the properties subject matter thereof. SC suspends him for 6 months. o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados. ATTY MURILLO • • • • • The Court disagrees with the lower court that FLORENCIO is the owner of 40% of the properties for careful scrutiny shows that the parties intended 40% of the value of the properties as ATTY MURILLO’S contingent fee The provisions are clear in cases where the properties are sold. CONTRACT OF SERVICES VAGUE AS TO WHO IS THE OWNER SO MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE LAWYER WHO MADE IT. 1491 of the Civil Code. the contingent fee agreement between the Fortunados and Gonzales did not provide for such reimbursement. in connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant. properties and rights which are objects of litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession However. o Inducing complainant. o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in a case where Eugenio Lopez. the SC pointed out that a lawyer may indeed advance expenses of litigation but such payment should be subject to reimbursement. which prohibits a lawyer from Issue: Held: - - Anastacio. with respect to a situation wherein the properties are neither sold. if the parties intended that ATTY MURILLO should become the lawful owner of 40% of the properties in case the same is not sold. while the case was still pending. In this case. then they would have clearly and unequivocally stipulated in the contract such JUDGMENT Considering the nature of the case. Beron.

A lawyer should never seek to mislead the court by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. they did not sign the original copy but only a photocopy of the original. 1491 of the Civil Code and can be administratively punished for such violation. Anastacio. respondent failed to live up to the rigorous standards of ethics of the law profession which place a premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. This Court has held that the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. Beron. When Florencio died. Rivas. The SC held that in withholding such information.00. The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case. Rosalina had submitted an inventory report which listed the land as part of the estate of the deceased Florencio. Florencio died intestate. Also. Rosalina Biascan filed a complaint alleging that she is the administratrix of the estate of her father. Mauicio refused. Art. Lopez had actual knowledge that the lot formed part of the estate of Florencio. According to Rosalina. Lopez entered his appearance as the counsel of Maria in the opposition. Lopez says that the transfer of a portion of the land was valid since it was a payment of his contingent fees. Initially. the deed of assignment itself stated that the TCT was registered in Florencio’s name. Sarenas 2C . In his defense. which states that "[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting. the TV host. m. Lopez claims that Maria agreed to give him 35% of the area of the disputed land. Therefore. Because the transfer was made during the pendency of the Special Proceedings. lot.000. Gonzales has violated Art. she paid P25T as acceptance fee. the registration was made during the special proceedings regarding the settlement of the estate. o P3. Lopez entered his appearance as Maria’s counsel. Maria Biascan opposed the claim of Rosalina. in fact. As respondent of Maria.000. Lopez argues that due to the absence of a notice of lis pendens on the TCT. Mendiola. Allegedly. the SC held that the original copies of the documents Gonzales submitted were false because they bore the signatures of the Fortunados when. Atty. Suspend – 6 months. Atty. In total. with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash. m. At that instant. Lopez). 1491. of the 600 sq. Held: The land cannot be regarded as contingent fees. without the approval of the intestate court. lot in his name (made through a deed of assignment executed by Maria and Atty. Atty. Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorney’s fees but did not take any action on Valerina Dalisay’s case. Calinisan. Rosalina complained that. he accepted the offer of Maria. And although the Code of Professional Responsibility does not anymore contain Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics.00 as appearance fee notwithstanding her payments. Florencio. Lopex caused the registration of 210 sq. m. Such conduct constitutes willful disregard of his solemn duty as a lawyer to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth. Lopez should have gone over the records. Lastly. The fact that complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt respondent from his duty to inform complainant of an important fact pertaining to the land which is subject of their negotiation. Illegal. By registering the land in his name. Morada. By acquiring the property in litigation. because he had knowledge that the land was the subject of the litigation. Atty. 128 DALISAY v MAURICIO Facts: • • • • This is the case against “Batas” Mauricio. Atty. she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff: o Additional acceptance fee P90. respondent never rendered any legal service. Atty. However. Gana Lopez. When Atty. Fernandez." the Code still provides that a lawyer should follow the laws of the Phil. Issue: W/N the land was a lawful payment of contingent fees. Atty. Lopez transgressed Art. 127 BIASCAN v LOPEZ Facts: This controversy pertains to a 600 sq. At all times. She terminated their attorneyclient relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. The lot was in the name of Florencio Biascan.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 - - buying/acquiring the property of his clients which is the subject of a pending case. • • Issue: • W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed. 1491 clearly applies.

CA affirmed the RTC decision. Atty. Sarenas 2C . he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. When respondent accepted P56. a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. Calinisan. In real terms. hence this appeal.000. 13 years after the case. It is settled that as long as such stipulation does not contravene law. 129 BARON’S MARKETING v CA FACTS: ISSUE: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as its dealer of electrical wires and cables Barons was given a 60 day credit for the purchase of Phelps Dodge’s products Barons purchased electrical wires and cables worth P4.5M. Rivas. therefore. Mendiola. • But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record. it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter’s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. it was expected of him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity.” • • when a lawyer takes a client’s cause. Without hearing petitioner. He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services.LEGAL ETHICS Held: • 2nd Sem 2005-2006 No. From then on. 25% of the principal and the interest amounts to roughly P2M. Lizardo won. the lawyer of Lizardo. Fernandez. The former asked the latter for installment payment but the request was refused An action for collection for sum of money was instituted by Phelps Dodge against Barons with a prayer for attorney’s fees amounting to 25% pf the amount demanded RTC: ruled in favor of Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay P3. Morada. He should be suspended for 6 months. Judgment included 25% of the amount payable as attorney’s fees. on credit Under the sales invoice issued by Phelps Dodge.00 from complainant. Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): “there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case.1M. it is strictly binding. the trial court rendered an order that Lizardo pay Montano 25% of the property and/or annotate in the TCT the attorney’s lien. Just like any other professional. Anastacio. Barons is expressly liable as stated in the sales invoice of Phelps Dodge which provides that: “interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts plus 25% on said amount for attorney’s fees and collections” The attorney’s fees stated are in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation is aptly called a penal clause. the interest alone runs to some P4. even exceeding the principal debt which is only P4M. care and devotion. Mirano’s land was levied and Lizardo won the bidding. Montano. morals. BUT. Gana Lopez. or public order. filed with the trial court (same trial court as in the previous decision) an omnibus motion for payment of his attorney’s fees. the attorney’s fees and collection fees are manifestly exorbitant. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.1M and 25% of the preceding obligation for and as attorney’s fees CA: corrected the amount due to Phelps Dodge and ordered Barons to pay P3.8M and 5% of the preceding obligation for and as attorney’s fees W/N Barons is liable to Phelps Dodge for interest and attorney’s fees HELD: . However. Beron.YES! But the amount stated in the sales invoice is reduced from 25% to 10% of the principal amount for attorney’s fees. 130 LIZARDO v MONTANO FACTS: • • • • • • Lizardo instituted a collection case against Eddie Mirano. there is a stipulation: “interests at 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts plus 25% on said amount for attorney’s fees and collections” Barons failed to pay Phelps Dodge. the courts are empowered to reduce such penalty of the same is iniquitous or unconscionable In the case at bar.

What the lawyer may do is file an independent action against petitioner for collection. Jimenez demanded P50. Calinisan.000 in cash and issued a check of P20. being the father of the building of the Construction Agreement to be notarized.000 was exorbitant--> IBP and SC held that is is reasonable recompense (1% of the 5. facts show that they agreed on the amount.Jimenez still deposited the check.) and also Cueto should have inquired first about the reasonableness. . Lemoine never gave his consent as to the fee. P1. encash and receive payments Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine’s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer December 1998. His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon’s services as his counsel Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon successful recovery. Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney’s lien pending Lemoine’s payment of his attorney’s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. Morada. compromise. INJUSTICE or FRAUD". Fernandez. Such variance rendered the order void. mistakes or misprisions.LEGAL ETHICS ISSUE: • HELD: • • • • • 2nd Sem 2005-2006 W/N the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case 13 years after it rendered a final judgment No. That is not decreed in the judgment. as notary public. it retains such jurisdiction until the final termination of the case. It loses its jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision A final decision cannot be amended or corrected except for clerical errors.. 132 LEMOINE v BALON FACTS: Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance. Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s claim as well as to negotiate. 131 CUETO v JIMENEZ FACTS: . DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the Anastacio. Gana Lopez. injustice or fraud. 1)Cueto already paid more than half of the fee 2) In all probablity. Cueto requested Jimenez not to deposit the check for lack of sufficient funds. and of course. sign. Rivas. Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525. Atty. In the questioned order.000 of the contract price sought to be notarized.000 as notarial fee. Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case. Jose Jimenez Jr. Cueto also informed Jimenez that his son had not yet paid his services as general contractor. Alex Cueto paid P30. the check bounced (insufficient funds nga!)and the check issued by Jimenez' son was also dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully collected.Atty. Beron.000. RATIO: 1. Jimenez is severely reprimanded.. the reason why Cueto lacked funds was because of Jimenez' son failure to pay (so dapat mas lenient si Jimenez sa delay ng payment sa kanya ng balance) 2. Sarenas 2C . AS to the contention that P50. there was clearly no imposition. After notarizing the agreement. An advance payment of P50.Engr. ALso. the court ordered Lizardo to pay attorney’s fees to counsel. However. In return. It is highly improper for Jimenez in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against Cueto when the check representing the balance of his notarial fee was dishonored because "A LAWYER SHALL AVOID CONTROVERSIES WITH CLIENTS CONCERNING HIS COMPENSATION AND SHALL RESORT TO JUDICIAL ACTION ONLY TO PREVENY IMPOSITION. the court no longer has jurisdiction over the claim for attorney’s fees.000. Cueto filed his own administrative complaint against Jimenez and alleged that he violated Code of Prof Responsibility and Canons of Prof Ethics when he filed BP22 so that Jimenez can recover the balance of his notarial fee. Jimenez filed a BP 22 case against Cueto. Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon. In the case at bar. Alex Cueto engaged the services of Atty.000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to Lemoine’s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account.000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation December 1999. Mendiola. . ISSUE: WoN Jimenez can be held administratively liable? HELD: YES.000 which was received by Balon When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.

LEGAL ETHICS ISSUE: HELD: - 2nd Sem 2005-2006 mentioned agencies.L. Calinisan. Sarenas 2C . (and irrelevant) Now. which would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of the award. Morada. the fees should have been disallowed by the appellate court. SCC is questioning the preponderance of evidence (irrelevant) and the amount of attorneys fees awarded. The appeal is partially granted. to S. Gana Lopez. through its chairman and vice president. A lot of challenges were made by SCC on the validity of the document. the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees. Mendiola. Hamilton entered appearance as attorney of record for Alburo (the defendant in the same case). Porter Hamilton advised and counseled Luciano Andrada in regard to a claim (by Andrada) against Isabelo Alburo. under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Beron. that Hamilton was not noted as attorney of record for Andrada. Hamilton’s defense was that the letter (where he made the proposition) was privileged communication so it cannot be used as evidence against him.a. W/N SIHI is entitled to attorney’s fees. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of attorney’s fees to e charged. But this is of no moment. Rivas. Anastacio. In lieu thereof.L. The officers above mentioned executed a comprehensive security agreement on the loan. and also prepared papers relating to attachment proceedings against the property of Alburo. Joseph of Cebu that he be employed as attorney for S. however. Joseph Lumber Yard. Later on. He can file the necessary action with the proper court to fix the fees Before receiving the check. with a 30% interest rate p. The cross-examination was postponed many times. he proposes a 25% attorney’s fees. Radio Communications of the Philippines v Rodriguez stated that the reason for the award of the attorneys’ fees must be stated in the text of the court’s decision. 134 IN RE HAMILTON Facts: • • • • • • L. SCC was finally declared to have waived its right to cross examine. Hamilton prepared a formal petition for Andrada. Surcharges: 2% per month on the remaining balance. In case of disagreement. he was already asking for 50%. \hence it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of fact and law. It appeared. 133 SCC CHEMICALS v CA Facts: • • • • • • • • Issue: • Held: • • • • • SCC Chemicals Corporation. SIHI presented one witness to prove his claim. Fernandez. Since the trial court did not state any reason for awarding the attorney’s fees. The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule. Given the failure of the trial court to explicitly state the rationale for the award of attorney’s fees. But SCC failed to pay the loan. SIHI sent demand letters. Judge Wislezinus said: “Ah hindi pwede yan!” He orderd the fiscal to file an action for disbarment against Hamilton for professional misconduct. Another misconduct was committed by Hamilton when he proposed.000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine. Hamilton’s defense was that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Andrada—since he was not the attorney of record. notes) from Andrada. No. through a letter. after receiving the check. however. must observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the client’s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession. On the second misconduct. obtained a loan from State Investment house (SIHI). a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts . Balon later claimed that he gave P233. under a threat to compel said person to accept his proposition. the same shall be disallowed. Hamilton only surrendered the documents received from Andrada when the court ordered him to do so. but no payment was made. Hamilton received various documents (vouchers. Loan amount was P130T. Attorney’s fees are deleted.

