You are on page 1of 52

CASES: least 3 years already.

On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only
1. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from
payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues.
PRACTICE OF LAW- any activity, in or out of court which requires application of law, legal procedures, Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues
knowledge, training or experience. and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment
covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the
Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in limited practice
Black defines "practice of law" as: of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal
advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer was
of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about
pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law 5. PHIL. LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION VS. ANGARA
Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an examination for
The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The
within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners, petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme
even chairman, of the Commission on Audit. Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly qualified to practice
before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for
2. LEE VS. TAMBAGO the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
3. DOCENA VS. ATTY. LIMON HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
HELD: Atty. limon committed a violation of notarial law and Ethics of legal profession for notarizing Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
a spurious last will and testament. SC said that he is guilty of professional misconduct as he violated applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
the Lawyers Oath, Rule 138 of the ROC, Canon 1 and rule 1.01 of the CPR, article 806 of the civil code Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other
and provision of notarial law. Thus, atty. is suspended from the practice of law for 1 yr. and his laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the
notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
expected of him as a notary public as an officer of the court he is perpetually disqualified from re in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
appointment as a Notary Public. determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law
provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the
4. SANTOS VS. ATTY. LLAMAS director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly
Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a
Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the
data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at case.
1
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
6. CRUZ VS. ATTY. CABRERA

FACTS: AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY FERDINAND A. CRUZ CHARGES ATTY. It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star
STANLEY CABRERA WITH MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists
RESPONSIBILITY. that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as
the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT HE IS A FOURTH YEAR LAW STUDENT SINCE 2001, DURING A doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in
HEARING ON JANUARY 14, 2012 IN ONE CASE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 112 PASAY CITY, taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
THE RESPONDENT ENGULFED WITH ANGER IN A RAISING VOICE TO THE COMPLAINANT SAYING backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA; WHEREIN THE MANNER, SUBSTANCE AND TONE OF As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US
VOICE AND HOW THE WORDS WERE UTTERED WERE TOTALLY WITH THE INTENTION TO ANNOY, VEX which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is
AND HUMILIATE, MALIGN, RIDICULE, INCRIMINATE AND DISCREDIT COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
PUBLIC.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM BE DISMISSED CITING THE CASE OF whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed.
MARCH 4, 2004 IBP COMMISSIONER LYDIA A NAVARO RECOMMENDED RESPONDENT'S The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal
SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATING RULE 8.01 OF CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex
litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
APRIL 16, 2004, THE IBP BOARD, THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS PASSED A RESOLUTION TO paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under
ANNUL AND SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of
LACK OF MERIT. THE COURT HELD THAT IBP GOVERNORS FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURAL law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.12 OF RULE 139.B OF THE RULES OF COURT. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
OPTED TO RESOLVE THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S OUTBURST OF APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA; Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest,
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF RULE 8.01 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
WHEREFORE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT ATTY. STANLEY FOR MISCONDUCT IN condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of
VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. HE his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
IS, HOWEVER IS ADMONISHED TO BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
AN OFFICER IN COURT. bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
7. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales 8.ATTY MAGNO VS. ATTY VELASCO - JACOBA
was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law
firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters Facts: Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija
advertisements which contain the following: Chapter had a disagreement with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract they had
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. entered into. During the conciliation/confrontation proceeding, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared
VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 8:30am 6:00pm 7th Flr. on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos. Atty. Magno objected to Atty.
2
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Jacobas appeareance in the conciliation but the latter interpose that Lorenzo Inos is entitled to be government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party; (2)
represented by a lawyer inasmuch as complainant is herself a lawyer. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; (3) Collect any fee for their
Thus, this petition for willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an
1991 and (b) Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. official; and (4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba violated the Local Government Code and the member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Held: Section 415 of the LGC of 1991, on the subject Katarungang Pambarangay, provides: Section Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off
415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority
must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, xxxx. There can be no to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular
quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between
themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances
sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant where the law allows it.
to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of
the case. Doubtless, respondents conduct tended to undermine the laudable purpose of the 11. IN RE: CUNAMAN
katarungan pambarangay system. What compounded matters was when respondent repeatedly
ignored complainants protestation against her continued appearance in the barangay conciliation FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The
proceedings. title of the law was, An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
Hence, Atty. Jacoba was ordered to fine P5,000 and warned that commission of similar acts of including 1955.
impropriety on her part in the future will be dealt with more severely. Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-195170%
9. ZIGA VS. JUDGE AREJOLA 1952 .71%
1953..72%
10. JAVELLANA VS. DILG 1954..73%
1955..74%
FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago
City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice of law without Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. Section 2 of the Act
securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as provided that A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have
required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74- already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general
58. As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their profession shall always average in subsequent bar examinations.
be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all cases, the practice ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
of any profession should be favorably recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in
the provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be. c) That no conflict of the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
interests between the practice of profession or engagement in private employment and the official examinations.
duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby; Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for
Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides: Sec. 90. allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not
Practice of Profession. - (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing stationary.
their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
executives. (b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members following reasons: The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from
of the Bar shall not: (1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
3
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
War II; The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. It should be
said candidates; The law is an encroachment on the Courts primary prerogative to determine who remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right,
may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the courts denial. For one
supplement the Rules of Court. thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled
substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice law; and The pretended classification is for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer,
arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms
could not muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of
bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such
supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law. criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a
12. IN RE: ALAMACEN motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a
mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion
but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. 13. IN RE: LANUEVO
He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with
regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the FACTS: Disbarment complaint was filed against Victorio Lanuevo. Lanuevo was the Bar Confidant
Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution. during the 1971 Bar Examination. He brought 5 examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang to the
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed respective examiners for re-checking. As a result, Galang passed the examination.
before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it ISSUE: Whether or not should Lanuevo be disbarred?
is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are HELD: YES. Lanuevo has no authority to request for re-evaluation of examination results. As a Bar
calloused to please for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and Confidant, his function is to serve as a custodian of the examination notebooks only. All requests
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to the should be made by the examinee himself. Lanuevo breached the trust and confidence given by the
minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he court.
became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as
administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and 14. APPLICATION FOR THE BAR ADMISSION, VICENTE CHING
dumb. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF THE BAR:
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for a) Citizen of the Philippines
Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though b) at least 21 yrs old
as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give c) of good moral character
reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public d) resident of the Philippines
hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant, e) must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character
prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic. f) no charges against him, involving moral turpitude have been filed or pending in any
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined. court
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the g) must have complied with the academic requirements
Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise h) pass the bar examinations
the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of i) take the lawyers oath
the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will j) sign the roll of atty. and receive from the clerk of court of the SC the certificate of
4
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
license of the practice of law seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

15. PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN DACANAY True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is
Loss of Phil. citizenship ipso jure terminates the privelege to the practice of law in the Phil. the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
However, pursuant to RA 9225 a filipino lawyer who become a citizen of another country is respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
deemed never to have lost his Phil. citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a
Nevertheless, his right to practice law does not automatically accrue. he must first secure authority lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his
from the SC upon compliance with the following conditions: signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
1. Updating and payment in Full of annual membership dues in the IBP 20. TOLENTINO VS. ATTY. MENDOZA
2. payment of Prof. tax 21. LETTER OF ATTY AREVALO REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM IBP DUES PAYMET
3. Completion of at least 36 credit hours of MCLE 22. TING - DUMALI VS. ATTY TORRES
4. retaking of lawyer's oath
II. LEGAL ETHICS
16. PETITION TO REACQUIRE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW, EPIFANIO MUNESES
17. VILLA VS. AMA DEFINITIONS - it is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to
18. NARAG VS. NARAG the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
Facts: Atty. Narags spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband
courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. Atty. SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS:
Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint 1. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this petition. INCLUDES: Constitution
Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against Canons of prof. ethics
him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering Rules of Court
to his wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member Statutes
of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Special Law
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Treaties
Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for Decisions
all members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or 2. THE NEW CODER OF JUDICIAL FOR PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. As a lawyer, one must not only
refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by A. A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC
creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
a) Canon 1: THE LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND OBEY THE LAWS OF
19. AGUIRRE VS. RANA THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to RULE 1.01 - The lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The conduct.
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational RULE 1.02 - The lawyer shall not counsel or or abet activities at defiance of the law or at
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not lessening confidence in the legal system.
acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a RULE 1.03 - The lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest encourage suit or
privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person proceeding or delay any man's cause.
5
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
RULE 1.04 - The lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a controversy if terminated. Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of
it will admit of a fair settlement. respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.

PALE However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact
Cases: it was prepared by a lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case.
. Lawyers Duty to the Public Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy
(a) Canon 1 caseload. Given these circumstances the professional conduct of Oca does not warrant disbarment.

23. Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003 24. Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC# 6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS: FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was
prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and
appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to insufficient funds, thus,
assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges and
amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge then ordered all parties to submit their promised to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay the full amount, even after a complaint for
affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper disbarment was filed against her.
or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to
submit any affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was ISSUE:
dismissed because those who filed the case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were
ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya confronted Oca about HELD:
the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court,
Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative complaint. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

ISSUE: ***The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. ***
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law. Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued in
his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would
just be a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his 25. Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256, 2/31/2004
complaint. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca
explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer FACTS:
necessary. In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything. Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty.
Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. The facts submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they
show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but
the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once for they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both
the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is respondents unserved with notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was
6
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar. He not only sets himself liable for a
administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the CPR, specifically the mandate of
in a handwritten letter. Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.***
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The
Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co- 27. Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of
the resolution requiring comment was never deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty. FACTS:
Alejandro. Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent)
ISSUE: for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another
woman are grounds for disbarment. The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiance Irene
Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sports caster, to him as her friend who
HELD: was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children.
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried
on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from respondent
prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at
of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning
warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her
another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy
even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct. with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
was referred back to the IBP.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words
26. Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC# 4762, 6/28/2004 "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7,
2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and
FACTS: Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
Complainants husband sold a piece of land to Respondent who issued 8 post-dated checks as
payment and which checks however subsequently bounced prompting Complainant and her husband In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with
to make repeated demands but to no avail. Complainant alleged that Respondents unlawful refusal Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the
and dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her husband, who died disillusioned and immediate members of their respective families. He also said that his special relationship with Irene
embittered. Respondent countered that, Complainant did not know the real story, and that the is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
non-payment of the checks was justified by the unresolved problem of right-of-way which ground for disbarment.
Complainants husband supposedly had guaranteed. He also alleged that he was entitled to set-off
what he owed for the land acquisition against advances made by Complainants husband and for cost ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
incurred when he defended Complainants son in a criminal case.
HELD:
RULING: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. The issuance of worthless checks
constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral character in serious doubt, though ***While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two
7
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the Fortunados,
so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An
relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights
and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.*** this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some
bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts
violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.
28. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151
29. Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392, 6/29/2010
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with FACTS: Complainant was Respondents secretary (in 2002), later she became his lover and common-
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court to law wife. Still later, Respondent brought her to a mountainous part in Biliran where he left her with
answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, a religious group which Respondent headed.
order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a resolution the Thereafter, and upon Respondents instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected
Court granted respondents motion and required complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant with drugs. She remained in captivity until her mother aided by the Provincial Welfare
Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed Development and the police, rescued her. Complainant sought Respondents disbarment alleging as
the following acts: well that Respondent contracted a bigamous marriage in marrying Leny Azur despite the subsistence
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado of a prior marriage to Ma. Shirley Yunzal.
and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court
fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation. RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
xxx the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 7 (A lawyer shall not
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on August 30, engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q- or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession) of the CPR;
15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as ***his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondents acts of converting his
attorneys fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold secretary into a mistress, contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny are grossly immoral which
at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with no civilized society in the world can countenance. Complainants subsequent detention and torture is
the Register of Deeds of Iligan City; gross misconduct which only a beast may be able to do. Canon 1 of the CPR.***
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales]
defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees. 30. Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494, 6/27/2008
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract. FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit from Greenville Realty and Development Corp.
HELD: represented by Complainant as its president and general manager. Her total unpaid account reached
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months. P71,1007.88. Despite repeated demands, Respondent failed to pay her account and even vacated the
RATIO: leased premises without notifying Complainant.
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon
42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month; WARNED that repetition of same or similar act will be
client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional dealt with more severely. ***Having incurred just debts, Respondent had the moral duty and legal
Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same responsibility to settle them when they became due.***
8
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
PART 2 OF CANON 1
Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid obligations, and without the
complainants knowledge and consent. *** Respondents abandonment of the leased premises to 32. SAMANIEGO VS. ATTY FERRER 6/18/2008
avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon I*** (a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, Facts:
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 1.01 (a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct). Early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to
handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.subsequently, they
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity their daughter born. The affair ended in 2000 and since then,respondent failed to support his
and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial and legal system is daughter.ms. Samaniegao, filed a complaint against the respondent before the IBP commission on
ensured. bar discipline.A member of the bar?

31. Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10 Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?

FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for the purchase of a piece of land. Instead of a deed of Ruling:
sale, Respondent issued a temporary receipt and a certificate of land occupancy assuring
Complainant that he could already use the lot. Complainant, upon learning that the certificate could Yes, the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to
not be registered with the Register of Deeds, then confronted Respondent who admitted that the disciplinary actions. rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly
real owner was a certain Rubio and that the lot was still pending litigation. prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession, thus the court sustaining the recommendation
of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law practice for 2 years. Respondents credibility is highly
questionable he even issued a bogus certificate of land occupancy to Complainant whose only fault Principle:
was that he did not know better. To the unlettered, said certificate could have easily passed off as a -legal ethics; we have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subj. to
document evidencing title. In fact, Complainant actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of disciplinary action---We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct
Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds. Complainant readily parted with P70T because of the false subject to disciplinary action.[15] The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,[16] or
assurance afforded by the sham certificate. indefinite[17] or definite[18] suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in
Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr.,[19] we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said case,
of the CPR. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled
professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer - That one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make
of the court. this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must
emphasize that this Courts investigation is not about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct
Respondent acted in his private capacity, misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to as one of its officers and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[ On another point, we may
Complainant, later refused to return his money. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction agree with respondents contention that complainant was not entirely blameless. She knew about
with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one complicit in the affair
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it is
immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Courts
investigation is not about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct as one of its officers and his
9
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.] Facts: complainant,a government employee work as a mail sorter in manila central postoffice.she
applied for a loan thru the assistance of atty. Deciembre in the amount of 20thousand pesos from
33. VENTURA VS. ATTY. SAMSON 11/27/2012 rodella loans inc.as security of the loan,respondent required her toissue blank check that she would
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we fill out according to their agreed monthlyamortizations.notwithstanding upon full payment of the
find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, loan respondent did not return the remaining blank checks.respondent also made falsification of the
constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had amount of the check and made it appear complainant had exchanged them for cash.the respondent
sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that filed severalcases against the complainant pertaining to the blank checks issuance as well as the loan
he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of payments.the ibp board of go vernors investigate the matter.
having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act Ruling. Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 1, rule 101 of the code of
by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for professional responsibility.his conduct is a serious dishonesty and and professionla
the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession. misconduct,rendering him to be suspended indefinitely in practicing law.
Principle:
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year- Legal ethics; atty; disbarment; Code of professional responsibility; nothing should b done by any
old minor, who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession---CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined PROCESSES.Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
accordingly. conduct.The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."7 To this end, nothing should be done by any
Principles: member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public
Legal ethics; As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 14 the possession of good moral character is in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to Evidently, respondent failed to comply with the foregoing canons. As shown by the records and as
retain membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe found by the Commissioner, complainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15 Consequently, any security for the P20,000 loan she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully
errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends filled out with various amounts they had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had
to show said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been dishonored upon presentment, respondent
warrant suspension or disbarment. even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.16 Immoral expected from and highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.9 The fact that the conduct pertained
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be to respondents private dealings with complainant is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character
*** We find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but also a continuing qualification for all
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted members of the Bar.
he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he
asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. 35.RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. *** unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a piece
of property over which he has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the
34.Juanita manaois, complainantVs.Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent amount they have paid him for it.
10
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment, respondent The 3 meetings by the judge Abastillas with interested who had a stake on the outcome of the
transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot, criminal case and the record of telephone conversation where said cases were discussed manifested
located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City. judge abastillas willingness, nay, propensity to enter into deals with motivation incongruous to the
Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Assignment. merits of the cases pending before him. Judge Abastillas committed serious misconduct no less. It is
The balance was to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments of P187,500.00 peculiarity essential that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high
each. Thus, complainants issued in favor of respondent four postdated checks in the amount of degree to proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of
P187,500.00 each. Respondent was able to encash the first check dated August 17, 1999.2 its administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a judge, like cesars
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in wif, must be pure but beyond suspicion.
full the price of the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment. Principles:
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they Code of judicial Conduct requires that a judge be embodiment of competence, integrity and
were still willing to pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that independence, he should administer justice impartially and without delay. He should behave at all
respondent work on Crown Asias execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or actuations of the judge abastillas transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required for
deceitful conduct. Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of judges.
Professional Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.. 37.VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, FACTS:
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was
Held: Yes, introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein
suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug,
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her
of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign anAffidavit of Disclaimer
conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyers which the latter signed without reading the saidaffidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly
professional duties. This Court has made clear in a long line of cases7 that a lawyer may be disbarred advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead ofturning them over to her,
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her
officer of the court. the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, sometime in April or May 2001,
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a respondentinformed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his
contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse political campaign as he was then running for the position ofProvincial Board Member of the 2nd
unit and lot in question. When he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under District of Pampanga
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it was
unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership. Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an
Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It
right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price was then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months
of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said and that he be ordered to return to complainant the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The
property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed a Motion for
purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to
(P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters worse for him. Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
36. LEE VS. ABASTILLAS, 234 SCRA 28
11
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration
ISSUES: Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainants
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there
(2) Whether or not respondents act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a portion of the monetary award
disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the Code. thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent
issued a writ of execution but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ.
Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to
HELD: the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the
moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be complainants employer.
immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to ISSUE:
constitute a criminal actor so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. On Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03,
sexual relation and on respondents subsequent marriage, by his own admission, respondent is Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall HELD:
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage, lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from
complainants allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers
disbarment cases. from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or
interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering intoa settlement with them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests;
Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds
only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also
of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As complainant voluntarily and The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that
intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel when she immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough in the absence of indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the
contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
his duty in accordance with his oath. reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of
and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.However,
investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision. the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous
administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the
38.ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013 Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to,
Facts: instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents transgressions
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case. as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
12
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Principles: NO, under art 1491 CC lawyrs are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the
Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government office may disciplined as a member of property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
the bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of the oath as a lawyer--chapter 1 of their public/ judicial sles. However such prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the
the Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property.
prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Consequently, where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, as in the instant case,
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for no violation of art. 1491.
any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in
government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private Principles:
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.26 - LEGAL ETHICS;Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either
It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in
Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.27In this light, a which they intervene by virtue of their professional applies only if the sale or assignment of the
lawyers compliance with and observance of the above-mentioned rules should be taken into property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property----Under
consideration in determining his moral fitness to continue in the practice of law. Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal intervene by virtue of their profession.[7] The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to include not
profession."28This proceeds from the lawyers duty to observe the highest degree of morality in only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. The rationale advanced for the
order to safeguard the Bars integrity.29 Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, prohibition is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. persons.[8] It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the client.[9] However, the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes
community.36 It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property. Consequently, where the
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the
revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.37 On the other hand, gross Civil Code attaches.
misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a -The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with a great cautiononly in clear casesof
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment." misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and ember of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as penalty---We note that the report
RAMOS VS. ATTY. NGASEO 12/9/2004 of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-
FACTS: Raamos went to atty. Ngaseo to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of 47, does not clearly specify which acts of the respondent constitute gross misconduct or what
land. After the CA rendered a favorable decision ordering the land to be returned to Ramos and his provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility have been violated. We find the recommended
siblings (such decision having been final and executor). Atty. Ngaseo sent a demand letter to ramos penalty of suspension for 6 months too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed by the
asking for the delivery of a pieceof alnd without the complainant allegedly promised as payment for respondent. The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear
respondents appearancefee. As a result, ramos filed bfore the IBP a comlaint charging atty. Ngaseo of case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
vioalationof the CPR for demanding the delivery of a parcel of land whih was subj. of litigation. The Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.[12] All
IBP found atty. Ngaseo guilty. Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate 1491 cc because when he considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient and reasonable.
demand the delivery of the piece of land, the case has been transmeitted, when the appellate BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORP VS. ATTY MENDOZA 3/31 2005
ordered the return of the land to the family of ramos. Facts:
ISSUE: On September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car from it and the respondent personally signed,
WON Atty. Ngaseo violated 1491 of CC. the latter was to be fetched at his residence. The respondent rented another Toyota Camry from the
HELD: complainant on September 28, 2001, this time with Plate No. WRT 557, and was, likewise, fetched at
13
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
his residence. This second contract was also personally signed by the respondent. The statements of should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed
account[4] were, thereafter, sent to the respondent at his office and business address. Despite by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity in the legal profession.[12] Thus, lawyers must
repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay his account. Hence this complaint promptly pay their financial obligations.[13] Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms
charging Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza with grossly immoral and unethical conduct, praying for his of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[14]
disbarment and that his name be stricken-off from the Roll of AttorneysAccording to the
complainant, the respondents refusal to pay for the complainants car rental services constitutes DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. DE DIOS 1/26/2001
deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which violates the Canons of Professional Ethics Facts:In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a
and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on Human RelationsRespondent offers two reasons for corporation, which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.On January 10,
non-payment: First, that the obligation was incurred not by him but by his law office Martinez & 1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI)
Mendoza. Second, that the respondent almost met an accident on the two occasions he used the with the Securities and Exchange Commission.[2] Complainant paid on respondent a monthly
services of the complainant and therefore he should not be penalized for exercising its right to retainer fee of P5,000.00. On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay her
contest complainants questionable billings. unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and thirty five thousand
pesos (P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997. On January 29, 1998,[3]
... complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board
Issue: WON Atty. Mendoza is guilty with with grossly immoral and unethical conduct. resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.[4] Complainant soon learned that her shares
had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
Held: complainant from the corporation completely. While respondent rose to be president of the
As to the first reason, we reiterate that as decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, respondent was corporation, complainant lost all her lifes savings invested therein.
liable for the obligation to the complainant. Indeed, respondent cannot avoid the obligation and Issue:
pass it on to his law firm and just make a complete denial considering that he is a name partner in WON Atty. De Dios in violation of canon 15 and Art 1491 of CC.
the firm and law partnership of Martinez and Mendoza Held:
As to the second reason, respondent admits that there was no written demand made for the Yes, because she remised in her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar. Respondent claims that
complainant to account and answer for the near accidents alleged by respondent, which near there was no attorney-client relationship between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It
accidents as we understand are his reasons for not immediately paying. We find the absence of a was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in behalf
written demand from the respondent quite odd especially in the case of a lawyer who is seeking to of complainant.
exercise his right to contest complainants questionable billings or otherwise hold complainant There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board
accountable for the said near accidents. It would perhaps be understandable if the omission was of directors nowe included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki
made by a layman; but for a lawyer not to put his demand in writing, it would be uncharacteristic to as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director.[7] The present situation
say the least. shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.
The reason offered by respondent for not paying complainant particularly the alleged near accident Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at
is, therefore, not justifiable. The said reason appears to us trite and contrived. large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging in
Principles: unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Legal ethics; administrative complaints; a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing
any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the Principles:
fidelity and integrity in the legal profession--- It is settled that a lawyer may be disbarred or Legal ethics; conflict of interest; where a lawyer wa retained by a person to form a corporation and
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to appeared as counsl in behalfof said person but said lawyer wa subsequently shown to be in collusion
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an with the board of directors of the corporation against the said client, there is a clear conflict of
officer of the court.[11] A lawyer must, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal interest.
profession. Indeed, a lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially intheir dealins with their clients and the public at
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity large with honesty aand integrity in a manner beyond reproach-- Lawyers must conduct themselves,
14
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a jurat, or signature witnessing.
manner beyond reproach.[8]We said:To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the (c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make
law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, of a mark on an instrument or document if:
all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that (1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct (2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected
have no place in the legal profession. witnesses to the instrument or document;
The lawyers oath of obligations ad violation thereof is a ground for suspension , disbarment or (3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
other disciplinary action. (4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names
and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses); and
sir: 12/ 3/ 19 (5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

(b) NOTARIAL LAW RULE 4


SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of
section 2 rule 3. an atty. must apply as a notary public., because it is impressed with public interest work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial
thats why there is a petition requirement and publication. act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial
authority is valid in 2 yrs ending 31st day of dec. may be renewed by written application fro renewal, jurisdiction: chan robles virtual law library
within 45 days before the expiration an atty. may file their renewal, to renew submit a written (1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;
application. in case of renewal no hearing, unlike in applications, hearing is required. if your (2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents
certification is expired and you did not file application for renewal, then it os deemed original requiring notarization;
application. the jurisdiction is limited only to the province where you filed your application. every (3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined
notary public entitled with 1 commission and 1 seal. kaning imo seal, buy it in accredited seller or for treatment; and
manufacturing and you cannot buy it just like over the counter drug. (4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.
what if the seal is destroyed? report to the notarial judge in order to buy new seal (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document -
RULE 4 (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts: (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through
(1) acknowledgments; competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
(2) oaths and affirmations; when a a lawyer is one of the recipient? he cannot notarized.
(3) jurats; chan robles virtual law library a notary public cannot notarized family relative.
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications; and RULE 11
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules. SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied. chan robles
instrument or document presented for notarization if: virtual law library
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark; (1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned (3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the
notary public"; and chan robles virtual law library month following;
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, (4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
15
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge; obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge; falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes.
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act; These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence; Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV; immoral or deceitful conduct.
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules;
and It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes it. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction. authorized may act as notaries public.[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.[15]
required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not
satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint 43. DELA CRUZ VS. ATTY. DIMAANO
are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Facts: In their complaint for disbarment against respondent, complainants alleged that on July 16,
Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. According to
disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the
Court. notarized document when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants "personally
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public, came and appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the document in his
subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate presence.
administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume
RULE 6 full ownership of their deceased parents' property in and sell the same to the Department of Public
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, Works and Highways.
lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the
notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in good faith relying on the
the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community tax
acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent certificates appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would not, according to
police report. respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of, each other for 30 years.

42. TAN TIONG BIO VS. ATTY. GONZALEZ Issue: Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing violations of his duties as a
the lawyer notarized a document in pasig city, when in fact his commission s jurisdiction is quezon notary public.
city. SC said while seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, Held: YES.
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal
dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray [13] is very much on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and
apropos: personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for
under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in accordance with the following requirements:
has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to (a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of
16
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is Ruled: SC agreed with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.
done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported
executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made by the definition of a jurat under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice or . A
under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.[2] jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, notaries identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity ; (c) signs the instrument or
public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public
ascertain that the document is the partys free act or deed. as to such instrument or document.
Sir: a lawyer notarized a document which the parties to it is his relatives within 4th civil
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their consanguinity. SC said the notary public does not need competent proof of identity if he personally
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be known the parties because it it shown in the JURAT of the documents.
remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of 47. ESPINOSA VS. ATTY. OMANA
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omanas legal
44. ATTY. LINCO VS. LACEBAL advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a
Attorney; notarization. The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and signed the Deed document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the
of Donation before the respondent notary public does not justify the respondents act of notarizing conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took
the Deed of Donation, considering the affiants absence on the very day the document was actually possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow
notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the Deed of Donation, respondent attested that Atty. employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not
Linco personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD.
have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003 a day before Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and
the Deed of Donation was notarized, and respondent was aware of that fact. Clearly, respondent requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that
made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-
oath as a lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and notarized the
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent should not notarize a document unless the contract.
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Florita S. Linco v. Atty. ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.
Jimmy D. Lacebal. A.C. No. 7241. October 17, 2011.

Sir: SC said that atty lacebal is suspended because in notarizing a document the parties who executed HELD: YES.
the document must appear personally before the notary public, even if they previously met and the We cannot accept Omaas allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the
party informed him his intention for notarizing his document. contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaa herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true
that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaas negligence in
45. NEVADA VS. ATTY. CASUGA (Not discussed) doing her notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in
his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his
46. JANDOQUILE VS. ATTY REVILLA secretaries9 or any member of his staff.
Issue: Is whether the single act of notarizing the complaintaffidavit of relatives within the fourth civil
degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid identification cards is a Sir: SC said in preparing a void document, he violated the CPR for engaging unlawful conduct. In the
ground for disbarment. matter of notarizing a document, a lawyer is personally liable for entries in the notarial book.
17
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
48. UY VS. ATTY. SANO be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

The lawyer was supended because he notarized a document even though his commission is already Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in
expired. anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
49. BRENNISEN VS. ATTY CONTAWI (Not discussed)
50. WILLIAMS VS. ATTY ICAO (not discussed)
51. PENA VS. ATTY PATERNO (not discussed) 53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378
52. GOKIOCO VS. ATTY. MATEO
Sir: the defendants in civil case the compliant is subscribed and sworn to, but in fact her death We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a
certificate says that she was dead at the time the complaint was said to be subcribed and sworn to. . well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
Before the complainant died before signed the document she died. SC suspended the lawyer outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community
reasoning that he violated his lawyer oath. Notarial act should be Truthful carrying out its duty, for has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
the purpose of preserving the public integrity. Courts and public at large must relied the document effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus
being notarized. to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product
of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.
(c) Canon 2 & 3
54. Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC#5299, 8/19/2003
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND Facts:
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF
THE PROFESSION. Simbillo advertised himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist. These advertisements
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and further research showed that
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the similar advertisements were published in the Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the
oppressed. Philippine Star in August 5, 2000.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal
advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latters rights. In September 1, 2000, Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services,
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal filed by Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office, Atty. Ismael G, Khan.
business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the Simbillos advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and violated rules 2.03
circumstances so warrant. and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, Simbillo professed repentance and beg for the Courts indulgence, this rings hollow as he again
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS. advertised his services in an issue of Buy and Sell Free Ads Newspaper in August 14, 2001, and again
in October 5, 2001.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Rulings:
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.[12] It is a profession in
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields
its communications that said partner is deceased. profits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who
18
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.[15] The following violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ***A lawyer is proscribed by the
elements distinguish the legal profession from a business: Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a person not licensed to
practice law. ***In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held that an agreement
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is
the highest eminence without making much money; null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that
complainants allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough against respondent on this matter.
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was
to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers
with their clients. from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises,
to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent
and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one
simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled
Sir: a lawyer was also suspended due to unlawful solicitation. the practice is not a business but a by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
profession...gaining of a livelihood is a secondary considerations but the duty of the public
legal solicitation - in accordance with the dignity legal profession Sir:can a lawyer engage other profession or business?
practice does not make us rich, Villatuya is an accountant. atty. Tabalingcos promise to give the
55. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012 former 10% of the atty. fees for the service rendered to the client. However the latter did not pay the
Facts: obligations.
In his position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was Atty. fees should not be shared with a non-lawyer. SC said he violated CPR the prohibition of
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of soliciting cases. (suspended)
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he
would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, (d)Canon 4 & 5 MCLE (BM#850, 10/2/2001)
in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients.
Issue: CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
complainant; ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING
Held: LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees. AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not concur
with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is MCLE Purposes: Rule 1, Section 1 (36 UNITS)
19
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
1.) Ensure that IBP members keep abreast with Law and Jurisprudence throughout their (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
career. Justice;
2.) Maintain ethics of profession
3.) Enhance the standard practice of law. (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
RULE 2
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these (f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence
the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
with these Rules.
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special
RULE 15 Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a
retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and associations
of law schools and/or law professors. (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least
ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by
the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial
determined by the Court. Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
-commission shall monitor the program, every IBP members is req. within 3 yrs.
to complete 36 units. (l) Governors and Mayors.
2 hours of international
RULE 3: *any group maybe accredited to become an MLCE provider
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three RULE 9 (To issue accreditation)
(3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the
admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for following:
thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at
RULE 7 least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from record of attendance only if the members signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the
the MCLE requirement: activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the members name and number in the Roll of
Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
of Executive Departments;
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the
the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers activity;
covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by
20
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
location, subject matter and length of the activity. the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activity Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a 56. Atty. Vitriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, AC#4984, 4/1/2003 (ND)
copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
57. Lim vs. Atty. Barcelona, AC#5438, 3/10/2004
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not
less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE. We had held previously that if a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as
government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground.[19] More significantly,
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions. lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than
lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
RULE 12-constitutes non- compliance who holds a responsible public office.
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period; privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A
lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and
within the prescribed period; disbarment.[21] More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty for the revocation of such privilege.
(60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice; 58. Collantes vs. Atty. Renomeron, AC#3056, 8/16/1991

(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period; Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes,
house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for
compliance with the MCLE requirements. registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its
subdivision.
(e) Canon 6
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE the documents with certain special conditions between them, which was that V&G should provide
OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS. him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip,
21
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondents Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS
representatives. ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.

Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
the registrability of the documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him
refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar
additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial. integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only
Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to
as a public official, and (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government further the States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
service in the discharge of official tasks. require thet the cost of the regulatory program the lawyers.

Held: (1) Yes, a lawyers misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice law
lawyer. The lawyers oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if
The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce
disbarment or other disciplinary action. its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over
matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as
(2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of
their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.
deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any mans cause for any 2. Francia vs Atty Abdon
corrupt motive or interest (Rule 1.03). He has, nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he
introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in
59. Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, AC#5738, 2/19/2008 (ND) facilitation fee from the union members. The records bear out that the complainant, at the outset,
60. Sierra vs. Lopez, AC#7549, 8/29/2008 61. Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., AC#7332, 6/18/2013 (ND) made clear his intention to seek the respondents assistance in following up the unions case in the
Canon 7 CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any
1. In re Edillon appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan, a former client
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The who allegedly won a case in the CA in August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the
IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and does this for a
its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during a telephone conversation when the
Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining latter told him he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation fee. 34 His connection with Vistan was the
to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him and that he got a
portion of the loot. His gesture of introducing the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the what the latter asked of him was with his approval. It registered a mistaken impression on the
sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good complainant that his case can be expeditiously resolved by resorting to extraneous means or
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence channels. Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant, the fact
of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistans illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the legal profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary
Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP for which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
22
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold taking the Lawyers Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the
profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach. 1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he
the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice. signed as attorney whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may render a person liable
3. In re: Haron Meling for indirect contempt of court.
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling 2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
(Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar. qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as
Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than
and for Less Serious Physical Injuries. the possession of legal learning.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of 3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver
media practitioners and other people. that he or she has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing the regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
injuries to the latter. convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his communications, as there any pending case or charge against him/her.
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the a. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate
Bar. silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson,
their former professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding. 4. Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit
a. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has Facts:
moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single incident Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
as closed and terminated. over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude. Abandonment.
b. Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his communications really
contained the word Attorney as they were typed by the office clerk. Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing the bar,
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling: respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a married woman, who
a. Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can bore him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling of adultery against respondent and Benita later followed.
are still pending.
b. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it was
same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character. Rebecca who was the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the country
without his consent and thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.
ISSUE: WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently, before the IBP-
HELD: PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the CBD. Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to support her allegations of
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the existence of
23
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
prima facie case for adultery. Respondent, however, failed to present evidence to support his claim little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other woman.As we
and failed to personally attend hearings. have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to
maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his suspension from
the practice of law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was accepted and adopted by the IBP WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED
Board of Governors.
5. Sps. Rafols vs Atty Barrios
Issues: FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General
SantosCity, wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge
Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for disbarment? Dizon, Jr.The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as
acceptance fee.On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence
Ruling: and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The
respondent andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: already waiting. Therespondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their
case was pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor,
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct: CANON 7 assuring their success up tothe Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar. ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
HELD: YES Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
Bar Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the
legal profession.
complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent wasaware of the illegal purpose of
the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be
aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report andRecommendation, viz.:. . . Being
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards
the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court issomething
of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain
beyond the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact in
from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast
scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.
Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge
Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case
The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession
which waspending before the sala of Judge Dizon.The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened
would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of ourlegal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain
which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the
not only legal proficiency but also a very highstandard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from
in order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the
Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138,9 of the Rules of Court are not
high moral standards of the legal profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of the
limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code of Professional
private capacity." To reiterate, possession of good
Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification
Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the integrity and
for all members of the bar.
dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar

Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have children with
another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems to be 6. Garrido vs Atty Garrido

24
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Facts: The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a 7. Mendoza vs Atty Deciembre
supplementalaffidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. FACTS:
Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from
chargingthe m with gross imm oral ity, in violati on of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 , of the Code Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in
of P rofessi onal Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn
daughter that he r husband was hav ing an aff air with a woman other than his wi fe against the Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates,
and al re ady had achild with her; and the same informati on was confi rme d when she made remittances, however, to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to
one r of he r daughte rs saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other March 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough
respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their chil d in tow. After a much further investigation into the to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would
matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00.
had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent
joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent
financialsupport. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby
theycomm itt e d the suppose d i mmorali ty, so as such, they we re not gui lty of a paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.
vi ol ati on of Canon1, R ule 1.01.
Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 the amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000
and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense beingsupposedly respectively, which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant
com mi tt ed whe n they we re not lawye rs. received on November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed
P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount.
Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling
Held:Yes. M em be rshi p in the B ar is a pri vile ge , and as a pri vile ge be stowe d by l aw
up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
through the Supre me Court, me mbership in the B ar can be wi thdrawn whe re
circumstances show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
academic or moral.In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against
Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule
complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was
1.01 of the Code of P rof essi onal Re sponsi bi li ty, whi ch com mands that a lawyer
complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15,
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, Thecontention
1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason
of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall notaff ord the m
account closed; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction;
exe mpti on from sancti ons; good moral characte r was already re qui re d as a condition
complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P.
precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty.
Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued
Garrido and Valencia wereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in
by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up
promoting obedienceto the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
when complainant affixed her signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue
cater to hisown personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the
blank checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several
legalprofession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher
Garridosabandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner;
amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.
or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not
consistentwith the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment
ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code
isaffi rme d
of Professional Responsibility, and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law.

25
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
HELD: who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his
members of the bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be privilege to practice law for life is in order.
beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.
8. Atty Embido vs Atty Pe
The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability. In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the
bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
mere citizen at another. of the legal profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can
members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of justify a lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate
Professional Responsibility, to wit: falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of
* CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in
for law and legal processes. this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. the personal status of a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and Bar.
support the activities of the integrated bar. It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, that may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the and integrity.The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among
legal profession. them who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorneys Oath for
them to:
As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious constituted authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x
amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as x x not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts nor consent to the same; x x x delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct themselves
manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession. as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to their clients x x x.
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a
could accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny
wield its supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyers Oath and the canons of
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended
in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the
26
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
privilege to practice law confers upon him.27 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary This Court has repeatedly held: "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good
authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. 28 The test is whether the accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of
conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
the Court.29 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." While respondent does not deny
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing
Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision. out that "men by nature are polygamous," and that what happened between them was
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR "nothing but mutual lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys. reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.

9. Zaguirre vs Atty Castillo The Court found that Castillos show of repentance and active service to the community is a just
Facts: and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with suspension of two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirres further claim for the
Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
the bar and before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillos
daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and Canon 8
promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found 1. Atty Reyes vs Atty Chiong
him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration. FACTS
Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a business venture to set up a
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support factory for seafood products. Xu invested P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not
her. In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a established the factory and asked for his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored Xu. Xu
lawyer and proving his good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter engaged the services of Atty. Reyes, who filed a complaint for estafa against Pan (represented by
stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year since the Atty. Chiong). The complaint was assigned to Asst. Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga, who
original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. For failure to appear and
the Court and attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Pan in the RTC of
of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each. Manila. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion
to quash the warrant of arrest. He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga a civil complaint for the
Issue: collection of a sum of money, damages, and for the dissolution of the business venture against
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct, making him punishable Xu, Atty. Reyes and Salanga. Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Chiong for
of Indefinite Suspension. filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong alleges
that Atty. Reyes was impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing the estafa case. Salanga was
Held: impleaded because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the investigation. The SC
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross referred the case to the IBP.
immoral conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. The
attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to ISSUE
support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is W/N the civil complaint was groundless
highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self- W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in the civil complaint
stultification.
HELD

27
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead Atty. Reyes and 3. Saberon vs Atty Larong
Prosecutor Salanga in said civil complaint. Facts:
IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case. There was no Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave misconduct for allegedly using
need to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga since they were not parties in the business abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty.
venture. Their inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and the suit was larong with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia,that this is another in the series of
filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit, Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and blackmail suits filed by plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin for
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension financial gain.
SC: affirmed IBPs recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned some alternative Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous and bereft of any factual or
remedies Atty. Chiong could have taken if his allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have legal basis" complainant filed the present complaint.
filed a motion for reinvestigation or motion for reconsideration of Salangas decision to file the By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP Investigating commissioner held that
information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was also available if it was indeed filed the word "blackmail" connotes something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is
without basis. criminally charged with extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not offensive,to characterize
that persons act as blackmail.In view thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of
gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30days.IBP Board of Governor
2. Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack of merit

Facts: Issue:
Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque) filed a complaint against
Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of the bar for using improper and offensive language and Complainant appealed challenges hthev res. as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandatory
threatening and attempting to assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani was requirements of sec12(a) of rule 139-b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to
conferring with his client in the PAO office when the wife of the murdered victim, in tears, came writing,clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
and askef for a settlement. Moved by the plight of the woman, Pefianco, who was standing
nearby, scolded and shouted at Salvani to not settle the case and to have his client imprisoned Held:
so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the office, Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but
this ended up with Pefianco saying that Alcantara was an idiot for sending him out of the PAO. This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his
Also, Pefianco tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, Gago ka! pleadings.
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of The code of professional responsibility mandates:
Professional Responsibility. canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues,and shall avoid harassing tactics against oppossing counsel.
Issue: canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,use language which is abusive,offensive or
W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8 otherwise improper.
canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial officer and
Held: should insist on similar conduct.
Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive,or menacing language or behavior before
toward their fellow lawyers. Pefiancos meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so the courts
caused the incident. And although Pefianco was moved by the womans plight, what he thought
was righteous did not give him the right to scold Salvani and insult and berate those who tried 4. Camacho vs Pagulayan
to calm him down. Whatever moral righteousness he had was negated by the way he chose to FACTS
express his indignation. AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due
to having published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty.
Camacho who is the counsel for the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty.
28
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the
which provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of counsel of either party in that case.
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, You mean to
the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not say, I would have to go to Manila to get a copy? Complainant replied that respondent may
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint show instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that
was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the expelled students complainant shouldve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the
and their parents compromise agreements in which the students waived all kinds of claims they respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging
may have against AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of
against it. The compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the consent your mother, you woman!)
and knowledge of Atty. Camacho given that he was already the counsel for the students at that Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the hearing of the case in
time. It was averred that the acts of Atty. Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the view of the respondents public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Held:
ISSUE Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he will
enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is
HELD unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not
Code of Professional Ethics. that he did so in good faith.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by Atty. His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only
Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainants
case filed by the students against AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact. subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
However, Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to negotiate with the students and the parents The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the
without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even being aware that the students latter accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his
were being represented by counsel. actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of they repent afterwards.
the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty.
Pangulayan in this case fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member 6. Garcia vs Atty Lopez
of the Bar. In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged
*In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and
Canon 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not, officer of the court, and misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent
directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it be suspended or disbarred.
is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel." Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96
which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento
5. Dallong-Galincinao vs Atty. Castro sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This
Facts: was granted by the court. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order
and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainants office to inquire whether the dated February 21, 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of
registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file
29
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the
Hearings were scheduled. causes of their clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities.
Membership in the bar imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to uphold
On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each
his entry of appearance and motion for postponement. other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.

Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-
the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina
that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf
was the counsel of record. According to him, his attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth he was merely
basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation
proceedings was tantamount to unfair harvesting of the fruit of complainant's labors since which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He
1996. clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court.
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia Likewise, the CPR states:
(Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson,
Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarvia and
Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of respondent and that Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record. Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy,
sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his services. fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers:
They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the next day.
Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to immediately file an entry of appearance with CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted xxx xxx xxx
that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
the Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and neglectful counsel.
recommendation dated January 8, 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and
violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his
in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. He recommended that appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who
respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a repetition of the same or had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been
similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of
Board of Governors in its resolution passed on February 27, 2004. record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by
being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached
We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended. upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.

30
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
calculated deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the respondent
should have been more careful about his actuation since the court was relying on him in its task to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated
of ascertaining the truth. Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
Professional Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.
future will be dealt with more severely.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
respondent. corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would
7. Atty Barandon jr vs Atty Ferrer handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18
Canon 9 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being able
1. Cambaliza vs Stty Cristal-Tenorio to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay the
FACTS amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of
the grounds of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for
office. having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing
marriage In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor. not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
her law office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
senior partner, 2) an id wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel. regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He
proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
HELD denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since
may only be performed by members of the bar in good standing it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women
investigation because such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such
that desistance of the complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of
bar from those unfit to practice law. respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to
in the Certification issued by the NSO.

2. Villatuya vs Atty Tabalingcos On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
FACTS: complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
31
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he
had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions. concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved for proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution. secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven,
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge, Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for
having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he be In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys. A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
recommendation to disbar him was premature.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment. used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
ISSUES:
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations
to complainant; related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice. by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
RULING:
Third charge: Bigamy.
32
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings 3. Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent for
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Sps. Yap, whom he referred,
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the in an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap.
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court. Respondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 17% attorneys fees of the total estate of 40M.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case, Respondent told complainant that the Sps. Yap assumed to pay the amount after respondent
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two agreed to reduced fees.
marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards
negative pregnant. required of his profession. Respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he
has two children, and cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice Complainant also accused respondent of engaging in money-lending business without
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted the case in a 25% contingent fee basis
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only and the letter of Sps. Yap stating that they will pay the complainants commission is a forgery.
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was The court referred the case to IBP wherein the commissioner recommended that the
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer respondent be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyers
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply Responsibility. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional
dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty.
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice,
in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree HELD: YES. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession.
repose confidence in him. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from
dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The settled rule is that betrayal of
dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58 immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
33
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. However, SC finds the charge of However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. The lending of justification of his action, that it was neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief
money to a single person without showing that such service is made available to other persons and an honest error of judgment was opposed by the Court.
on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is engaged in the business A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed
of lending. Thus, the SC deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice to know the law and its consequences. Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a
of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended. person from the legal consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
4. Petition to Sign Attorneys Roll, Michael Medado continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary steps to
complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Such
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979, took and passed the action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
same years bar examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign the Attorneys Roll. After CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
more than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012, practice of law.
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and he believed that since he had suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the
already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as penalty of suspension from the practice of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
a lawyer. Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the
matter recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioners gross amount of P32,000.
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit. The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A.
Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
Issue: Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys? the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing
any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with
Ruling: severely by the Court.
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of
a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. Canon 10
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such 78. NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO,
action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of respondent.
members of the Bar. Facts: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medados worth to become a full- Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado Resolution/Order.
himself who admitted his own error and not any third person. Second, petitioner has not been Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James
subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two
requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the children. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage with respondent. there is
character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a another case related to the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Abarientos, et al. Respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and
Corporation. demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed
complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly
granted his motion for temporary child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter
34
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in
but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she artifice.
refused to give custody of their children to respondent. While complainant was with her children in Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived a paper, the language or the argument of an opposing counsel, or the
and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision
take them away with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a
Bureau of Investigation. complainant received information that a van arrived at the hotel where fact that which has not been proved.
respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing
hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in the morning. complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition for respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel
the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling
the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of Appeals stating complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly
that no such resolution ordering complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
had been issued. Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that Rules of Court which states:
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a warning that SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- A member of
another offense of this nature will result in his disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the Commission with the deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of
modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years. his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
ISSUE: WON respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney
a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals. for a party without authority to do so.
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the
In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact
that he used and presented the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating 79. De Zuzuarregui vs Atty Soguilon
Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first, FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant Antonio de
in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, which Zuzuarregui, Jr. against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of
he filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance misconduct, concealment of the truth and misleading the court.
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover custody of his minor children from Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for reconstitution, respondent
complainant. Since it was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have introduced as evidence the certified copy of the technical description and the sketch plan of the land.
participated in its fabrication. Exhibits F and G,- This is not an updated survey data; This plan is used for reference purposes
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be only. the trial court allowed reconstitution of the title. As such, complainant submitted that
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be respondent was remiss in not calling the attention of the trial court to the notations indicated in the
devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the truth from the court.
due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges against her. Anent the
cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility annotations on the documents, respondent stated that she could not be charged of concealing facts
states:
35
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
from the court as she had submitted the documents without alteration for the evaluation of the trial All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe
court. or defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made without intent to harm.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines As plain acts of inadvertence, they do not reach the level of professional incompetence. While
(IBP) for investigation. Decided - Clearly, what should have been fatal omissions professional incompetence is not among the grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule
on the part of Respondent, as counsel of the petitioner in the Petition for 138 of the Revised Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined for
Reconstitution (LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) were allowed to pass without inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced that respondent
challenge. A simple perusal of the Decision dated June 5, 1995 (In Re: Petition for should not be sanctioned.
Reconstitution of TCT No. 17730, LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) x x x shows that The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
there was reversible error on the part of the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 93 of the Philippines dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is AFFIRMED.
Quezon City.

xxxx
80. Macias vs Atty Selda
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not punish errors, mistakes FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the
or incompetence. Errors and mistakes are corrected by legal remedies such as lawyers oath.
motions for reconsideration, appeals, and petitions for relief. The reversal of the Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case. He
June 5, 1995 Decision of the trial court has remedied the error committed. basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the
proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election protest case would
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at
commit any act for which she should be disciplined or administratively Philippine Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However,
sanctioned. respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private
protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest.
merit. He stated that he was convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal
from the case was his best recourse. This Court set aside complainants inhibition after finding no
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the petitioner in strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with
the petition for reconstitution of title. reasonable dispatch.
RULING: NO- Respondents failure to point out the notations in the documents she had submitted, in Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in
the Courts opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of proof that utter violation of the lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and
respondent had intended to mislead or deceive the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty against respondent. He failed to file his answer and
bare for the trial courts evaluation. There were no attempts on respondents part to manipulate or personally appear before the IBP investigation, as a result decision was rendered based on the
hide them. pleading and was suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required respondent to six (6) months.
is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the present
case, the Court finds that complainant, who notably owns one of the properties subject of the title Issue: WON respondent violated his lawyers aoth and the act would be a violation of the lawyers
sought to be reconstituted, and is consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear and duty of candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
preponderant evidence to show respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In any
event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any, caused by respondents oversight against Ruling: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.
complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later on by a different judge who set All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and
aside the order of reconstitution. conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all

36
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients. These particular fundamental principles are Integrated Bar of the Philippines would do is to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has
reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically: worked for the attainment of his career burning the midnight oil throughout school and
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could not find any mitigating circumstances to
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten apple if only
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice. to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to the noble profession.
When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. (pp. 249-250, Rollo)
Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation.
Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to 82. Atty Alonso vs Atty Relamida
the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to FACTS:
Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines,
of this imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment. Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that
The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed
law for one (1) year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme
profession and the public. For indeed, if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or Court. On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final
steadily weakened, no law can save us as a society. and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and
holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
81. Mariveles vs Atty Mallari However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint against his former counsel, Attorney August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal
Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to
(BP Blg 22). After an adverse decision was rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for
the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
Appeals, despite numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from the Court, Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that
Attorney Mallari failed to file the appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client? process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital
RULING: YES documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty
toward his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession and to immediately ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the
cease and desist from the practice of law. The respondent demonstrated not only appalling Code of Professional Responsibility?
indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard for
his duties as a lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession. HELD:
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of our Code of During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior
Professional Responsibility. partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty.
xxx xxx xxx Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the
explanation for his failure to do so. decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in he did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended
connection therewith shall render him liable. that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res
Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that judicata.
practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at
disgrace the law profession. The last thing that his peers in the law profession and the the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes
37
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
abuse of the courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the this proceeding were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the IBPs recommendation as one for
administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer suspension from the practice of law.
who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and
executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any 84. Molina vs Atty Magat
better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and
honor. recommending that he be reprimanded.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are
lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice." courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied
in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
effective upon the receipt of this Decision The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court
when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat
83. maligaya vs Atty Doronilla should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a
FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a hearing, he said we similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a
had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him(Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
cases. Do with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla
was then charge of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction 85. Afurong vs Atty Aquino
of justice FACTS:
.ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code P a r a l u m a n B . A f u r o n g fi l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r e j e c t m e n t a g a i n s t Victorino
of professional responsibility. Flores for nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution. Facing evicti on, Flores sought help from
conduct. Not only violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in Citi zens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He fi led
court, but also his acts infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any two peti ti ons. When the court set a pre-trial, he fi led an Urgent Moti on for
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address
for two months. of Citi zens Legal Assistance Offi ce as his offi ce address notwithstanding the fact that he
The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension from the was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated
practice of law. For this reason, we disagree with the IBPs recommendation for Atty. Doronillas that he could not attend the pre-trial conference because he had to att end the hearing of
suspension from the government military service. After all, the only purpose of this administrative a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour.
case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the
legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for us to order, as a penalty for his aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a
breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for fi ling frivolous harassment cases
Generals Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well follow to delay the executi on of a fi nal d e c i s i o n , c o m m i tti n g f a l s e h o o d i n a n U r g e n t
as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for us to M o ti o n f o r P o s t p o n e m e n t , a n d misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens
impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the purpose of Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts
38
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
had been done without malice.In a Reply, complainant asserted that Att y. Aquino was A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes against Sabio alleging that (1) the
declared guilty of contempt of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false complaint for bribery filed by the latter against the former were unsubstantiated and motivated by
allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted plain unfounded suspicion, and, (2) such complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional
a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under retirement.
the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of
the commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and investigation, report and recommendation.
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing
ISSUE: a malicious, false and untruthful complaint.
WON Aquino failed to perform his duti es expected of an att orney as provided under
the existi ng Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless bribery charge against complainant,
at the time of the commission of the acts in question respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
willingly promoting or suing any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against
RULING: judges and other court officers and employees.
The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
honestly debatable under the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined,
apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment. the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not
Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.
attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the s a m e d a y a s t h e p r e - t r i a l o f t h e
C i v i l C a s e . S u c h a c t v i o l a t e s t h e C a n o n s o f Professional Ethics which obliges an No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers.
attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead But it is also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to, among other things,
the court in any manner. harass them.
Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for c o n d u c t
t e n d i n g , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y, t o i m p e d e , o b s t r u c t , o r d e g r a d e t h e Canon 11
administration of justice, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. 87. Judge Madrid vs Atty Dealca
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens FACTS: Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case pending in Branch 51 of the
Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office. Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty.
The Court hereby fi nds respondent Att y. Angel G. Aquino guilty of m a l p r a c ti c e Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the
a n d S U S P E N D S h i m f r o m t h e p r a c ti c e o f l a w f o r s i x ( 6 ) m o n t h s commencing accused. But aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved
upon receipt of notice hereof. that Criminal Case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC. Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealcas
motion to re-raffle. Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint 4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing
86. Judge Cervantes vs Atty Sabio Atty. Dealcas unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the
Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant judge on the ground that EDC (a party presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
to the case handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and lot putting into serious doubt his Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the order unconstitutionally and unlawfully
impartiality, independence and integrity. The motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of deprived the accused of the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that
complaint, Atty. Sabio submitted an affidavit stating certain instances pointing out irregularities with Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest
the handling of his case under Judge Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed. issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and
accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law.
39
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation, report and recommendation. Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
the Court in Yap v. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit the administrative complaint against materiality to the case.
Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing, but referred In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts
propensity of Atty. Dealca to file administrative or criminal complaints against judges and court that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a
personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued adversely to him and his clients. very shaky foundation.
ISSUE: (1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against judges and the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule
court personnel in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility? 1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from
the practice of law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in Criminal any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Case No. 2006-6795?
RULING: 1. Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits. 88. Uy vs Atty Depasucat
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high sense of FACTS: Before us is a verified complaint filed by Johnny K.H. Uy against respondents lawyers,
vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court Reynaldo C. Depasucat, William O. Su and Celso delas Alas, for gross misconduct.
personnel, any acts taken in that direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self- Complainant filed before the BSP a Petitionagainst Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (the bank)
interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. Atty. and Alfredo Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the majority stockholders of the bank, for
Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as cancellation of the banks registration and franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the banks
IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed outm his bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and and/or Bonpins refusal to return various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan
even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to obtained by his (complainants) wife, despite alleged full payment of the loan and interests.
his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety,
because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate 89. Racines vs Judge Morallos
legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice Facts: Complainant Jaime Racines (Racines) was required by the Court in its Resolution dated
to the parties according to law, not to harass them. November 22, 2007 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing a
Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. baseless and unfounded administrative case.
He disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints, including this one against Racines filed a Complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao for knowingly
Judge Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for rendering an unjust judgment, other deceits, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
the exercise of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. Atty. violation of Article 32 of the New Civil Code, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and the
Dealcas bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court Code of Judicial Conduct.
personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part, considering that he made Ruling: According to respondent sheriff, the filing of the ejectment complaint did not deprive
allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed complainant of his property right. He argues that plaintiff therein was only asserting his right as a
frivolous and unworthy of the Courts precious time and serious consideration. lessor over the leased property subject of the above-entitled case. Respondent sheriff further argues
2. Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that due process of law was observed. Hence, the instant administrative proceeding is not the proper
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal remedy.
causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved EVALUATION: The instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.
upon them by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them. As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently He cannot be subjected to liability whether civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts,
state:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud,
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to
xxxx try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment.
40
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, personnel. Furthermore, the respondent even threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross
but to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. An ignorance of the law against the latter. The respondents actions are found not only against the
administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such person, the position and the stature of petitioner but also against the court whose proceedings were
as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order is disrupted.
tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty.
A perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of the respondent judge As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to uphold the dignity and authority
when he rendered the assailed decision. A judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly of the courts. A lawyer who insulted a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latters
appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. role, stature and position in our justice system. Respects for the courts guarantee the stability of the
judicial institution and without such, the courts would be resting on very shaky foundations and will
90. Baculi vs Atty Battung thus, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to a file a case against the judge, Atty.
On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of a case, respondent Battung seems to erode public confidence in the petitioners competence. However, incompetence is
Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while arguing his motion. Petitioner, Judge a matter that, even if true, should be handled with sensitivity in the manner that is provided under
Rene Baculi, had advised respondent to tone down his voice but the respondent consistently kept the Rules of Court, and not how the respondent handled the situation. The respondents actions,
shouting, even when he was warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system, clearly showed a violation of
being cited for direct contempt and was imposed a fine of P100.00, the respondent left. However, the Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
while other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court and shouted Judge, I will file
gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He was escorted out of the courtroom and was 91. Judge Lacurom vs Atty Lacoba
again cited for direct contempt for the second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil
saw petitioner at the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the latter to a fight. He case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. The Municipal Trial Court of
was then escorted out of the building. Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional
Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge.
Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes, Integrated Bar Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (Resolution) reversing the earlier judgments rendered
of the Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. found that the respondent in favor of Veneracion. The plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and
was the one who shouted first at the complainant, despite the latters claim that he was provoked by DESIST from ejecting the defendant-appellant Federico Barrientos. Veneracions counsel
the petitioner. The Commissioner further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule 11.03, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Request for Inhibition) This RESOLUTION of
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall abstain from REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behaviour before the courts. The IBP Board of a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if
Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE
Investigating Commissioner. and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x
Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain why she
ISSUE: should not be held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting and
humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor
Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the
Code of Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his courtroom undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case. Velasco-Jacoba
disavowed any conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the
HELD: Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts
Petition GRANTED. of justice.
RULING: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the respondent did violate Rule
11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By shouting at the petitioner, Atty. Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
Battung clearly disrespected the former in the presence of litigants and their counsels and court menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
41
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
from hearing Criminal Case No. 98-11-18 for direct assault upon a person in authority. The accused
Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not therein is complainants wife.
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. RULING: Delay in resolving motions is inexcusable and should not be condoned. Delay in resolving
motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days
fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Further, such
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded the vigor delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates
required of Jacoba to defend ably his clients cause. We recall his use of the following words and that a judge should dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required
phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult periods. It is undisputed that respondent failed to resolve complainants motion within the
to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that reglementary period of ninety (90) days. He cannot escape liability by claiming that his clerk failed
the words created a cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect. Well-recognized is the right of or forgot to inform him of the unresolved motion. Though blame may conveniently be placed on
a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and court personnels mismanagement of the records of cases, it must be kept in mind that they are not
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the most hardened judge the guardians of a judges responsibilities. Proper and efficient court management is as much the
would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms judges responsibility for he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according functions. We find respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering an order, a
to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court. Pursuant
should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of to Section 11(b) of the same Rule, such offense is punishable by suspension from office without
unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more
judicial administration. than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years WHEREFORE, for incurring undue delay in rendering an order, respondent Judge Marino S. Buban of
effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, is ordered to pay a FINE of Eleven
the practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision. Thousand (P11,000.00) Pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt
92. Provincial Prosecutor Visbal vs Judge Buban with more severely.
FACTS: Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Provincial Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal of Tacloban
City charged Judge Marino S. Buban, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, 93. Hon. Rodriguez-Manahan vs Atty Flores
with gross inefficiency and misconduct in Office. Presiding Judge Marino S. Buban, respondent, Facts:
resolved the motion only on March 20, 2000, or almost eight (8) months from the date it was filed. A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo,
He deliberately failed to resolve the motion within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days because Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial
he begrudged complainant's filing of an administrative charge and several motions for his inhibition. Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was expunged from the records without
Respondents delay in resolving the motion violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution and prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE compliance.
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, respondent committed falsification by stating in his The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and
Certificates of Service from October 1999 to February 2000 that he has no pending motions submit his Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave
submitted for resolution. respondent judge admitted he incurred delay in resolving the "Motion to respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
Correct and Re-mark Exhibits of the Prosecution." He attributed such delay to the frequent resetting shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an
of the hearing of the cases. He also alleged that his clerk of court failed or forgot to submit the MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of
records of the pertinent case to him and to call his attention to the unresolved motion attached to compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent manifested that he will submit
the voluminous records. He blamed the complainant for failing to remind him earlier of the motion. proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. The Investigating Judge found
It was only during the hearing of March 20, 2000 that complainant called his attention to the pending Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing to obey court orders, by
incident. Immediately, he granted the motion and ordered the remarking of exhibits. He stressed failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
that the delay in resolving the motion did not impede the flow of the proceedings. He surmised that (MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating
complainant filed the instant administrative case in order to force him (respondent) to inhibit himself Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Issue:
42
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using intemperate 95. Foronda vs Atty Guerrero
language in his pleadings Facts:
Held: The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his Civil Case for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The
MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed case involved a parcel of land which were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while the case was
intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the
circumspect in his language. respondent as their lawyer, intervened in the case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag
However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the Philippines.
infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction committed by
respondent. Also, the court is not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the assistance of
suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in respondent Guerrero as her counsel appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision.
the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years. Considering the Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Mabanag and respondent as counsel appeal the decision to
foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the court a qou.
his acts and to obey and respect court processes. However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as counsel did not end there, since the filed
multifarious suits and motions based on the ground that Spouses Alcazares, being foreigners have no
Canon 12 eligibility to own lands in the Philippines. The ground which these various petitions and motions is
94. Atty Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto based is already decided by the Court with finality when it decided the civil case concerning the sale
Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano of the property..
Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board of Directors
(the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his action of questioning the eligibility of the
and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a Spouses Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision and the determination of the validity of
complaint for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of the Board the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are ineligible to own lands in the Philippines then the sale is void.
and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness Issue:
and good faith to the court, when having ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum shopping, thus warrant sanction.
motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper and further ignored the Courts
subsequent show cause order. Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal Held:
complaints against complainant. Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such numerous petitions
in behalf of his client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence of forum
Issue: Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10. simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as
a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he
Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference is institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining the existence of forum
for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to
lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. claim substantially the same reliefs.
The Court further noted that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, that respondent has not reformed his Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth
ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was subjected to suspension for and the administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the
two years. duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly
delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. Such filing of
43
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Courts processes and improper conduct that tends to Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case where the respondent
court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously asserted the falsehood.
delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the
incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondents repeated attempts go
are consistent with truth and honor. beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his
client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to
defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the defeat the ends of justice.
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing
In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter, the respondent of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes;
violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert they tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate to delay no man The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and
for money or malice. RTC even knowing fully well that the competent courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer
case.
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law. Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsility and the Rules of
Court
96. Que vs Atty Revilla The respondents also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court in the petition for
Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased
Philippines (IBP) of committing various violations on the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule Conrado Que vs Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr
138 of the Rules of Court as stated in the following Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer never to mislead
ISSUE the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
The respondents abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for certiorari before the In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
for annulment of judgment in the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW
(collectively, subject cases)to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
(MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients. clients x x x
Facts Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings titles over
The respondent also committed forum shopping by filing the subject cases in order to obstruct, the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for annulment of title as
the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
detainer case. Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no
RULING such authority was ever given to him.
The respondents willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.
maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and
Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the respondents clients. professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he undertook the
unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without
44
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
authority from the latter or from the latters representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional
of court. Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional Responsibility, and is found pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of
10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed
Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even
the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the respondent should beDISBARRED from the practice of design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the
law. above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental
Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the
CANON 13 Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
97. Jimenez va Atty Verano processes. Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of
FACTS: Before this Court is the Resolution1 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano liable for improper and inappropriate Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
conduct tending to influence and/or giving the appearance of influence upon a public official. mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal
RULING: profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs
a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.

98. FoodSphere, inc vs Atty Maurico D. Lawyers Duty to his Client


FACTS: CANON 14 &15
[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned 99. Baens vs Atty Sempio
goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the FACTS:
CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to
the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the represent him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V.
petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-affidavit dated March 15, 2010, the complainant alleged, among
before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of 250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in
affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the complainants wife who
tabloid that he prepared the document. successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08,7 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on December 8,
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and 2008; (2) even with the complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated December 15,
Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office 2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9 and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at the time 15-day period stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground
of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil case against of improper venue as neither the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmarias,
him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all
broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks the hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2463-08 was decided 10 on October 27,
against complainant and its products. 2009 without the complainant being able to present his evidence.
ISSUE: In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and explained that: (1) after
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. a meeting with the complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and
HELD: asked the complainant to go over said draft after which he proceeded to file the same with the
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the complainant was aware that said petition will be
RATIO: filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and certification of the petition; (3) the
case became pending and was later on withdrawn because of the complainants refusal to testify; (4)
what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he still had to let the complainant
45
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
go over the same and sign the verification thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the
case because he did not receive any notice from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2, court.
2009 when he found out that the trial court has already rendered its decision and that the
complainant had changed counsels.
100. HocormaFoundation vs Stty. Funk
FACTS: Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged that
Specifically, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of
the case and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has the foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases.
already been fully compensated. The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent should
have manifested or made known to the trial court that he was not receiving any notice at all since it Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against
behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the cases he is handling. Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.

ISSUE: As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro Santos
in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorney-client
Held: relationship was always between Santos and him. He was more of Santos personal lawyer than the
It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his case. lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.
The records, however, definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent
in handling the complainants case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00 for the Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the latter
total expenses to be incurred in the said case. would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma
The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it
court is highly intolerable.1wphi1 In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case Santos sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to
records was within the respondents control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that Santos
preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive provided. It was Santos intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat Institute free of rent and
control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and expenses.
procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his clients cause of action.
Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his clients According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion
case with the trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have that the foundation followed. After Santos died, respondent was elected President of Mabalacat
protected his clients interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to Institute.
employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of
law to support his clients interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he covenants The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funks fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four
that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. 18 years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the
Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to respondent.
his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15,
the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. 19 Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of
In this case, the respondents reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended
and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients interests. A lawyers duty of competence and Atty. Funks suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration
diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but was denied.
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of
the CPR when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.
46
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once
HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests acted as a counsel of Seares, Jr.;
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is
undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after (d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal representation of Turqueza; and (e) the 2007 election
terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another protest that she handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the administrative complaint that Turqueza
client without the foundations written consent. brought against Seares, Jr. in 2010.
Issues:
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their (a) Was Atty. Gonzales-Alzate guilty of professional negligence and
relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests incompetence in her handling of Seares, Jr.s electoral protest in the RTC?
or discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his (b) Did Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against
former clients doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were representing conflicting interests when she assisted Turqueza in his
it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former client?
Ruling:
Respondent collected attorneys fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an obligation not to use any For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act
knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to
existed at all, when he sued the foundation. the clients interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly
negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of the IBP SUSPENDS Atty. Richard file an appeal, especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to
Funk from the practice of law for one year effective immediately. file the pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance.The Court has found the attendance
of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy, or belatedly files an appeal,
or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court hearings. Gross
101. Seares vs Stty Gonzales-Alzate misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the the true cause of the dismissal of Seares, Jr.s Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam was its prematurity
May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert Z. in light of the pendency in the Commission on Elections of his Petition to Suspend Canvass and
Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the Proclamation.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra; we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and eventual
dismissal of the subsequent Petition for Protest. The verification and certification against forum
The petition was dismissed because it is fatally defective, time-barred and violation of forum shopping attached to the petition contained handwritten superimpositions by Atty. GonzalesAlzate,
shopping(false statements) but such superimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the corrections of the dates of
When he ran on may 2010, she was retained as counsel for the opponent party subscription and the notarial document number and docket number for the verification and
When he was charged for abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Sangguniang certification. If that was all there was to the superimpositions, then there was nothing to support the
Panlalawigan of Abra, she represented the complainant Torqueza trial judges observation that the cut and paste method in preparing the verification and
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering false certification for non-forum shopping constituted professional negligence that proved fatal to her
and hurtful allegations against him clients protest.
defenses: (a) she was engaged as an attorney
in the May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the start
Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her
whom was Seares, Jr.s political opponent; legal representation of Turqueza in the latters administrative charge against Seares, Jr. There was no
(b) Carlito Turqueza used to be indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information during her previous
a political ally of Seares, Jr.; engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used against Seares, Jr. Her engagement by Seares, Jr. related
47
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
only to the election protest in 2007, but Turquezas complaint involved Seares, Jr.s supposedly Trial Court a motion to disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct. Finding merit
unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores, in the said motion, the trial court ordered the disqualification of respondent in the case.
Abra in 2010. There is no question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another. Moreover, Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought
the prohibition against representing conflicting interest further necessitated identity of the parties or the present administrative complaint against respondent, praying for the latters removal from or
interests involved in the previous and present engagements. But such identity was not true here. The suspension in the practice of law, on the ground of unethical practice/conduct.
adverse party in Seares, Jr.s election protest in 2007 was Albert Z. Guzman, the newly-elected In his Answer] to the Complaint, respondent denied the wrongdoing alluded to him; theorizing that
Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra, who was not involved in Turquezas administrative complaint "xxx I merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I was the counsel as intervenor of
against Seares, Jr. In fact, Turqueza was not even a mayoral candidate in Dolores, Abra in the one of the defendants xxx."
elections held in 2007 and in 2010. The allegation by Seares, Jr. that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in his Answer that
represented his political opponent was not even true because Turqueza was Seares, Jr.s political ally, he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor
as Atty. Gonzales-Alzate stated. of one of the defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he (respondent)
represented two conflicting interests, which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule
102. Castro-Justo vs Atty Galing 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
Attorney; conflict of interest. Respondent attorney drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant "CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
in connection with the dishonored checks issued by Ms. Koa. In the ensuing criminal cases, TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
respondent filed a Motion for Consolidation on behalf of Ms. Koa and appeared at the preliminary xxx.....xxx.....xxx
investigation hearing as Ms. Koas counsel. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the demand letter only as a personal favor to Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject civil case. When he
complainant who is a close friend. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close agreed to represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no
friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment longer serve either of his said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with
complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the his duty to the defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing
demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of unethical conduct for representing two conflicting
complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. Likewise, the non-payment of interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning
professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting 104. Samala vs Atty Valencia
interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is established Facts:
and extends beyond the duration of the professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. Atty. Rodolfo
Galing. Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for
Disbarment on the following grounds:
103. Sibulo vs Atty. Cabrera (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
At bar is an administrative complaint against the respondent, Atty. Stanley Cabrera, for unethical (b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
practice/conduct. (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
The facts that matter are as follows: (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al.", docketed as Civil Case No. 90-
55209 before Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report,
the services of the herein respondent as his lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also and recommendation.
entered his appearance as counsel for plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in the same case, without After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was deemed
withdrawing his appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo Marcelo. In view of such submitted for resolution.
development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila Regional
48
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months. respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of
Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year. Alba.
Issue: (c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK at the
Held: RTC, Branch 272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and 036162 both entitled "Valencia v. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the
as to the recommended penalty. Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties. the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318
Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling.
Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC. As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office
of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK. pursuant to their retainer agreement.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other,
of the facts. cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his
conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute
on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client the right of his client.
which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's (d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all
the administration of justice. over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned that he was not
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral
the said case, that was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
so that when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
further avers that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and
case for rescission was filed in 2002. violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.
that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he 105. Buted vs Atty Hernando
mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was not FACTS:
misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision
49
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a partition case of the late and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent went to the unicipal bldg.of Calabanga where the
Teofilo Buteds lot. He successfully defended the case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew accused were being detained and made representations that he couldsecure their freedom if they sign the
appearance. Luciana once sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing
to the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando to represent him (free the heirs of the murder victim; The extrajudicialconfessions included herein the complainant as the mastermind in
of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. Atty. Hernando claims to have terminated the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
relationship with Bolisay. In February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Lucianas heirs
without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The couple filed disapproval. The Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial confession,he
case was dismissed for prescription. In August of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion
complaint against Atty. Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their did he assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial confession.
counsel ISSUE:
ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests HELD:
HELD: Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three years from the
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest. In the action for specific practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer wereretained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to
performance, Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay couples right to ownership but assailed the very show that at the time that atty. De la Torre wasrepresenting the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the
same right in the cadastral proceeding in favor of Lucianas heirs. The Canons of Professional Ethics victims family.Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore
except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy.
meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to andgood taste. In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connectedwith the clients case,
represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers notonly to keep inviolate the
the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of improprietyand double-dealing for only then
any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.And despite Atty can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the
Hernandos claim that he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he administration of justice. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-
divulged any confidential information belonging to the Bolisay couple, that the mere fact that dealing and infidelity to hisclients. What is unsetting is that respondent assisted in the execution
respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious
have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the cancellation of the Transfer criminal offensesknowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.Respondent, who
Certificate of Title of the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding
confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment by his first client in order to accuseds choice of counsel.
that he may be precluded from accepting employment by the second or subsequent client where
there are conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The prohibition on 107. Rural Bank Calape vs Atty Florido
conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent Attorney; representation within bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code
practice. Although the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment is in requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A
a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client any knowledge or information lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his
gained through their former connection. duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from
SUSPENDED for 5 months. doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI), Bohol vs. Atty.
James Benedict Florido
106. Perez vs Atty Dela Torre FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged
Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001, severalsuspects that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avilawere apprehended
50
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagos group, through force and demands, the respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, the
intimidation, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted complainants which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations
Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to
bank. the prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was Salud but claims that, to his recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to his office.
already dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of the Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the
existence of a prejudicial question. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M.
him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial court Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of
judges of Bohol. which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations. certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified, affirmed, or supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination of the same does
confirmed by the affiants and that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true not show any connection thereof to respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
copies. appear to be entirely different from each other.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 19.
HELD: The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended for a year. The first and ISSUE
foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for his
Constitution and obey the laws of the land. It is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and refusal without just cause to return/ give to complainants their certificates of titles?
legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in HELD
the legal system. YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the
the law. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their
refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing
is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently, respondent has disregarded
and ethics.Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical. impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he
unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of
108. Gonzales vs Atty Sabacajan their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do
FACTS so.
An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas against Atty. In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it alleged that complainants were informed by the Register attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten
of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of title covering their to present unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who in Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
turn entrusted the same to respondent. However the latter admitted and confirmed to the Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this
complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even shown the same the complainant Salud Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly
but when demanded to deliver the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority
respondent refused without any justification to give their titles and when confronted, respondent justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a
challenged the complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That repetition of the same or similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more
respondents dare or challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his severely.
legal profession over innocence and ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is his blood
relative, his aunt, for which complainants shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated 109. Penilla vs Atty Alcid, Jr
51
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Attorney; Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under
Canon 18 to serve his client with competence and diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa
when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be
sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed another similar blunder
by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed
it with the MTC due to the amount involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise complainant of the
status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of
professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates
that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal
and fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must
be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to
perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath. Julian
Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr

52
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes