You are on page 1of 10

#21

Tan Jr. vs. Gallardo

[G.R. No. L-41213-14. October 5, 1976.]

FACTS: In this Special Civil Action for Certorari with Prohibtion, petitioners seek the annulment of
respondent Judge's Orders which denies their petition for a motion for reconsideration and from
disqualifying the respondent judge from hearing or trying their motion. The Solicitor General, on behalf
of the People of the Philippines, commented that he agrees with the petition to disqualify the respondent
judge from hearing the case and to remand the case to another trial court for a new decision.

Private prosecutors objected the motion to remand the case and contend that they are entitled
to appear before this Court, to take part in the proceedings, and to adopt a position in contravention to
that of the Solicitor General.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor
General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in the present proceedings

HELD: No. The SC stated that the participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited
by this Court in its Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: to collaborate with the Solicitor General in the
preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this Court. To collaborate means to
cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could
adopt a stand independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor General. There is
no question that since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State, it is but natural that
the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution.

And in accordance with Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478, It is evident, that since the Solicitor
General alone is authorized to represent the State or the People of the Philippines, the interest of the
private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand
inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the
direction and control of the criminal proceedings, contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules
on the matter.
#22 (Literally copy paste to dahil 4 pages lang yung case. Footnotes and syllabus pa yung isa. HAHAHA)

Rivera vs. Angeles

[A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000.]

FACTS: Respondent was complainants' counsel of record in 2 Civil Cases. The then Court of First Instance
of Rizal, Quezon City decided the said cases in favor of complainants. Complainants filed a complaint for
disbarment against respondent on the grounds of deceit and malpractice. Complainants alleged that
respondent did not inform them nor remit to them the amount he received from one of the defendants
in the said cases as partial settlement of the judgment obtained by complainants from the trial court.
Respondent denied the accusations and claimed that he has the right to retain the said amount and to
apply the same to professional fees due him under the subsequent agreement with complainants as
embodied in the Deed of Assignment. Complainants denied the assignment of their rights to respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or Not respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD: The Court found merit in the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to suspend
respondent from the practice of law for 1 year. Respondent's act of deceit and malpractice indubitably
demonstrated his failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed
the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of
his profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.

The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his
client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended
for his clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to
the fees of his own lawyer.
#23

Delos Reyes vs. Aznar

[A.C. No. 1334. November 28, 1989.]

FACTS: Complainant, a second year medical student of the Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her
verified complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of said university, had carnal
knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would
not submit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant further alleged that when she became pregnant,
respondent, through a certain Dr. Gil Ramas, had her undergo forced abortion.

Respondent filed his Answer denying any personal knowledge of complainant as well as all the
allegations contained in the complaint and by way of special defense, averred that complainant is a
woman of loose morality.

After investigation, the Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent
Aznar has been substantiated by sufficient evidence, both testimonial and documentary; while finding
insufficient and uncorroborated the accusation of intentional abortion. The Solicitor General then
recommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of not less than three (3)
years.

Respondent then alleges that since a period of about ten (10) years had already elapsed from the
time the Solicitor General made his recommendation for a three (3) year suspension and respondent is
not practicing his profession as a lawyer, the court may now consider the respondent as having been
suspended during the said period and the case dismissed for being moot and academic.

ISSUE: Whether or not the punishment was proper.

HELD: After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the Solicitor General
that respondent Aznar, under the facts as stated in the Report of the investigation conducted in the case,
is guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and may therefore be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court
for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. The Court stated that: It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever
his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court that he is a fit and proper person to enjoy continued
membership in the Bar. He cannot dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards of
the law profession.

The Court also disagrees with the respondents view that he has already served the 3 year
suspension. The Court stated that the requirement of Good Moral Character is a continuing qualification
and his actions violated that requirement. They found respondent to be guilty under Section 27, Rule 138
and ordered that he be DISBARRED and stricken off the from the Roll of Attorneys.
#24 (Again. 4 pages lang to. Synopsis pa yung isa. Hahaha.)

Camacho vs. Pangulayan

[A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000.]

FACTS: Complainant filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law
Offices, herein respondents. Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA
Computer College for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and for Damages, charged that
respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected, on separate occasions, without his
knowledge, compromise agreements with four of his clients in a civil case which, in effect, required them
to waive all kinds of claims they might had against the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act of
respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 9)

HELD: The Court concurs with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their
findings. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded,
nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter
to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in the same civil case. This failure of
respondent whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
#25 (Mas Malala to. 2 pages lang. HAHAHA)

Reontoy vs. Ibadlit

[A.C. CBD No. 190. February 4, 1999.]

FACTS: Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for failing to appeal within
the reglementary period the decision rendered against his client, herein complainant, in his belief that
appeal thereon would be futile. He now moves for its reconsideration claiming that he believed in good
faith that his client's case was weak, that he did not commit to handle the case on appeal, and that
complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal
from the judgment or file a petition for relief. But even if he be penalized, the suspension for one year
was too harsh given his unblemished record as a member of the Bar.

ISSUE:

HELD: Finding the arguments of respondent Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit not to be totally without merit, the
Court RESOLVES to reduce to two (2) months his penalty of suspension from the practice of law imposed
in the Resolution of 28 January 1998 with warning however that he should be more attentive to and
solicitous of the welfare of his clients.
#26

Santiago v Fojas

[A.C. No. 4103. September 7, 1995.]

FACTS: The complainants were members of FEUFA. They were accused of illegally removing one Paulino
Salvador from the said association. Salvador filed a case in DOLE and in the RTC of Valenzuela where the
former ruled in favor of Salvador while the latter was challenged by respondent. The case in the RTC was
at first dismissed, but was re-instated and required the complainants herein to file their answer upon the
motion for reconsideration of Salvador. Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration and dismissal of the case, which was subsequently denied. The respondent then filed a
petition for certiorari, which was later referred to the Court of Appeals. Although all of the motions of the
respondent were denied, he still did not file the complainants answer for the civil case. Hence, upon
plaintiff Salvador's motion, the complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to
present his evidence ex-parte. Salvador then won the case. The respondent asserts that he was about to
appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants and for the union
were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant.

ISSUE: whether or not the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in the civil case

HELD: Yes. The SC upheld Canon 14 of the PRC meaning that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense.

The respondent was inconsistent with his defense. In his motion for reconsideration of the default order,
the respondent explained his non-filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness
occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes
it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the
trial court. Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not
comply with his duty to file an answer for the civil case.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due
diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free.
#27 (Galing synopsis yung facts.) DI KO MAKITA ANO CONNECTION NITO SA ETHICS. HAHA.

Arquelada v Phil. Veterans Bank

[G.R. No. 139137. March 31, 2000.]

FACTS: Petitioners are the lessees of a 14-door apartment in Sta. Cruz, Manila, foreclosed in favor of PVB
who allowed petitioners to continue with the lease on a month-to-month basis at a stipulated rent. Later,
when petitioners failed to pay their rentals despite demands, PVB sent them a Final Notice, then filed a
complaint for Unlawful Detainer, anchored on the ground of termination of the month-to-month lease
because the Bank needed the properties for its own use. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the Bank,
affirmed by the RTC and the CA.

ISSUE:

HELD:
#28

Oparel Sr. v. Abaria

[A.C. No. 959. July 30, 1971.]

FACTS: Complainant alleged that apparently, a settlement was reached, complainant having been made
to sign a receipt in the sum of P500 for his claim, out of which was deducted P55.00 as attorney's fees,
when the truth, according to the complaint, was that respondent did receive the much larger amount of
P5,000. Respondent then answered that while complainant was asking only for P200, he was able to
secure a settlement from the employer in the sum of P500, admitting that he was given as fees the
aforesaid amount of P55. He accounted for the alleged sum of P5,000.00 by stating that P3,500 was spent
by the employer for plaintiff's operation and medical bills, another P1,000 given to complainant's family
during his confinement in the hospital, and then the P500 received in cash by way of additional settlement.

ISSUE: WoN the case would prosper

HELD: Case was dismissed. The complainant manifested that he was no longer interested in pushing
through his complaint against respondent. In his affidavit of desistance, he admitted that the
administrative charge arose out of a misunderstanding between him and respondent.

The Court stated that the relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the
latter being adequately and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is defended.
They should not be left in the dark. They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of why certain steps are
taken and why certain matters are either included or excluded from the documents they are made to sign.
It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
#29 (Galing synopsis yung facts.) BALIKAN KO TO. KASI DI KO MAKITA CONNECTION SA ETHICS. HAHAHA

People v Nadera

[G.R. Nos. 131384-87. February 2, 2000.]

FACTS: Accused-appellant Elegio Nadera, Jr. has four children by his wife Daisy. Daisy left for a job in
Bahrain. After working abroad for several years, she returned home and learned that her two daughters
had been raped by no less than her own husband and their own father, herein accused-appellant.
Thereupon, they went to the police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-appellant.
Four informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were filed in the Regional Trial
Court. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial court, however, rendered judgment
finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his daughters. He was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and three death penalties for the rapes committed. In this automatic
review, the accused-appellant's lone assignment of error was that the trial court accepted his plea of guilty
to a capital offense without making a searching inquiry to determine whether he understood the
consequences of his plea.

ISSUE:

HELD:
#30 (Galing synopsis yung facts.)

People v De Jesus & Mendoza

[G.R. No. L-39087. August 29, 1975.]

FACTS: For failure of respondent, a member of the Philippine Bar to file the brief for accused, he was
required as counsel de parte to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. And
for not heeding said show-cause order, the Supreme Court imposed upon him a fine of P200, at the same
time giving him an additional period to file his brief. Thereafter, for his failure to file the brief despite the
additional period given him, he was suspended from the practice of law. In his motion for reconsideration,
respondent related the circumstance which precluded his compliance on his part with his duty. He
explained that except for the last resolution suspending him from practice he had no personal knowledge
of any other order from the court regarding the case, and that he had no fixed address in the province
where he was temporarily residing.

ISSUE: WoN respondent committed negligence

HELD: This Court is appreciative of circumstances mentioned, which precluded compliance on his part
with his sworn duty. It is, therefore, disposed to accord leniency to respondent. There can never be,
however, complete exculpation. It is obvious that there was carelessness and negligence on his part that
rendered him unable to receive copies of orders and resolutions coming from this Tribunal. It is hard to
avoid the impression that respondent had not lived up to the exacting obligation that is assumed by a
member of the legal profession who expects to remain in good standing. Since, however, he has been
sufficiently penalized by the suspension imposed, this Court is disposed to grant his motion to that effect.
The fine, however, remains.