This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Chua, a practicing lawyer and a notary public, for various offenses amounting to malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of his lawyer’s oath, the CPR as well as the provisions of the laws of the Philippines, to wit: (a) Fraud through falsification and forgery of public document; (b) foisting falsehood and fabricated public document to molest and harass parties; and (c) libel, misrepresentation and unlawful advertisement. ISSUE: Whether or not the charges against Atty. Chua sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him. HELD: Yes. When a notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. RAMOS VS. Atty. DAJOYAG February 28, 2002 FACTS: This is a complaint filed by Ernesto M. Ramos against Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag Jr. for negligence in failing to appeal a ruling of the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal by the Labor Arbiter of a complaint for legal dismissal. It appears that Ramos was terminated from work for failure of his lawyer, Atty. Dajoyag, to file on time the petition for certiorari, when the Supreme Court dismissed it with finality. From the records, it can be gleaned that Atty. Dajoyag moved for an extension to file which was granted but the Resolution granting the 1st extension contained a warning that no further extension would be given. Atty. Dajoyag, on the other hand, explained that he was not aware of this because when he filed his motion for last extension for only 20 days, he had not yet received the copy of said resolution. He further explained that he relied on good faith that his
Motion for 1st Extension of 30 days would be granted without the warning – as this was only a first extension; and also that he requested for a second and last extension of 20 days for which he complied with the filing of the Petition for Certiorari on the last day of the supposed extended period. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty of negligence. HELD: Yes. Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: “A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so ". Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted or that they will be granted the length of time they pray for. Due diligence requires that they should conduct a timely inquiry with the division clerks of court of the action on their motions and, the lack of notice thereof will not make them any less accountable for their omission. SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL VS. ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE A.C. NO. 1372. JUNE 27, 2002 Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant spouses Cayetano and Lirio Rabanal against Atty. Faustino F. Tugade. It is alleged that respondent, as counsel for complainant Cayetano Rabanal, did not file the appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals despite having been granted by the appellate court an extension of time to file the same, as a result of which the appeal filed by Cayetano was dismissed and the decision of the then Circuit Criminal Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan became final and executory. Respondent claims however that he was not the counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and he could not be held responsible for the dismissal of complainant’s appeal for failure of counsel to file the appellant’s brief. Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disciplined
The Court did not agree however. Notarized documents are ascribed with full confidence by the Courts and the general public. BURBE VS. To establish the relation. It is therefore clear that a lawyer-client relationship existed between the two. With the assistance of respondent. There was also evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. A lawyer shall not. He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: RULE 12. memoranda or briefs. HELD: Yes. complainant moved to dismiss the complaint as a product of his misapprehension of the facts. In this case. ALBERTO .03. she represented complainant to protect the interests of the corporation. it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. DE GUZMAN VS. said corporation was registered with the SEC. Llosa contends that he merely notarized the sale for expediency because it was urgent. Complainant also averred that while respondent rose to become president of the corporation. A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney. She appeared as counsel in behalf of the complainant. DE DIOS 350 SCRA 320  FACTS: Diana De Guzman filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. who admitted that he agreed to sign the appellant’s brief to be filed and that he received P600. Indeed.03. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. It was also upon her advice that the delinquent shares of complainant were sold at public auction. LLOSA A. The present situation shows a clear case of conflict of interests of the respondent.Held: Yes. De Dios for representing conflicting interests. the contract may be express or implied. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.00 from complainant spouses. The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was a professional relationship which merits attorney’s fees for professional services rendered. ISSUE: Whether there was attorney – client relationship which may justify holding respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) followed by the Board of the Governors of the IBP recommended the dismissal of the case finding no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment proceedings. ATTY. No. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. the board of directors now included respondent as the president. DOMINADOR P. ISSUE: Whether or not Llosa should be disbarred on account of violation of his lawyer’s oath by notarizing a document knowing that the vendors of the Absolute Deed of Sale at that time when he notarized it were dead. she lost all her investments when her delinquent shares were sold by the corporation in a public auction upon the advise of respondent. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. RULE 18. Llosa notarized an Absolute Deed of Sale knowing that some who were parties to it were dead. Respondent also represented complainant in one case involving a property of the corporation. he was only suspended for six months. To countenance these irregular acts would endanger the full faith and credit given upon its face and would undermine the evidentiary weight given to it by the Courts to assure the public of its authenticity. HELD: Being his first Administrative offense. The act of a notary public is impressed with public interest. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. Complainant averred that she engaged the services of respondent in 1995 as counsel in order to form a hotel and restaurant corporation. complainant sought and received legal advice from respondent Tugade. 4369 [1997[ 282 SCRA 248 FACTS: Arrieta filed a petition for disbarment upon the ground that Atty.C. ARRIETA VS. The vendors in the instant deed were dead when Llosa affixed his signature on the notarized document. she being its legal counsel. Respondent however averred that since the action involved a property of the corporation. The IBP dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no attorney – client relationship. Later on.
SACMAR vs. It appears that Atty. No. MAGULTA AC NO. “WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON”. GARCIA February 6. and only when shown the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose. Virgilio R. 1999. He does not deserve to continue as member of the bar. ISSUE: Whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that Atty. As a result. the Deed of Donation was declared falsified and thus. Petitioner confronted Atty.00 and P8. it certified that the questioned signature in the Deed of Donation and the standard signatures of the deceased donor. J. LINDA M.” He assisted his father-in-law.C.000. Flores. Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred. Garcia notarized the Deed of Donation covering a parcel of land.00. postdated June 1 and June 5.: . which were not successful and so the former intimated that a case should already be filed. A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel. null and void by the lower court. RTJ-03-1766 March 28. The lawyer. 2002 FACTS: This is a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. As a result of such findings. Hence. Garcia for the falsification of a deed of donation and notarizing the same. the donor. unbecoming a member of the law profession. JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO A. which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice. petitioner personally went to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day.000. in executing the same. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant. and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client.1(4) provides that a notary public “ shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it. a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his client.” ALITAGTAG VS. he likewise acknowledged that the signature therein is the donor’s true signature. Garcia from the practice of law for two (2) years. 2002 Facts: Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money against a creditor. petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the filing of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutor’s office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to inquire about the case. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees. the IBP recommended the suspension of Atty. Where the notary public is a lawyer. Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed. in the amounts of P12. Sec. does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds. A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any feedback as to the status of his case. to prove that the case has already been filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case. Article 2103. When said document was examined by the PNP Laboratory upon complaint of Violeta Flores Alitagtag. By notarizing the document. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: “It is evident that the P25. HELD: YES. With complainant’s deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint. Held: Yes. Garcia be disbarred. JUNE 10.M.000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. 2008 YNARES-SANTIAGO. Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner. Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyer’s office but to no avail. and to appease petitioner’s feelings. and acknowledged that the Deed of Donation is authentic. 99-634. Caesar B. Atty. respectively. constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part. Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer. a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.
At any rate. In Nelson Rodriguez and Ricardo Camacho v. the records of this case do not reveal that complainant has utilized such avenues to seek a review of the penalty imposed by respondent judge. A judge’s mere error in the interpretation or application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of an administrative sanction against him for no one is infallible. HELD: Case dismissed for lack of merit.FACTS: In the case filed by complainant Sacmar against Zoren Legaspi in the MTC of Pasig City. it must be shown that the judgment was unjust. Only accused Zoren Legaspi elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud.000. The failure of a judge to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. claiming that she "rendered her decision in good faith. particularly the assailed decision of respondent judge. complainant is not left without any remedy to question the soundness of the decision of respondent judge. and not that the judge merely committed an error of judgment or took the unpopular side of a controversial point of law. Unfortunately. Jr. v. Judge Gregorio G. the latter was convicted for grave threats and was sentenced to arresto mayor and and to pay complainant moral damages of twenty thousand pesos (P20. and without any conscious and deliberate intent to favor a movie actor whom she does not even know. The ruling of the Court in Basa Air Base Savings & Loans Association. She likewise avers that respondent judge exhibited manifest partiality towards the accused when she disregarded the evidence on record in modifying the decision of the MTC by downgrading the conviction of Legaspi from Grave Threats to Other Light Threats thereby reducing the criminal and civil liabilities of Legaspi. without malice. Good faith and absence of malice. Pimentel. corruption or bad faith. hardly show that respondent judge has indeed knowingly and deliberately rendered an unjust judgment. reducing the penalty to arresto menor and to pay moral damages of ten thousand pesos (P10. Inc. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable. RTC Judge Reyes-Carpio (herein respondent) modified the decision. respondent judge has impliedly admitted the charges against her when she failed to specifically challenge these charges. RPC and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The keyword in said offense is "knowingly. is instructive: A charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment constitutes a criminal offense. complainant pointed out that respondent judge. with malice or in willful disregard of her right as a litigant. 204. Upon appeal by Legaspi. Respondent vehemently denied all the charges. finding the accused guilty only of Other Light Threats under Article 265 of the RPC. the complainant must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. A perusal of the records. Complainant assailed the claim of respondent judge that the downgrading of the offense was rendered in good faith and without malice." Thus. As a rule.000).00). He must have known that his judgment was indeed unjust. corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses that will protect a judicial officer from the charge of rendering an unjust decision. Judge Rodolfo Gatdula. Complainant failed to satisfactorily show that respondent judge acted in bad faith. In effect. for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. failed to explain why she unilaterally downgraded the conviction of accused Legaspi. For a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment to prosper.” In her Reply. dishonesty. in her Comment. The filing of this administrative case would not have the effect of setting aside or modifying the penalty imposed on accused Zoren Legaspi in the assailed judgment. we had occasion to reiterate the . Complainant claims that respondent judge wittingly afforded unwarranted benefits to the accused which caused undue injury to her as private complainant in the case. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Judge rendered an unjust judgment pursuant to Art.
Justo J. He failed to file a comment. The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the courts and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed . the fixing of attorney’s fees are determined in a separate civl action. resulting to an exchange between the parties. J. COURT OF APPEALS G. (2) the extent of the services rendered. Its aim is to uphold public interest and not profiteering. and. directed him to file his comment on the motion for contempt and/or disbarment. Paras himself took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his one-year suspension from law practice. alleging thereunder. Likewise. the Court reiterates the legal profession’s manifest mandate for public service instead of capital gain. To avoid adverse confrontation. (3) Whether or not private respondent is entitled to twenty-five percent (25%) of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. Paras’ motion for reconsideration. and (3) the professional standing of the lawyer. Such enforceability is only applicable to money claims and only to dismissed judgments if there is an applicable law or pre-existing agreement between the parties (7A CJS 756). private respondents filed a motion to fix its attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit. Paras should be disbarred for violating the one-year suspension order? Ruling: There is no sufficient basis to support petitionermovant’s allegation that Atty. Garcia. (2) Whether or not a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien. three conditions are to be considered: (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy. grossly immoral conduct and violation of oath as a lawyer) by his estranged wife. METROBANK VS.R. HELD: Court holds that respondent cannot charge a lien due to the dismissal of the civil case. Appropriate proceedings may be commenced by respondent to establish attorney’s fees. Based upon subsequent dismissal of the said case.000 in which case respondents refused. inter alia. 2007. Issue: Whether or not Atty. 86100-03  FACTS: Petitioner Metrobank filed a petition for review on certiorari as appellate court affirms the decision of the trial court expressing its view that petitioner should pay the charging lien on the civil case filed against them which result into a dismissal. Court grants petition on a review for certiorari and reverses the decision of inferior courts. with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. to wit: An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment. For until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous. petitioners offered to pay P600. Atty. there will be no basis to conclude whether respondent judge is administratively liable. Petitioners aver that they have paid services of its lawyers in full but the latter contends that partial amounts forwarded to them did not consist of payment. complainant-movant filed with the SC a Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment. at the same time. Paras violated the Court’s suspension order. Borromeo. the SC denied Atty. what with the fact that Atty. Both trial court and appellate court commanded petitioner to pay the amount of P936. Ponente. In addition. No. switycake (June 7. During the pendency of Atty. grave misconduct. In a resolution. malpractice.000 based on the charging liens of the dismissed civil case against them. Paras was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Paras motion for reconsideration of his suspension. that Atty. Special Third Division) Facts: By reason of a verified Petition (alleging acts of deceit. Paras violated the suspension order earlier issued by the Court with his continued practice of law. Accordingly.ruling enunciated in In Re: Joaquin T. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien to satisfy attorney’s fees. in fixing compensation based on quantum meruit.
Complainant filed a motion to cite lawyer for contempt for his alleged delaying tactics unbecoming of a lawyer and a law dean. Atty. This is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Ladaga.000. the presiding judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances as such counsel.C. which is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price as commission. nor should it be complied with partially. Four postdated checks were subsequently issued to cover the balance. The lawyer denied the allegations and filed several motions for extension of time to file comment. It does not pertain to isolated court appearances as in this case. Nevertheless. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. he did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. the purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court to assure respect for court orders by attorneys who. ATTY. 2002 Facts: Sometime in October 1982 petitioner authorized respondent attorney to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40. A writ of execution was issued. Ladaga’s appearances as a pro bono counsel for a relative constitutes practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code. these must be respected. Ladaga for practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by law. However. 5054. This forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Despite errors which one may impute on the orders of the Court. respondent was reprimanded. Paras was reprimanded. Atty. acted as pro bono counsel for a relative in a criminal case. an RTC Branch Clerk of Court. inadequately or selectively. Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a free legal assistance to a relative and that he was on an approved leave of absence during his appearances as such counsel. Said checks however. Respondent appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fee within the required period. ISSUE: Whether Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Rule 1:01 of Canon . SOLEDAD NUÑEZ VS. but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots. are responsible for the orderly administration of justice. The imposition of this sanction in the present case would be more consistent with the avowed purpose of a disciplinary case. Moreover. All lawyers are expected to recognize the authority of the Supreme Court and obey its lawful processes and orders. Court orders are to be respected not because the justices or judges who issue them should be respected. Issue: What is the liability of the lawyer? Held: Atty. MAY 29. with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed upon him for a repetition of the same act.and noble profession. It is well to emphasize again that a resolution of the Supreme Court is not be construed as a mere request. upon presentment were dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was closed. Respondent was declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner. HELD: No. Demands to make good the checks were to no avail so a case for violation of BP 22 was filed by petitioner. ROMULO RICAFORT A. for his failure to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. NO. especially by the bar or the lawyers who are themselves officers of the courts. as much as judges. but despite complainant’s repeated demands. it appeared however that only a partial amount has been paid by the lawyer. without the previous authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the Administrative Code. Likewise. LADAGA 350 SCRA 326  FACTS: Atty. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should be customarily or habitually holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. for his failure to comply with the specific Order of the SC (for him to file his comment).
The respondent. the appellate court. IBANEZ 304 SCRA 281 FACTS: The sister-in-law of Atty. Antonio B. (2) closing of the account against which said checks were drawn. and spouses Esperanza and Ernesto Villa against Atty. dishonest. immoral. the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For this reason. Non-remittance by a public prosecutor for over one year of funds entrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.” 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. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent’s act is a valid ground for disbarment. It appears that Atty.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. “Upon appeal. the Notarial Law. can only place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. Paguirigan.remittance of SSS payments. Respondent had no intention to “honor” the money judgment against him in as can be gleaned from his (1) issuance of postdated checks. ISSUE: Whether Atty. NUNGA VS. For one. Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so.804 as payment of her SSS contribution arrears but said respondent did not remit the amount to the system. To make matters worse. Viray on the ground of gross and serious misconduct for notarizing documents when he was not commissioned to do so at the time the said documents were executed. that a party cannot presume that his motion will be . and (3) continued failure to make good the amounts of the checks. The failure to submit these pleadings could very well be fatal to the cause of the client. He faults the Supreme Court in not acting on his motion until close to the end of the 30-day period he was asking for. he again lost through default the benefit of the extension granted as he failed to file his petition for review within the extended period granted. more specifically. unlike the failure to file the appellant’s brief which may result in the dismissal of an appeal. president of the Masantol Rural Bank filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ibanez was given by the sister-in-law of Penticostes P1.” Worse. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. nonetheless. spouses Enriqueta and Tomas Rasdas. the importance of filing an appellee’s brief cannot be gainsaid. performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws. after being granted a 30-day extension of the time to file a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. It only succeeds in showing his ignorance of two basic principles: first. Complainant filed with the RTC a complaint for professional misconduct against Ibanez due to the latter’s failure to remit to the SSS her contribution and for respondent’s misappropriation of the amount. dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct”. While the failure to file the appellee’s brief in a case is not a ground for an adverse ruling against the appellee. HELD: Yes. PAGUIRIGAN March 21. Paguirigan failed to file the Appellees Brief for the complainants due to his mistaken belief that the trial court’s decision would be affirmed. GALEN VS. As has been pointed out repeatedly. not being in position to hear firsthand the testimony of parties. Pros. Penticostes was sued for non. respondent failed to file his petition for review within the extended period granted and even faulting the SC for his failure. Paguirigan is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duty. VIRAY 306 SCRA 487 FACTS: Victor Nunga. PENTICOSTES VS. 2002 FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment and damages filed by spouses Lolita and Romy Galen. HELD: Yes.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that “a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s act amounted to violation of his oath as a lawyer. or deceitful conduct. notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. HELD: Yes.
ATTY. respondent prepared Echavia’s Answer to the Amended Complaint. Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred. That as a result of such withdrawal. 2002 Facts: Artezuela filed before the Supreme Court a verified complaint for disbarment against the respondent. according to the oath he has taken. Since the counsel employed by the complainants was a former student of respondent.AL. respondent represented the sheriff. VS. which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. On August 1991. let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for hi failure to do so”. misleading the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was with her consent.granted. Respondent is thus guilty of violation of Rule 12. ISSUE: Whether or not failure to obey notices from the IBP investigators constitutes an unethical act. He withdrew as counsel without obtaining complainant’s consent. respondent asked for its postponement although all the parties were present. VILLAFLOR VS. ERLINDA ABRAGAN ET. this period would become inextendible. Rodriguez should be disbarred. She alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties her lawyer in a damage suit and failed to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm. RICARTE B. The highest form of respect to the judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes. A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but again he failed to attend the proceeding. after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings. second. The last rule is important because unless the extension from the last day of the reglementary period or the day of last extension is granted. Held: . Subsequently.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.C. SARITA 308 SCRA 129 FACTS: Complainant filed a case for disbarment against respondent before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. egged by the suggestions of respondent withdrew the case without the petitioner’s consent. and. memoranda. ATTY MAXIMO RODRIGUEZ A. the case was submitted for resolution. respondent clearly violated Rule 15. While acting as her counsel. when her case was scheduled for pre-trial conference. The said document was even printed in respondent’s office. said counsel.03 0f the Code of Professional responsibility which provides that “A lawyer shall not. The period of time alloted to answer the complaint lapsed without respondent submitting his comment. Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests. APRIL 3. 4354. As an officer of the court. NO. or briefs. An order was issued requiring the parties to attend the hearing of the case but the respondent failed to appear. Issue: Whether or not Atty. when the lawyer allegedly surreptitiously dealt with the subject property with other persons.C. In the present case. According to her. HELD: Yes. that any extension granted is always counted from the last day of the reglementary period or the last period of extension previously sought and/ or granted. It is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. Much to their surprise. After giving the respondent enough opportunity to face the charges against him. subsequent events occurred to the prejudice of the complainants. 4346. Notwithstanding complainant’s persistent and repeated follow-up. it is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity. which the latter did not avail. 2002 Facts: Sometime in 1986. the petitioner severed the lawyer – client relationship. complainants hired the services of the respondent to represent in a case before the MTCC of Cagayan de Oro City. respondent did not do anything to keep the case moving. MADERAZO A. Held: Yes.” LOLITA ARTEZUELA VS. NO. The case was won by the complainants. The Commissioner assigned to investigate the case issued an order directing respondent to file his answer or comment to the complaint. APRIL 22. Complainant further averred that it was respondent who sought the dismissal of the case. complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al.
4. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. or threaten to present unfounded criminal . UNTO February 6. Unto. He only invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty. Under Rule 18. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests. participate. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication. Ibadlit.C. the defense lawyer did not protect. IBADLIT A. 1999 302 SCRA 604 FACTS: An adverse decision was rendered by the trial court against the client of Atty. HELD: No. HELD: No. Canon 18 0f the CPR “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. the highest form of disloyalty. The records show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions against the latter. HELD: Yes. for malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. much less uphold the fundamental rights of the accused. He is guilty of representing conflicting interests prohibited by Rule 15. It was highly improper for him to have adopted such opinion since a lawyer is without authority to waive his client’s right to appeal and his failure to appeal within the prescribed period constituted negligence and malpractice. he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative cases against the complainant. ISSUE: Whether a lawyer may refuse to file an appeal on behalf of his client when in his opinion to make an appeal would be futile. In the instant case. SEVILLENO 305 SCRA 519 FACTS: The accused was charged with the crime of rape with homicide committed against a 9 year old minor. claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. competence and diligence. however. REONTOY VS.Yes. Unto’s acts constitute malpractice.01 further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present. 2002 FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. He entered the plea of guilty for the crime charged. When the prosecution rested its case. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.” PEOPLE VS.03. with impunity. It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. He must not neglect a legal matters entrusted to him. Rule 19. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. 190 Feb. nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s conflicting interests of record--although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge. When the complainant did not heed his warning. They. a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. Ibadlit’s client against him for failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. ISSUE: Whether or not the counsel de officio of the accused acted properly as defense counsel. Instead. did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client. Elpidio D. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party. An administrative complaint was later filed by Atty. they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de officio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused. CBD No. accused manifested that since his client had already pleaded guilty he would no longer present any evidence. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Saldavia of the PAO appointed as counsel de oficio for the ONG VS. Atty. He did not appeal the decision because of his opinion that to appeal would be futile.
FACTS: In 1997. And when both parties are deemed to have impliedly repudiated the contract and placed themselves in the position as though there was no express stipulation as to the attorney’s fees. Respondent’s lamentable attitude towards his client’s case is clearly evident from his apparent disinterest in his own case for disbarment. The excuse that it was due to the former counsel’s failure to turn over the records of the case shows the negligence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. for having missed the opportunities to present evidence in his favor without any satisfactory explanation as to his non-appearance. MARCH 20. ETCHA alleged that after respondent received the amount of Php 20. Therefore. It is noteworthy to point out respondent’s failure to attend any hearing of his disbarment case before the IBP without presenting any reason. on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the next scheduled hearing. is he entitled to compensation based on quantum meruit? HELD: He is not entitled to compensation neither based on the Retainer’s Agreement nor on quantum meruit. Here. Respondent promised to return the amount but after deducting therefrom a reasonable fee for the efforts exerted by him. DBP VS. the lawyer’s compensation shall be determined on the basis of quantum meruit. Counsels justified their absence due to the failure of the former counsel to turn over the records of the case despite several demands. EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. CASE No. MICHAEL DIONEDA ADM. HELD: No. However. Generally. to deserve compensation based on quantum meruit the lawyer must prove by substantial evidence that he is entitled to a reasonable fee for his efforts in pursuing his client’s case with the court taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of his fees. he did nothing for the development of the case and to update the complaint-in-intervention. complainant ETCHA and respondent entered into a Retainer’s Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant against LVF Realty. More demands are not sufficient. ETCHA then demanded the return of the amount received by respondent since he did nothing to protect the interest of the complainant. It appears however that respondent. such reason necessitates a duty and obligation. Mr.charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. ISSUE: Whether or not the absences of counsels are justified under the circumstances. 5162. He averred that the agreement also included an earlier case with the HLURB where he was able to obtain a favorable judgment for the complainant. Tinsay and BPI Family Savings Bank by way of filing a complaint – in – intervention. Bulacan from commencing the foreclosure proceedings on CCC’s mortgage. 2003. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is entitled to compensation based on the Retainer’s Agreement? If not. CA 302 SCRA 362 FACTS: The DBP filed with the office of the sheriff of Malolos an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of real and personal properties involving several real and or chattel mortgage executed by the Continental Cement Corporation (CCC). Counsel should have taken adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his . he should be denied compensation based on quantum meruit due to the lack of any factual basis to determine the value of his work as complainant’s counsel. Atty. 000. the Supreme Court considered the demand of ETCHA for the refund of the entire amount received as attorney’s fees and the counter – proposal of respondent to deduct reasonable fees for the efforts exerted by him as implied repudiation of the contract by both parties. The withdrawal of previous counsel in the thick of the proceedings would be a reasonable ground to seek postponement of the hearing. A hearing was scheduled for the sole purpose of examining three of CCC’s witnesses but their counsels were not present. failed to attend any hearing with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline tasked to hear this administrative complaint. a valid written agreement fixing attorney’s fees is conclusive as between the parties. for one reason or another. The CCC filed a complaint with the RTC to principally sought to enjoin the DPB and sheriff of Malolos. However.
Forthwith. is it based upon a good cause? No.client. (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get along to the detriment of the case. Respondent explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. (g) other similar cases”. Subsequently. respondent did not file an application with the court for it to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw. Section 15 of the Rules of Court. Issue: Whether or not a lawyer is excused from his duty to represent his client if said client refuses to give his consent to the lawyer’s motion to withdraw his appearance. (f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office. Respondent however failed to attend the bail hearing scheduled in August 1991.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: ”A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in the following instances: (a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case. shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. this complaint. He alleged that respondent judge. JUDGE RODOLFO M. the hearings in the criminal case continued. GASPAR A. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent process and proceedings that have transferred prior to his takeover. 3773 . APRIL 3. Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that "there no longer exist[ed] the . Complainant is the private prosecutor in the abovementioned criminal case. The application for withdrawal must be based on a good cause. ATTY. The court. Nueva Ecija. Rule 22." This circumstance is neither one of the foregoing instances nor can it be said that it is analogous thereof. set the continuation of the hearing for the reception of defense evidence. . RTJ-00-1607. It was at this nearing that the court. 1997 Facts: Orcino engaged the services of Atty. DANIEL O. Hence. (d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case effectively. Complainant. ORCINO vs. Respondent said that her suspicions were based on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her relatives. over complainant's objections. respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel" but it did not bear the consent of complainant. the lawyer must file an application with the court.M. Stung by her words. confidence" between them and that there had been "serious differences between them relating to the manner of private prosecution. Complainant contends that the demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court . Domingo. Held: No. however. . SERRANO A.C. ATTY. respondent entered into his duties and performed them religiously from the preliminary investigation with the office of the prosecutor until the case was thereafter filed with the RTC of Baloc. granted bail to all the accused. Complainant was thus compelled to engage the services of another lawyer. in disregard of Rule 119. rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. The court issued an order directing respondent to secure complainant's consent to the motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent. 2002 Facts: A complaint was filed against respondent judge in connection with a criminal case for Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder pending in his sala. Complainant became belligerent and started accusing him of jeopardizing the case by his absence. after denying the accused’s demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court. complainant immediately went to respondent's residence and confronted him with his absence. ANGELITA C. Respondent did not appear at the hearings nor did he contact complainant. continued accusing him belligerently. After the hearing. NO. She asked for the records of the case saying that she could refer them to another lawyer. Complainant paid respondent his fees as stipulated. No. Corollary issue: Granting that the Motion to withdraw appearance filed by respondent is sufficient as to form. Sto. In the instant case. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several suspects in the slaying of her husband." Complainant refused to sign her conformity to respondent's withdrawal. Meanwhile. OSUMO VS. on notice to the client and adverse party. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. (b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. respondent gave her the records. September 24. Should the client refuse to give his consent. (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon.
however. anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it. DECIEMBRE A. He alleged further that: it was complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15. the amount of P20.000.amounted to a waiver of the right to present evidence upon denial thereof. to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11.00. Observance of the law which he is bound to know and swore to uphold is required of every judge. borrowed from Rodela Loans. Blg. Thereafter. The rule is clear that upon the denial of the demurrer to evidence in this case.000. 47256 to 47266. 2000 and January 20. ATTY.P.000.00. complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13.00. The filing of the demurrer to evidence without leave of court and its subsequent denial results in the submission of the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence on record.) 22 against complainant. Considering that the governing rules on demurrer to evidence is a fundamental component of criminal procedure. a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila.00 each and with the dates January 15. In short. No.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount. the October 13. which was however denied. Issue: Is the judge liable for gross ignorance of law? Held: Yes. 1999 to October 15. secured by 12 blank checks. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates.. interests and other charges. 1999 in the amount of P16. she made remittances. blank checks issued to him as condition for loans. Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a lawyer. respondent judge had the obligation to observe the same. 22 case against the former. Victor Deciembre. he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. 2000 respectively. and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 47253 filled up by him on March 30. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100. It is not for him to grant concessions to the accused who failed to obtain prior leave of court. the prosecution filed a motion to submit the case for judgment. through respondent Atty. EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. thereby paying respondent the total sum of P35. procedural rules should not prevail over the right of the accused to be heard. with numbers 47253.000. not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank. 1999 transaction involving P100.C.00 payable in six months at 20% interest. When the law is sufficiently basic. 1999. 2693 was charged with the heinous crime of Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder. respondent judge failed to resolve the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence. Thus. (B. the accused in Criminal Case No. 1999. shall waive the right to present evidence in his behalf.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason “account closed”. 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction.690.910. which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100. complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B. drawn against the Postal Bank. 1999. 1999 in the total sum of P12. complainant made good said check and respondent was able to encash the same on March 30.000. Moreover. Hence. 2009 (en banc) **Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of law. 1998 to March 15. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of P50. Blg. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties. 5338 February 23.000. VICTOR V. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court.P. Complainant Augenia Mendoza. Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling up. respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No. arguing that while a demurrer to evidence without prior leave of court amounted to a waiver of the right to present evidence. without authorization. when the law is so elementary. Respondent judge filed his Comment. who failed to ask for leave of court. Check Nos. complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a FACTS: . Inc. the accused. regardless of the gravity of the offense charged.00 cash that complainant received on November 15.
Such acts manifest respondent's perversity of character. respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 7181 February 6. While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. A high sense of morality. the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. immoral or deceitful conduct.03. there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity. honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar. MARIA ANGALAN. and if he really intended to defraud complainant. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. They must conduct themselves with great propriety. it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks. since she was able to maintain several checking accounts. ATTY. from liability. . with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. Indeed. the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of disbarment. then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious amounts. dishonest. 2009 (en banc) FACTS: In April 1971. Specifically. the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature thereto. falsifying commercial documents for his material gain. and continue to possess. and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law. vs. and that she was a mere low-salaried employee. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.complete lie. the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. First. to wit: * CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Rule 1. Rule 7. As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases. CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.000. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. DELANTE AC No. he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only P50.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. ISSUE: whether or not Atty. the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court. meriting his severance from the legal profession. whether in public or private life. LEONIDO C. the severance of his privilege to practice law for life is in order. The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent. As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. herein complainants mortgaged 8.00. This is because in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Indeed. as a lawyer.102 . respondent's offenses are manifold. et al. HELD: The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess. nor should he.01. In this case. and then he uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of the legal profession. he demands excessive payments from his borrowers. and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.
Delante refused.000. (2. Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense. Respondent should have held in trust TCT No. Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. and (3) referred to complainants’ charges as malicious and untruthful.” 2. Hence.000 representing full payment of his professional fees from the complainants. In April 2007. possessed the property and gathered its produce. On April 30. restitution. but because complainants were illiterates. Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court states that. A motion to withdraw the complaint for . Atty. Complainants engaged the services of respondent in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and confidence complainants reposed in him. Canon 16 states that lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession.000. Respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Leonido Delante in November 1971 as shown in the receipt by respondent of P12. settlement. complainants filed with the RTC of Davao a complaint for (1) nullification of the deed of absolute sale. an amicable settlement was entered into between complainants and the Eustaquios which stipulated that the complainants would repurchase the lot at P30. When the complainants tried to repay the money and recover the property. The Eustaquios prepared a document and sked the complainants to sign it. It turned out that the document was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. Atty. and on December 28. 9926 was issued in the name of Navarro Eustaquio. respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name. compromise. Accordingly. they affixed their marks instead. HELD: 1. respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property to his name. The Court finds Atty. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court for gross misconduct. “No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance. Instead of protecting the interests of complainants. Complainants learned that Delante transferred the title of the property to his name as evidenced by TCT No. 2004.hectares of their property to the Eustaquio espouses in consideration of a loan in the amount of P15. disbarment and an affidavit of desistance is immaterial. But since the complainants did not have the money.) whether or not respondent committed grave violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he bought the property of his clients without their consent and against their will. or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. TCT No. 2005 charged respondent with gross violation of the Code Professional Responsibilty. T-57932. T9926 and returned the property to complainants upon demand. the Court finds the recommended penalty too light.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer.) whether or not a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance terminates the disbarment proceeding. Thereafter. A person who takes the 8. Section 5. withdrawal of charges. Leonido C. Section 27. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them. complainants filed with the Court a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. Delante advanced the money to complainants. (2) refused to return the property to complainants. Instead of holding in trust the property of complainants. Violation of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross misconduct. T57932. and (2) nullification of TCT No. the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law and ISSUES: (1.
.ORDERS that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.