You are on page 1of 19

CANON 6

1. GENERAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
(GBTC); WORLDWIDE INSURANCE AND
SURETY COMPANY (WORLDWIDE); MIDLAND
INSURANCE CORPORATION (MIDLAND); AND
STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC.
(STANDARD) v. THE OMBUDSMAN; OMB-GIO
RAUL E. TOTANES AND ASSISTANT
SOLICITOR GENERAL MAGDANGAL M. DE
LEON
G.R. No. 125440, January 31, 2000, THIRD
DIVISION, (GONZAGA-REYES, J.)
To be liable under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the five
aforementioned elements must concur. In the absence of proof that
respondent ASG de Leon acted with manifest partiality in pursuing
the official stand of the OSG in Spec. Proc. No. 107812/CA-G.R.
CV No. 39939, respondent ASG de Leon cannot be liable under
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Thus, the failure of petitioners to prove
the fifth element is fatal to their cause.
General Bank and Trust Company (GBTC),
Worldwide Insurance and Surety Company (Worldwide),
Midland Insurance Corporation (Midland) and Standard
Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard) filed a complaint against
respondent ASG de Leon for violating Section 3 (e) of
Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
What prompted petitioners to file a complaint against
respondent ASG de Leon with the Ombudsman is the
alleged "inconsistent position" of said respondent in Spec.
Proc. No. 107812 and in Civil Case No. 0005 filed with
Sandiganbayan.
Civil Case No. 0005 is an ill-gotten wealth case
filed by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) through the OSG on July 17, 1987.
This case was instituted against Lucio Tan, former
President Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, et. al.
Petitioners point out that in Civil Case No. 0005,
the first of the causes of actions therein as stated in Par. 14
(a)-(1) to (3) alleges that:
(A)The Marcos-dominated Central Bank Closure of GBTC
under MB Resolution, March 25, 1977 ;
(B) The LUCIO TAN'S (sic) takeover of GBTC under MB
Resolution, March 29, 1977 ;
are illegal, fraudulent and arbitrary, made thru conspiracy
with and taking advantage of the close relationship
between the LUCIO TAN Group and the deposed
President and Wife, other CB officials, with the help and
manipulation of then CB Governor Gregorio S. Licaros
and former PNB President Panfilo O. Domingo xxx.
The charge that respondent ASG de Leon
espoused conflicting interests rests on the contention of
petitioners that said respondent's act of defending the
legality of the Central Bank closure of GBTC amounts to
defending the interest of Lucio Tan and the Central Bank.
Petitioners maintain that the position taken by the OSG

represented by respondent ASG de Leon in Spec. Proc.
No. 107812 is "against the 'interest of the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines' ". Petitioners wrote
respondent ASG de Leon that he inhibit himself from
appearing in Spec. Proc. No. 107812 and to defend the
interest of the Government of the Philippines as against
the interest of Lucio Tan in Civil Case No. 0005. When
respondent ASG de Leon for OSG continued to represent
the Central Bank in Spec. Proc. No. 107812, petitioners
then filed the complaint against respondent with the
Office of the Ombudsman. On investigation of the
Ombudsman, it was dismissed. The Motion for
reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE:
Is ASG De Leon liable for violating RA 3019 for
representing conflicting interest?
RULING:
No
We affirm the finding that respondent ASG de
Leon cannot be held criminally liable for violating Section
3 (e) of RA 3019. In defending the Central Bank,
respondent was performing his legal duty to defend the
interest of the Government and was merely pursuing the
position taken by it. Whatever legal services respondent
ASG de Leon rendered in favor of the Central Bank in
Spec. Proc. No. 107812/CA-G.R. CV No. 39939 were
made in his official capacity as a member of the legal staff
of the OSG. We note that in all of the pleadings filed by
the OSG in Spec. Proc. No. 107812/CA-G.R. CV No.
39939, the signature of respondent ASG de Leon appeared
therein as Solicitor and later on as Assistant Solicitor
General. However, it must be noted that these pleadings
also bore the signatures of the Solicitor General and other
members of the legal staff of the Office of the Solicitor
General.
Hence, the acts of respondent ASG de Leon had
the imprimatur of the OSG which had consistently
defended the interest of the Central Bank in Spec. Proc.
No. 107812/CA-G.R. CV No. 39939. Four Solicitor
Generals, Estelito Mendoza, Sedfrey Ordoñez, Frank
Chavez and Raul I. Goco have maintained the policy of
defending the closure of GBTC by the Central Bank and
respondent ASG de Leon merely acted with the other
officials of the OSG in representing the State.
To be liable under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the
five aforementioned elements must concur. In the absence
of proof that respondent ASG de Leon acted with
manifest partiality in pursuing the official stand of the
OSG in Spec. Proc. No. 107812/CA-G.R. CV No. 39939,
respondent ASG de Leon cannot be liable under Section 3
(e) of RA 3019. Thus, the failure of petitioners to prove
the fifth element is fatal to their cause.
2. LORENZO JOSE v. CA AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

he found himself in a situation where he had to make a choice reveal his identity as an undercover agent of the Philippine Constabulary assigned to perform intelligence work on subversive activities and . the pertinent portion of which We quote: "This Headquarters will. he was constrained to make pertinent inquiries from the PC Chief. Thus Jose was facing a criminal prosecution for illegal possession of a handgrenade in the court below. Fidel V. The Solicitor General now concedes that the interests of justice will best be served by remanding this case to the court of origin for a new trial.R. and (2) erroneous denial of his motion to reopen the case for the reception of his permit to possess the handgrenade.G. robbery and illegal possession of explosives. He claimed to be an agent of the Philippine Constabulary with a permit to possess explosives such as the handgrenade in question." ISSUE: May the case of Jose be reopened given the circumstance that he was appointed as a constabulary? HELD: YES. At the outset. The CA affirmed the conviction and declaring that no reversible error was committed by the latter when it denied the reopening of the case as the court had lost its "power to change. or alter its decision. FIRST DIVISION (Muñoz-Palma. innocence shall not suffer. 1976. innocence shall not suffer. shorn of judicial discretion. The trial court denied the motion mainly on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the perfection of the appeal. courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules. The records were then elevated to the CA where Jose raised the issues of (1) an erroneous conviction for illegal possession of explosives when there was no proof of an essential element of the crime. Surely. Jose prayed for his acquittal or in the alternative for the remand of the case back to the trial court for a new trial. has the solemn responsibility to assure the public that while guilt shall not escape." and that it being admitted by petitioner that the evidence sought to be introduced by him at the new trial is not newly discovered evidence." in the interest of justice. However. A manifestation was submitted by the Solicitor General informing the Court that in view of the "persistence of Jose both before this Honorable Court and CA as to his alleged existing appointment as PC Agent and/or authority to possess handgrenade. provide you firearms and such other equipment which it may deem necessary for your personal protection on the need basis which will be covered by separate written authority. J. These 3 cases were jointly tried after which Hon. Ramos who in reply sent his letter stating that Jose was appointed as a PC Agent of the Pampanga Constabulary Command with Code Number P-36-68 and Code Name "Safari" with expiration on December 31. as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation and interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done. Honorio Romero acquitted accused Lorenzo Jose of illegal discharge of firearm and robbery. affirming the judgment of conviction. the denial of the new trial "visibly appears as correct". The Solicitor General opposed the granting of the foregoing motion for reconsideration claiming that there was neither a denial of "substantial justice nor error of any sort on the part of respondent Court of Appeals. modify. Platon. Jose appealed and 9 days thereafter he filed a motion praying that the case be reopened to permit him to present. L-38581. Gen. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Jose to review the ruling of CA. the Rules of Court were conceived and promulgated to aid and not to obstruct the proper administration of justice. No.) Key Doctrine: “A prosecuting officer. to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hands that dispense justice. 1968. has the solemn responsibility to assure the public that while guilt shall not escape. for otherwise. We give due credit to the Solicitor General and his staff for upholding the timehonored principle set forth in perspicuous terms by this Court in Suarez vs. as the representative of a sovereignty whose obligation and interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done. but convicted him for illegal possession of the handgrenade that was found on his person at the time of his arrest. We do not question the correctness of the findings of the Court of Appeals that the evidence sought to be presented by Jose do not fall under the category of newly-discovered evidence because the same his alleged appointment as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary and a permit to possess a handgrenade were supposed to be known to petitioner and existing at the time of trial and not discovered only thereafter.” Jose was arrested by the local police leading to the filing of several criminal cases against him to wit: illegal discharge of firearm. from time to time. a permit to possess the handgrenade in question.. et al. pursuant to a reservation he had made in the course of the trial. March 31. that a prosecuting officer.

She also noted that Bar Matter No. took the floor and manifested that before he decided to run for Governor.was nominated for the position of Governor. 491 and argued that since 1989 or the start of the implementation of the rotation rule. Branch 24 in Maasin. Governor Enage eventually ruled that Atty. 586the Court decreed without amending Section 39. was in the heart of "Huklandia". In its Resolution in Bar Matter No. The competent authorities then realized that it was unjust for this man to go to jail for a crime he had not committed. HELD. AILEEN R. raising among others the point that IBP Samar Chapter had waived its turn in the rotation when it did not field a candidate for Governor in the 2007. 2713. Leyte. the site of the incident. Joyas. Atty. Maglana. however. Article VI of the IBP amended by-laws. ISSUE. 586 mandates the strict implementation of the rotation rule. it admits an exception under Section 39. pertinently stating that his having lost the Governorship elections for Eastern Visayas in 2011 does not disqualify his Chapter from seeking an election for Governorship. subject to its right to reclaim the governorship at any time before the rotation is completed. Atty. YES. Atty. but. to elect the Governor of their region for the 2013-2015 term. CANON 7 1. subject to its right to reclaim the governorship at any time before the rotation is completed. 586. that: (1) the first rotation cycle in IBP Eastern Visayas region had not been completed in 2007. Opinion was disqualified from running for the position.face possible reprisals or even liquidation at the hands of the dissidents considering that Floridablanca. he claimed before the trial judge that he had a permit to possess the handgrenade and prayed for time to present the same. Maglana was declared as the duly elected Governor. No. .the incumbent President of IBP Samar Chapter . FACTS. to the exclusion of all the other eight (8) chapters. allowing a chapter to waive its turn in the rotation order. Atty. Opinion’s election protest. considering that he also ran for Governor and lost in the immediately preceding term. Upon a motion duly seconded. This motion was however was denied and the election proceeded. thereafter. Despite the call for strict implementation of the Rotation Rule under BM No. JOSE VICENTE R. stated that Samar Chapter did not waive its turn in the rotation. Upon counting the ballots. Opinion. Maglana cited the rotation rule under Bar Matter No. Without revealing his identity as an agent of the Philippine Constabulary. he sought the opinion of the IBP if he was still qualified to run Did the IBP Samar Chapter waived its turn in the rotation order so that it can no longer claim its right to the governorship position for the 2013-2015 term? We cannot sustain Atty. only IBP Samar Chapter had not served as Governor for IBP Eastern Visayas. Maglana . OPINION B. Chairman of the IBP Executive Committee. Came the judgment of conviction and with it the staggering impact of a five-year imprisonment. came the desired evidence concerning petitioner's appointment as a Philippine Constabulary agent and his authority to possess a handgrenade for the protection of his person.” This rule. Opinion stated that he received an opinion dated April 2. Maglana then moved to declare that only IBP Samar Chapter was qualifiedto be voted upon for the position of Governor. ATTY. and (2) that the rotation cycle can only be completed once a nominee from IBP Samar Chapter had served as governor for the 20132015 term. for two reasons. On May 25. admits of an exception which allows a chapter to waive its turn in the rotation order. The IBP BOG granted Atty. J. Atty. thirteen delegates of the IBP Eastern Visayas Region gathered at the Session Hall of the RTC. Article VI of the IBP By-Laws that the rotation rule should be strictly implemented "so that all prior elections for governor in the region shall be reckoned with or considered in determining who should be the governor to be selected from the different chapters to represent the region in the Board of Governors. The permit however could not be produced because it would reveal his intelligence work activities. Atty. Brion. After heated debates on the proper interpretation of the rotation rule to the present case. in her Comment. or ride on the hope of a possible exoneration or acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution. 10 June 2013. 2013. Opinion filed an election protest with the IBP BOG. hence. the candidate of the IBP Eastern Samar Chapter. 2009 and 2011 elections. ATTY. it was too late according to the trial court because in the meantime the accused had perfected his appeal. Maglana’s arguments. MAGLANA v. Atty. 2013 from Governor Vicente M. Atty. Some delegates protested and moved for the election’s suspension and the issue be resolved by the IBP BOG.M.

the remaining chapters shall be the ones eligible. following the previous sequence or “rotation by pre-ordained sequence. Thus. 2012.   In the nominations for the Governor of IBPWestern Visayas and the start of a new rotational cycle. CJ Corona issued a TRO (pending the resolution of the motion for clarification) on the election                                                                                                                         1   I have included my digest of the 2010 case below. Maglana cannot simply reclaim IBP Samar Chapter’s right to the governorship in the 20132015 term because it is contrary to Section 39. Atty. which is the bedrock of any democratic election process2. if the previous cycle is province A – B – C. The element of choice – which is crucial to a democratic process – is virtually removed. rotation by pre-ordained sequence. No. The rule prescribes that once a member of the chapter would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their turns in the rotation cycle. Issue 2. This concept of rotation by preordained sequence negates freedom of choice.” Gov.First. 37 and 39 of the IBP ByLaws should be strictly implemented. Article VI. the elections would be more genuine as                                                                                                                         2   EG. 09-5-2-SC. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme.   . the court held that the “rotation rule” under Sec. of the IBP By-Laws. This allows for a more democratic election process. “so that all prior elections for governor in the region shall be reckoned with or considered in determining who should be the governor to be selected from the different chapters to represent the region in the Board of Governors. the IBP Samar Chapter can no longer belatedly reclaim its right to the governorship in the 20132015 term as it should have exercised its claim on or before the completion of the first rotation cycle in 2007. of the IBP Western Visayas Region. as amended. or b) limited only to the chapter first in the previous rotation cycle. IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. EN BANC Key Doctrine: Election through ‘rotation by exclusion’ is the more established rule in the IBP. Later on. all of them shall be again qualified to run for a new cycle subject to the exclusion that after their election. after C. Only one chapter could vie for election at every turn as the entire sequence. This provision states that the chapter which has waived its turn in the rotation cycle may reclaim its right to the governorship at any time before the rotation is completed. The rule prescribes that once a member of the chapter is elected as Governor. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a fresh cycle commences. it is A or B that should be eligible. On the other hand. Atty. praying for the lifting of the TRO without prejudice to the resolution on the Urgent Motion. Second. is it a) once again open to all chapters subject to the rule on “rotation by exclusion”. from first to last.M. The rule provides for freedom of choice while upholding the equitable principle of rotation which assures the every member-chapter has its turn in every rotation cycle. Fortunato of the IBP Western Visayas Region and Atty. Daquilanea espoused the view that upon the completion of a rotational cycle. after the term of C. Daquilanea sought the clarification on the application of the said rule in their respective regions. tends to defeat the purpose of an election. his chapter would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their turns in the rotation cycle. Facts This case has its origin in the 2010 resolution of the same title1. all the chapters in the region are once again entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation by exclusion. elections should be open to all chapters of the region subject to the exclusionary rule. In the 2010 resolution.Because of this waiver of its turn in the first rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a fresh cycle commences. The presidents composing of IBP Western Visayas Region filed their Comments-in-Intervention. we conclude that the first rotation cycle had been completed in 2007. A would be the one who will be eligible for election as distinguished from rotation by exclusion where after the term of C.”? Ruling The rule should be rotation by exclusion as it is the more established rule in the IBP. December 04. the IBP BOG established x x x[that] Samar either did not field any candidate from 1989 to 2007 or it failed to invoke the rotation rule to challenge the nominations of those candidates whose chapters had already been represented in the rotation cycle. under the latter. is already predetermined by the order in the previous rotation cycle. A. all the chapters in the region are once again entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation by exclusion. The Court takes notice of the predictability of the rotation by succession scheme. or election based on the same order as the previous cycle. Having been established that the first rotational cycle had been completed in the 2005-2007 term.

2009. Vinluan. five (5) members of the Board of Governors headed by Exec. it should not now be prejudiced and disallowed to vie for the position of Executive Vice-President of the IBP for the 2011-2013 term as to do so would be a violation of the rotation rule. V. Carlos L. Atty. the chapter elected its Delegates for the election of the IBP Governor for GMR to be held on April 25. CORONA. and not in derogation of. unless. Loanzon and Atty. 2007. After the casting of votes and counting of ballots. 09-5-2-SC originated from three (3) separate Protests filed regarding the elections for the Regional Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the Greater Manila Region (hereafter. Atty. Lanto.J. informed the delegates that the Board of Officers of his Chapter--through a resolution signed by all its officers except for Chapter President Atty. 2009. 2009. Gov. 2009. At the same time. Soriano and Atty. Through Resolution No. 09-5-2-SC and A. On April 23. as in the case where only one chapter remains in the cycle. Article V of the IBP ByLaws in reference to the qualification of the delegates who would vote in the election for GMR Governor on April 25. Facts A. Maramba) Atty. held that “the additional delegate(s) shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board. XVIII-2009. Vinluan. Atty. Maramba were nominated for the position of IBP Governor for GMR. The IBP-QC chapter then nominated Atty. December 14. Elpidio Soriano v. from IBPLanao del Sur Chapter. 2010 Resolution. Vinluan was actually able to serve his 2007-2009 term as Executive Vice President even if he was later on disqualified by the Court in December 14. Bautista. Feliciano Bautista. Gov. including those cast by Loanzon and Laqui (the alleged non-delegates). The GMR Election Protest (Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic for Regional Governor of Western Mindanao. 31. still.M. Fortunato however argues that Atty. Although his declaration was challenged. Treasurer of the IBPQuezon City Chapter (IBP-QC Chapter) requested the office of the IBP President Atty. The nomination of Marohomsalic was recognized and accepted by the presiding officer. Victoria Loanzon. In the matter of the brewing controversies in the election in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines A. 2010. Manuel M.” Believing that the resolution imposed an additional qualification for the Delegates to be elected by the Board of Officers of IBP Chapters that are entitled to more than two (2) delegates the QC chapter requested the recall of Resolution No. Soriano's 12 The Western Mindanao Region Election Protest (Atty.” NB – *another issue.M. No.P. Magsino defended that the resolution of Vinluan was void since there was no Quorum during the special meeting.the opportunity to serve as Governor at any time is once again open to all chapters. the Executive VP of the IBP was removed from his position due to the 2010 resolution. No. Atty. EN BANC. Macalawi--officially nominated Lanto for Regional Governor of Western Mindanao. IBP Southern-Luzon argued that since the Court removed its member. To allow IBP-Southern Luzon to vie for the position of Executive Vice President of the IBP for the 2011-2013 term would allow said chapter to serve twice as Executive Vice President. Lanto v. Macalawi nominated Atty. outgoing Gov. Maramba was declared winner by garnering a vote of 13 as against Atty. GMR Governor Magsino. Atty.M. Benjamin B. While predictability is not altogether avoided. On April 25. of course. as previously noted by the Court “the rotation rule should be applied in harmony with. Soriano III as candidate for the position of Governor for the Greater Manila Region (GMR). entitled to vote in the election of the GMR Governor. GMR). the elections were held. the Board of Governors headed by Atty. Atty. XVIII-2009 and declared declared Atty. No. seeking an interpretation of Section 8 on the Chapter ByLaws of Article IV and Sec. the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot. 2009 meeting for the nomination/election of the candidates for the Regional Governor of Western Mindanao. Despite said resolution. XVIII-2009. C. Elpidio G. Rogelio Vinluan recalled the said resolution and resolved further that the election of the additional delegate(s) for Chapters entitled to more than two (2) delegates shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter from among the general membership who are in good standing. Atty. acknowledged the Resolution No. 09-5-2-SC. and Western Mindanao held in April 2007 for a term of two (2) years starting July 1. Valdez . a chapter has already served in the new cycle. The court ordered the IBP Board of Governors to file a comment on this issue. Nasser Marohomsalic) During the April 25. Western Visayas. Thereafter. for the 20072009 term. Laqui as Delegates of the IBP-QC Chapter.

Because of the disputes relating to the elections for Governor of the GMR. Soriano III is disqualified under principle of rotation of the governorship (Bar Matter No. the protest of Atty. Atty. and acts inimical to the IBP” Ruling 1. 2. by a majority vote shall determine the Chapter's official nominee for Governor of its region. Laqui were valid delegates. Article V of the IBP By Laws? 2. Atty. Benjamin Ortega of IBPNegros Occidental Chapter claimed they were nominated by their respective chapters for Governor of Western Visayas but were not allowed to be elected on account of the "Rotation Rule" under Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP By-Laws. There is a manifest intention in Sec. . Atty. Lanto as the duly elected IBP Governor of the Western Mindanao Region. 2009. of the GMR. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31. two (2) simultaneous elections for the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term was held . Issue 1. Governorship shall rotate once in as many terms as the number of chapters there are in the region. Cornelio P. Aldon and Atty. Lanto. Aldon of IBP-Antique Chapter and Atty. and Fortunato. Despite their disqualification. Soriano was elected as the next Executive vice president during the elections presided over by Atty. A new election of the IBP GMR was ordered where Soriano III won as IBP Governor. Loanzon and Atty. EVP of the IBP and other IBP Positions the SC through an En Banc Resolution created a Special Committee to investigate. He asserted that the Chapter's Board of Officers. Benjamin Ortega v. while the other election for the same position was presided over by outgoing IBP Pres. with one (1) delegate opting to abstain. Given that Atty. Attys. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Visayas Region? 4. to give every chapter a chance to represent the region in the Board of Governors. it is now the turn of the Romblon Chapter to represent the Western Visayas Region in the IBP Board of Governors.one was called and presided over by Executive Vice President Rogelio Vinluan. the eventual winner. Roan Libarios was elected as the next IBP EVP. Fortunato was declared as the duly elected IBP Gov. of Western Visayas. violation of attorney's oath. WON Atty. May 14. 586. Thus. 2009 elections. Ortega obtained three (3) votes. only one nominee shall come from any IBP chapter.Jr. Furthermore. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice President for the next term? 6. V of the By-Laws to reserve membership in the House of Delegates (which is the deliberative body of the IBP) for the elected officers of the Chapter since they have already received the mandate of the general membership of the Chapter. Loanzon and Laqui were properly recognized as delegates of the QC Chapter. Who was validly elected Governor for the Greater Manila Region? 3. Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court. Atty. Atty. Art. Atty. In separate protests. Lanto filed a Protest questioning Marohomsalic's nomination and the counting of votes in his favor and claiming that under Section 6. Lanto and Marohomsalic each received five (5) votes after the votes were counted. Erwin Fortunato) Atty. Election of the next IBP Executive Vice President (EVP) On May 9 2009. Erwin Fortunato of the IBP-Romblon Chapter was proclaimed the duly elected Regional Governor for Western Visayas in the April 25. Vinluan while in the meeting presided by Bautista.1 3. as nominees from the other chapters were disqualified Resolutions of the protests (by the Board of Governors) In its subsequent resolutions. Fortunato and Soriano III were upheld. Rogelio Vinluan is guilty under the administrative complaint for "grave professional misconduct. In the case of Atty. the protests of Atty. 31. Feliciano Bautista. not the Chapter President. On April 27. Atty. Cornelio P. GMR Gov. Aldon and Ortega argued that the rotation rule is merely directory and not mandatory and claimed a failure of elections. obtained five votes. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Mindanao Region? 5. Maramba is the duly elected IBP Gov. but also because under the rotation rule. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter was duly elected as Governor for the Western Visayas Region not only because he obtained the highest number of votes among the three (3) candidates for the position. The Western Visayas Region Election Protest (Atty. 1991). Marohomsalic was denied and further on declared Atty. Aldon obtained one (1) vote.

Rule 7. Nasser Marohomsalic not Atty. 084 for a fee of P60. In the case of Vinluan group. The presence of five (5) Governors-elect is needed to constitute a quorum of the 9member Board of Governors-elect who shall elect the Executive Vice President. REGIONAL DIRECTOR.03. whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria. the resolution of the meeting recalling Resolution No. JR. 2004 letter was a falsified court document. whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo.. Soriano as EVP. Canon 7 requires that "(a) lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. dishonest. nor shall he whether in public or private life. Bautista. The allegations against . After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the document attached to the October 12. was uncalled and unwarranted. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR. smacked of politicking. left only four (4) votes in support of Lanto's nomination . Facts: On July 7. ILOILO CITY vs. VI of the By-Laws which provides that it is the President who shall call a special meeting. Soriano. 2009 violated Sec." Added to this. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "(a) lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. October 22. The special committee reported that the resolution declaring Atty. Atty. Thus. the EVP. 6. under Vinluan. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. a Board Resolution was passed declaring Pres. Elpidio G. to the next presidency of the IBP.C. Lanto as a delegate cannot be held valid since there was a withdrawal of nine (9) signatures from the Resolution. The acts of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan et. Art. J. Vinluan who presided the special meeting on April 23. Bautista "unfit to preside" over the election and "designating EVP Vinluan to preside over the election" in lieu of Pres. SALVADOR N. Benjamin Lanto that is qualified to be elected Governor of Western Mindanao Region. OSCAR L. immoral or deceitful conduct. The elections for the IBP Executive Vice President separately held on May 9. Sustituya. a brother of Shirley Quioyo. Atty. due to Atty. SAN JOSE. and it is also the President who shall preside over the meeting. Furthermore. Clerk of Court of the RTC. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist. 2005. The Rule 1. 6732. 084 that had been presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK. 2004. and caused disunity and disorder in the IBP. The letter requested a copy of the decision dated February 12. With the premises considered. No. Lanto (Western Mindanao Region) were among the six Governors who elected Atty.Mr. Atty. In the meanwhile. EMBIDO. PE. This resolution according to the SC. Vinluan's desire to propel his fraternity brother. 2009 by the Vinluan Group were null and void for lack of quorum. Atty. Ronel F. It was then discovered that the RTC had no record of Special Proceedings No. a Solicitor in the United Kingdom (UK). Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. Vinluan's Group in defying President Bautista. ANTIQUE A. WESTERN VISA YAS. which is strongly condemned and strictly prohibited by the IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration Rule. Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of Special Proceedings Case No. Al. 3. Atty.) Key doctrine: A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner. ATTY. 42.wherein he stated that it was the respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special Proceedings No. ATTY. Hunt to apprise him of the situation. Dy Quioyo. received a written communication from Mr.01.4. Hunt sent a letter dated October 12. 2004 attaching a machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No. executed an affidavit on March 4. Vinluan. Judge Penuela wrote Mr. DECISION (BERSAMIN. the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special Proceedings No.a puny minority of the 14member Board of Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter. It was Atty. Soriano (GMR) and Atty. REGIONAL OFFICE NBI-WEVRO).000. Instead. FOR SAN PEDRO. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. are all found GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their actuations in connection with the controversies in the elections in the IBP and are hereby disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any subsequent election. 1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. XVIII-2009 was null and void since the meeting was illegal. but since Soriano and Lanto were not validly elected IBP Governors the election held was null and void. 2013.00. 5. not Atty. Ballam Delaney Hunt.

for the sworn statement of the wife was rendered unreliable due to its patently hearsay character. Jr. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. He insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirley’s petition for the annulment of her marriage. Because of this. was not overcome by the respondent’s blanket denial. vs. that he had given advice on the pertinent laws involved and the different grounds for the annulment of marriage. 2008 deadline was looming. and Rule 7. De Vera then rushed the preparation of the necessary documents and attachments for the election protest. Manuel Jalipa. De Vera to pay his acceptance fee of P30. In light of the established circumstances. nor shall he whether in public or private life. and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision. guilty of violating Rule 1. Issue: Whether respondent was guilty of misconduct? Ruling: Yes. DE VERA." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.C. dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. At the time that the aforesaid affidavits were to be signed by Lachica and . which by nature was positive evidence. De Vera.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful. the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. daughter of complainants. No. WHEREFORE. 10451. Two (2) of these attachments are the Affidavits of material witnesses Mark Anthony Lachica and Angela Almera which were personally prepared by Atty. the unworthiness of the sworn statement as proof of authorship of the falsification by the husband is immediately exposed and betrayed by the falsified decision being an almost verbatim reproduction of the authentic decision penned by Judge Penuela in the real Special Proceedings Case No.The NBI likewise recommended to the Office of the Court Administrator that disbarment proceedings be commenced against the respondent. But such reliance was outrightly worthless. De Vera had more than enough time to prepare and file the case but the former only took action when the November 8. the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. Atty. Florencia Jalipa. Jalipa that declared that her deceased husband had been instrumental in the falsification of the forged decision. had executed a sworn statement before Police Investigator Herminio Dayrit with the assistance of Atty. ran for the position of SK Chairman in 2007 but lost to her rival Bungag by one vote. in an affidavit.00. The respondent relied on the sworn statement supposedly executed by Mrs. complainants were asked by Atty. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Antique. Angeles Orquia. A. Dy Quioyo had gone back to him to present a copy of what appeared to be a court decision. 2007. Jr. had been responsible for making the falsified document at the instance of Dy Quioyo. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. De Vera. WALLEN R. that in June 2004. On November 7. After conducting its investigation. complainants lodged an election protest and enlisted the services of Atty. Respondent’s denial and his implication against Dy Quioyo in the illicit generation of the falsified decision are not persuasive.01 of Canon 1. Respondent. that one Mrs. the NBI forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas the records of the investigation. with a recommendation that the respondent be prosecuted for falsification of public document and for violation of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). a sister of Shirley Quioyo. Respondent denied any participation in the falsification.but he invoked his constitutional right to remain silent. CANON 8 SPOUSES WILLIE and AMELIA UMAGUING. In addition. Dy Quioyo’s categorical declaration on the respondent’s personal responsibility for the falsified decision. February 4. Complainants. a resident of Igbalangao. and that he had also learned from Atty.000. 084. the IBP Board of Governors suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six years.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2015 Note: Should be under Canon 10. Bugasong. not 8 Mariecris Umaguing. Rule 7.000 plus various court appearance fees and miscellaneous expenses in the amount ofP30. The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side. which by nature was negative evidence. Orquia. In its Resolution.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. According to the complainants. Atty. to the effect that her late husband. PE. ATTY.the respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo. JR.

the Court views the same to be a mere general denial which cannot overcome Elsa Almera-Almacen’s positive testimony that he indeed participated in the procurement of her signature and the signing of the affidavit. Atty. all in support of the claim of falsification. Instead. merit significant consideration as its submission appears to be a mere afterthought.000. Donato Manguiat. De Vera averred that he would only appear for the case if the complainants would give him P80. Atty. The assertion that Atty. Issue: Should Atty. De Vera. discharges him and his law firm from all causes of action that complainants may have against him. considering that he only appeared twice for the case. De Vera were falsified. Lachica discovered the falsification and immediately disowned the signature affixed in the affidavit and submitted his own Affidavit. he only asserted that he was not the one who notarized the subject affidavits but another notary public.Almera. De Vera’s comment on the same.00 from the defense counsel. De Vera to have remained in the dark about the authenticity of the documents he himself submitted to the court when his professional duty requires him to represent his client with zeal and within the bounds of the law. would not deny the Court its power to sanction him administratively. De Vera explained that the signing of Lachica’s falsified Affidavit was done without his knowledge and likewise stated that it was Papin who should be indicted and charged with the corresponding criminal offense. the complainants asked the former to withdraw as their counsel and to reimburse them the P60. to him. Atty. the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. 2007 hearing. Judge Belosillo pointed out that while Atty. it is highly improbable for Atty. On a related point. The final lining to it all is that Almera’s affidavit was submitted to the MeTC in the election protest case.000. and did not offer any explanation as to why he was not able to attend. give to Judge Belosillo to secure a favorable decision for Umaguing. Likewise. for a certain December 11. De Vera. Judge Belosillo received P60. the Court deems it apt to clarify that the document captioned "Release Waiver & Discharge" which Atty. In his Motion for Reconsideration.00 in excessive fees he collected from them. Atty. Truth be told. the withdrawal of Lachica’s and Almera’s affidavits. claimed to have discharged him from all causes of action that complainants may have against him. declaring that he did not authorize Papin to sign the document on his behalf. prompted only by the discovery of the falsification. as well as his breach of fiduciary relations. does not. The belated retraction of the questioned affidavits. De Vera had ample amount of time to have the affidavits personally signed by the affiants but still hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits at hand were falsified. DeVera allegedly instructed Abeth Lalong-Isip and Hendricson Fielding to look for the nearest kin of Lachica and Almera and ask them to sign over the names. What matters is whether. which he would in turn. Lachica’s affidavit was presented to the MeTC and drew the ire of Presiding Judge Edgardo Belosillo who ruled that the affidavits filed by Atty. De Vera did not appear before the MeTC. To remedy this. De Vera then had all the documents notarized before one Atty. De Vera authorized the falsification of Almera’s affidavit is rendered more believable by the absence of Atty. The IBP imposed a suspension of one month for knowingly submitting a falsified document in court. De Vera on this score. De Vera be held administratively liable? Held: The Court agrees with the IBP in holding that Atty. they were unfortunately unavailable. in his Counter-Affidavit. complainants executed a document entitled "Release Waiver & Discharge. it was observed that such was a mere flimsy excuse since Atty. Atty. It was held in Ylaya v. among others. For lack of trust and confidence in the integrity and competency of Atty. in order to acquire a favorable decision for his client. Gacott that:A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. De Vera filed a pleading to rectify this error seeking. no specific denial was proffered by Atty. however. In further breach of his oath as a lawyer. De Vera.000. Later. 2008 deadline for filing the election protest of Umaguing. the complainants pointed out that Atty. although promptly notified. on the basis of the facts borne out by the record. such as the present case. De Vera explained that he was hesitant in handling the particular case because of the alleged favoritism of Judge Belosillo. Unfortunately for Atty. Atty. De Vera.They were signed by Papin and Almera-Almacen. including the instant administrative case.00. According to Atty." which. Carmelo Culvera. for this Court. . he is prohibited from handling any legal matter without adequate preparation or allowing his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. He pointed out that along with his Formal Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel. De Vera sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavitbefore the court in his desire to beat the November 8. respectively.

2008 when he was out of the country. RESPONDENT. HELD: Respondent admitted in his comment and motion for reconsideration that the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his o ce secretary while he was out of the country. ATTY. Remigio Escalada. A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. J.000. These documents were forwarded to the Provincial Legal O ce by the Provincial Treasurer who knew that Renato was in Mexico to attend a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico. BATAAN CAPITOL. The Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation and report. The judge indorsed the letter to the IBP Bataan. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not commissioned to perform the o cial acts of a notary public. This clearly constitutes negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his secretary. 2014-12003 | A. BATAAN. Angeles that his letter was not meant as a compliant but merely to clarify the status of the documents allegedly notarized by Renato. and the administrative o ces in general. respondent Atty. such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public. COMPLAINANT. which in turn endorsed it to the IBP National O ce. and accompanied by a davits of the persons who executed the documents who all alleged that they did not see Renato notarize them and that it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents came out of the o ce already signed. AURELIO C. his notarial seal and records without proper training. JR.. Accordingly. The IBP endorsed the letter to the O ce of the Bar Confidant in view of the manifestation by Atty. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01. the courts. De Vera is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10. he is SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law. BALANGA CITY. effective upon receipt of this Decision. FACTS: Atty.C. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Verification with the Bureau of Immigration revealed that Renato was out of the country from March 13.All told. It is invested with substantive public interest. PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER. Aurelio (Angeles). ATTY. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Renato be suspended from the practice of law for two years. in view of his admission that he employed an o ce secretary who had access to his o ce. Where the notary public is a lawyer. Provincial Legal O cer of Bataan wrote a letter to the Hon. The Court then required Renato to comment. RENATO C. It was then referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation and report. As we have declared on several occasions. and only Renato submitted his position paper in view of the manifestation of Atty. His case should be a case of simple negligence ISSUE: The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country constituted negligence. Wallen R. The Court answers in the a rmative. 208 to April 8. respondent is ORDERED to return to complainants Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing the amount ofP60.01. Renato Bagay of 18 documents from March 13. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified document before a court. No. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public. Renato in his motion for reconsideration argued that his case should be treated with leniency since he admitted and owned up to his shortcomings and it was done without wrong intention. CANON 9 1. VS. 2008.: SECOND DIVISION DOCTRINES: Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a “Notary Public” refers to any person commissioned to perform o cial acts under these Rules. Moreover. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. Atty. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner.00 which he admittedly received from the latter as fees intrinsically linked to his professional engagement within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Decision. 2008 to April 8. ANGELES. Renato averred that it was his secretary who caused the notarization of the documents without his knowledge and authority and he had already terminated her services. Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a “Notary Public” refers to any person commissioned to perform o cial acts under these Rules. thus he failed to live up to his obligation under the Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility. 8103 MENDOZA. WHEREFORE. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not . In his comment. Executive Judge of RTC Bataan regarding the alleged notarization by Atty. BAGAY. with a stem warning that any repetition of the same or similar acts will be punished more severely. a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Angeles that he be excused from participating in the case.

Bagay’s personal record. A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent claims that for the 21 years that he has been practicing law. the Integrated Bar of the . The respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take e ect. He is responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary. Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. As we have declared on several occasions. however. meaningless. Let copies of this Decision be furnished to O ce of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. especially when the trust and confidence reposed by the public in our legal system hang in the balance.commissioned to perform the o cial acts of a notary public. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. WHEREFORE. Renato C. The people who came into his o ce while he was away. the Court REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. By his sheer negligence. As to his plea of leniency. were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege and a significant responsibility. fully aware that his secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. Instead. they later found out that the notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and e ect. Renato C. a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Where the notary public is a lawyer. should have placed him on guard and could have prevented possible violations of his notarial duty. There is an inescapable likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a mere afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him could be a conscious act of what his secretary did. He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary. with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely. Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. an additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is in order. His failure to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those directly a ected by the notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. the courts. Otherwise. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public. notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. His experience. he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize documents without any restraint. Such blatant negligence cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence. thus. the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ADOPTED with MODIFICATION. he acted as a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only infraction. 18 documents were notarized by an unauthorized person and the public was deceived. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as notary public. Thus. such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public. the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years is appropriate. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. Such prejudicial act towards the public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Finding Atty. the Court also holds him liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. He should. The Court also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months e ective immediately. their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded. Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public. which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. routinary act. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person. It is invested with substantive public interest. Thus. and the administrative o ces in general It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document. Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR. They expected that their documents would be converted into public documents. the confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that the Court will not take lightly complaints of unauthorized acts of notarization. notarization is not an empty. He left his o ce open to the public while leaving his secretary in charge. Because of the negligence of respondent. the Court cannot consider it. By leaving his o ce open despite his absence in the country and with his secretary in charge.

A fist fight ensued between the strikers and Garcia. J. is sought to be voided in the present petition. Thereafter. recover attorney's fees.Philippines.R. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. who is not a lawyer according to the order. several criminal complaints were filed against the strikers. the respondent Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department while Enaje was hired on or about February 19. and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. FGU INSURANCE GROUP. No. ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZAS. 1971. as such acting president. ISSUE: Can a non-lawyer collect attorney’s fees? RULING: No. Atanacio Pacis (5%). of the Rules of Court. which ordered with finality the reinstatement of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. (RUIZ CASTRO. Garcia. the latter was formerly the secretarytreasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life Building Employees Association. Ltd. Thereafter. clients and the public. to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession. The CIR dismissed the complaint of the Unions. No. FACTS. LTD. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Those with no criminal charges were allowed to return to work. which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. November 29. AND INSULAR LIFE BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. PETITIONERSVS. L-23959. and he cannot. The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated. and was likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions. OLBES AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G. aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.R. providing for “compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees” implies the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. RESPONDENTS. & QUINTIN MUNING. The Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they considered the Companies' unfair labor practices. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who are sworn. tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). The CIR prosecutor filed unfair labor practice against the companies. to no avail.Section 24. and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of law. that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court. J. Quintin Muning (10%) and Atty. non-lawyers cannot collect attorney’s fees. [ G. JOSE M. The Rules on “compensation of attorney’s agreement as to fees” implies existence of an attorneyclient relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of Justice. Rule 138. then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia. Since respondent Muning is not one. 3.. and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU) under FFW. in a circular issued in his name and signed by him. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. 2013) Canon 10 THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU. as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts. and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers. JBL Reyes ] KEY DOCTRINE.. ISSUE: RULING: It must be recalled that previous to the petitioners' submission of proposals for an amended renewal of their .) Two of the lawyers of the Unions (The Insular Life Assurance Co. Bancolo (March 20. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU. 1971.BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY. Employees Association-NATU.. Therefore. LTD. it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU).. The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. January 30. 2. therefore. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) rendered the following attorney’s fees to be taken from the back wages: Atty Cipriano Cid and Associates (10%). Tapay v. L-25291. The award of 10% to Quintin Muning. 1957 as personnel manager of the Companies. he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU. The petitioners were complainants in a labor case. FGU INSURANCE GROUP WORKERS & EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU.

It is not.) Key Doctrine: “A lawyer is an officer of the courts. the free and peaceful use of the Companies' gates. crashed thru the picket line posted in front of the premises of the Insular Life Building. former legal counsels of the petitioners. Exhibit B. This resulted in injuries on the part of the picketers and the strike-breakers. respectively. 1970. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL. the respondents. whose son was appointed secretary of the newly-created Board of Investments." without stating specifically the inimical acts allegedly committed. No. And despite the fact that the fiscal's office found no probable cause against the petitioning strikers. as personnel manager and assistant corporate secretary. the strikers were individually sent copies of Exhibit A. "like the court itself. despite the presence of eight entrances to the three buildings occupied by the Companies. "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. the Companies adamantly refused admission to them on the pretext that they committed "acts inimical to the interest of the respondents. the respondents adamantly refused admission to 34 officials and union members." Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. when almost all were cleared of criminal charges by the fiscal's office. He accuses in a reckless manner two justices of the Court for being interested in the decision of this case: Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro. thru their president and manager. but by innuendo would suggest that it is not. he proceeds to state that . But when most of the petitioners reported for work. Canon 11 G. entered thru only one gate less than two meters wide and in the process. "a significant appointment in the Philippine Government by the President. 1958. v. They were soon to admit. the respondents were able to obtain an injunction from the court of first instance restraining the strikers from stopping. He there charges that the ex parte preliminary injunction we issued in this case prejudiced and predetermined the case even before the joining of an issue. escorted by armed men. who pictures petitioners as "vulturous executives". Manuel Chuidian and Nestor Cipriano. and Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion. Santiago. entrance and driveway and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from. RESOLUTION (Sanchez. Vicente L. As a result of these criminal actions. and these three only for slight misdemeanors. the respondents adamantly refused to answer the Unions' demands in toto. ERLITO UY. Two days later. who. the letter. VICENTE SANTIAGO. After the petitioners went on strike. AND MORTON MEADS On the same day that the injunction was issued. despite the fact that the petitioners granted the respondents' demand that the former drop their demand for union shop and inspite of urgings by the conciliators of the Department of Labor. only three of which were not dismissed. 1968 was rendered. that these alleged inimical acts were the same criminal charges which were dismissed by the fiscal and by the courts. respondent Jose M. Then the respondents brought against the picketers criminal charges. Emilio Carreon. he is. JUANITO CALING. In his motion to inhibit. criminal charges who were readmitted were Generoso Abel la. the respondents reclassified 87 employees as supervisors without increase in salary or in responsibility. with attractive compensations. HON.respective collective bargaining agreements to the respondents. Antonio Castillo. et al. impeding. because his brother is the vice president of the favored party who is the chief beneficiary of the decision. And during the negotiations in the Department of Labor. 1. Among the non-strikers with pending *There was no connection with Canon 10 in relation to the lawyers. Fedcrico Barretto. IN RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTYS. etc. Enage was the chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining between the former and the Unions. out and in. however." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity. of the Companies' buildings. He speaks of this Court as a "civilized. JOSE BELTRAN SOTTO. his first paragraph categorizes the Court’s decision as "false. J. et al.R. January 9. Incidentally. the latter hired Felipe Enage and Ramon Garcia. threatening them with dismissal if they did not report for work on or before June 2." However. GRACIANO REGALA AND ASSOCIATES. the respondents thru a screening committee — of which Ramon Garcia was a member — refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on the ground of "pending criminal charges. Olbes.1958 were readmitted immediately by the respondents. enticing them to abandon their strike by inducing them to return to work upon promise of special privileges. brought three truckloads of non-strikers and others. a short time before the decision of July 31. SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD. however. obstructing. After the notice to strike was served on the Companies and negotiations were in progress in the Department of Labor. an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. erroneous and illegal" in a presumptuous manner. was sent — again individually and by registered special delivery mail — to the strikers. L-27072. Enrique Guidote.” The first contempt proceeding arose from the third motion for reconsideration signed by Atty. in effect compelling these employees to resign from their unions. disputed that all non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the breakthrough incident of May 23." In this backdrop. democratic tribunal".

"it would seem that the principles thus established [the moral and ethical guidelines for inhibition of any judicial authority] by the Honorable Supreme Court should first apply to itself. Really. only to conclude that there is no reason for a belief that the conditions obtaining in the case of the Chief Justice and Justice Castro "would be less likely to engender favoritism or prejudice for or against a particular cause or party. He points out that courts must be above suspicion at all times like Caesar's wife. We are thus called upon to repeat what we have said in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Another contempt proceeding is with regard to Atty. He explained that he deleted this paragraph in his rough draft." The mischief that stems from all of the foregoing gross disrespect is easy to discern. Section 20(b). Not only because it was belatedly made but also because his signature appeared on the motion to inhibit which included paragraph 6. including the President. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It sweepingly casts aspersion on the whole court." He brands such efforts as "scattershot desperation". counsel's words are intended to create an atmosphere of distrust. laying bare "the immoral and arrogant attitude of the petitioners. it is the surfacing of a feeling of contempt towards a litigant." Implicit in this at least is that the Chief Justice and Justice Castro are insensible to delicadeza. a lawyer's duties to the Court have become commonplace. not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office. it erects no shield. This explanation does not make much of a distinguishing difference. Ferrer (1967). Justice Castro. which could make their actuation suspect. inhibition is also asked of." He charges petitioners with opportunistically changing their claims and stories not only from case to case but from pleading to pleading in the same case. Sotto who accuses petitioners of having made "false.' That same canon. The attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be 'with all good fidelity x x x to the courts. he paused to ask: "What is the explanation for such mentality? Is it outright dishonesty? Lack of intelligence? Serious deficiency in moral comprehension? Or is it that many of our government officials are just amoral?" What is disconcerting is that Atty. But we cannot erase the fact that it has been made. and that no matter what the circumstances are. which paragraph was included in the motion filed in this Court only because of mere inadvertence." He puts forth the claim that lesser and further removed conditions have been known to create favoritism. it offends the court before which it is made. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. ISSUE: Are Attys. as follows: "By now. Such disrespect detracts much from the dignity of a court of justice. in categorical terms. there could hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. we repeat. ridiculous and wild statements in a desperate attempt to prejudice the courts against MacArthur. as a corollary. He makes it plain in the motion that the Chief Justice and Justice Castro not only were not free from the appearance of impropriety but did arouse suspicion that their relationship did affect their judgment." After citing acts of two judges of first instance. of disbelief. Santiago's accusations have no basis in fact and in law." It depicts them as seemingly "incapable of considering that any emanation from their mind or pen could be the product of unjudicial prejudice or unjudicial sympathy or favoritism for a party or an issue. their judgment is truly ordained by the Almighty unto eternity. And this paragraph 6 describes with derision "many of our judicial authorities" who "believe that they are the chosen messengers of God in all matters that come before them.' Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts 'can only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold. makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against 'unjust criticism and clamor. Such language is not arguably protected. Decidedly not an expression of faith. 444. "although the process has already begun.' And more. warns that loss of confidence for the Tribunal or a member thereof should not be allowed to happen in our country. He describes a proposition of petitioners as "corrupt on its face".' As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that '[i]t is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude. The slur made is not limited to the Chief Justice and Mr. It is no excuse to say that these statements were taken out of context. spells out one such duty: 'To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. Santiago and Sotto guilty of contempt? HELD: YES. 20 SCRA 441. "any other justices who have received favors or benefits directly or indirectly from any of the petitioners or any members of any board petitioner or their agents or principals.'" . It is true that Santiago voluntarily deleted paragraph 6 which contained language that is as disrespectful. For.

would amount to grave misconduct. For. When you took your oath as member of the Bar. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility. his traits of dishonesty and discourtesy not only to his own brethren in the legal profession. And yet. under Section 3(d) of the same rule. Last but not the least. the following allegations: 4. justice and fair play. 13 November 2013. It has been said that "[a] lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.against improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of justice . They do not in any manner justify the inclusion of offensive language in the pleadings. guilty of contempt." We. Meanwhile. the teachings." Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. under Section 3(a). unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. as an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties. No. He is. you promised to serve truth. just and fair by serving a cheater? 5. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Flores) unethical actuations.1âwphi1But even worse is a lawyer who violates the law.is thus transgressed.C. he is. During the proceedings of Civil Case No. Flores entered his appearance and filed his PreTrial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged from the records. therefore. Again the Philippine Constitution commands: Give every Filipino his due. the conduct of its ministerial officers. Del Castillo. ATTY. HON. Santiago is guilty of contempt of court. respondent Atty. 2. Sotto: We have analyzed the lines surrounding said statements. Atty." The precepts.   .                                                                                                                         3 More than mere contempt do his (Atty. Rizal v.where Atty. Presiding Judge. MTC. Flores filed a Manifestation in Court dated September 14. inherent in courts is the power "[t]o control. 2010 stating among others." It will not avail Sotto any to say that the Solicitor General or his assistants may not be considered offended parties in this case. accordingly." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity. Santiago a style that undermines and degrades the administration of justice. to undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people. this Court finds in the language of Atty. Flores. in every manner appertaining thereto. an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. After all. it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice. but freedom with responsibility. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN. every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. He was given a last chance to submit his Brief with the stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered waiver on his part. Upon investigation.A lawyer is an officer of the courts. it was found that during the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. but also to the bench and judges. in furtherance of justice. Atty. Judge Manahan issued an Order3 where she voluntarily inhibited from said case in view of the administrative complaint it filed against Atty. "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. 1863. This Court may motu propio start proceedings of this nature. Flores was counsel for defendant." It is Sotto's duty as a member of the Bar "[t]o abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness. Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by the Sandiganbayan. 6. As to Atty. The act of refusal by the plaintiff is violative of the foregoing divine and human laws. Flores to appear and submit his Brief indicating his MCLE compliance. improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of justice. Jose Beltran Sotto has misbehaved." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court. 8954. San Mateo. J. 1863. RODOLFO FLORES A. the injunctions just recited are not unfamiliar to lawyers. For. and that he too has committed. "like the court itself. There should be no doubt about the power of this Court to punish him for contempt under the circumstances. God said Thou shall not lie. FACTS. The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of Atty. hold that Atty. if not a malpractice of law. and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it. Do you think you are being truthful. a serious ground for disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to Rules 139 a & b. The stricture in Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Rules .

Respect must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions.000. Considering the foregoing.Respondent Atty. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility. Should Atty. Zualo v. However. With the small respect that still remains. Atty. Also. Victoria Canon 13 Royong v. 2014. we deem it proper to fine respondent in the amount of P5. After all. J. The Investigating Judge found Atty. YES. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing to obey court orders. I have asked the defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him for I am no longer interested in this case because I feel I cannot do anything right in your sala. "Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected. Flores later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance. As an officer of the court. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly. respondent Atty. Rodolfo Flores is FINED in the amount of P5. CFI 2. It must be done within the confines of reason and common sense. Atty. he must do so only within the bounds of law. November 12. No. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. 9395. COMPLAINANT. as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Atty.C. Oblena Canon 14 Areola v. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year ISSUE. enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous. Thus. by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement. but freedom with responsibility. DAVIS.ATTY. Mendoza [ A.03.VS. it is well to remind respondent that:While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client full devotion to his client's genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights. Flores failed in this respect. At this juncture. Flores be held liable for its failure to give due respect to the court and for using intemperate language in his pleadings? HELD. DAGING. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 15 DARIA O. and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. Del Castillo] . This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Figueras v. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. but because of the authority that vests in them. he is already in his twilight years. There is no doubt that Atty. Thereafter it filed a Letter stating as follows: If only to give your Honor another chance to prove your pro plaintiff sentiment. It appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent.00 and to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court processes. RESPONDENT." ACCORDINGLY. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him.000. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branchof Government to which they belong. Rule 11. Canon 12 1. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly administration of justice. The Investigating Judge recommended that Atty. I am hereby filing the attached Motion which you may once more assign to the waste basket of nonchalance. we are not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of oneyear suspension for humanitarian reasons. we find the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. RIZ TINGALON L. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a century.00 with STERN WARNING that the repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government.

In fact. as he undertook to represent conflicting interests in the subject case. respondent submitted the affidavits of Maricar and Atty. respondent contended that he never appeared as counsel for the Heirs of Trinidad or for the Heirs of Antonio. In this accord. in his stead. Davis represent conflicting interests in handling the ejectment case? RULING Yes. Villa while Atty. ISSUE Did Atty. VS. COMPLAINANTS. MYRNA L. No. ATTY.KEY DOCTRINE The prohibition against conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. Davis’ act brings the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. 2007. Meanwhile. Daging received a Retainer Proposal from Atty. was not able to obtain their written consent as required under the Rules. in Baguio City. Subsequently. Azarragarelative to his limited appearance and his consultation with Maricar prior to his engagement as counsel for Emilio. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS. or after he had already entered his appearance for Emilio on October 10. JOSEPHINE L. the Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio moved for the removal of EmilioOrola. MARY ANGELYN OROLABELARGA. She leased the space for the lounge from a certain Benjie Pinlac along Otek St. Davis transgressed Rule 15. Amarillo Music Bar.C. the surviving spouse of Antonio and the mother of Karen. AND KAREN OROLA. 2006 hearings and that his appearances thereat were free of charge. MANUEL L. the Court adopted IBP’s recommendation of 6-months suspension from the practice of law from the respondent’s receipt of the Resolution. Here. the Heirs of Trinidad were represented by Atty. Atty. He averred that he only accommodated Maricar's request to temporarily appear on her behalf as their counsel of record could not attend the scheduled June 16 and July 14. claiming that he violatedRule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. Davis represented Bagaleo in spite of the existence of the Retainer Agreement between them. rather than a litigator. he could have simply advised both to engage the services of another laywer. which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. as administrator and. and Section 20. complainants (Heirs of Trinidad and Karen) filed a disbarment complaint before the IBP. When Daging filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Bagaleo. Davis allegedly because a business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under a new name. and the other heirs of the late Antonio (son of Trinidad) with respondent Atty. In the settlement of Trinidad Laserna-Orola’s (Trinidad) estate. RESPONDENT. 2013 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. Karen. Finally. he formally withdrew his appearance on December 6. OROLA. In his defense. Due to the respondent’s new engagement. The penalty for representing conflicting interests may either be a reprimand or suspension from the practice of law ranging from six months to two years. 2. September 11. 9860. MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP. Complainants claimed that while Maricar. respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in the same case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order. Joseph Ador Ramos as collaborating counsel. In support of his assertions. 2007. the husband of Trinidad. Pinlac terminated the lease and made a certain Novie Balageo take over the operation of the bar. OROLA. the Heirs of Antonio. . 2007. sought the appointment of Manuel Orola. Azarraga represented Maricar.” The prohibition against conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. and that since no settlement was forged between the parties. he clarified that his representation for Emilio in the subject case was more of a mediator. As to both parties being clients of the law firm of Atty. as such. Foronda v. this complaint. Atty. Rule 138 as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his clients. the same was obtained only on October 18. A. Davis. Hence. Davis. he obtained Maricar’s permission for him to withdraw from the case as no further communications transpired after these two hearings. OROLA. In the course of the proceedings.03 of the Code. This is to encourage clients to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. Atty. Alvarez 3. Davis which eventually resulted in a Retainer Agreement with Davis’ firm. consented to the withdrawal of respondent’s appearance. Having been delinquent in paying the monthly rentals. Atty. respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and. Complainant (Daging) was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. FACTS This is a complaint for disbarment of Atty. which the RTC granted.

Under the afore-cited rule. Irrefragably. which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.Respondent's justification that no confidential information was relayed to him cannot fully exculpate him for the charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests. for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case. be noted that a lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the client. ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15. Salunat) It must. conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. Case No. if he argues for one client. respondent nonetheless failed to obtain the consent of Karen. the Investigating Commissioner held that there was no violation of Section 20.” This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided. whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. perforce. this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.The IBP found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests only with respect to Karen. as mandated under Rule 15. January 13. but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.(Hornilla v. ATTY. RESPONDENT.” A penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months was imposed against respondent. who was already of age and one of the Heirs of Antonio. (3month suspension) Rule 15. when respondent proceeded to represent Emilio. 2003 . Canon 16 CESAR A. ESPIRITU. In brief. JUAN CABREDO IV. COMPLAINANT.03 of the Code. Rule 138 of the Rules as complainants themselves admitted that respondent “did not acquire confidential information from his former client nor did he use against the latter any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous employment. 5831. In this case. 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. That respondent’s previous appearances for and in behalf of the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly accommodation cannot equally be given any credence since the aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. even on that assertion. who was removed for committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the heirs. respondent failed in this respect as the records show that respondent was remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as Emilio’s counsel to all the Heirs of Antonio – particularly. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence. there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim. Karen – and equally secure their express written consent before consummating the same. VS. he clearly worked against the very interest of the Heirs of Antonio – particularly. his conduct is likewise improper since Rule 15. The Investigating Commissioner observed that while respondent's withdrawal of appearance was with the express conformity of Maricar.A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.03 . as enunciated in Hornilla. In fact. provides an absolute prohibition from representation with respect to opposing parties in the same case. Also. Canon 15 of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the written consent of all concerned before he may act as mediator. Adm.04. The Court agrees with the IBP’s finding that respondent represented conflicting interests and.03 of the Code? RULING: YES. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement by Emilio was more of a mediator than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members render the rule inoperative.On the other hand. it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner. Karen – in violation of the abovestated rule. must be held administratively liable therefor. however.

he should be suspended for one year. CANON 16 . Acting on the complaint. a lawyer should be very scrupulous. as well as a violation of his oath. Atty. was a former judge. in favor of Gencars and Citimotors. while now a practicing lawyer.161. Espiritu filed a complaint against Atty. as holder of the said promissory note. Espharet al. be commingled with his own or be used by him. delivered a total of P51. which respondent failed to rebut. obligating themselves to pay solidarily. Cabredo advised Esphar to remit money and update payments to BPI-FSB through the trial court. herein respondent. lawyers must not only be proper but they must also appear to be so. respondent claims that he did not know about the receipt by his secretary on the amount of P51.161. For this reason. respondent never returned the money of complainant nor paid it to the bank.161. when Atty. In his answer. The PNs were secure by two separate chattel mortgage on two vehicles.00 to Esphar. ISSUE: Is respondent administratively liable for his failure to account for the money he received from his client? The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary. Accordingly. even after receiving this notice and two other demand letters. Two promissory notes were issued by Esphar Medical Center. Indeed. Cabredo’s office. It appears that respondent. and the cases were dismissed. However. for which he should be penalized with either disbarment or suspension. Cabredo failed to appear at a hearing of the civil cases. He thus shifted the blame on his staff. Respondent claimed that he failed to get complainant’s subsequent demand letters because of lapses on the part of his staff. and its president Cesar Espiritu and a certain John Doe. respondent Cabredo admitted that his secretary. but claimed that Tria failed to inform him about it.00 to the court or BPI-FSB. Cabredo. However. under any circumstances.161. Money or other trust property of the client coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported by the latter and accounted for promptly and should not.00 received from Esphar until he read the first demand letter of the company. defaulted in their obligation and consequently. While the cases were pending in court. sought to foreclose the two mortgage. respondent violated not only the Code of Professional Responsibility but also his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled a hearing. under any circumstances. (Esphar) Inc. Thus. Thereafter. it is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent amounted to deceit. Espiritu engaged the services of Atty. Respondent was found guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that the latter be suspended from the practice of law for three months and ordered to return the amount of P51. RULING: Yes. to represent him in the two civil cases. 161. This way. In this case. Respondent is administratively liable for his failure to account for P51. be commingled with his own or be used by him. The management of Esphar then agreed to settle the cases amicably. The BPI Family Savings Bank Inc. a joint motion to dismiss was filed by the parties. Cabredo for fraud. he should have known the ethical precepts guiding lawyers who handle money given to them in trust by their clients and the necessary consequences for violation thereof.A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. the management of Esphar found out that he did not deliver the sum of P51. the respondent failed to appear five times despite notice thus.161.From the evidence presented by complainant. filed two complaints for replevin and damages against Esphar. Hence.00 received from his client and to restitute it without any reason. making the case submitted for resolution based on the pleadings submitted by the parties. . in dealing with trust property. Rose Tria. it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith.00 to Atty. had indeed received P51. Later on. In failing to account for the money of his client. BPI-FSB.00 from Esphar. the people’s faith in the justice system would remain unshaken. Like judges. it is improbable that respondent’s secretary failed to inform complainant about the receipt of such a substantial sum of money. It was only when he read Esphar’s first demand letter dated that he learned for the first time about the receipt of the money. Esphar’s representative. Espiritu and John Doe. Subsequently.Money or other trust property of the client coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported by the latter and accounted for promptly and should not.