and he should be suspended for 6 years. and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation. or charged for. Delgado et al. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case.LEGAL ETHICS Issue: Is Atty Hamilton guilty of professional misconduct? 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Held: Yes. The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon). An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to the employment to which it pertains. there was no proof that there was an attorney-client relationship between Hamilton and S. counsel cannot be permitted to shield himself behind the privilege. Rivas. he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm would not handle her case. Hamilton also counseled with Andrada regarding the subject matter of the suit.L. The fact that he did not allow his name to be place by the clerk of court as attorney of record for Andrada (when the papers were filed) can only be considered as proof of lack of good faith with the client to whome he was rendering professional services. Said judge reasoned that no attorney-client relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco. By accepting papers relating to the claim. or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of confidence which forms the basis of an attorney-client relationship. while Ohnick et al filed an answer for Assad. the confidential relationship was established. Calinisan. this opinion was reached on the basis of papers submitted at his office.L. The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the other party (Hilado) in the same case. an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have ensued. Francisco’s defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when the latter informed him about the case. He did not offer his services in good faith to his client. Morada. promised. sought to disqualify Francisco from representing Assad in the case. David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for disqualification against Francisco. was counsel for Hilado. Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado. Delgado et al. which he signed without reading. Since makulit si Francisco. and that Hilado’s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Francisco’s professional services. neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. Joseph was privileged. and only for the purpose of explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case. From such documents. As to the claim that the letter to S. Beron. The existence of an attorney-client relationship could be established by overt acts. where the alleged client himself is not insisting on the privilege. then the professional employment must be regarded as established. To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. And that the written opinion was made by his assistant. Joseph. A stipulated fee is not necessary to establish the relationship either. 135 HILADO v DAVID Facts: • • • • • • • Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilado’s husband. Sarenas 2C . Furthermore. in a disbarment proceeding. counsel violated the confidence between him and Andrada. Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad substituting Ohnick et al. Later on. and to permit it be used in the interest of another. Mendiola. When a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents submitted by Hilado will not preclude the Anastacio. • Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado? Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad? Held: The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case (with Francisco’s signature). It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that the former turned over papers to the latter. From these ultimate facts. Fernandez. By representing the opposing party in the same case (without the other’s consent) and by refusing to surrender the documents received from Andrada (until there were court orders). He added that when Hilado left documents in their office. Gana Lopez.

Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nomineestockholder The ACCRA lawyer’s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG’s offer) by the PCGG and the court. Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed. In keeping with the office practice. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals. Concepcion. this motion for certiorari W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Yes. Rivas. The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped. 0033. the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client • • • • • Issue: • Held: • • Issue: • Held: • • • • • • 137 PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Honrada was the clerk of court and acting stenographer of the First MCTC. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients. Mendiola. Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA) ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders As members of the law firm. which includes shares of stock in certain corporations PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3 rd amended complaint. petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. 136 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: • • • Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara. Abello. may be dismissed on such ground. And an information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm. *A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services. Calinisan. Hence. PCGG has no valid cause of action W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients General rule: a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime Suing the lawyer to force him to disclose the identity of his client in any of these instances is improper and the suit. upon motion.”.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 existence of an attorney-client relationship. Anong kalokohan yan? o Civil Case No. Morada. Eduardo Cojuangco et. for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Anastacio. Fernandez. The letter binds and estops him in the same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally. The failure to object to counsel’s appearance does not operate as a waiver of the right to ask for counsel’s disqualification. and induce him to act for the client. Gana Lopez. al. The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering. Beron. Sarenas 2C . The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was. PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients During the proceedings. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional advice from which emerged the relation. which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. Paredes was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan. ACCRA lawyers acted as nomineesstockholders. Sansaet was the counsel of Paredes. 0033 – “RP v.

Gana Lopez. who was a former classmate of Tugade. -Thus Ngayan charged Tugade for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f). A distinction must be made between communications relating to past crimes already committed. Besides. the fiscal directed the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. the period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the atty. regarding a crime he is about to commit after the consultation. and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. -When the omission was remedied by their new counsel. Atty. In a sudden turn of events. Sansaet was. However. if the client seeks the advice of the atty. -When Tugade furnished the adverse parties with a copy of the discarded affidavit.-client privilege.. asking to be a state witness against Paredes. Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court . Morada. Gaminda. -Ngayan discharged Tugade as their counsel and found out that Tugade did not include the name of Leonido in the criminal case filed. It can be assumed that there was confidential information made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the falsification case. to be a state witness on the ground that the confession made by Paredes to Atty. such is not privileged information. Ngayan signed the affidavit without thoroughly reading it but she noticed one paragraph which did not mention that Leonido was with Soriano when they both barged into complainant’s residence. However.against a party or witness… Issue: W/N Tugade must be disciplined for violation of the said Rule HELD: YES. it is privileged information. Gelacio. Sec. Held: The confession made by Paredes is not covered by privileged communication. in effect. Sarenas 2C . Tugade crossed out the said paragraph. with respect to a crime already committed at the time of the communication. Calinisan. Without the lawful purpose. An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. those communications are outside the pale of the atty. the adverse parties filed a motion for reinvestigation through their counsel. 138 NGAYAN v TUGADE Facts: -Ngayan asked Tugade to prepare and affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint against Soriano and Leonido as a consequence of the latter’s entry into complainants’ dwelling. the one who filed the perjury case. the adverse parties in affidavit which Tugade prepared for Ngayan. But for the application of the atty. After some time. Beron.20. Atty. the OMB denied the request of Atty. because Sansaet was the counsel. In other words. is privileged communication. It was initially approved.20 Rule 138 -Tugade’s actuations from the beginning show that he was partial to the adverse parties. In the present case. The alleged falsified documents were documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment and stenographic notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of the perjury charge. But if the client consults the atty. Rivas. he betrayed the trust and confidence of his clients in violation of paragraph (e) Sec.-client privilege to apply. Atty. This could be explained by the fact that he was a former classmate of Atty. Mendiola. It is true that by now those crimes had already been committed. the privilege does not attach. sent a letter to the OMB seeking the investigation of the 3 personalities for falsification of public documents. and also by the fact that he was the lawyer of Leonido’s brother in an insurance company. Having been made for purposes of a future offense. Fernandez.Gaminda. thus enabling the adverse parties to use it as evidence against complainants. Rule 138 Rules of Court (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence…and to preserve the secrets of his client… (f) to abstain from all offensive personality. -In the hearing for the motion for reinvestigation.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 It appears that Paredes applied for a free patent and Certificate of Title over a lot. with one paragraph crossed out. -Tugade submitted an affidavit containing facts prejudicial to his former client such as the fact that the crime charged by Anastacio. the purpose of the consultation must be for a lawfule purpose. but the Director of lands subsequently filed for the cansellation of the patent and title on the ground that the land had been reserved as a school site. Issue: W/N the confession made by Paredes to Atty. the adverse parties’ counsel. -Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an insurance company. -Upon being informed of this omission. was privileged communication. Tugade himself presented an affidavit controverting the discarded affidavit which he prepared for Ngayan. This case is actually an exception to the rule. Ngayan asked Tugade to make another affidavit and the latter promised to do so. the confession made by Paredes to Sansaet were in reference to a crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by Paredes but which he later committed. he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. The lower court ruled to nullify the patent and title after finding out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations. for the rule to attach.

(falsification of documents: birth certificates of her children. Sarenas 2C . Guintos only received P86 o The list of creditors which Pfleider has confidentially supplied Palanca was disclosed by Palance in violation of their attorney-client relationship ISSUE: HELD: W/N Palanca committed a breach of fidelity owing form a lawyer to his client NO! There is no substantial blame against Palanca inasmuch as the latter’s services were implicitly terminated by Pfleider when he sued his lawyer. Vitriolo is a Deputy Executive Director IV of CHED. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. Such desistance has no bearing. • Complainant alleged that the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment. Vitriolo substituted the counsel who just died. Rivas. making it appear that she was married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact she was legally married to Ruben Mercado. Fernandez. Pfleider also filed for the disbarment of Palanca on the grounds of: o Palanca did not follow the instructions of Pfleider to settle his estafa case against Matiao in 1965 and the latter also failed to deposit the sum of P5. the results of the investigation recommended that Vitriolo is indeed guilty and should be suspended for a month. ISSUE: • HELD: • • • • • W/N Atty. Atty. She claims that in filing the criminal case. Vitriolo is indeed guilty of violating the privilege and confidential relationship of attorney-client relationship NO. 139 PFLEIDER v PALANCA FACTS: Palanca is the lawyer of Pfleider.000 as part of the lease rental of the Hacienda Asia o Palanca also falsely represented having paid one Guintos the sum of P866 for the account of Pfleider when in truth and in fact. • Later on. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. the conflict of interest became incompatible with the mutual confidence and trust essential to every lawyer-client relationship. The confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication. Pfleider leased to Palanca an agricultural land. and that Ngayan asked him to make the offense more grave to prevent the offense from prescribing.000 with the court o Palanca has fraudulently charged the P5. Beron. respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential relationship. • Complainant’s counsel later on died. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against complainant. • 4 years later. Pfleider delivered the list of creditors to Palanca not because of the professional relation then existing between them. Calinisan. • Complainant’s husband filed an annulment case entitled Ruben Mercado v. violative of par. Rosa Francisco. Complainant then wrote Justice Davide that she is desisting from pursuing the case because she has found it in her heart to forgive respondent. While the object of the suit is the rescission of the lease contract. 141 GENATO v SILAPAN Anastacio.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Ngayan had already prescribed. Burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege. Case dismissed. This constitutes an act of offensive personality against complainants. Morada. Mercado (complainant) is a Senior Education Program Specialist of CHED. Atty. Mendiola. A violation thereof would partake more of a private and civil wrong than of a breach of fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client.(f) Sec. The case was dismissed. Gana Lopez. Also. Atty. Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence of facts which the complainant must prove. but on account of the lease agreement. Hacienda Asia in Negros Occidental for a period of 10 years It is stipulated in the lease agreement that a specified portion of the lease rentals would be paid to Pfleider and the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to the listed creditors of Pfleider Pfleider filed a suit for the rescission of the lease agreement of the ground of alleged default in the payment of rentals of Palanca. 140 MERCADO v VITRIOLO FACTS: • Rosa F.20 Rule 138.

. 1966.validly dispense with the services of Pacana. or on March 16. (Genato lent Silapan money to purchase a new car. The statement in the motion for reconsideration to the effect that. SIlapan's professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in that case.as regards the Court of Gaerlan . On this allegation. 1966. Silapan. with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. Rivas. when a copy of the order was served upon Atty Pacana. through Atty Caballero. the latter alleged in his answer that during the previous case (criminal case). Anastacio.. and presiding judge. By entering his appearnce. without securing his consent. which subsequently bounced. Morada. cannot sanction Atty. the motion was dismissed.) The Court. 1967. SIlapan refused since such acts are immoral and illegal but also because 'the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the commission of the crime that was charged'..Complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against Atty. The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. petitioner Bacarro. He claims that he was compelled by the Municipal Judge of Baungin. Gaerlan objected to the approval of said notice of appeal. This is not a case of substitution.. Genato wanted Atty Silapan to offer bribe money to members of DOJ. "after duly relieving his previous counsel moved for the reconsideration of the order. Silapan for his issuance of a bouncing check. The judge then issued an order dismissing the complaint. A motion for new trial/ reconsideration was filed by Atty Caballero on behalf of Bacarro. upon the ground that the period to appeal should be reckoned from Nov 14. Gaerlan filed a written manifestation inviting attention to the fact that petittoner Bacarro had not complied with said order. HELD: March 16. or without proof that he had been notified of Bacarro's motion for reconsideration.The various criminal and civil cases were not discussed.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 FACTS: . (Atty Silapan was ordered 1 year suspension) 142 BACARRO v CA FACTS: Bacarro is the registered owner of a lot located in Cagayan de Oro city. to execute a deed of reconveyance of 1/2 of the land to Gaerlan. Bukidnon to appear before the judge's ofice and then and there coerced and forced. when notice was served upon Atty Caballero. ISSUE: WoN disclosures were indispensable to protect Atty. Beron. It was improper for the respondent to use it against Genato in the foreclosure case because it was not the subject matter of litigation and ATty. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetuation of a fraud. Silapan's rights because they were pertinent to the foreclosure case HELD: NO. in said cas as counsel of Bacarro in collaboration with Atty Pacana. on which date he filed a notice of appeal. Silapan mortgaged his house and lot. Silapan committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to Genato illegal practices and disclosing alleged intention to bribe govt officials in connection with a pending case? HELD: NO. A lawyer must conduct himself. ISSUE: WoN Atty. 1966. Mendiola. Neither did Atty Caballero substitute or try to substitute Atty Pacana. because it was left for the trial courts to decide. sabay silang lawyer tapos na-terminate ung employment ni Pacana. 1967. Essex Silapan . in this case. even the prosecutor. (walang substitution. Sarenas 2C . had the effect of continuig the services of Caballero and dropping Pcana. . Gana Lopez. when a copy of said order was served upon Pacana. A lawyer is not a gun for hire. 1967.. When SIlapan failed to pay. Calinisan.When Genato filed a BP 22 case against Atty.) Whether Bacarro could . Motion was denied in an order issued by the judge dated November 14. under threat of prosecution and loss said land. The judge of the lower court ordered an amendment to th complaint of Bacarro. Bacarro then filed a complaint for the annulment of said deed of reconveyance. Notice of said order was not received by Atty Caballero until March 15.. Mrs. Atty Luminarias and Caballero entered their appearance. ISSUE: Whether or not period to appeal from order denyingh motion for new trial/ reconsideration began to run on Nov 14. Atty Caballero did not substitute Atty Pacana but became one of the attorneys for Bacarro. especially in his dealings with his clients. GEnato sought the foreclosure of the mortgage and tried to encash a postdated check issued by Silapan. Atty. Fernandez.

He was then assured that the new lawyer will file the brief. insofar as the court is concerned and form receipt of copy thereof by Atty Salcedo. but his explanation came at the end of the month. Fernandez. counsel for Bicol Federation—Atty Quirico Fabul—declared that his authority to represent the group has been terminated and that the retainer was in behalf of the individual claimants and not of the Federation. Atty. Mendiola. filed an action before the Agrarian court to change their arrangement with the owner from sharing to a lease-hold system. To prevent failure or miscarriage of justice and pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court. he contacted the parents of the appellants. It was mentioned to him that another lawyer whose services presumably were hired by the parents of appellants Icalla and Cinco. The relatioship between Bacarro and Pacana ceased to exist from the filing of the motion for reconsideration/ new trial. the least that was expected of him was that he would inform the Tribunal of the developments set forth in his explanation and as that he be allowed to withdraw as counsel. This. 144 BICOL FEDERATION v CUYUGAN Facts: • • • • • • Certain members of the Bicol Federation of Labor were hired by Doña Jacinta Cuyugan to clear her land and plant coconut seedlings on it. The Agrarian Court dismissed the claim of Bicol Federation solely on the ground that the action was not within its jurisdiction. Morada. the names of the individual claimants should be added to the complaint under the legal representation of Atty Fabul until and unless Anastacio. Sanglay then reminded them that failure to file the (appellant’s) brief would mean automatic withdrawal of the appeal. and that as a token for his hard work. in his view. the planters were being given half of 1/3 of the harvest. in effect. the Court of Agrarian Relations has jurisdiction. 143 PEOPLE v CASIMIRO Facts: • • • • • • Issue: W/N Sanglay is liable for the late filing of the appellant’s brief. He absolved himself from any blame as. Bicol Federation of Labor. Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco. Beron. During the harvesting. He cannot therefore escape liability. Such a step he did not take until after the Feb 3 resolution. insofar as Gaerlan was concerned. This is one of those rare instances where an attorney. Held: No. Under the Code of Agrarian Reforms. Manuel Sanglay was filed an administrative complaint for his failure to file a brief within the reglementary period for his clients Benjamin Icalla. 1972 to explain. Issue: Was the action by Bicol Federation within the competence of the Agrarian Court? (Ethics iss ue) Can Atty Fabul still represent the claimants despite the dismissal of his services (by Bicol Federation)? Held: Yes. Gana Lopez. (but he is reprimanded) It was not a willful act on his part. Calinisan. whose authority has been terminated by his client. These planters were also allowed to plant other crops over the land. When the coconut trees bore fruit. But the custom in the area was that the planter and the owner should share 50-50 in case the owner would not give monetary payment to the planters. Nonetheless. Client may at any time dismiss his attorney. Sanglay was given 10 days from Feb 3. Rivas. This fact was used by the defendants (Cuyugans and the agents) as another defense. According to him. Under the circumstances. was ousting the planters and preventing them from claiming their rightful compensation. Sarenas 2C . Such desired arrangement would enable them to have a wider area to cultivate and with the least intervention by the landowner’s agents. no fault could be attributed to him. in behalf of its individual members. During the pendency of the action. (the relevant issue) Yes. the exculpation he seeks cannot be granted. he shoud not withdraw.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 HELD: YES. the agent of the owner of the land hired other people. the Agrarian Courts has jurisdiction over issues involving an individual(s) claiming for compensation from a landowner. Atty Fabul can represent the claimants in this case despite the declared termination. It did not wipe out the previous manifestation of negligence on his part. may be allowed to continue his representation. and considering the policy and objectives of such legislation.

Beron. Salveron was represented in that case by Atty. such service was deemed completed and effected and binding upon the client. 11. Morada. Despite the appointment. which the petitioners won. the removal of ATTY DOMINGO is in effect the removal of ATTY UNSON as counsel of the estate • DE LOPEZ prays that the clerk of court be directed to serve a copy of the CA judgment on her counsel instead of ATTY UNSON (In other words. while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the estate and for the former administrator when the intestate court granted his motion to withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and assumption of public office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration. W/n the service of judgment made on Atty. In addition to that. Anastacio. Sorioso constitutes service upon his client. This was granted by Judge Blanco.LEGAL ETHICS each individual claimant should otherwise manifest before the court. Sarenas 2C . As to the contention that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means removal of ATTY UNSON as the estate’s counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the one who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON. Salveron then filed a petition to vacate said writ of execution. was removed from his trust by the intestate court’s order for having squandered cash so being the one (ATTY DOMINGO) who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON. EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT THEIR LAWYER AT THE TIME COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS SENT. the judgment in the earlier mentioned case was served on Atty. yun court nagsend ng copy ng decision ng ca kay atty unson pero sabi ng estate hindi valid yun pagsend ng notice kasi hindi na nila lawyer si atty unson at the time notice was served) ISSUE HELD W/N SERVICE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ATTY UNSON WAS VALID YES.000 to AQUINO • Both parties appealed • CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI • Copies of the judgment were sent to ATTY UNSON through registered mail • The new administratrix DE LOPEZ alleges the co-administratrix of STA MARIA. v AQUINO 2nd Sem 2005-2006 FACTS • Court of First Instance approved money claim of AQUINO against the Estate of Domingo and ordered Administratrix STA MARIA to pay P20. Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the estate. Moreover. 146 AQUINO v BLANCO Facts: Issue: Held: Petitioners Santiago Aquiño and Dionisia Aguirre filed a complaint against Dominga Salveron in the CFI. Case was remanded to the Agrarian Court. Atty. this was true only as far as the intestate court was concerned. JUDGMENT SC: ATTY REGINO (petitioner’s counsel in this case) is reminded that cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. 1947 when a writ of execution was served on him. no appearance of new counsel for the estate was ever filed. 1947. Salveron. He continued on record in the appellate court and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. did not make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel. Mendiola. 145 DOMINGO SR. Gana Lopez. Hence. in this case the Estate of Domingo. Calinisan. It follows that since notice and copy of the appellate court’s decision were served by registered mail on the estate’s counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the first notice of the postmaster. Salveron was only informed of the judgment on Mar. SC says NO. Rivas. Basilio Sorioso. Sorioso. ATTY UNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate. ATTY DOMINGO. Fernandez. Sorioso was appointed as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on Feb. ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF DISCHARGE FILED WITH THE COURT MAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD BINDING UPON THE CLIENT RATIO Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel. petition is dismissed and ATTY REGINO is ordered to pay treble costs. ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to represent the estate as its counsel until the new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should terminate his services which she never did. the fact that ATTY UNSON’S services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as administrator. 26.

Issue: W/N whether Ampil has a right to keep his retaining lien over the said titles until his services are paid for. if at all. However. At the hearing of the case. Fernandez. Atty. the lower court rendered judgment in favor of Arcangel. The transfer of the properties to Antonio and Benigno could not retroact to the time the compromise was originally executed. It was only when Angela later on confirmed the compromise agreement that it became valid. despite notification. Misunderstanding alibi not accepted. Ampil took a position adverse to them by seeking to have the compromise agreement annulled. As a result. al. and excusable neglect. must have known that it is under obligation to protect WW’s interest until its final release from the professional relationship. by operation of law he ceased to engage in private law practice. when she acquired knowledge of said decision upon the service on her of the writ of execution on March 26. Held: The judgment should not be set aside. The attorney may enforce his lien only over the properties of his client and not against those of his client’s adversary. al. al. Antonio and Benigno Perez. -A case was later filed by Antonio and Benigno with the domestic court of Manila. 148 AMPIL v AGRAVA Facts: -Ampil was the counsel for Angela Perez in several cases. the herein respondent Dominga Salveron. and 3) unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees. declared that he had no authority to turn over the records of the case to Chuidian Law Office. for which he presented his bill and asserted his retaining lien over the three titles entrusted to him by Angela in the course of his professional employment. This dismissal was affirmed by SC. was still representing the WW. Balcoff was not in the office. WW was first represented by Balcoff et. Rivas. appeared. was not a notice upon said respondent. -Three elements of attorney’s retaining lien were met: 1) lawyer-client relationship. Morada. besides. The firm of Chuidian. Mr. Calinisan. the parties submitted to court. neither WW nor its counsel. Anastacio. which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. no representative from the Chuidian Law Office came. not over the properties belonging to them in the compromise agreement. The domestic court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the case which was to be settled amicably by the compromise agreement had already been dismissed by CFI as affirmed by SC. for unenjoyed vacation. 1947. Gana Lopez. seeking the court’s approval of the compromise agreement. 1947. -The situation would be different where title to the property is the very subject in dispute in the case and the court adjudges the client’s adversary to be rightfully entitled thereto. -Eventually. 147 WACKWACK GOLF v CA Facts: Arcangel. In such as case the titles to the property could not be said to be properties of the client. and atty. 2) lawful possession of the client’s funds. -Ampil obtained possession of the titles when they still belonged to his client Angela. So that in contemplation of law the notice of the decision upon him on February 11. with the Chuidian Law Office. the Chuidian Law Office will send a representative on the hearing day. filed a petition to set aside the judgment on the ground of mistake. As a result. Issue: W/N the judgment in favor of Arcangel should be set aside based on misunderstanding. As such counsel of record. Held: YES. al. The law firm of Balcoff and Cruz was still WW’s counsel of record. al. and papers. Mendiola. documents. Balcoff et. al. According to the firm of Chuidian. and the period for perfecting an appeal on the part of the latter in reality did not then commence to run but only. Atty. WW decided to replace Balcoff et. Later on. filed with the CFI a money claim case for overtime services rendered to WW.. a former employee of Wack Wack (WW). inasmuch as Balcoff et. Atty. Balcoff thought that Chuidian will be the one to appear instead of him. Benigno and Antonio thus filed a case to obtain the titles held by Ampil. Beron. Balcoff. on behalf of WW. Cruz of Balcoff et. When the representative of Chuidian went to the firm of Balcoff to inform the latter of the replacement. Chuidian called Atty. Balcoff et.LEGAL ETHICS - 2nd Sem 2005-2006 When Attorney Sorioso was appointed to the position of assistant provincial fiscal and therein qualified. Chuidian said that.’s fees. because the firm of Chuidian only entered appearance after the date of the hearing mentioned above. They also argued that the compromise agreement was entered into 8 years before Ampil was discharged as Angela’s counsel. misunderstanding. They claimed that the attorney’s lien must be exercised over the properties belonging to Angela. They concluded that Ampil was therefore bound by the compromise agreement. (This is the misunderstanding that was mentioned above. asking that Angela be placed under guardianship and that a suitable person be appointed to administer her properties. Thereafter. moral damages. The principal cases handled by Ampil were filed in the CFI by Angela’s husband and son. the compromise agreement mentioned above was approved by the Supreme Court. in the abovementioned case. -Ampil asserts that Angela terminated his services as counsel without just cause and without paying him for his profiessional services. Sarenas 2C . The lack of coordination and understanding between the two law firms cannot be considered a legal excuse within the ambit of excusable negligence. and as a consequence he became simultaneously disqualified to continue representing his former client.

All that petitioner asserts and exercises is his passive lien of retaining the muniments of title thereto. Rustia filed this case to annul orders of the CFI of Manila in the case of “Intestate Estate of Antonio de la Riva”. Rustia to hand over the certificate of a land. and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession.330. Such retention only impedes the corresponding registration and transfer of titles to respondents.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 -Petitioner is in no way interfering with the taking possession of the properties and enjoyment of the fruits thereof. Rustia was the counsel of respondent. Canlas may be compelled to surrender the titles even though he was not yet paid his fees NO! An attorney is entitled to retain documents in the case pending settlement of attorney’s fees. • When Rustia was relieved as attorney. documents. resold to Herby Commercial. and brought suits against Javier and Metrobank. Alejandro alleged fraud in the sale. Metrobank failed to appear and oppose.ANTECEDAL FACTS (up to you guys kung gusto nyo basahin tong paragraph na toh. Sarenas 2C . 151 METROPOLITAN BANK v CA FACTS: . Jose is asking Matias to surrender 17 titles to various properties of the estate Probate court granted the prayer of Jose and ordere3d the surrender of the titles Matias and his counsel Atty. . Canlas appealed the decision W/N Atty. The lawyers filed a motion to fix the atty's fees based on quantum meruit. 149 MATUTE v MATUTE FACTS: • • • • ISSUE: • HELD: • • • • Jose Matute filed an action against the administrator Matias Matute. And then this case was filed. . with damages. Mendiola. Calinisan. • Atty. Milagros Schmid. so the RD annotated the atty's liens on the TCTs. Anastacio. • CFI of Manila ordered Atty. the administrator of the intestate estate.. CA affiremed order to Metrobank to pay ALfariz and ASsociates attys fees. During the pendency of these suits. Morada.. He wanted to have a lien over all funds and documents that he is currently holding for the administrator. • CFI nonetheless still went on with its previous order. not pertinent to our lesson): Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaqio Alejandro. The lawyers did not have any knowledge of any of the transfers made by Metrobank. ISSUE: • HELD: • • • W/N Atty. The courts may require the attorney to deliver up the papers in his possession provided the client files proper security for the attorney’s compensation. All the civil cases were for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale.) Despite due notice. The general or retaining lien of an attorney is dependent upon the possession and does not attach to anything not in the attorney’s hands. Atty. Metrobank sold lots to Service Leasing. Rustia has a valid lien over the documents in his possession YES. Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds. and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid. Rustia is objecting saying that he has a lien over the TCT for his professional fees. Atty.Arturo Alfariz and Associates handled the civil cases of Metrobank.Alejandro (plaintiffs) filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice to the earlier order of annotation. Beron. Rustia obeyed the order. Rivas. Fernandez. which mortgaged the same to Banco de Oro. Javier mortgaged with Metrobank the lots to secure a loan of Bautista?Int'l Hotel Corp. he sent a bill for P32. Gana Lopez. They filed a motion to enter its charging lien (25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties as its attys fees. Sec 37 of Rule 138 provides that attorneys cannot be compelled to surrender the documents in his possession without prior proof that his fees has been duly satisfied But the court may require the attorney to deliver the papers in his possession provided that the client files proper security for the attorney’s compensation 150 RUSTIA v ABETO FACTS: • Atty. and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

knowing that the same was already final and executory Deceitfully obtaining two thousand... Administrator of the estate opposed the said motion by contending that an attorney's lien does not extend to land and that the proper remedy is attachment. Beron. 2.. Both of the parties appealed the decision. ung mga prior cases. 4. therefore the trial court had no more jurisdiction. There is an obvious necessity for a hearing because the persons who are entitled to or who must pay attys fees have the right to be heard upon the question of propriety or amount. Trial court granted the counsel's motion for annotation." (eto lang yung sinabi sa case. HELD: Trial court has no jurisdiction.) ISSUE: W/n the trial court retained jurisdiction to grand Ramon Gonzales' Motion to Annotate Attorney's lien on the title of the parcels of land of the estate after the perfection of the appeal of both the petitioners and respondent from the order declaring Ramon Gonzales entitled to attorney' fees. Naldoza appealed a decision of the POEA.LEGAL ETHICS ISSUE: WoN lawyers are entitled to atty's fees HELD: NO 2nd Sem 2005-2006 RATIO: 1..the Court held that in the absence of a statute or special agreement providing otherwise. Motion was filed long after they have perfected their appeals.. Regarding American jurisprudence stating a contrary rule . five hundred and fifty-five US dollars (US$2. A charging lien to be enforceable requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment.. Ramon Gonzales filed a motion to annotate attorney's lien. over his claim for attorney's fees. Gatchalian assers that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff acts: o o o Appealing a decision. In line with this. 3. this rule cannot find application here as the termination of the cases was not at the instance of the client. The lien of respondent is not of a nature which attached to the property in litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a writ of execution. Fernandez. the RTC denied the heirs' Motion to Cancel Attorney's lien and declare Ramon Gonzales entitiled to 10% of the shares of the heirs of the late Doronila. ISSUE: W/n an attorney's lien extends to land. 5. filed a disbarment case against Atty. The dismissal neither provided for any money judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant. applicable. Morada. Calinisan. Rivas. praying that his attorney's lien be annotated on the title of parcels of land of the estate which the heirs had inherited. their former counsel.. In the case at bar. but of the opposing party. Gana Lopez. Mendiola. •Naldoza was claimed to ask for a “Cash Bond’ in UNITED STATES DOLLAR amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE Anastacio. waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse party or compromising his action.555) from complainant. 153 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS v NALDOZA Facts: • • Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool. terminating the services of his counsel. Sarenas 2C . the civil cases were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs "in view of the full satisfaction of their claims". the general rule is that an atty has no lien on the land 152 DORONILA-TIOSECO v CA FACTS: AS a result of dispute among the heirs of the late Alfonso Doronila and their counsel Ramon Gonzales. allegedly for “cash bond” in the appealed case Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act. Promo Naldoza.. Inc. HELD: "We have ruled that an attorney's lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation. The charging lien was WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS. While a client cannot defeat an atty's right to his charging lien by dismissing the case.

This is an admission of misconduct.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (U.00) (for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court. It was found by the court that the documents were made by the counsel to end the proceedings and be able to collect his fees. he had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Being a member of the Bar. •An estafa case was filed against Naldoza. Sarenas 2C . It was later on dismissed. but he actually converted it to his personal gain. not just suspended. he does not deserve to continue being a member of the bar. Worse. Beron. Worse. Laput was suspended for 1 year. Moreover. a college student and about 20 years and 7 months old during her relationship with Anastacio. he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Laput denied the charges… Issue: Should Laput be disciplined? Held: Naku po naman! Of course. Issue: • Held: • • • W/N Atty Naldoza should be punished for his acts? Yes. $2. Calinisan.S. Barrerra refused to signed and asked Laput to just leave the document in order that she may ask someone to interpret it for her. Rivas. • • 154 VDA DE BARRERA v LAPUT Facts: • • • • Casiano Laput was Nieves Rillas Vda de Barrera’s counsel in the settlement proceedings for the estate of de Barrera’s husband.000 and issued a check to complainant as his “moral obligation.555 was not a part of his attorney’s lien. Gana Lopez. 155 BARRIENTOS v DAAROL FACTS Victoria BARRIENTOS is single. Clearly. Mendiola. •Naldoza seeks that he not be suspended in the practice of law. One time. This compelled the old lady to sign the document.555. this charge has no leg to stand on. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him. the receipt that Naldoza presented to Gatchalian which allegedly emanated from the SC was spurious. (RC Note: Naldoza claims that Gatchalian owes him P180T in attorneys’ fees. the fees were only nominal (P622).555. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory. there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was unappealable. •Gatchalian came to know that there was no such Cash Bond paid to the SC. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED.” he indirectly admitted the charge. Fernandez. On the next two issues: o When Naldoza paid P10. An attorney’s client is a person who is supposed to be defended and protected by such counsel. Laput should have set the example as a man of peace and a champion of the Rule of Law. The act of placing the gun on the client’s lap cannot be interpreted other than as an act of threatening such client. Indeed. he paid him P10T as his moral obligation) o the amount of $2. Laput presented a “Notice for Rendition of Final Accounting and Partition of Estate” to de Barrera. He demanded the money from his client on the pretext that it was needed for the Petition before the Supreme Court. this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating the money of another. On the first issue: o Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the appeal. Laput’s acts were improper and censurable (especially considering that de Barrerra was 72 years old). Clearly. Morada. the records of this Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for petitioner’s (Gatchalian’s) failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. and after accounting. and in fact. but he was held liable for the amount of $2. But Laput became angry and even placed a revolver on the lap of de Barrera (who actually was 72 years old). Normally. Atty.

Moreover. o Chua caused the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Visayas of a portion of a SEC decision which ordered complainant and others to pay 68 million. In these publications. BARRIENTOS. W/n Chua is guilty of these acts and should be disbarred. DAVID courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship. it was BARRIENTOS’ family who took care of her. Chua failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to his office by attesting to the fact that CB appeared before him and signed the deed when in truth and in fact said person did not do so. it was still pending appeal. was DAVID’S partner during the Chamber Commerce affair. with her parent’s permission.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Transfiguracion DAVID. This is clearly a violation of the duties of a notary public to certify that the person signing the instrument is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it. After the event and before going home. Mendiola. Enrique Chua on the following grounds: o Chua notarized a deed of sale which contains the forged signature of Chua Beng (CB). However. BARRIENTOS accepted DAVID’S love. There was no basis for the second ground but the Court said that his filing of the application for notice of lis W/N DAVID SHOULD BE DISBARRED YES. DAVID suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS disagreed. In his defense. Chua submitted evidence to show that a complaint for libel filed by Flores against him was dismissed by the prosecutor’s office. SC finds Chua guilty of notarizing the deed of sale which contains a forged signature. BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case against DAVID with the National Electrification Administration which was however dismissed.disbarment. ISSUE HELD RATIO From the records. the present petition. they consummated the sexual act. Morada. Sarenas 2C . 156 FLORES v CHUA Facts: Ban Hua Flores seeks the disbarment of Atty.A CONTINUING REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW Issue: Held: - - Anastacio. Chua was always in the forefront claiming to e the lawyer of the winning parties. During her pregnancy until she gave birth. Chua altered the petition to apply for a notice of lis pendens over the property of Flores. Worse. they parked the jeep at the beach and after the usual preliminaries (what a term). The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by DAVID only after BARRIENTOS became pregnant. DAVID having exhibited debased morality. he never introduced his son and went around with his friends as though he was never married. Apparently. Interestingly enough. DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same area. Gana Lopez. Flores further alleges that there is a pattern of conduct on the part of Chua that tends towards the frustration of justice. Fernandez. DAVID misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been separated from his wife for 16 years and even dangled a marriage proposal. he even suggested abortion. The wife of CB says that CB could not have signed the deed because she was with CB the whole time before his death. DAVID was separated from his wife for 16 years. Moreover. These circumstances belie DAVID’S claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his marital status at the very start of the courtship. At this time. o Chua is also charged with forum shopping. But. this publication is false because the order had not yet become final. the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action --. it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID of his real status as a married individual. But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVID’S moral values when he said that “I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married”. o Chua had already and has the propensity to bribe judges to gain a favorable judgment. o Chua falsified a petition filed with the SEC in order to molest and harass Flores. Hence. LACK GOOD MORAL CHARACTER --. Chua is disbarred On the first ground. Beron. Flashback… Parang sine  DAVID had been known by the BARRIENTOS family for quite sometime being the former student of Victoria BARRIENTOS’ father and a former classmate of Victoria BARRIENTOS’ mother. Flores points out that Chua notarized the deed even if CB did not appear personally. This was their set up until BARRIENTOS got pregnant. his plan failed because the register of deeds denied his application. a lawyer and the General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative who was about 40 years old and married to SUMAYLO. The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. SC says YES. Calinisan. Rivas. Chua apparently uses dilatory tactics and has been reprimanded before.

Sarenas 2C . they merely gave P15. a certain Lilia Castillejos represented herself as Tabas and appeared before Mangibin. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society. -Mangibin prepared the discharge of real estate mortgage without asking Castillejos for anything to serve as identification except for a Community Tax Certificate (CTC). Because the heirs could not produce the total amount. The Court reiterated that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He even threatened to file a counter suit against her if she files a case against him. Daen. Daen. It converts a private document into a public one. His notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years. The heirs of Hilapo tried to look for a lawyer to secure the release of Atty. Barcelona reached P64. Daen as their atty. Held: YES. Mendiola. Barcelona. Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a member of this court. This enabled Galvan to mortgage the property again. Barcelona should be disbarred. Daen had decided to engage the services of Atty. who was a notary public. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could get the release of Atty. 157 BERBANO v BARCELONA Facts: The heirs of Hilapo appointed Atty.000. Courts. The heirs were recommended to Atty. they learned that Atty. Issue: W/N Atty. Barcelona. The other grounds were dismissed for lack of merit. The total amount given by the heirs to Atty. Commissioner Bautista found Atty. The heirs made another payment via a check worth P24. Gana Lopez. Barcelona should be disbarred. to the bar. Its intention is to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and public from the misconduct of the officers of the court. Atty. -A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in the document. Such document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. to the courts and to his clients. Issue: W/N Mangibin should be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public to ascertain the identity of the person appearing before him. Daen was subsequently arrested by the Muntinlupa police. and asked the latter to prepare a discharge of the mortgage and to notarize it afterwards.700. he shouldn’t have filed the civil case involving the same issues. Thus. Beron. There were several meetings between the heirs and Atty. The deed of mortgage was registered in the Register of Deeds of La Union.000. Daen with his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Barcelona regarding the “grease money” to be used to allegedly bribe an SC justice. making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. -Mangibin violated the Notarial Law and Canon 1. Atty. On another occasion. Morada. Atty. Atty. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes. Rivas. -Notarization is invested with public interest. -Subsequently. 158 TABAS v MANGIBIN Facts: -A deed of mortgage was delivered to Hilda Tabas evidencing a real property in La Union that was mortgaged to her by Galvan. In this case. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. -Mangibin admitted that the discharge of REM was a forgery but interposed the defense that it was beyond the scope of his duty to ascertain the identity of persons appearing before him. Barcelona and gave P10. administrative agencies. -Mangibin should have requested other forms of identification or asked questions to ascertain her identity.000.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 - pendens even if he was not counsel for the petitioners in the SEC case meant that he knew of such case. Daen the next day. to be guilty of malpractice and breach of duty and recommended that he be disbarred. When the spouses visited Atty. -Tabas filed this complaint for disbarment. demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting that he had connections to secure the release of Atty. the heirs went to the house of Atty. Calinisan. Held: Atty. His act of filing the civil case amounted to forum shopping. Atty. Mangibin was negligent in performing such duty. this time to a rural bank -Tabas informed Mangibin that her signature in the questioned discharge of REM was forged but Mangibin did nothing to help. and that he had no available means of ascertaining their real identities. Daen. The SC also found sufficient evidence to support the third ground. and the public must be able to rely upon an acknowledgement by a notary public appended to a document. 159 IN RE ALMACEN Anastacio. Barcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if they could produce P50K he could secure the release of Atty.-in-fact. Fernandez.

he could still be liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. IBP recommended that lawyer be suspended for 2 years. after the hearing rendered judgment against his client he moved for reconsideration (MR) and served copy of the motion to the adverse party but failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing In the CA. the court moved to also disamiss the case for the reason that the MR does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a useless piece of paper The SC refised to tkae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal It was at this pont that Atty Almacen filed his "PETITION TO SURRENDER LAWYER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" The pleading filed by Atty Almacen is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent. Lawyer then filed this motion to lift the suspension stating that lola has already withdrawn her complaint for Anastacio. both as an officer of the court and as citizen. Upon demands that the amount be returned. Orlando Rayos (lawyer). The respondent is Atty.because lola allegedly reneged on her promise to sell a certain parcel of land. Morada. her nephew. the check given by lawyer to lola was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Atty Almacen described the court as "a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas of justice. Lola then filed a case for disbarment on 2 grounds. grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remarks agaist the court. They signed a MOA regarding this transaction. as well as its individual members. post-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers. criticize and censure them as they see fit. He reasoned that since the court is the complainant. to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust it to him for safekeeping. Lawyer also filed cases against Lola. who ignore without reason thier own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. Lawyer offered as settlement 2 second-hand cars and cash amounting to P40K. Lola then withdrew all her money (P588K) and deposited it in the account of lawyer in Union Bank. Lawyer made lola believe that if she would do so. lawyer informed lola that he can only return P400K on installment. Almacen that his utterances were made after the judgments against his client attained finality. However. he also referred to his client as "on who was deeply aggrieved by the court's unjust judgment" and has become " one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. Irene Rayos-Ombac (lola) is the petitioner in this case. on the other. there is no comfort in the argument of Atty. The court allowed Atty Almacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in an oral argument But his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo (SEE PAGE 569-572) ISSUE: W/N Atty Almacen is guilty HELD: YES! and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the SC Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer. Calinisan. if couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the administration of justice may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. A wide chasm exist between fair criticism. Jan. but also deaf and dumb. BUT it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and rpopriety. whether amounting to a crime or not. Statements made by an attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign. which transcends the permissible bounds of fair commetns and legitimate criticism constitute grave professional misconduct. Lola then filed an estafa case against lawyer." He also referred to the member of the court as "justice as administered by the present members of the SUpreme Court is not only blind. Sarenas 2C . 1985: lawyer induced lola." The court asked Atty Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be taken against him Atty Almacen asked that he be given permission permission to give his answer in an open and public hearing. the sole objective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession. who was then 85 years old. Pumayag na lang si lola kasi kelangan niya talaga ng pera. The decisions of the courta public property and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them. Lola refused the offer. on the one hand. Rivas. Mendiola. Fernandez. critical of the courts and their juducial actions. it isn such misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action In his relations with the court. to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. Beron. Another accusing lola of making false statements in the testate proceedings of her deceased husband. Estafa . all the money will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and therefore exclude the other heirs from inheriting. and abuse and slander of courts and justices thereof. contemptuous. Gana Lopez. Calero The trial court. prosecutor and judge. a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. 160 RAYOS-OMBAC v RAYOS Facts: • • • • • • • • • • • Mrs. he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and public hearing sa that the court could observe its sincerity and candor. (1) defrauding lola and (2) filing frivolous cases against her. THe pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no consequence.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 FACTS: Atty Almecen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Yaptinchay vs. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.

she filed a case with the Tanodbayan. acts and malicious charges of Eva Ilustre who was (allegedly) no longer his client…. Sarenas 2C . Also. He also said that he has not authorized or assisted and or abetted and could not have prevented the contemptuous statements. “in exasperation against those whom she felt had commited injustice against her in an underhanded manner. Morada. The testimonies of the witnesses were mutilated and the report reflected upon the action of the complainant to his possible advantage ISSUE: WoN Lozano and Quevedo are quilty of contempt of court? HELD: YES. And he didn’t complain!! o Laureta’s wife received from the process server the documents/resolutions of the court. printed an article written by Anastacio Quevedo. Anastacio. report and recommendation. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the SC. Notwithstanding. In fact the SC raised the penalty to disbarment. he has manifested lack of respect for and exposed to public ridicule the two highest courts of the land. Firstly. Fernandez. the editor of El Pueblo. Calinisan. They are each required to pay the nominal sum of P20 RATIO: 1. And because of this. baka di pa siya disbarred) The withdrawal of lola of her complaint has no effect on the disbarment proceedings. 2. As important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary 162 CUENCO v FERNAN See attachment…=) 163 IN RE LAURETA Facts: • • • • • This case is purely a discussion of Atty. Laureta’s Motion for Reconsideration finding him guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspending him indefinitely. (pinabayaan na lang sana niya yung suspension. there is a discussion on Eva Maravilla-Illustre’s Motion for Reconsideration holding her in contempt. conduct. Severino Lozano. Laureta is the counsel of Illlustre. Illustre lost a case with the SC First Division. Laureta is really the counsel of Ilustre. In my understanding. Beron.There was a complaint against a Judge of First Instance which was referred to the Atty General for investigation.LEGAL ETHICS disbarment Issue: • Held: • • • • • W/N lawyer should be suspended for 2 years 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Yes. and that the info of the reporter was obtained from outside the screen and from comments in social circles. then the wife could have easily not accepted. indicating that the hearing was held behind closed doors. Rivas. Mendiola. Lawyer’s deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the legal profession. 161 IN RE LOZANO FACTS . There was an SC resolution which makes such proceedings condiential in nature -The investigation was conducted secretly. Yes. And with this. as well as to suits at law. If Laureta was really not the counsel. Lawyer’s wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against lola. Lawyer violated the CPR as well as his oath when he deceived his 85 year old aunt. This power extends to administrative proceedings. Gana Lopez. But he is sorry for the adverse publicity generated by the filing of the complaint against the Justices before the Tanodbayan! Issue: • Held: • • W/N Laureta should be punished for his alleged acts. o The copy of the Tanodbayan resolution indicated that he is the “counsel for the complainant” ….” Laureta is in hot water for he had allegedly circulated/distributed copies to the press copies of the complaint filed before the Tanodbayan.

That was why she was surprised later on to receive a copy of a decision from the City Court wherein it appeared that she confessed judgment and upon verification of the expediente which she signed. lawyer of FLORO. and begged for a 5 day postponement to which ATTY DE GUZMAN verbally agreed to with the condition that she (LAPATHA) sign the court’s expediente of which she did. Sarenas 2C . restore offices. She then gave ATTY DE GUZMAN a check for P350 as partial payment of her arrears in the rentals. However. If the proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on. and restores the person to all his civil rights. Gana Lopez. the motion for disbarment is based solely on the conviction for a crime for which Lontok has been pardoned. Calinisan. The only objective of LAPATHA in filing a Petition for Relief was to gain more time to stay in the leased premises. integrity and conclusiveness of collegiate acts to undermine the role of the SC as the final arbiter of all justiciable disputes. NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE HENCE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY RULE APPLIES Anastacio. is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty. a pardon relieves the counsel of the penal offense but can still be subject to disbarment on the ground of lack of good moral character. FLORO filed his Answer alleging that the decision of the City Court was based on an open admission by LAPATHA made in open court and it was after such open admission that the words “Confess Judgment” was written on the expediente. but it also releases the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt. the pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and the attorney cannot be disbarred. Beron. This testimony of the Clerk of court deserves credit because the Clerk was present at the said hearing and is substantiated with the ruling of the City Judge who. it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities. 165 IN RE DE GUZMAN FACTS A complaint for ejectment was filed by FLORO against LAPATHA. the Attorney-General prays for the removal of Lontok from the roll of attorneys despite such pardon. it removes the penalties and disabilities. the Governor-General granted him absolute pardon. His apologetic stance for the “adverse publicity” rings with insincerity.LEGAL ETHICS o 2nd Sem 2005-2006 • • Atty. It does not. Moreover. and depend alone. the Trial Judge asked LAPATHA if she admitted the indebtedness alleged in the complaint filed by FLORO to which LAPATHA answered in the affirmative. on a statute making the fact of a conviction for a felony ground for disbarment. He has deliberately sought to destroy the authenticity. the check of P350 was not given as partial payment of LAPATHA’S arrears in rentals but was given to forestall the execution of judgment. Laureta’s protestations that he has done his best to protect and uphold the dignity of the Court are belied by environmental facts and circumstances. of bigamy. Mendiola. He argues that Lontok should still be disqualified from the practice of law as he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. she appeared without counsel so she approached ATTY DE GUZMAN. Fernandez. LAPATHA filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment. or interests that have been forfeited. An absolute pardon. reaches not only the offense and the guilt for which a person was convicted of. If granted before conviction. Rivas. 164 IN RE LONTOK Facts: • • • Marcelino Lontok is a member of the Bar who was convicted. W/N ATTY DE GUZMAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR HIS “ACTS” NO. Here. Issue: Should Lontok be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys? Held: No. Morada. Judgment was rendered ordering LAPATHA to vacate the premises and surrender possession to FLORO. Subsequently. however. unlike a conditional one. Orders & Other Proceedings (nax civpro ) alleging that at the initial hearing. if granted after conviction. ISSUE HELD RATIO The Clerk of the City Court testified that when the ejectment case was called for hearing. she discovered ATTY DE GUZMAN wrote the words “Confess Judgment” below her signature without her consent. sans evidence to the contrary. Laureta admitted that he is the counsel to a reporter of DZRH by the fact of his commenting with “alacrity” (RC note: this means eagerness) regarding the case. It was then that the word “Confess Judgment” was written on the expediente which was afterwards signed by both ATTY DE GUZMAN and LAPATHA. But if the disbarment proceedings are founded on the professional misconduct in a transaction which resulted in a conviction for a felony. so that he may not be looked upon as never to have committed the offense. by final judgment. property.

Dr. On gross ignorance of the law: She is grossly ignorant of the law because she considered unlawful aggression as a mitigating circumstance. Gana Lopez. Davao del Sur. dictatorial. Dr. Judge Flordeliza is fined 10.000 The SC was convinced that the charge of misconduct against the respondent judge was established by substantial evidence. according to the lower court. In the case at bar. Judge Flordeliza then said to Dr. Amparo Lachica. Dr. Hence. Allowing himself to get intoxicated is not the conduct expected of a judge. who were asking Dr. is reprehensible in a judge. The Court believed that Judge Flordeliza did threaten Dr. was ordering her to sign the death certificate. Lachica to sign a death certificate. this is when Judge Flordeliza threatened to bring an administrative complaint against Dr. A judge owes it to the legal profession he belongs and to the public who depends on him to know the law which he is called to interpret and apply. Mendiola. Lachica. Judge Flordeliza. Morada. Issue: Held: - - 167 ESTOYA v ABRAHAM-SINGSON Facts: A complaint signed by 47 employees and officers of several branches of the RTC Antique was filed with the SC. Dr. and unbearable. who was drunk. Several persons testified regarding her attitude towards her workers (refer to P. Her acts. Later in the day. a judge should organize his court with a view to a prompt and convenient dispatch of its business and he should not tolerate abuses and neglect by clerks. Lachica presented the testimony of certain witnesses confirming that Judge Flordeliza was indeed drinking that night. Sarenas 2C . Lachica refused to sign saying that the attending physician in Gen. Held: The judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. such proof must be convincing. Santos should be the one to sign.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that in the instant case. the administrative complaint is dismissed and ATTY DE GUZMAN exonerated of the charge. his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the festivities. To be a good manager. at the Municipal Employees’ Night Party. 9). as attested to by a witness. if not hysterical. Dr. The signatories allege that Judge Singson "treats her staff in a dictatorial and terroristic manner without regard to the basic dignity and self-respect of the individual." The judge was further accused of gross and culpable incompetence for having delegated her authority to the Clerk of Court by requiring the latter to make orders or resolve or decide cases for her. It is imperative that that he be conversant with basic legal principles. in an angry manner. Lachica then tried to explain but to no avail. Lachica to sit beside him. Lachica again refused. On gross incompetence: According to the canons. Also. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. LAPATHA failed to provide such convincing proof. There was also testimony debunking Judge Flordeliza’s excuse that he could not have acted in such a manner because the mayor was sitting with them (the testimony proved that the mayor was not with them). Lachica in order to coerce the latter to sign the death certificate. Calinisan. Lachica. Lachica met the two again and the two told her that Judge Rolando Flordeliza. was approached by Dina Masaglang and Norma Ruton. were not mere admonitions to correct the employee’s wrongdoings. Later in the evening. the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad Santos. it is elementary in disbarment proceedings that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and that to be made the basis for suspension of disbarment. “Bakit hindi mo pinirmahan and death certificate?” Dr. evidence is wanting to sustain a finding that ATTY DE GUZMAN committed any deceit or misconduct. She also made errors in the implementation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. asked Dr. 166 LACHICA v FLORDELIZA Facts: One day. The lower court adjudged her to lack the temperament required of a judge. She also allowed the release on bail of several accused individuals without giving the prosecution to prove if the evidence of guilt is strong (on the fact that the crime committed by the accused individuals). Rivas. Issue: W/N judge is guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. W/n Judge Flordeliza should be penalized. Fernandez. As held in Go v Candoy. one must be a good leader. despotic. SC says YES. Beron." making the "working atmosphere… entirely dependent on her moods on the particular day which most often fluctuates with the moon…" The signatories allege that they could not understand the judge’s bizarre actuations and that sometimes she is excessively generous but in most occasions she is "oppressive. MTC judge. The judge Anastacio.

aptitude. together with her nephew before the RTC Manila with violation of RA 6425 Accused of a non-bailable offense. yu Yuk lai was arrested inside the VIP room of the Casino Filipino at the Holiday Inn Pavilion while playing bacarrat unescorted. 169 IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS FACTS: State prosecutor Formaran charged Yu Yuk Lai. Judge Aguilar signed and issued the order approving the property bond. a relative of herein complainants. Fernandez. Denied! Upon receiving information that the accused had been playing regularly in the casinos of Heritage Hotel and Holiday Inn Pavilion. Muro granted accused motion to order the confinement of the accused in a hospital for a period not exceeding 7 days. Motion was granted by Judge Laguio Accused filed a Motion for Inhibition arguing that Laguio do not inspire the belief that its decision would be just and impartial. Demetria.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 does not possess the virtues. His indifference prevented him from discovering that at the time he ordered the release of Banite. Gana Lopez. Rumors started to circulate that Muro was partial towards the accused Also. Banite was released upon such order. -Mrs. Calinisan. qualities. -He did not even examine the records of the case as he merely signed the Orders allegedly prepared by Olarte. unidentified employees of the RTC manila calling themselves concerned court employees wrote to the Secretary of Justice alleging that Muro ordered the hospitalization of the accused even if she was not sick and there was already a rumor circulating that Muro had given the go signal to the counsel of the accused to file a motion to quash which would be granted for a consideration of millions of pesos and that the contact person is the daughter of the judge who is an employee in the said branch Formaran filed a motion for inhibition praying that Muro inhibit himself from further handling the case Thereafter. temperament. the Order approving the bond and directing the release of Banite were already prepared for the signature of respondent judge. -All pertinent papers. -Olarte amended the Information to homicide and recommended bail of P20. (Please refer to the lengthy testimonies to have an idea of her tyrannical behavior. Beron. the Provincial Prosecutor of Mindoro charged Banite with the murder of Acosta. -It was also irregular for the judge to entertain the request considering that it did not appear that a formal motion had been filed by the accused to that effect. Held: YES -Sec. The Information carried no recommendation for bail. Zubiri. Morada. presided over by Judge Tarriela. He also granted the extension of medical confinement of the accused for a period of 1 month or until such time that she is fit to be discharged from the hospital Muro also grnated the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence with motion to admit demurrer to evidence. the information had not been properly amended. or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof. with another branch of the same court within the province or city…” -Judge Aguilar violated this rule and had no power to act on the request to release Banite on bail. Laguio inhibited himelf Case was re-raffled to Branch 53 which was handled by Judge Muro. Sarenas 2C . The motion for inhibition against Muro was submitted for resolution when Formaran’s secretary informed Formaran that Demetria called and that he wanted to speak to Formaran. including the Property Bail Bond. Banite was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.000 without leave of court. Rivas. a Steno-Reporter at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor went to see Aguilar—the Executive and Presiding Judge of Branch 45 of the RTC—in his chambers.000.14(a) Rule 114 states that : “Bail in the amount fixed maybe filed with the court where the case is pending. -The judge is ordered to pay a fine of P2. both the accused were held at the detention cell of PNP Narcotics Group in Camp Crame Yu Yuk Lai filed a petition for bail on the ground that the evidence against her was not strong. But even Anastacio. She is tyrannical. Mendiola.) 168 CUARESMA v AGUILAR Facts: -The Olarte. Formaran filed an urgent ex-parte motion to transfer the detention of the accused to the city jail. -The case was docketed in Branch 44 of the RTC. Zubiri was sent by Olarted to request for the release of the accused Banite on bail of P20. and skill of a good manager of court employees. Judge Tarriela was absent or unavailable and could not have acted on said request. Judge Tarriela ordered the Olarte to explain his action considering Banite had already been arraigned. -The record does not show that at the time Aguilar ordered Banite’s release. -On the same day. Go Teng Kok and a close friend friend of Demetria went to the office of Formaran in the DOJ.000 and is admonished to exercise greater care and prudence in the performance of his official duties. Issue: W/N Judge Aguilar committed grave abuse of authority in ordering the release of Banite while the latter’s case was being tried in the sala of Judge Tarriela.

During the rebuttal stage. When Demetrio heard this. A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision. Morada. Castillo. Rivas. Calinisan. Gironella is the Judge of CFI of Abra that tried the case. 171 COJUANGCO v PCGG 172 LUQUE v KAYANAN FACTS: Civil Case 4871 was commenced in the CFI of Quezon by Ilao. Counsel for Martinez moved that the Gironella inhibit himself on the grounds that Gironella already had a chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the murder. Enriquezes against Ona. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. But in this meeting. Petitioner lodged a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground of estoppel. He claimed that the judge doctored the records of the case in that he suppressed the Anastacio. but also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality and as also to the judge’s integrity. there was no proof shown that the judge was unfair and impartial. he said:”iyon pala. Even the requested “help” for Go Teng Kok. Beron.” and left the office. Thereafter. Sarenas 2C . Zuno politely replied that he would see what he can do. Luque alleged that he was at Branch I. sought to set aside the decision in civil cases 6 and 26 approving the parties’ compromise agreement which was alledgedly procured thru duress and intimidation. Martinez surrendered to the police. Mendiola. The statement of the judge in the decision acquitting Bayongan to the effect that “the crime was committed by Martinez” render it impossible for the judge to be free from suspicion of impartiality. After the motion for inhibition was denied. Go Teng Kok was already asking Formaran to go easy on Muro and that Formaran has been politely declining the request. Fernandez. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Justice Demetria and Go Teng Kok are “drug lawyers” W/N Justice Demetria is guilty YES! And is dismissed from service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits The timely call to Zuno was a logical follow up and no one could have made that call except Justice Demetria. It was alleged by the Ilao’s attorney that he found that civil case 4871 was not included in the calendar of cases scheduled for Branc I and that he found the case in the sala of Judge Kayanan. Defendant Luque (petitioner) was absent therein. could not have meant any other assistance but the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit Muro 170 MARTINEZ v GIRONELLA Facts: • • • • • Issue: • Held: • • • • • Issue: • Held: • • • Martinez was the principal accused in a murder case. On the date set for hearing. Petitioner no longer took any action until the rebuttal stage. The conclusion that can be inferred is that the trial was fair and impartial. W/N the judge should inhibit himself from proceeding in the case Yes. Bayongan was acquitted. Africao. Duclan and Bayongan were alleged to be accessories after the fact. Civil case 4871 was set for trial before Branch I of the CFI of Quezon presided over by Judge Valero. That the judge is no longer fair and impartial. Petitioner then moved to disqualify Judge Kayanan. Luque (petitioner herein). petitioner no longer filed a motion for reconsideration. this petition for prohibition was filed. W/N there should be a new trial for Martinez No. The motion was dismissed. and the Baldeos. In this case. Gana Lopez. Due process requires that a case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested. whom Demetria claims he did not know and met only that time. Hearings were rescheduled many times. he told them that he would bring the matter to his superior Zuno. Judge Kayanan first took cognizance of said Civil Case 4871. Zuno then received a call from Demetrio requesting him to instruct Formaran to withdraw his motion for inhibition aginst Muro so that the judge could already issue an order. Ilao etc. Motion was denied.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 ISSUE: HELD: - prior to that meeting.. Bayongan was the only one arraigned so trial proceeded only against him.

Gonzales was judge of the CFI of Davao. They can live up to this expectation only by diligent effort to keep themselves abreast of the legal and jurisprudential developments. who wasn not given the chance to speak fully: “that is enough. During the trial of a criminal case (entitled People v Suarez). When the Judge learned of this. At a hearing. SC finds this well taken. sit down. confusion arose as to the proper interpretation of the witness’ statement (since it was in the Cebuano dialect). respondent judge is ordered to refrain from taking cognizance of the case. but the Judge overruled him immediately. It so happened that while a witness was being cross-examined by the defense counsel. The incident could have been prevented had the Judge listened with care to the Fiscal’s observation on the allegedly wrong translation of the witness’ answer. The act of the judge ordering the restraint of Luque. Fernandez. Morada. W/N Judge Nartatez should be penalized? Judge Nartatez issued a Hold Departure Order. The situation would not have reached grave proportions if the judge only listened carefully to the pleas of the fiscal and patiently allowed the fiscal to make his manifestation. and thus recalls his hold departure order. that after the judge became tired of talking. Judge Gonzales ordered that Fiscal Delgra be brought out of the court and into jail. Petitioner was restrained for 2 hrs. ISSUE: W/n Judge Kayanan should be disqualified… W/n Luque a lawyer. which limits the authority to issue hold departure orders to the RTC in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. Judge then verbally ordered a guard to commit petitioner to jail. Beron. It was against Eileen Lope for alleged violations of BP 22. 173 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER Facts: • • • • Issue: • Held: • • The Court Administrator recommended. The learning process in law is never ending and ceaseless process. The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.” and strongly banged the gavel… There was also an irregularity in the venue of the case as stated above. Judge Nartatez admits his mistake. he declared Delgra in direct contempt and called on the police for the Fiscal’s arrest. Petitioner was then ordered by Judge Kayanan to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. judge asked Luque to withdraw his pleading moving for the judge’s disqualification. interrupting him and continuing to say things against him in a derisive tone and in a humiliating and abusive manner. Taken all together. Delgra insisted. that at one instance judge irately told him “I will have you disbarred!”. the judge told petitioner. Rivas. Delgra was not brough to jail. Delgra objected to the translation (argued that it should be “I called Angel” instead of “I called their names”). Petitioner’s explanations were filed and later on declared by the judge unsatisfactory to warrant his disqualification from trying the case. Calinisan. 174 DELGRA v GONZALES Facts: • • • • • Martin Delgra was the assistant provincial fiscal of Davao.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 true and genuine proceedings in open court in that the judge did not state that he moved the case to be dismissed. an incident occurred which triggered this controversy. Anastacio. Gana Lopez. should be disciplined… HELD: YES. The Secretary of Justice calls attention to the fact that the order in question is contrary to Circular No. 39-97 of the SC. Luque refused. Mendiola. that Judge Kayanan would not give Luque leeway to speak in court. where Delgra was the prosecutor and Gonzales was the presiding judge. Issue: Was the action of Judge Gonzales proper? Held: No. that the SC reprimand the Judge and remind him to keep himself abreast of SC issuances so as not to commit the same mistake in the future. Sarenas 2C .

GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WAS THE PROPER REMEDY Wards were indebted to UMANGAY but they had no money with which to pay the debt thus the only way to settle was to sell the nipa land However. the Court found o ATTY MANUEL guilty of contempt because he had taken the amount of P400 from the proceeds of the sale without previous approval from the court and o ATTY MANUEL’S conduct anomalous for the reason that he instituted the guardianship proceedings only to enable him to collect the unpaid attorney’s fees W/N ATTY MANUEL SHOULD REFUND THE P200 HE GOT NO. JUDGE BELLO STARTED IT  JUDGE BELLO used language such as calling the act of ATTY MANUEL “anomalous and unbecoming” and charging ISSUE HELD RATIO • • • • • ISSUE HELD RATIO • • • ISSUE HELD RATIO • Anastacio. Beron. WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LAWFUL FEES While the reprimand is in order for ATTY MANUEL’S mistake. as her counsel. Delgra did not so misbehave as to obstruct or interrupt court proceedings. he was no longer the attorney of the guardian as at that time. courteous to counsel.. Sarenas 2C . she petitioned the court for authority to sell a nipa land owned in common by the wards for the purpose of paying outstanding obligations to UMANGAY The request was granted and the nipa land was sold to UMANGAY However. Judges should be temperate and patient. Calinisan. In conversations between judges and counsel. instituted Special Proceedings for her appointment as guardian over her minor brothers Upon her appointment. They should avoid interrupting advocates in their arguments and shy away from a controversial tone in addressing them. Fernandez. Morada. the judge should be studious to avoid controversies. the father of the guardian and wards The interest of RICARDO and UMANGAY were in turn sold for P200 to ATTY MANUEL and another P200 for services rendered by him JUDGE BELLO issued an order requiring ATTY MANUEL to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law and declared in contempt for having abused his relationship with the guardian and taken money from her without prior approval from the court ATTY MANUEL explained that when he received the P200. Rivas. Remember. restraint is a desirable trait in those who dispense justice. the nipa land sold by the guardian had already been previously sold with right to repurchase to RICARDO Perreyras and UMANGAY by FLORENTINO Perreyras.. 175 FERNANDEZ v BELLO FACTS • • • • • • • • TIMOTEA Perreyras through ATTY MANUEL Fernandez. P200 is the amount admitted by the guardian TIMOTEA as due ATTY MANUEL W/N ATTY MANUEL’S CONDUCT WAS ANOMALOUS NO. Gana Lopez. the nipa land could not be sold without the intervention of the guardian Hence. Mendiola. right class?! The order adjudging Delgra in direct contempt was nullified. Judge Gonzales abused his discretion in declaring the fiscal in contempt of court. ATTY MANUEL was justified in instituting the guardianship proceedings in order to sell the nipa land.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 From the transcript of records. TIMOTEA secured the services of ATTY BRAULIO Fernandez and that he was only paid P50 for his services to the guardian However. it being the proper remedy W/N THE DESIRE OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE PORTIONS OF ATTY MANUEL’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE STRICKEN OUT FOR EMPLOYING STRONG LANGUAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED NO. the mistake is no sufficient ground for the nonpayment of the fees he lawfully earned Duty of the courts is not alone to see that lawyer’s act in a proper manner but also that they are paid their just and lawful fees JUDGE BELLO justifies his order for return of the P200 on the ground that ATTY MANUEL is below average standard of a lawyer However. the opinion of the judge as to the capacity of the lawyer is NOT the basis of the right to a lawyer’s fees but rather the contract between the lawyer and his client In the case at bar.

Beron. CA consolidated the two petitions and denied both. he should start using temperate language himself… he who sows the wind will reap a storm! • 176 TE v CA Facts: Issues: Held: Arthur Te civilly married Liliana Choa. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. On the other hand. Mendiola. The validity of the marriage of Te to Choa was considered valid at the time he contracted the marriage with Santillo even is Te alleges that it was void ab initio. Te also filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the PRC. The Judge alleges that the warrant was issued against Gamo and it just so happened that the place where the illegal firearms were seized was owned by Mantaring. While bias and prejudice have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge. the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Te also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. in keeping with the judge’s duty to disposing of the court’s business promptly. Mantaring and his son were arrested for they were in constructive possession of the illegal firearms.htm . Thereafter. Without such declaration. They did not live together but occasionally met until Choa gave birth to a girl.gov. Rivas. It is true that the court had consistently held that mere filing of an administrative complaint against a judge does not constitute a ground for the disqualification of the judge. the denial by the judge of petitioner’s motion to suspend the criminal proceeding and the demurrer to evidence are in accord with law and jurisprudence. Neither was there anything unreasonable in the requirement that petitioner’s counsel submit a medical certificate to support his claim that he suffered an accident which rendered him unprepared for trial. - 177 MANTARING v ROMAN Facts: Mantaring filed an administrative complaint against Judge Roman charging the latter of conduct unbecoming of members of the judiciary. According to Mantaring. (More Important) W/n the motion to inhibit Judge Peralejo (on the ground of bias and prejudice) in the criminal case should be granted. he is reprimanded and warned that commission of the same act shall be severely dealt with in the future. Te filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Mantaring claims that the judge issued the warrant of arrest as a form of revenge against Mantaring and his son for filing the administrative case. Such requirement was evidently imposed upon petitioner’s counsel to ensure that the resolution of the case was not hampered by unnecessary and unjustified delays. Thus. Issue: W/N the judge should have inhibited himself from taking cognizance of the application for the warrant of arrest. Choa also filed administrative complaints against Te and Santillo with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to revoke their engineering licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality. Calinisan.supremecourt. which was when Te stopped seeing her. the marriage is presumed valid._edn40 The instances when Judge Peralejo allegedly exhibited antagonism and partiality against petitioner and/or his counsel did not deprive him of a fair and impartial trial. For the judge's failure to inhibit. Thus.LEGAL ETHICS • 2nd Sem 2005-2006 ATTY MANUEL of obtaining his fee “through maneuvers of documents from the guardian” If any one is to be blamed for the language used by ATTY MANUEL. Judge Roman issued a warrant of arrest against Mantaring and his son. The test for determining the propriety of the denial of said motion is whether petitioner was deprived a fair and impartial trial. Te filed a case for annulment in the RTC. The grounds raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the case. the factual milieu of these cases is different from the Anastacio. Morada. Mantaring now comes before this court alleging that it was improper for the Judge to take cognizance of the application of the arrest warrant. it is JUDGE BELLO himself who has made insulting remarks in his orders which provoked ATTY MANUEL If a judge desires not be insulted. hence. However. SC says that the motion to inhibit should not be granted. which was also denied. upon the complaint of Choa. the judge should have inhibited himself.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/126746. Held: Yes. a criminal case was filed against Te for bigamy. the Judge should have inhibited himself for there was a pending administrative case which involved him and Mantaring. Fernandez. Sarenas 2C . Gana Lopez. This is because jurisprudence at that time say that there has to be a declaration of nullity before a marriage can be considered as void. Both were denied.http://www. W/n the civil case constituted a prejudicial question to the criminal case and administrative case. Te filed a demurrer and motion to inhibit (directed at the Judge) in the criminal case. SC says that there was no prejudicial question. Choa then found out that Te married another woman (Santillo). As discussed earlier.

It cannot be otherwise concluded that the judge's action in this case was dictated by a spirit of revenge against Mantaring for having filed the administrative complaint. Fernandez. to draft the decision. report and recommendation Judge Herrera gave more weight to the testimonies of Avancena and concluded that the charges against Liwanag are true. defendants therein. Atty. He must use his own perceptiveness in analyzing the evidence before him and his own discretion in determining the proper action. -The judge then authorized the counsel for the plaintiffs. Rivas. Liwanag summoned Avancena to his chamber and told her that she will be convicted unless she pay P1M. The case was referred to Executive Judge Herrera of the RTC Malolos.000 and there is no reason for her to pay P1M Liwanag summoned Avancena again and told her to raise only P500. -In October.000 to be deducted from his retirement benefits. Issue: W/N Judge Santos’ act of ordering the counsel for one of the parties to draft a decision warrants disciplinary sanction. who reset the hearing date from April 1 to June 10. -Lack of malice or bad faith in issuing the questioned order is not an excuse. 179 AVANCEÑA v JUDGE LIWANAG FACTS: Avancena charged judge Liwanag of the MTC of San Jose del Monte. Avancena refused to pay since her unpaid balance was only P140. -Santos violated Canons 2* and 3** of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Jardin. Morada. including Heck. or 3) fine P20. -Since Santos had already retired. Decision making is the most important duty of a judge. In the case at hand. personally and directly prepared by the judge…”) of the Revised Rules of Court. -As the defendants never received a copy of the order granting Jardin’s motion to withdraw. -Such act falls under the classification of a serious charge. *A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. 178 HECK v SANTOS Facts: -In a previous case entitled “Flor v.LEGAL ETHICS 2nd Sem 2005-2006 case at hand. The defendants did not receive a copy of such order. Beron. and Section 1 Rule 36 (“A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing. the administrative complaint was filed during the pendency of the criminal case. a court interpreter. subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which was granted by Santos. Santos rendered a decision which was copied verbatim from the draft decision submitted by Atty.000 – 40. This circumstance should have underscored for the judge the need of steering clear of the case because he might be perceived to be suceptible to bias and partiality. Heck” which was lodged at the Regional Trial Court. Calinisan.10 are 1) disbarment 2) suspension for 3 mos. Bulacan with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. But he did not recommend a specific penalty to be meted out to respondent ISSUE: W/N Liwanag is guilty Anastacio. the admiinistrative complaint was filed before the involvement of the judge in the criminal case against Mantaring. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction since the case involved an intra-corporate matter which was within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Atty. Bulacan for investigation. Singson.000 if she could not afford the P1M Also. the judge abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by the Constitution. to telephone Avancena and tell her that the Judge is waiting for her until 4:30pm Judge Liwanag denied the allegations of Avancena and argued that all the contentions of Avancena are lies and fabricated. Held:YES. The sanctions provided by Rule 140 Sec.000. -By such order. **A judge should perform official duties honestly. In those cases. -Counsel for therein defendants. -The motion was denied by Judge Santos. Santos admitted the evidence of the plaintiff and considered the defendants as having waived their right to present evidence. Gana Lopez.Singson. his dismissal or suspension is no longer feasible. Sarenas 2C . and with impartiality and diligence adjudicative responsibilities. neither defendants nor their counsel appeared at the hearing on June 10. He is thus ordered to pay a fine of P20. Mendiola. however. Liwanag sent Raymunda Flores a common friend of Avancena and Liwanag who was tasked to bring Avancena to the chambers of Liwanag but Avancena refused Liwanag also made Cora Espanola. -At the said hearing. Avancena is the accused in a criminal case for violation of BP 22 Her counsel filed a Motion to Postpone promulgation and to Re-Open Trial to Allow Accused to Present Further Evidence” but the judge denied the motion on the ground that she was able represented by her counsel during the trial of the case Prior to the dismissal of her motion.

LEGAL ETHICS
HELD: -

2nd Sem 2005-2006

YES! And Judge Liwanag is dismissed from service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits The period of almost 4 months which elapsed form May 7, 1999, the date originally set for the promulgation of the decision of the criminal case and August 27,1999, the date it was actually promulgated indicates a deliberate effort on the part of the Judge to delay the promulgation of the decision in order to give complainant more time to raise the money demanded by him

180 CITY OF TAGBILARAN v HONTANOSAS Facts: • City of Tagbilaran is charging Judge Hontanosas with (1) open defiance of a higher court ordering his inhibition from a case and (2) open and notorious habitual gambling in casinos. 1st charge: o RTC ordered MTC Judge Hontanosas to inhibit himself from a criminal case filed by the city against Ong. o Hontanosas forced the fiscal to rest its case and rendered a judgment of acquittal despite the order for him to inhibit 2nd charge: o Hontanosas goes to Cebu on the afternoon and goes back to Tagbilaran early the next day in order to go to the casinos in Cebu o Every Sunday, Hontanosas can be seen around cockpits o That a favorable judgment can be bought from Hontanosas with prices ranging from P500 – P5K Hontanosas’ answer to 1st charge: o The order of the RTC was unlawful due to lack of hearing and failure to include the real parties in interest o Order was issued in connection with a petition for certiorari which is a prohibited pleading in cases covered by rules on summary procedure Hontanosas’ answer to 2nd charge: o He is merely accompanying his wife to Cebu. That his wife just wants some excitement and recreation. o He admits that he goes to the cockpits on Sundays and holidays and gambles sometimes on this occasions. W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for disobeying the order that he inhibit himself No. The order was merely mandatory. Rules of Court provide instances when a judge is under obligation to inhibit himself from hearing a case. The judge’s case does not fall under any of those mentioned in the provision. His case falls under the 2nd paragraph which leaves it to his discretion whether or not to inhibit himself. W/N Hontanosas should be sanctioned for gambling in casinos and cockpits Yes. Fine of P12K for violation of Circular No. 4 of August 1980. That circular prohibits actual gambling and mere presence in gambling casinos. Bases for the circular was PD 1067-B and Par. 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

• •

• •

Issue: • Held: • •


Issue: • Held: • •

181 RE: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE CUBE FACTS:- Judge Cube was appointed Presiding Judge of MTC, Branch 22 of Manila. Information was received by the Judicial and Bar Council that he had previously been dismissed as Asst. Fiscal of Pasay City. It was bourne out of the records that an administrative case for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty was filed against Fiscal Cube by Sec of Justice Jose Abad Santos for failure to prosecute a criminal case which led to its dismissal with prejudice. Fiscal Cube was found guilty as charged. - Cube applied for appointment to the Judiciary and in the Personal Data Sheet that he was required to accomplish he deliberately concealed the fact that he was dismissed. He contended that he didnt act dishonestly in not disclosing such fact because his removal from office was WITHOUT PREJUDICE which legally meant that he can still be recalled by the govt to render public service, and that he was in fact RECALLED AND APPOINTED to sensitive positions in the govt prior to the questioned appointment and that he was even allowed by the same govt to avail of the Optional Retirement under RA 1145. ISSUE: WoN Judge Cube acted dishonestly?

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS

2nd Sem 2005-2006

HELD: YES1.Judge Cube did not disclose the relevant fact that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as ASst FIscal of Pasay. That fact was deliberately suppressed. Judge Cube could not equate his dismissal with retirement and give both modes of separation an innocent character. By such disclosure, the Council was led to believe, on the strength of his misrepresentations, that he had a clean record and was not disqualified from appointment to the Judiciary 2. The circumstance that the dismissal was without prejudice is not material, and neither is his subsequent appointment to a municipal position. The fact remains that he was REMOVED and that he DID NOT RETIRE. He was removed after investigation and found guilty of gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in the prosecution of a smuggling case. He cannot now brush his removal aside as if it had never existed at all. It is a blot on his record that has spread even more because of his concealment of it. 3. Judge Cube committed an act of dishonesty that rendered him unfit to be appointed to, and to remain now in, the Judiciary he has tarnished with his falsehood. 182 ALFONSO v JUANSON FACTS: Complainant a doctor of medicine by profession filed with this court a sworn complaint charging the respondent with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He accuses the respondent of maintaining illicit sexual relations with his wife Sol Alfonso. Complainant received a phone call from the wife of the respondent, Mrs. Juanson who informed him that Sol and respondent judge have been carrying on an affair and that she has in her possession the love letters of Sol which she wants to show to the complainant. When he told this to Sol, she denied it. Sol and complainant left for the USA. Sol returned ahead of complainant. Mrs. Juansosn called up father of complainant and divulged to the latter the illicit affair between respondent judge and Sol. The father of complainant engaged the services of a private investigator who discovered that Sol, after arrival from USA met with respondent judge at an apartment and stayed there for 3 hours. Complainant upon knowing this, complainant confronted Sol. At first she denied it but later, however, admitted having an illicit sexual affair with the judge. Respondent judge denied the allegations and claimed that they have been communicating with each other casually and innocently and not as lovers. He alleges that he came to know of Sol when Sol engaged his professional services prior to appointment to the office of RTC judge. ISSUE: Is the judge guilty of the charge of immorality? HELD: NO. It must be stressed that the respondent is not charged with immorality or misconduct committed before he was appointed to the judiciary. As to the post-appointment period, we find the evidence for the complainant insufficient to prove that the respondent and Sol continued their extramarital affair. In fact, no love notes were presented during trial that are dated after the appointment. Proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this case. The respondent judge may have undergone moral reformation after his appointment. The imputation of the sexual acts upon the incumbent must be proven by substantial evidence, which is required in admin cases. This the complainant failed to do. However, judge should be held liable for becoming indiscreet. Such indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of impropriety. Respondent and Sol’s meetings could incite suspicion of either the relationship’s continuance or revival. He violated Canons 3 and 2 requiring judge’s official conduct to be free from appearance of impropriety. Sentence to fine of P2,000. 183 MACALINTAL v TEH Facts: • • • • • Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a case against Judge Angelito Teh, the Executive Judge and the Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 87 of Rosario Batangas. His case stemmed from Atty. Mac’s Election case. In that case, Atty. Mac received an adverse resolution from the Judge Teh. Mac then questioned the resolution, via a petition for Certiorari with the Comelec. While the case was pending with the Comelec, Judge Teh actively participated in the proceedings by filing his comment on the petition, and by also filing an urgent manifestation. Mac filed a motion for inhibition, but what Judge Teh did was to hire his own lawyer and files his answer before his OWN court. Teh ordered that Mac pay P100T in attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
Issue: • Held: • • • • •

2nd Sem 2005-2006

W/N Judge Teh’s actions were correct. No. Judge Teh was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and he is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice for reemployment. The active participation of Teh being merely a NOMINAL or FORMAL party in the certiorari proceedings is not called for. Judges cannot also act as both party litigant and as a judge before his own court. Teh’s gross deviation from the acceptable norm for judges is clearly manifest.

184 ZIGA v AREJOLA Facts: • • Nelia Ziga and Ramon Arejola are two of the heirs of Fabian Arejola. They inherited a land from Fabiana and became co-owners (with 8 others) of the property. Ramon Arejola was an attorney in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). He filed in behalf of his co-heirs an application for registration of title of the land. The petition was granted. A substantial portion of the lot was sold to the City of Naga. The unsold portion was subject to a dispute between the heirs and a 3rd party. Meanwhile, Ramon Arejola was appointed judge of the MTC of Daet, Camarines Norte. Notwithstanding such appointment, Judge Arejola continued to appear in the Land registration case (the dispute with the 3rd person). The court requested him to submit a written authority from the SC to appear as counsel. He did not comply. A second request was made but Judge Arejola insists that it is not needed. Then Judge Arejola wrote the City of Naga for the terms of payment for the sale of the land and his claim for contingent atty fees. Now, Nelia Ziga filed a complaint praying that Judge Arejola be disciplined for appearing before the court without the SC’s permission and for asking contingent atty’s fees and commission. Judge Arejola’s defense was that there was no need for the SC’s permission, as he was appearing as representative of the heirs and not as counsel. He argues that he was a party-in-interest being one of the heirs. He also said that the complaint was filed merely to harass him and that complainant Ziga had a disturbed mind. The executive judge of the RTC found the charge of unauthorized legal practice to be without basis. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Arejola be found guilty.



• • • •

Issue: Was Judge Arejola guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law? Held: Yes and FINED 10,000. “Practice of law” is not confined to appearance in court as it also covers the preparation of pleadings and giving of advice to clients. Based on the records, Ramon Arejola engaged in the practice of law after he was appointed MTC Judge (And even if the complaint was filed before he became judge, the fact that he continued to act as counsel after the appointment sustains his liability). It was shown that he: prepared and signed pleadings; appeared for applicants in the case; wrote a letter to the buyer asking for checks and atty’s fees; etc. The representation made by Arejola was not just isolated as there was a succession of acts. His argument that he appeared as co-heir was belied by the tenor of the pleadings and letters showing that he was acting in representation of the heirs. Judge Arejola violated the Rules of Court and Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits members of the bench from engaging in the private practice of law. Note that the purpose of the prohibition is founded public policy—that is to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to judicial duties and prevent them from advancing private interests. The Civil Service Rules require him to secure a written permission to appear as counsel from the SC. Judge Arejola was even requested by the RTC to procure this written authority. But he did not comply. It appeared from the records that he tried to get a written authority later on. But when he was told by the Court Administrator to provide the details of the case in which he is appearing, he failed to comply. Nevertheless, his act of trying to procure authority was an admission that he was appearing as counsel and that he was aware that he is required to present such before the court. *side issue: Judge Arejola argues that he was not afforded due process as there was no hearing conducted by the Executive Judge. But due process does not require a hearing. Opportunity to be heard is sufficient. In this case, he was given ample opportunity to be heard when he was made to file oral arguments through pleadings. 185 OCA v SARDIDO FACTS • In a Deed of Absolute Sale, MAGBANUA allegedly sold 2 parcels of land to DAVAO REALTY represented by ONG with PAGUNSAN as broker

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

Circular # 3-89 does NOT refer to criminal cases against erring justices and judges so trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of the offenses committed In the case at bar. Gana Lopez.LEGAL ETHICS • • • • • • • 2nd Sem 2005-2006 • • ISSUE HELD RATIO • • • Judge HURTADO . Castillo is now complaining that Calanog has reneged on his promise. forwarded to the SC Provincial Prosecutor opposed arguing that Judge HURTADO is not within the scope of Circular # 3-89 because the offense charged was committed when he was still a clerk of court and ex officio notary public JUDGE SARDIDO issued an Order excluding Judge HURTADO from the criminal Information filed by MAGBANUA on the ground that Circular # 3-89 does not qualify whether the crime was committed before or during his tenure of office and since the law does not qualify. Castillo. the Court has directed the IBP to refer to the SC for appropriate action all administrative cases filed with the IBP against justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts Thus. he must not qualify (“this Court cannot and shall not try this case against JUDGE HURTADO unless the Supreme Court shall order otherwise) Court Administrator BENIPAYO issued a Memorandum pointing out that Circular # 3-89 refers only to administrative complaints filed with the IBP against justices and judges of lower courts and does not apply to criminal cases before trial courts Court asked JUDGE SARDIDO to explain in writing why he should not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for excluding Judge HURTADO from the Information filed by MAGBANUA W/N JUDGE SARDIDO COMMITTED GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW YES Under Circular #3-89. Branch 76. Their relationship also bore a son. in a number of cases. that her two children are not in an exclusive girls school and that Calanog has failed to pay the monthly installments on the condominium. Castillo agreed to such a proposition. Plus. JUDGE SARDIDO was reprimanded. Castillo also alleges that when she met with Calanog. She was saying that everything in the complaint were all lies. Morada.000 for gross ignorance of the law despite his dismissal from the service 186 CASTILLO v CALANOG Facts: - In a sworn complaint filed with the SC. ONG and Judge HURTADO The case was raffled to JUDGE SARDIDO then presiding MTC judge Judge HURTADO filed a motion praying that the criminal complaint against him be forwarded to the SC pursuant to Circular # 3-89 requiring all cases involving justices and judges of the lower courts. upon the instruction of the Court. notarized the said deed However.000 and asserts that what she signed was a deed with a stated consideration of P16. Castillo filed an affidavit of desistance with the SC.000. who at that time was clerk of court and ex officio notary public but now an RTC judge. Fernandez. When she refused. Rivas. the latter brought her to a motel and made sexual advances on her. with immorality and conduct unbecoming of a public official. While the complaint was being investigated on. the National Bureau of Investigation Intelligence Service. fined and even dismissed from service • With an unflattering service record. carried out a discreet verification of the facts raised in the testimonies and found them to be true. she says that Calanog offered to her the proposition that he be her sub-husband and that he would give Castillo his condominium unit in QC as well as provide financial support for her two minor children and place them in an exclusive school for girls. SC says YES and Calanog is dismissed from the roll of judges. - - - Issue: Held: - Anastacio. the case filed against Judge HURTADO is not an administrative case filed with the IBP but a criminal case filed with the trial court Eto na ang mga pangaral ni lola basyang… • A judge is a called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statues and procedural rules such that he must be conversant with basic legal principles and well-settled doctrine • JUDGE SARDIDO failed in this regard when he excluded Judge HURTADO as one of the accused in the Information and instead forwarded the criminal case to the Supreme Court • Moreover. She says that Calanog is not anymore giving support. the Court had two witnesses (Ernesto Bustamante and Jose Javier) attesting to her earlier complaint. However. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Mendiola. Castillo alleges that when she intervened for the intestate estate of her deceased husband. Emma Castillo charged Judge Manuel Calanog. MAGBANUA denies signing the Deed of Absolute Sale which states that the consideration for the sale was P600. a friend of hers referred her to Calanog who was supposedly going to help her. Beron.000 MABGUNUA filed a case of falsification against PAGUNSAN. whether or not such complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their duties. who was allegedly named Jerome Christopher Calanog. JUDGE SARDIDO eroded the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary • The Court still imposes a fine of P10. Sarenas 2C . W/n Calanog should be held liable despite the desistance of the complainant. Calinisan.

and they actually found from the testimony of Jose Javier that the Castillo's charges. Morada. The exploitation of women becomes even more reprehensible when the offender commits the injustice by the brute force of his position of power and authority. It is of no import that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts of concubinage having indeed existed and been committed.some sort of watering hole for friends. Rivas. no matter how honorable. His act of posting the ads at the Court Bulletin Board tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the courts as the bastion of justice because there occured an interference in the judicial duties of Judge Escano by reason of his own business interests. rest on sufficient grounds. Beron." The judge.LEGAL ETHICS - 2nd Sem 2005-2006 Generally. He is also saying that Castillo and Calanog are both offenders and victims. Even if Emma Castillo had not filed her "Affidavit of Desistance. prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct from intervening in a case in any court. said that he was only establishing a restaurant -. especially when executed as an afterthought. as in the case at bar. Gana Lopez. it must be immediately rectified. who was in the first place. has also committed a grave injustice upon the complainant." the SC says that they would not have been swayed solely by her allegations. who had sought his assistance in expediting the intestate estate proceedings of her deceased common-law husband. Sarenas 2C . Mendiola. The judge said that the reason he posted the ad at the Court Bulletin Board was due to the fact that conducting the interviews in his office in the court will be more convenient for him. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties. but must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. at that time. Dissent: He is mainly saying that Calanog should not be held solely liable and that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh. Thus. Anastacio. Suspended for 6 months with a warning. indeed. as in this case.) The judge further alleges that he immediately ordered the removal of the ads when he learned of the displeasure of some people regarding his use of the Court Bulletin Board. 187 DIONISIO v ESCANO Facts: Dionisio filed a complaint against Judge Escano charging the Judge of illegally using court facilities in advertising the hiring of attractive waitresses and personable waiters and cooks in the restaurant of the judge. This is not a criminal case for concubinage but an administrative matter that invokes the power of supervision of this Court over the members of the judiciary. (He says that his house is too far from the gate and difficult for the applicants to locate. but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. Held: Yes. considering the situation. Fernandez. Calinisan. The moment such act deviates from purposes not directly related to the functioning and operation for which the courts of justice have been established. he thinks that the dismissal of Calanog is too severe. It is of no import that the judge's act of using court facilities be motivated by good cause. It is worth noting here that the respondent judge.000 for the misuse of the court facilities. Judges are not only to avoid impropriety. Gutierrez. took advantage of the complainant's helplessness and state of material deprivation and persuaded her to become his mistress. the judge is guilty of misuse. willing to enter into the sexual relationship for the perks it included. in violating a judicial precept. Admissions to the effect that he was hiring the waitresses for his pub that will cater to the prurient desires of males was acquired through the help of the program "Hoy Gising. The judge. Issue: W/N the Judge is guilty of misuse of court facilities. The Investgating Justice of the CA who hadled the case recommended that the judge be fined in the amount of 15. He believes that Castillo is a liberated woman who was. the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance. in his comment.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful