RECENT RULINGS RE LEGAL ETHICS Capili v.

Bentulan (2013) Attorney; the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In Dalisay Capili v. Atty. Alfredo L. Bentulan , the Court held that the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In this case, the Court cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case records. In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan s control and is a tas! that the lawyer underta!es. Second, Atty. San Juan, unli!e his client, !nows or should have !nown, that filing an appellant s brief within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal. "he preparation and the filing of the appellant s brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the perfection of his client s appeal. "hird, Atty. San Juan lac!ed candor in dealing with his client. #e omitted to inform "omas of the progress of his appeal with the Court of Appeals. $orse, he did not disclose to "omas the real reason for the Court of Appeal s dismissal of the appeal. %either did Atty. San Juan file a motion for reconsideration, or otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client s interest.
Teno o v. E!"ave# (2013)

Attorney; practice of law; notary. "he practice of law is imbued with public interest and &a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and ta!es part in one of the most important functions of the State ' the administration of (ustice ' as an officer of the court.) Accordingly, *)lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.) Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. &%otari+ation is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notari+ation converts a private document to a public instrument, ma!ing it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.) In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party,litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. -espondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility. /vidently, respondent s conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing re0uired from lawyers. "hus, he should be sanctioned. Efigenia M. Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez. A.C. %o. 1213. April 44, 5642 Attorney; a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthori+ed practice of law. Atty. 7ancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the 8ffice of the 8mbudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. #e li!ewise categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against "apay and -ustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance. Clearly, he violated -ule 9.64 of Canon 9 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility :C.-;, which provides< CA%8% 9 ' A =A$>/- S#A== %8", ?I-/C"=> 8- I%?I-/C"=>, ASSIS" I% "#/ @%A@"#8-IA/? .-AC"IC/ 8B =A$.

C. "hus. March *() (&*+.C. 3loria -. Manuel M. Charlie Bancolo and !anus !arder" A. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter s rights. Atty. Atty. the court and society. on its face. "he Court reiterated its ruling in Del Mundo v. to the best of his !nowledge. it even re0uired the respondents to file their respective Answers. and :2. after a (udicious study of the records. she was not allowed to file a -eply and :5.0) the Court. Terrorism v. :5. Atty. Complainant claims he was denied due process because :4. dismissed the same outright for utter lac! of merit. he has read the pleading. 7ased on the Complaint and the supporting affidavits attached thereto. Lazaro) et al. lac!s merit. the Court has the discretion either to proceed with the case by first re0uiring the parties to file their respective responsive pleadings or to dismiss the same outright. odrigo E.-. Chief !ustice Davide) !r. demonstrating not only his irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the (udiciary and his fellow lawyers.nternational Militia of -eople against Corruption . "he Supreme Court has the power to outrightly dismiss a Complaint for disbarment when on its face. in . Attys. after finding the Complaint insufficient in form and substance. the Court deviated from usual procedure when it resolved the disbarment Complaint without first declaring the case to have been submitted for resolution. Such conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court. $(2$. odica v. Capistrano that &when a lawyer ta!es a client s cause. =i!ewise. !iz" A. Burther. outright dismissal is warranted if the complaint. 7acolo was meted with the penalty the suspension from the practice of law for one year. a counsel s signature serves as a certification that :4. ustia v. !asper !unno 1. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer. duty to exercise due diligence. Attorney. Tapay and Anthony !.64 of the C. the Court did not dismiss outright the disbarment Complaint. As a member of the bar. the Court found that the presumption of innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome. March (&) (&*+. he may not delegate it to a non. it proceeded to resolve the same although not in complainant s favor. the Court can proceed to resolve the case without need of informing the parties that the case is already submitted for resolution. he ought to have !nown that the orders of the C7? as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers were not mere re0uests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely." A. it is not interposed for delay. Coreover. $%&'.lawyer. the Court no longer re0uired complainant to file a -eply since it has the discretion not to re0uire the filing of the same when it can already (udiciously resolve the case based on the pleadings thus far submitted. by affixing one s signature to a pleading. disbarment complaint. Bailure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family ma!es the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and ma!es him answerable not (ust to client but also to the legal profession. "hus. and the respective Comments of the respondents. it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. $%*2. under the -ules of Court. Attorney. / et.) -espondent s infractions were aggravated by his failure to comply with C7? s directives for him to file his pleadings on time and to religiously attend hearings. "hen. ?epending on the merits of the case. In fact. not all petitions or complaints reach the reply or memorandum stage. March 2) (&*+. #o. !inon v. And contrary to complainant s mista!en notion. #o. Bor resolution is the Cotion for -econsideration filed by the complainant upon the dismissal of the Complaint for disbarment he instituted against the respondent lawyers. #o. it is clearly wanting in merit.-ule 9. .64 ' A lawyer shall not delegate to any un0ualified person the performance of any tas! which by law may only be performed by a member of the 7ar in good standing. 7ancolo s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. information and belief there is good ground to support it.C. Bor violating rule 9. Leonardo E. Atty. In the instant case.

imposable penalty. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. Court personnel. Section D. "he Court held in Dhali4al v. despite latter s demand. osa9ella M. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. MT!:*(:*. as found by the 8CA. Cr. Atty. eynaldo S. In the ?atan case. Court personnel. duty to hold in trust money received from client. Court personnel. of each order or (udgment entered. simple neglect of duty. 3eneral doc5et. #o. such as for the processing of transfer of land title. ' "he (udgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any (udge of the court in which it was rendered. 3loria -. MT!:*(:*. Cr. #o. simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penali+ed with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Coney entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose. It is his duty to calendar the case for promulgation in accordance with the -ules of Court. Leonardo E. and shall enter therein all cases.M.M. if the conviction is for a light offense.Attorney. thus< Sec. As such. he failed to comply with his duty under Section 1. "eves past administrative cases. 8on. -ule 456 of the -ules of Court states that< Sec. numbered consecutively in the order in which they were received. !iz" A. March 2) (&*+. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. the date of each paper filed or issued. the (udgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. Cr. . Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. 1. March *() (&*+. a complete title thereof. and of each other step ta!en in the case so that by reference a single page the history of the case may be seen.*. "eves was held liable for simple neglect of duty.*. simple neglect of duty.romulgation of (udgment.) @nder the -evised @niform -ules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. $hen the (udge is absent or outside the province or city. 7ranch cler! of court Cr. each page of which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all the entries in a single case. Dumaguing that a lawyer s failure to return the funds he holds on behalf of a client. $ith this infraction. 8on. (ust gave the accused a copy of the unpromulgated decision at the time when the presiding (udge was serving her suspension. the (udgment may be promulgated by the cler! of court x x x. -ather. -ule 42D of the -ules of Court. 6 "he cler! shall !eep a general doc!et. and under the heading of each case. Cr. should be returned to the client immediately. !inon v. #e did not only fail to do so. in fact. but not used for the purpose.. failure of branch cler! of court to schedule the promulgation of cases. the Court loo!ed into Cr. Cr. "eves. #e has remained undeterred in disregarding the law and he appears to be unfa+ed by the previous penalties and warnings he received. #owever. "eves still has not reformed. he. D. "eves admitted that he failed to !eep and maintain a general doc!et of cases assigned to their branch. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the &failure of an employee to give one s attention to a tas! expected of him. gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use and constitutes a gross violation of general morality and professional ethics. $%*2. In the determination of the proper penalty. osa9ella M. Clearly. "eves repeated infractions seriously compromise efficiency and . and dismissal for the second. failure of branch cler! of court to !eep and maintain a general doc!et. and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr.C. March *() (&*+. Considering his past infractions and having been warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.. instead of scheduling the case for promulgation. "eves is guilty of simple neglect of duty. served copies of the decision to the accused without the (udgment having been promulgated first. simple neglect of duty. #o.

. "eves as the 7ranch Cler! of Court. and dis0ualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office. #o. as amended by A.owned or controlled corporations. forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine. MT!:*(:*.rovided. In determining the proper imposable penalty. -ule 436 of the same -ules by< :4. MT!:*(:*. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. duty to adopt an efficient system to monitor the status of cases. when the law is so elementary.*. Coreover. including government. March *() (&*+. @nder -ule 436 of the -ules of Court. %o. however. we also consider Judge "ormis wor! history which reflects how she performed her (udicial functions. Although the duty is vested with Cr. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v.*. violation of Supreme Court rules. ?ismissal from the service. gross ignorance of the law is classified as serious charge under Section 1.SC dated September 44.M. osa9ella M. 8on.affidavits and other countervailing evidence.hamper public service which the Court can no longer tolerate. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. March *() (&*+. but not exceeding .66. a fine of more than . or :b. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v.C. March *() (&*+..M. if any. including government. not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judge "ormis is guilty of violating Supreme Court rules. except accrued leave credits. 5664. or :2. $hen the law is sufficiently basic. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. months.66 but not exceeding . gross ignorance of the law. Judge "ormis issued the warrant of arrest in violation of the -ule on Summary . and circulars for her failure to comply with her duty to provide an efficient court management system in her court which includes the preparation and use of doc!et inventory and monthly report of cases as tools thereof. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. with pre(udice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. that the forfeiture of benefits shall. MT!:*(: *.*.66. "he 8CA also found that Cr. Binally. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. it is the duty of Judge "ormis to ma!e sure that the members of her staff perform their duties. a fine of more than . /very (udge is re0uired to observe the law.56.666. osa9ella M. #o. directives and circulars. $e find that there are several . a (udge owes it to his office to simply apply it. include accrued leave credits. gross ignorance of the law. "eves repeatedly submitted inaccurate reports as to the actual number of cases pending with their court.. It finds application in a substantial number of civil and criminal cases.46. directives.36. eynaldo S. "his is brought about by their failure to adopt an efficient system of monitoring their cases.owned or controlled corporations. :5. 4994. 8on. when the law is sufficiently basic.1.rocedure has been in effect since %ovember 4E. imposable penalties. #o. Again. 8on. "he 8CA found that the court failed to maintain a general doc!et boo! to !eep trac! of the cases under it. he was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges.66. Judges. 64. -ule 436 of the -evised -ules of Court. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short. and gross inefficiency are categori+ed as less serious charges with the following sanctions< :a.666. and penali+ed under Section 44 :a. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three :2.56. the 8CA noted that Judge "ormis failed to conduct an actual physical inventory of cases to !eep abreast of the status of the pending cases and to be informed that every case is in proper order. .666. As such. osa9ella M. gross inefficiency.. "he -evised -ules on Summary . this is the primary responsibility of Judge "ormis. but not exceeding six :D.. Judge "ormis cannot claim to be unfamiliar with the same. suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months.46. not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. in no case. Judges.M. eynaldo S.rocedure that the accused should first be notified of the charges against him and given the opportunity to file his counter. Judges. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.666.

MT!:*(: *. #o. 1uentes) TC) Br. other analogous circumstances. v. 8on. T!:*(:(+*. v. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A. T!:*(:(+*. :5. Sps. MT!:*(:*.M. the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. #o. "hese cases show her inability to properly discharge her (udicial duties. which led to travel fatigue and poor health. March %) (&*+. Lazaro) et al. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A. @nreasonable delay of a (udge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of (udicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. except accrued leave credits. Judges. March %) (&*+. !udge 1ernando 3. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. will not absolve him from liability.owned or controlled corporations. '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr.administrative cases already filed against her. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v.) Complainant s mere imputation that the case was decided by the magistrates of the Court with extreme bias and pre(udice is baseless and clearly unfounded. administrative sanctions. if any. and with reasonable promptness. !asper !unno 1.M. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. 1uentes) TC) Br. $ithout an extension granted by the Court. motion to inhibit. dela 1uente . '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr. Section E. $(2$. 1uentes) TC) Br. #o. his fre0uent travels to his residence in 8+amis City. 1uentes) TC) Br. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. As held in Sps. "he mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate. T!:*+: (+'( < A. "he Court li!ewise too! into consideration the fact that the respondent (udge exerted earnest efforts to fully comply with the Court s directives as contained in the resolution. :3. Corollary to this constitutional mandate." A. #o. undue delay in deciding cases. !udge 1ernando 3. !udge 1ernando 3. eynaldo S. In this case. Judge Buentes III concedes that there is no valid (ustification for the delay in resolving the cases pending in his court. Considering her past infractions and ta!ing into account the number of irregularities she committed in this present case) Judge "ormis was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges.C. 8izon v.. 1uentes) TC) Br. March *() (&*+. grounds. with pre(udice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.*.M. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. for good reasons. fairly.. #o.. . including government.M. @nder the 491F Constitution. but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved.hilippine Judiciary re0uires (udges to perform all (udicial duties efficiently. the fine was reduced considering that this was the first infraction of Judge Buentes III in his more than 4E years in the service. osa9ella M. v. depending on the following factors< :4. trial (udges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 96 days from submission for decision or resolution. #o. '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr. #o. March *() (&*+" 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. the health and age of the (udge. March %) (&*+. 8on. warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting (udge. eynaldo S.. T!:*(:(+*. If a (udge is unable to comply with the period for deciding cases or matters. the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay. Judges. Indeed. "he honor and integrity of the (udicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered. the number of cases not decided within the reglamentary period.. !udge 1ernando 3. undue delay in deciding cases. !udge 1ernando 3. the failure to decide even a single case within the re0uired period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. "he fines imposed vary in each case. osa9ella M. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. T!:*+:(+'( < A. Manuel M.day period constitutes gross inefficiency. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. &an inhibition must be for (ust and valid reason. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A. #o. and :E. Judges. March *() (&*+. odica v. with most of these cases being decided against her. as! for an extension.M.*.M. #o. T!:*+:(+'( < A. Canon D of the %ew Code of Judicial Conduct for the . Atty. !udge 1ernando 3. :2. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. he can. 1uentes) TC) Br.M. An inexcusable failure to decide a case within the prescribed 96.M.

Judge Grageda s retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office. -ecords reveal.. Any conduct that tends to delay. Accordingly. #e also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of (ustice. eynaldo S. .M. be allowed to use the same to (ustify another violation of her solemn oath to dispense (ustice. "hus. osa9ella M.C. for it to ac0uire (urisdiction over an administrative proceeding. Attorney.. 5642 Attorney. once (urisdiction has attached. Anastacio #. the court sub(ected Atty. !esus L. A. Gon+ales violated Canon 4 of the Code of . Atty. undue delay in deciding cases. She cannot. impede or obstruct the administration of (ustice contravenes this obligation. several of the cases that she failed to dispose of had been overdue for decision or resolution even prior to said suspensions. "he Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since the practice clogs the Court doc!ets and can lead to conflicting rulings. Teodoro . /ven if she was allowed to avail of this excuse. T!: *&:((+2. and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. #o. based on the result of a (udicial audit conducted after his retirement. therefore. "he court held that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping.rofessional -esponsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. $illful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court.M. According to the Supreme Court. the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee.. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. DFD6. that Judge "ormis was repeatedly suspended in cases wherein she committed a breach of her duty as a member of the 7ench. forum shopping as contempt of court. A disbarment complaint against Atty. #owever. Gon+ales was filed for violating the Code of . #o. 3onzales. of any (urisdiction to still sub(ect him to the rules and regulations of the (udiciary andHor to penali+e him for the infractions committed while he was still in the service. $hile it was his legal staff who allowed the complainant to borrow the "C"s and it does not appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the "C"s. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. the court still held the respondent liable. -espondent (udge claimed that the delay was the conse0uence of the three suspension orders issued against her as she was suspended for an aggregate period of almost one year and six months.. Atty. as aptly observed by the 8CA. January 26. =awyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of (ustice. %o.rofessional -esponsibility for the forum shopping he allegedly committed.Judges. the complaint against retired Judge Grageda was dismissed. Gacott who allegedly deceived the complainant and her husband into signing a &preparatory) ?eed of Sale that respondent converted into a ?eed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives. vs. the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. In engaging in forum shopping. Gon+ales to censure.) Allowing a party to ta!e the original "C"s of properties owned by another ' an act that could result in damage ' should merit a finding of legal malpractice. March *() (&*+. and divested the Court. neglect. omeo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A. MT!:*(:*. as the "C"s were entrusted to his care and custody. "his is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service. An administrative matter was instituted against Judge Grageda. however. March **) (&*+. he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his client s properties that were in his custody. much less the 8ffice of the Court Administrator :8CA. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. 8on. Jurisdiction of the Court over administrative proceedings. "he respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 4D is to &hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. 3rageda" A.*. suspension from office is not a (ustification for the delay. In present case.

3lenn Carlos 3acott. Arcing and Cresing Bautista) et al. "he Code of . Cefra failed to live up to these standards as shown by the following< :4. #e failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal. D3FE. Cefra was guilty of negligence in handling the complainants case. -ule 41. Cefra failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal. "here must be a showing of promise :such as intellectual aptitude. guidelines in resolving re0uests for (udicial clemency.) Atty. (udges or (udges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity.62 of the Code of . "he court held that Atty.) It further states that &a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.rofessional -esponsibility and -ules 421 and429 of the -ules of Court.62 re0uires that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Cefra s lac! of diligence and inattention to his duties as a lawyer warrant disciplinary sanction.reformation. learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant s!ills. Cefra failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence within the period given by the -"C. or avail of any remedial measure to contest the -"C s decision.) Sps.C. reinstatement in the -oll of Attorneys. 5642 Attorney. In e> Letter of !udge Augustus C.C. the court held that a lawyer s failure to file a position paper was per se a violation of -ule 41. Atty. :c. the respondent clearly failed in his duty to his client when. 7rtiz. including honesty. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. "hus. "he court has repeatedly held that &ItJhe practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the legal 0ualifications for it. In Canoy v. #is acts in the present administrative case also reveal his lac! of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. he failed to file the Cotion for =eave to Intervene on behalf of the spouses >laya.rofessional -esponsibility. #e failed to comply with the two orders of the -"C directing him to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence.Coreover. :2. vs. A.hilippines. Canon 41. in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of . "hey must perform their fourfold duty to society. Atty. good moral character re0uirement. lac! of diligence. the courts and their clients. the above acts showing Atty. as well as potential for public service. Similar to Canoy. EE26. Complainant filed a case for disbarment against Atty. the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving re0uests for (udicial clemency.rofessional -esponsibility. "here must be proof of remorse and reformation. %o.) In addition. or chapter:s. =awyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality. of the Integrated 7ar of the . Atty. "he age of the person as!ing for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. January 26. :3. =laya vs. . or avail of any remedial measure to contest the -"C s decision which was adverse to complainants. Attorney. a lawyer has the duty to &!eep the client informed of the status of his case. %o. Diaz) Metropolitan Trial Court of ?uezon City) Branch +@) Appealing for Clemency. A subse0uent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non. integrity and fair dealing. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.rofessional -esponsibility mandates that &a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. $hat amounts to carelessness or negligence in a lawyer s discharge of his duty to his client is incapable of an exact formulation. 5642. January 51. "hese shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer:s. the legal profession. to wit< :a. but the Court has consistently held that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. :d. without any explanation. :5. Arturo Cefra A. Atty. :b.. Cefra for violating Canon 41 of the Code of . 1e A.

respondent returned to his hometown in /nrile.time instructor at the @niversity of Cagayan Kalley and B. Cler!s of Court are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs. the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant "eves and a third marriage with one Constantino while his first marriage to /spar+a was still subsisting. and his fourteen :43. Macaru99o. In this case. Brom the attestations and certifications presented. which office he continues to serve to date. the court held that -espondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and ac!nowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. #e is also observed to be a regular churchgoer. 1lorence Teves Macaru99o vs. to be reinstated to the practice of law. refusal to perform duty. Cagayan and thereafter. 8mbudsman Graft Investigation 8fficer.Charge in the Assessor s 8ffice. Kargas College during the School >ear 5644. #ence. he still has productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society. Culture and Sports. years of dedicated government service from 491D to July 5666 as =egal 8fficer of the ?epartment of /ducation. :5. $hile the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers.=. civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need. as in fact. After his disbarment. he was appointed as . satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character. "hus. and giving certified copies of records upon re0uest. In 5669. Affidavit of -oberto ?. he is a part. In a previous ?ecision. entering (udgments and orders.5645. #e sends regular support to his children in compliance with the ?ecision dated Bebruary 5F. according to the court.rosecutor of the ?epartment of Justice. 5642 Court personnel. "hese acts. Affidavit of Candida .:e. Coreover.rivate Secretary to the Cayor of /nrile. the applicant must. issuing processes. the court reinstated respondent to the practice of law. -amire+. Cagayan Chapter and by his former and present colleagues.. respondent s plea for reinstatement is duly supported by the I7. Coreover. Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission. the Court finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. Section 4. and strict compliance with the rules and the law are continuing re0uirements. assumed the position of =ocal Assessment 8perations 8fficer IIH8ffice.C. -espondent li!ewise too! an active part in socio. #e was. Canon IK of the Code of Conduct for Court . long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred and recogni+es his achievement as the first lawyer product of =emu %ational #igh School. constituted gross immoral conduct. A. Macaru99o" e> -etition /for EAtraordinary Mercy0 of Edmundo L. "allud. and State . #is parish priest certified that he is faithful to and puts to actual practice the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Cabborang. At E1 years of age. %o. :3. li!e any other candidate for admission to the bar.. 5663. Certification from the Cunicipal =ocal Government 8ffice. "here must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may (ustify clemency. Certain documents also attest to -espondent s reformed ways such as< :4.In. :2. moral uprightness. reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence to the rigid standards of intellect. Edmundo L. D431. no opposition to the instant suit was tendered by complainant "eves. As such. #e has as!ed forgiveness from his children by complainant "eves and maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown by the herein attached pictures. Atty. Affidavit of -eymar . they cannot be allowed to slac!en on their wor! since they are charged with the duty of !eeping the records and the seal of the court.. however. "he Court notes the eight :1. Burthermore.ersonnel en(oins court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence at all times. -espondent has already settled his previous marital s0uabbles. Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and ta!ing care of his ailing mother until her death in 5661. January 55. they are . concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways as in this case.

January F. misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer. -"J. Bueser) et al. gross ignorance of law. 45. constituting an implied admission of the charges.. despite orders from the -"C. dishonesty or hatred. but should instead be assailed through available (udicial remedies.serving claim. 5642 Judge.expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions to help ensure that the cause of (ustice is done without delay. custody. "hus. Cisconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior. "o constitute an administrative offense. is not permanent. disciplinary proceedings against (udges. "he complaint states that respondent (udge. manifest partiality and dereliction and neglect of duty.) TC) Branch (') Ce9u City . Sarmiento) !r. or attended by fraud or corruption. %o. other than ACA=I s bare and self. %o. via his Carch 4E. warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. cannot be pursued simultaneously with the (udicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by their erroneous orders or (udgments. granted. failing which.C. Eva 3. As an officer of the court. e> Berified complaint of AMA Land) . even if previously granted by a competent court in favor of a parent. Judge Sarmiento. %either was bias as well as partiality established. "he ?ecision adverted to refers to the (udgment on compromise agreement. Mariano T. . Jr. respondent un(ustifiably failed to issue the alias writs of execution to implement the (udgment in a Civil Case. !udge 7legario . /ven if the CA decision or portions thereof turn out to be erroneous. 5644 8rder. if any. 3eoffrey Bec5ett vs. she failed to file the re0uired comment in disregard of the duty of every employee in the (udiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay.565. In the same vein. was charged with gross ignorance of the law.45.2696. the presumption that the respondent (udge has regularly performed his duties shall prevail. no act clearly indicative of bias and partiality was alleged except for the claim that respondent CA Justices misapplied the law and (urisprudence. A. 8CA I. Such act evinces lac! of interest in clearing her name. misconduct.45.C. provisional custody over Geoffrey.designated duties as cler! of court.bound to use reasonable s!ill and diligence in the performance of her officially. 7ng vs. Basiya:Saratan) Cler5 of Court) TC) Br. Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a (udge presupposes an appalling lac! of familiarity with simple rules of law or procedures and well.C.I %o. bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the (udgment or order is adverse to a party. Coreover. . in arbitrary defiance of his own September 5E. custody. In grave misconduct. administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith.525D. A. which were not sufficiently shown to exist in this case. the elements of corruption. established (urisprudence which tends to erode the public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he personifies. -espondent (udge cannot be held guilty of the charges hurled by the complainant against him since there is no finding of strong reasons to rule otherwise. respondent Cler! of Court was duty. %o. Jr s. thus. "he court held that the (udge did not commit gross ignorance of the law. against 8on. Acts or conduct of the (udge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or pre(udice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.loilo City . clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established. A. Coreover. as distinguished from simple misconduct. committed by a (udge in the exercise of his ad(udicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings. January 4E. Danton ?. 5642 Judge. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that errors. presumption of regularity. January 26.J.nc. ?isciplinary proceedings against (udges do not complement.CA. to /ltesa. Jr. #ere. +() . 5642 Judge. In this case. "he preference of a child over F years of age as to whom he desired to live with shall be respected. 566D ?ecision which constitutes res (udicata or a bar to him to pass upon the issue of Geoffrey. supplement or substitute (udicial remedies and.

there was no evidence presented that she has met the prescribed 0ualification standard for the position.S7.A lawyer shall !eep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others !ept by him. is in the best position to observe the fitness.65. Since there is no proof that respondent (udge abused her position.I %o. Atty. MagtagDo9 vs.) et al.rofessional -esponsibility provides< Canon 4D. 5645. Careen -. Dhali4al vs. civil service eligibility. should be immediately returned. Such attitude should not be tolerated. 8CA I.A8. however. -espondent (udge should. It is not an entitlement that she can claim simply for the reason that she had been in the service for almost two years. honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. January 4D. 7or(a :officer. no abuse of authority when (udge did not renew a temporary appointment. Attorney.C. "he Court cited the case of In -e< Sotto and ruled that &8ne of the 0ualifications re0uired of a candidate for .) -espondent (udge. 44. Complainant. !udge 3enie 3. A lawyer s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. January 4E. training. -ule 4D.-"J.A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. physical health and attitude that the (ob re0uires. the actions of the Sandiganbayan Justices respecting the execution of the final (udgment against accused Kelasco were shown to be in respectful deference to the Court s action on the various petitions filed by the former. 46. a former Court Stenographer III at the -"C. who is the immediate supervisor of complainant. the case against her should be dismissed. Billaruz) !r.A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. Belasco against Associate !ustices 1rancisco 8. "he Code of . clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the rules as to hold the Sandiganbayan Justices administratively liable for grave misconduct. &Such standard is a mix of the formal education. 9296. -ule 4D. A.in.In this case. "he purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of (ustice by re0uiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent. (udges will be placed in hostage situations by employees who will threaten to file complaints whenever they do not get their way with their (udges. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. August 4. 3apas:Ag9ada.2D24. propriety and efficiency of the employee for the position.5E. 8ther than her allegation that she was given two &very satisfactory) and one &satisfactory) rating. -ule 4D. A. Emilia 7. failed to show any proof that she was entitled to a permanent position. -ecords are bereft of evidence showing any trace of corruption. %o. be reminded to be circumspect in her actuations so as not to give the impression that she is guilty of favoritism. 5642 Judge. failure to account for money. e> Complaint of Leonardo A. 8CA I. %o. experience.J.charge of the .I %o. Coney entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose.Kirac. It should be impressed upon complainant that her appointment in the Judiciary is not a vested right.C. 8therwise. "he subse0uent filing of complaint against Atty. grave misconduct and dishonesty. manifests complainant s propensity to file complaints whenever she does not get what she wants. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. 5642 Attorney. Dumaguing.62. A9elardo B.64.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity. August 43.) Engr. =awyers may. whether documented or not. without being guilty of professional misconduct. "he settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. -ule 4E. 96F3. It would simply be impossible for the lawyer to identify and erase such entrusted !nowledge with faultless precision or loc! the same into an iron box when suing the former client on behalf of a new one.fold duty to society. and. dishonest. honesty. 3race M. as guardian of the interests of society. morality.) "he Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law. he disregards the rule of professional ethics re0uired to be observed by every attorney. Attorney. A. to wit< :4. legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. the legal profession. grossly immoral conduct. 5645 . 5645.3il9ert Tum9o5on vs.64 of the Code of . As such. -ule 4. Canon 4E. 7ecause of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship. immoral or deceitful conduct. respondent may either be disbarred or suspended for committing deceitful and dishonest acts. immorality. dishonest.admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character. -ule 421 of the -ules of Court. %o. %o. the courts and their clients. in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. and must perform their four. to ma!e use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused. Atty.C.0 corruptly or 4ilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case 4ithout authority to do so" the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension.62 of the Code of . :3.rofessional -esponsibility provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A. "his rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer s part does not ma!e it inoperative.nc.ursuant to Section 5F. as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct. esurrecction. %o. it is the duty of the court. by a series of acts. Atty. 9693.C. Eduardo D. when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows. -efianco. and that. "he reason for this is that a lawyer ac0uires !nowledge of his former client s doings. D44D. integrity and fair dealing.64. that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person.C. "his rule provides that in any of the following circumstances. representing conflicting interest. 5645 Attorney. that he would ordinarily not have ac0uired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. Canon 4 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in &unlawful. immoral or deceitful conduct. . -espondent violated the =awyer s 8ath43 and -ule 4. gross misconduct.rofessional -esponsibility states that &a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. thus. :2. An attorney may not. 1un5. malpractice. Mariano ./20 conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude" /%0 violation of the la4yerEs oath" /@0 4ilful diso9edience of any la4ful order of a superior court" or /. August 4E. "he practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal 0ualifications for the profession. deceit" :5. Anacta vs.) represented 9y 3a9riel 8. in his dealings with his clients and with the courts. lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency. A9ad vs. Santos Bentura 8ocorma 1oundation) . act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. A. sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. August 4. Atty. ichard B.

"he good of the service and the degree of morality. probity or integrity in principle. A. oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations.. %o. not only with respect to his duties in the (udicial branch but also to his behavior outside the court as a private individual. a court employee is also (udged by his private morals.C. all attendant circumstances ta!en into account.?S as a re0uirement for employment in the government. Clearly. indecency. Adla4an) -residing !udge) %th MCTC) Bonifacio:Don Mariano Marcos) Misamis 7ccidental vs. $hen official documents are falsified. if respect and confidence are to be maintained by the Government in the enforcement of the law. except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. !udge Armando S. Mariano . Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude. Capilitan) %th MCTC) Bonifacio:Don Mariano Marcos) Misamis 7ccidental. >ap. did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. . -espondent. 5645 Court personnel.C. Civil service rules mandate the accomplishment of the . and by reason of his office. As the Court has previously ruled< &"he rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct. deceive or betray. 3il9ert Tum9o5on vs.?S amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community. August 59. because by reason of his government position. 499E letter was belied by his July 4D. and dissoluteness. ?ishonesty evinces a disposition to lie. as a court stenographer.?S becomes liable for falsification. dishonesty and falsification of public document. or indicative of corruption. ?ishonesty has been defined as intentionally ma!ing a false statement on any material fact. A. "he Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official. $illful concealment of facts in the . Engr. disgraceful and immoral conduct. -efianco. Court personnel. and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper and commensurate sanction. lac! of integrity. deceive or defraud. =i!ewise. Atty. demand that no untoward conduct affecting morality. her dishonesty need not be committed in the performance of official duty. and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare. 5645. "he exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the Judiciary.2616. #ence. integrity. . ma!ing a false statement in one s . -espondent s defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 44.?S is ultimately connected with one s employment in the government. respondent has violated -ule 9. -espondent engaged in sexual relations with a married man which not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the Judiciary but is also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage. "here is no dichotomy of morality. "he Code of Judicial /thics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety. August 4.ersonal ?ata Sheet :. "he employee ma!ing false statements in his or her . lac! of honesty. which every official and employee in the public service must observe. cheat. even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed. Estrella -. intent to in(ure a third person is irrelevant because the . or is willful. Coreover. depravity.ublic office is a public trust. 499F letter admitting to have underta!en the payment of complainant s commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. sharing of fees with non. D44D. even if he performs his duties correctly and well. lawyers.Attorney. for respondent to be meted the penalty of dismissal.45.?S. %o. disposition to defraud. ma!ing false statements in one s . even if said defects of character are not connected with his office. constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.65. untrustworthiness. he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men. lac! of fairness and straightforwardness. he en(oys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct. they affect his right to continue in office.

Section 43 of the -ules of Court clearly mandates the sheriff or other proper officer to file a return and when necessary.. 5645.ersonnel that reads. loyalty and efficiency. "he writ of execution shall be returned to the court immediately after the (udgment had been partially or fully satisfied. An act that falls short of the exacting standards set for public officers. Bassig) all of Metropolitan Trial Court) Branch '@) -asay City. A government officer s dishonesty affects the morale of the service. shall not be countenanced. Court personnel..45. $hen writs are placed in their hands.46. =u issued to Legal esearcher Marie !oy -."he act undermines the integrity of government records and therein lies the pre(udice to public service. serve them with utmost responsibility. high standards are expected of sheriffs Canon IK. they should see to it that the execution of (udgments is not unduly delayed. %o. Billordon vs. A (udgment. integrity. they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible.C.2622. /spe(o s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading (ust to extend assistance to -odica deserves scant consideration. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a tas! or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. even when it stems from the employee s personal dealings. All (udiciary employees are expected to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times. oAas) Sheriff . periodic reports. In case the writ is still unsatisfied or only partially satisfied 26 days after the officer s receipt of the same.2659.C. /mployment in the (udiciary demands the highest degree of responsibility. sheriffs ought to !now that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. ?ifficulties or obstacles in the satisfaction of a final (udgment and execution of a writ do not excuse respondent s total inaction.. simple neglect of duty. said officer shall file a report with the court stating the reasons therefor. it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. the officer shall periodically file with the court a report on the proceedings ta!en to enforce the writ every 26 days until said writ is fully satisfied or its effectivity expires. neglect of duty. Lugares vs. Lagman and to Court Stenographer Soledad !. %o. %o. Marilyn C. Branch +) Ce9u City. integrity. Atty. "herefore. @nless restrained by a court order. loyalty and efficiency from its personnel. . Such conduct should not be tolerated from government officials. -oxas< &"he Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the people s confidence in the (udiciary and ultimately in the administration of (ustice. Leodel #.principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as claimed in that document. A. .) Municipal Trial Court in Cities. It is true that under . 7y the very nature of their duties and responsibilities. It is the act of dishonesty itself that taints the integrity of government service. public servants must faithfully adhere to. 5645.5169. August 46. Arnold B. even when official duties are performed well. Accordingly. hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. %either the -ules nor (urisprudence recogni+es any exception from the periodic filing of reports by sheriffs It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law. "he Court ruled in . especially those in the (udiciary. Attorney.C. Section 4 of the Code of Conduct for Court . if left unexecuted. A. with the court which issued the writ of execution. Memoranda of !udge Eliza B. that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. August 4E. August 4E. "he act need not result in disruption of service or loss to the government. 5645 Court personnel. A.nterpreter . -ule 29.B) egional Trial Court) Branch %%) Ma5ati City. As agents of the law. would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.client. &Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence.) Astorga and epol La4 7ffices) represented 9y Atty. Subse0uently. representation of non. Avila) Court .ilipina v.45. . "he officer is further re0uired to furnish the parties with copies of the return and periodic reports. Manolito C.

Canuel and Atty. gave in to -odica s re0uest for him to indicate in the said motion the names of his law firm. except for valid reasons. 8therwise. August 52. . %eedless to state. Manuel M. and !ames -. It is of no moment that the sub(ect S.C. and not on the reputation of the law firm or the lawyer filing the same. the confidence of the public in notari+ed documents will be undermined. "his is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the ac!nowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party s free act.rofessional -esponsibility. 15E3. which. odica vs.rofessional -esponsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has (oined the government service. A notary public should not notari+e a document unless the person who signs it is the same person who executed it. and in such cases. Mayor) !r.A was not utili+ed by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly transferred from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale consummated between them.rofessional -esponsibility. A notari+ed document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic re0uirements in notari+ing documents. /spe(o that before being a friend to -odica.64and 5.) As a member of the bar.C. F326. 95E9. 5645. %o. $hat is being penali+ed is respondent s act of notari+ing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. La9or Ar9iter !ovencio Li. Attorney. in this case. Atty. eal) A. however. "he Court wonders why Atty. always aware that he is an instrument of truth and (ustice. when in truth she was not. /spe(o. #ence. then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. is not the case. /spe(o ought to !now that motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or lac! of it. Atty. shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter s right. #owever. her rights are amply safeguarded. Leonardo M. Bebruary 4E. he should have thought that in so doing.65.. It is well to remind Atty. It is not a meaningless ministerial act of ac!nowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay the fees for notari+ation. Atty. even if he does not accept a case. Martin Lahn . #e must li!ewise ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense. $here a lawyer s misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his 0ualification as a lawyer or to show moral delin0uency. 5645. "he Code of . #esa . -odica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the -"C case. Atty. applicability of Code of . Canon 5 of the Code of . It would have been different had -odica not been represented by any lawyer. !nowing fully well that -odica is not their law firm s client and without the !nowledge and consent of his superiors. the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed. he was actually assisting -odica in misrepresenting before the -"C that she was being represented by the said law firm and lawyers.-ules 5. personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.) A. %o.C. Core importantly. dis0ualification as notary public. !asper !unno 1. Bebruary 4E.. he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealings and must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. %o. Cichelle for the purpose of &giving more weight and credit to the pleading. he is first and foremost an officer of the court. A.senhardt vs. "he duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. government service. Lazaro) et al . Concepcion vs. 5645 Attorney. a lawyer shall not re(ect.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful