You are on page 1of 13

Page 123 MALIGAYA VS DORONILLA

FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a hearing, he said we
had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him (Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the
cases. Do with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla
was then charge of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of
justice.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code
of professional responsibility.
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical
conduct. Not only violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in
court, but also his acts infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law
for two months.
Page 183 JARDIN VS ATTY. VILLAR JR.
FACTS: Atty. Villar Jr. was the lawyer of Jardin in a Civil Case. However, the said case was dismissed
for the lawyers failure to formally offer documentary exhibits despites extensions given by the court. It
prejudices his client. This led to this case for disbarment.
ISSUE: WON Canon 12 was violated of Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING: Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence and diligence required for every member of
the Bar. Canon 12 a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of Justice.
Page 133 NG vs. Atty.Alar
Facts:The case stemmed from a labor case filed by the employees of the Ng Company against its
employers. Theemployees alleged that they did not receive their service incentive leave pay from
their employers due to the employersclaim that the employees conducted a strike at the Companys
premises which hampered its ingress and egress. The casewas referred to the labor arbiter and the it
was found that the employees have been paid their service incentive leave pay.The employees
appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiters decision. In reaction to this, Atty.Alar filed
a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI) wherehe used scandalous, offensive,
andmenacing languages to support his complaint. He said that the labor arbiter was cross-eyed in
making his findings offact and that Commissioner Dinopol acted in the same manner with malice
thrown in when he adopted the findings of thelabor arbiter. That the retiring commissioners of NLRC
circumvent the law and jurisprudence when the money claiminvolved in the case is substantial.
According to Alar, such acts constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Issue. W/N Alar violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:YES. Alar has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the CPR. His actions erode the publics
perception of the legal profession. The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC,
attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropri

ety and lack ofdiligence. Alar used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not
admit any justification.Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befittingthe dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary language
is proscribed if we are to promote highesteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration.
Page 125 - Manuel S. Sebastian v. Atty. Emily A. Bajar (2007)
Facts:Bajar worked for the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian
Reform. She represented Tanlioco, an agricultural lessee in a land owned, and respondent in an
ejectment case filed, by petitionerSebastians wife. The RTC rendered judgment against Tanlioco on
the basis of a conversion order converting theland use from agricultural to residential. The CA and SC
affirmed the ejectmen. Bajar, despite the finality of theejectment order, filed with the RTC a complaint
for specific performance to produce the conversion order. The RTCdismissed on the ground of res
judicata and lack of cause of action. Bajar then filed another case for maintenance ofpossession ,
now with the DAR-Adjudication Board (DARAB).Sebastian now filed an administrative case with the
SC for disbarment against Bajar for violation of Rule10.03 of the CPR since she misused the rules of
procedure through forum-shopping toobstruct the administration of justice.
ISSUE : W/N Bajar was guilty of violating Rule 10.3 regarding the misuse of rules of procedure
toobstruct the administration of justice.
HELD: YES. The fact that she merely availed of all the legal remedies available to her client is not
an excuse.While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the
defense of their clients rights, they should not forget that they are first and foremost, officers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Bajars
act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling, affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court, is beyond the bounds of the law.
Page 129 THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO
FACTS: Unions, while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate
CBAs with the Companies. Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon
Garcia; the latter was formerly the secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular
Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life Building Employees Association. Garcia, as such acting
president, in a circular issued in his name and signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the
Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU),
to no avail. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board
of the Department of Justice. Thereafter, the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as
assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department. Enaje was hired as
personnel manager of the Companies, and was likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for
the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent company is guilty of ULP


HELD: YES, The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike
following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day
and that their jobs were open for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair
labor practice, as an active interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing
with the employees individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives.
Page 131: Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. vs. Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr., A.C.
No. 5768, March 26, 2010
1.
FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaintaffidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking
the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer for the following offense that contained abusive, offensive,
and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start of
hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, "Laban kung laban, patayan
kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines
Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi
kayo taga-rito." The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his
unethical act;When Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory
language.
ISSUE: WON the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding
respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him.
HELD: No. The IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner did not erred in
finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him. Under the Canon 8 of the CPR
commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow
lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01.Atty. Ferrers
actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the
falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with
pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
authored the same.
Page 157: PNB V. Uy Teng Piao
FACTS: On September 9, 1924, the CFI of Manila rendered a judgment in favor of PNB and against
Uy Teng Piao in a civil case for the sum of P17, 232.42 with interest at 7% from June 1, 1924, plus
10% of the sum amount for attorney's fees and costs. The court ordered Uy Teng Piao to deposit the
amount with the clerk of the court within 3 months from the date of the judgment. In case of his failure

to do so, the 2 mortgaged properties described in TCT Nos. 7264 and 8274 should be sold at public
auction in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.
ISSUE: WON the appearance of one of the lawyers of PNB as a witness is recognized
HELD: No. He must not testify as a witness for his client, unless it is necessary as provided by the
CPR
One of the attorneys for PNB testified that Uy Teng Piao renounced his right to redeem the parcel of
land in Calle Ronquillo, because his friend (Mariano Santos) was interested in buying it. The bank
ought to have presented Pecson as a witness, or his deposition if he was not residing in Manila at the
time of the trial. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, although the law does not forbid
an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the
active management of the case.
PAge 165: Eduardo L. Martelino, et. al. vs. Jose Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894, March 25, 1970
FACTS: This case presents another aspect of the court-martial proceedings against the petitioner,
Major Eduardo Martelino, alias Abdul Latif Martelino, of the AFP, and the officers and men under him,
for violation of the Articles of War, as a result of the alleged shooting of some Muslim recruits then
undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor. At the hearing, petitioner Martelino
sought the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial, following the latter's
admission that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident which had come to be referred to
as the "Corregidor massacre". The petitioner's counsel referred to a news item appearing in the July
29, 1969 issue of the Daily Mirror and cited other news reports to the effect that "coffins are being
prepared for the President (of the Philippines) in Jolo," that according to Senator Aquino "massacre
victims were given sea burial," and that Senator Magsaysay, opposition Vice President candidate, had
gone to Corregidor and "found bullet shells." In addition the petitioners cite in this Court a Manila
Times editorial of August 26, 1969 which states that "The Jabidah [code name of the training
operations] issue was bound to come up in the course of the election campaign. The opposition could
not possibly ignore an issue that is heavily loaded against the administration."
ISSUE: WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was such as to prejudice their
right to a fair trial.
HELD: No. The spate of publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners.Rule 13.02 - A lawyer
shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party. An examination of the cases cited, however, will show that they are
widely disparate from this case in a fundamental sense.
Page 135 Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appelate Court176 SCRA 719
Ponente: Justice Sarmiento

FACTS:1.On October 24, 1979- petitioner instituted a petition for prohibition and
damageswith preliminary injunction with the respondent court docketed as Civil Case
No.34948ISSUE: WON the opening of Orbit Street to traffic by the mayor was warranted
by thedemands of the common good and a valid exercise of police power RULING: As asserted in
Sangalang, the opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by thedemands of the common good, in
terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience.SC also uphold the opening of Orbit Street for
the same rationale. The act of the mayor now challenged is that of police power which is the states
authority to enact legislationthat may interfere with the personal liberty or property in order to promote
the generalwelfare. It consists of the (1) imposition of restraint upon liberty and property (2) inorder to
foster the common good.The fact hat it has lead to the loss of privacy of BAVA residents is no
argument against themunicipalitys effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati.
.ISSUE: WON the mayor has authority to practice police power
RULING: Ordinance No. 17 as amended by Resolution No 139 which requires a Mayors permit
before any construction of any kind shall be built, erected or constructed in any place in the
municipality is a valid justification for the questioned act of the mayor. THe fact that some time had
elapsed before the Mayor acted, can not render the ordinance unenforceable or void.
Page 143 LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO, respondent.
FACTS:
Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint with the Court Administrator Alfredo
Benipayo for "having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means in refusing to honor and pay [her]
late husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum of P763,060.00" against Atty Pepito C.
Presquito (respondent). Mr. Espino and the respondent entered into an agreement for a purchase of
land by the latter from the former. The price of the land was P1,437,410.00, payable on a staggered
basis and by installments. Respondent issues post dated checks as payment. Respondent then
entered into a joint venture or partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the subdivision of
the land into home-size lots and its development, with a portion of the land retained by respondent for
his own use. The land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided
into 35 to 36 lots.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent failed to act with candor and fairness towards the
complainant.
HELD: Yes,The respondent failed to prove that he had legal cause to refuse payment, or that he was
entitled to legal compensation. Respondents failure to present evidence is a breach of Rule 12.01 of
the CPR .having no legal defense to refuse payment of the 8 dishonored checks, respondents
indifference to complainants entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar
and an officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his
unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing
the 8 checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands for payment until
complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the disposition of this
case with dilatory tactics.
145 Vaflor

Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano
Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board ofDirectors
(the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office
and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a
complaint for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of the Board
and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had violated the Code
ofProfessional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court, when having ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his
motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper and further ignored the Courts
subsequent show cause order. Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal
complaints against complainant.
Issue: Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10.
Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference
is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment
for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a
lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. The
Court further noted that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law
for violation of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, however, that respondent has not reformed his
ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was subjected to suspension for
two years.
PAge 147 Mary Ann T. Mattus vs. Atty. Albert T. Villaseca
FActs: Petitioner and her husband, German Bernardo D. Mattus, engaged the services of Atty.
Villaseca to represent them in a case for estafa thru falsification of public document filed in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite. Petitioner maintained that she and German
were convicted due to Atty. Villasecas gross and inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as
their counsel.
Issue: won atty.villesca is guilty in delaying the case.
RULING: YES. Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his
clients that came into his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence
his clients reposed in him. Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his
professional employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients (a) when they
became due, or (b) upon demand.
Page 151: Manila Pest Control vs. Workmens Compensation Commission
FACTS: WCC considered a complaint filed against it by Mario Abitria for compensation. It was
submitted for decision after he and a physician had testified. The counsel of Manila Pest Control
failed to appear at the hearing. A motion for reconsideration was filed praying he be allowed to
present evidence on his behalf however, this was denied. Arbitria was employed by the MPC since
February 4, 1956, working six (6) days a week and receiving an average monthly wage of P180.00 as
labourer. He was assigned in the Research Division which conducted research on rat traps and other
matters regarding extermination of pests, animals and insects. In the place of his employment he was

made to inhale dangerous fumes as the atmosphere was polluted with poisonous chemical dusts.
The working condition of his place of work was also warm and humid in view of the products being
manufactured by the respondent. He was not extended any protective device and he was also made
to lift heavy objects in the painting and the soldering. Atty. Corpuz is impugning the delivery of the
decision to Atty. Camacho. It was then alleged in the petition that on April 11, 1967, a MR of the
aforesaid order was filed with the averment that petitioner was not aware of any decision rendered in
the case as no copy of the same had theretofore been furnished to its counsel. The motion for
reconsideration was consequently denied. On June 14, 1967, a plea for execution was granted on
behalf of the Arbiria and subsequently the City Sherriff of Manila levied on the petitioners properties.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Corpuz misused the processes of the Court to delay the delivery of justice.
HELD: Yes.Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the copy of the decision of the WCC and he is
nowimpugning the delivery of the decision to Atty. Camacho and denying the knowledgeof it when in
fact and in truth the delivery of the decision to Atty. Camacho was madeper his instruction.An effort
was made to serve petitioner with a copy of the decision; that such effortsfailure was due to the
conduct of its own counsel
PAGE 149 bugaring
FACTS:Atty. Bugaring started to insist that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary
evidence in spite of the fact that Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a
written pleading for his client, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications and the issues
are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary evidence
and was raring to argue as in fact he was already perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga
has not yet finished with his manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly
procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly
proceeding.

While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt like doing so. Thus, the
Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty. Bugaring flared up and uttered words
insulting the Court; such as: that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of
certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court; that he was going to
move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being antagonistic to his client, and
other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the Court.

Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt and order the Courts sheriff to
arrest and place him under detention.

ISSUE:Whether or not Atty. Bugaring is guilty of contempt of court.


HELD:Yes, Atty. Bugaring is guilty of contempt of court. Petitioner insists that a careful examination of
the transcript of stenographic notes of the subject proceedings would reveal that the contempt order
issued by respondent judge had no factual and legal basis. It would also show that he was polite and
respectful towards the court as he always addressed the court with the phrase your honor please.
But a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause He should not forget that he
is an officer of the court, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12, CPR He should not, therefore, misuse
the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03. Canon 10 of the Canons of

Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
court processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the same Canons Lawyers should be
reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct
which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.
Page 161 In re: De vera
Facts.On April 11, 2005, Zoilo Antonio Velez filed a complaint for the suspension and/or disbarment
of Atty. Leonard De Vera based on the latter's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension
order rendered against him by the State Bar of California. Thereafter, Atty. de Vera resigned from the
California Bar which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of California.. Atty. De Vera
allegedly made untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies during the Plenary Session of the
IBP 10th National Convention of Lawyers . Atty. De Vera also allegedly instigated and provoked some
IBP chapters to embarrass and humiliate the IBP Board in order to coerce and compel the latter to
pursue the aforesaid PetitionThereafter, IBP National President Cadiz informed the Court of the
election of IBP Governor Jose Vicente Salazar as EVP and requested that the latter's election be
approved and that he be allowed to assume as National President in the event that Atty. De Vera was
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law or should his removal from the IBP Board and as
EVP be approved by the Court.
ISSUES:Whether or not there is substantial proof that Atty. De Vera violated
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
HELD:No, butAtty. De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. His lettercomplaint praying for the disapproval of the Resolution removing him from the IBP Board and as IBP
EVP is DISMISSED. The election of Atty. Salazar as IBP EVP for the remainder of the term 20032005 is AFFIRMED and he is DIRECTED to immediately take his oath of office and assume the
Presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007.There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the
part of Atty. De Vera independent of the recommendation of suspension by the hearingofficer
of the State Bar of California.

Page: 155 RENERIO SAMBAJON, et al. v. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING


503 SCRA 1 (2006)
Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel of
their employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a
writ of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc. Four of the seven who purportedly executed the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said
documents or having received the considerations therefor. They subsequently filed an administrative
complaint alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil,
frustrated the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the
spurious documents. A Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the grounds of
deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility was also
filed. During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it was apparent that Atty.
Suing was coaching his client to prevent himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the

Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same documents originally presented
to the employees to be signed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act arguably violative of the
Lawyers Code of Ethics
HELD:Yes, , not only did Atty. Suing try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an
apparent attempt not to incriminate him. His client contradicted Atty. Suings claim that the Release
Waiver and Quitclaim which he prepared was not the one presented at the Arbiters Office, as well as
his implied claim that he was not involved in releasing to the complainants the money for and in
consideration of the execution of the documents.As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to
assist in the administration of justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part
that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While
the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are nonetheless part of a
judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an investigation by the Court into the
misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.
PAGE 171 Maglasang v. People
Facts:
1. The legal fees ascribed by Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, amounting to Php 316.50 were not
paid thus the case Maglasang v. People was dismissed.
2. Atty. Marceliano Castellano, counsel for petitioner, moved for reconsideration. It was denied
with finality.
3. Due to it, Castellano, acting as counsel for Maglasang, accused all the 5 justices of the Courts
2nd division of biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or
resolution. When cited for contempt, he reasoned that said constructive criticism intended to
correct in good faith the erroneous and strict practices of the justices concerned.
Issue: WON ATTy.CasTILLO VIOlated the rule not to invite outside preference?
Ruling:
1. Atty. Castellano sought to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to the Court, in the hope of
salvaging his reputation before his client. Said action is grossly improper. As an officer of the
Court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to
keep the confidence of his client.
2. While a lawyer must advocate his clients cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill
he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation and innuendo.
3. Castellano was found guilty of contempt of court and improper conduct. He was ordered to
pay Php 1,000 within 15 days or suffer 10 days imprisonment. He is likewise suspended for 6
months.
Page 175 IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE ADRIANO vs. REMEGIO ESTABIA
Facts:

The respondent, Lope Adriano was appointed by the Court as counsel de oficio for an indigent
accused. In the notice of his appointment, he was required to prepare and file his brief within
thirty days from notice. Adriano requested for multiple extensions but eventually, he failed to
file his brief. Respondent was ordered to explain the failure to file the appellants brief but he
did not respond. He was eventually fined by the Court for non-compliance with a warning that
further non-compliance will result in a more drastic action. The Court again demanded an
explanation why he should not be suspended for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of
office as attorney; but he ignored it.
Issue: Is the respondents failure to file a brief for the indigent equivalent to refusal to aid the
needy?
Held:
Yes. The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a
criminal case who is unable to employ one. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed on the lawyer
so assigned to render the required service. A lawyer so appointed should always exert his
best efforts in the indigents behalf.
PAGE 173 Portugal
Facts:
Before the Court is an affidavit-complaint filed against Atty. Jaime Portugal for violation of the
Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence. Complainants are related to the
policemen in a previous case in whose behalf respondent filed a Petition for Certoriari. The
services of the respondent were engaged by the policemen who faced murder charges.
Respondent filed Motions for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan and was never heard
from again. The complainants learned that the Court denied the petition with finality; warrants
of arrest were issued against them. The caseload as well as the lack of financial consideration
were some reasons for the respondents withdrawal as their counsel. A commission formed by
the IBP found the respondent guilty and recommended suspension for six months.
Issue:
Is the respondents refusal to aid the indigent policemen justified?
Held:
No. The respondent is suspended for three months. The Bar Confidant will annotate the record
of the respondent.
Respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for their life and
liberty are on the line. It is the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes
him from any other profession in society. As to the respondents conduct in dealing with
complainants, he definitely fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must
perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. Respondent had not been candid in his dealings
with the complainants; the prudent step was at least to inform the clients of the adverse
situation since they called him to check the status of the case.
Page 181 AROMIN vs. BONCAVIL
A.C. No. 5135, September 22, 1999
FACTS:
Complainants, Aromin, Yabut and Ballesteros, Jr., allege that their father, Tiburcio Ballesteros,
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Boncavil as counsel in two pending cadastral cases; despite receipt
of the adverse decision in the said cases, respondent did not inform herein complainants of the same nor file

either a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal to prevent the decision from becoming final; that
respondent did not file either a written offer of evidence despite the trial courts directive for him to do so; and
that it took respondent four years from the time complainants father died before he filed a motion to substitute
herein complainants in the trial court. The foregoing acts and omissions of the respondent are alleged to be in
violation of the Code pf Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE: Did the respondent lawyer abandon complainants cases and thus violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
YES. Respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. By abandoning complainants cases,
respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the same Code which requires that a lawyer not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

PAGE 185 JALANDONI vs. ATTY. NICANOR VILLAROSA


Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis Jalbuena married to her daughter Carmen
Jalbuena and Humberto Lim, Jr. herein complainant married to her daughter, Cristina Lim. Mrs. Lumot
Jalandoni owned 97% of Penta Resorts Corp (PRC). That the only property of the corp, is as abovestated, the Alhambra Hotel constructed solely thru the effort of the sps Jalbuena on the parcel of land
now claimed by the Cabiles family. PRC had a case wherein respondent was its counsel. Later on,
complainant had a case against sps Jalbuena where the parties were related to each other and the
latter sps. Were represented by the respondent as their retained counsel; after respondent had
allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the complainants which respondent averred in his answer, it is
incumbent upon Humberto Lim to represent his wife as one of the representatives of PRC and
Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint to protect not only her interest but that of the family.
It is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship wit hthe respondent before the latter
retained as counsel by the sps. Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainants representative.
Respondent for having appeared as counsel for the Sps. Jalbuena when charged by respondents
former client Jalandoni of PRc and Alhambra Hotel, represented conflicting interests in violation of
CPR.
ISSUE: WON there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by the
respondent
HELD: The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases which confidential communication have
been confided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. The first part
of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients either in the same action
or in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in which the adverse party against
whom the atty. Appears is his former client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the
present controversy. The rule prohibitions a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or
in totally unrelated case
PAGE 189 LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA

Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed Gonzales and asked her
to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter filed against the
Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simole coercion and
unjust vexation; where respondents law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent

represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said sps., respondent should
be disbarred from the practice of law since respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos
violates the lawyer client relationship between complainant and respondents law firm and renders
respondent liable under CPR particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02.
Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of such case since it was his brother,
Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is
representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them bur claimed that his
appearance is pro bono and that the sps pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take
their case.
ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD: Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. It is well-settled that lawyer
is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste
as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. The
proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.
Page 209 ALMENDAREZ VS ATTY. LANGIT AC#7057
Facts: On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. filed complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit for acts unbecoming a lawyer.
Complainant, as attorney-infact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the plaintiff in
an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2 to which Atty. Langit
was the plaintiff. Two of the respondents in the ejectment case paid rentals amounting P255, 000.00
was withdrawn by the counsel as confirmed by the officerin-charge Clerk of Court. Respondent did
not inform complainant of these transactions. Atty. Langit appropriated the amount to himself because
the complainants owe him his attorneys fees. Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D.
Larida, sent respondent on 30 June 2003 a final demand letter for the accounting and return of the
P255, 000.00. Respondent failed to reply. Thus, this administrative case. During trial, Atty. Langit
refused to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and,
afterwards, to appear at the mandatory conference. Although respondent did not appear at the
conference, the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through a position paper. Still,
respondent ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant disrespect for authority.
Issue: WON Atty. Langit can unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact
that the client owes him attorneys fees.
Held: Upon release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over
them in connection with his legal services, provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is
not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact that the client
owes him attorneys fees. In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any
lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money. A lawyers failure to turn over the money to his
client despite the latters demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the money for
his personal use and benefit, a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics,

impairing public confidence in the legal profession, and which also renders the lawyer liable for
contempt.