You are on page 1of 9

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES

IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS. ISSUE: WON he violated Canon 6.02 of CPR

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to HELD: Yes, Atty. Barcelona is DISBARRED. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. Rule 1.02 of the Code of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
action. defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Extortion by a government
lawyer, an outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. With the
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or aforesaid rule a high standard of integrity is demanded of a government lawyer as compared to
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. a private practitioner because the delinquency of a government lawyer erodes the peoples trust
and confidence in the government. Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers, but also to safeguard
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of
lawyers and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of the lawyers
LIM V. BARCELONA 2004 oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the
FACTS: On May 9, 2001, Dan Joel V. Lim and Richard C. Tan, both businessmen, filed a bar. These pronouncements gain practical significance in this case, considering that respondent
complaint for alleged robbery or extortion and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt is a senior lawyer of the NLRC. It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are
Practices Act against Atty. Edilberto Barcelona, a lawyer formerly employed with the National public servants owe fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, government
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Complainant Lim alleged that on the first week of August lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct
2000, respondent phoned him and introduced himself as a lawyer and chief of the Public is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. As a lawyer, who was also a public officer,
Assistance Center, NLRC. Respondent informed him that his employees filed a labor complaint respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal
against him in his office and it was necessary for him to see and talk with respondent. From then profession.
on respondent would often call him. Respondent visited him in his office and told him to settle
the case or else his business, Top Gun Billiards, would be shut down. Lim recalled that on GONZALES-AUSTRIA V. ABAYA 1989
August 14, 2000, at around 7:30 p.m., respondent again visited his establishment and told him to FACTS: In a complaint under oath dated July 21, 1986, docketed as Adm. Matter No. R-705-
settle the case for P20,000.00. In support of his allegations, Lim submitted a written complaint of RTJ, Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria, then Branch Clerk of Court charged Judge Emmanuel M.
Arnel E. Ditan and Pilipino Ubante; an endorsement letter dated August 2, 2000 of Atty. Abaya with:
Jonathan F. Baligod of the Presidential Action Center; handwritten calling cards of the
respondent; and an affidavit of desistance executed by Ditan and Ubante. 1. Estafa through falsification of public or official documents, by verifying official hours rendered
by one employee in the person of Miss Anabelle Cardenas who never reported for duty from
In their joint affidavit, Ditan and Ubante confirmed the filing of their complaint against their August 1983 to May 1984 by encashing and receiving salaries of said Miss Cardenas through
employer, Lim, and that after some dialogue, the employees executed an affidavit dated August forgery of payee's signature in the treasury warrants, thus deceiving the government and
8, 2000 withdrawing their complaint. According to Ditan and Ubante, they met the respondent in defrauding the Government treasury of a big amount of money; - Cardenas and Abaya denied
Top Gun Billiards where the latter often played billiards. One day, respondent gave them a letter this. Cardenas said she worked during the time being.
and asked them to sign it. Since they were busy at that time, they signed it without reading and
understanding its contents. Their employer, Lim, asked what it was about and they told him that 2. Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting, demanding, receiving bribed (sic) money in
they were just made to sign a document without their understanding it. They added, they did not exchange for favorable resolutions and decisions from different litigants in Branch 52, where
have any complaint against their employer. Despite such withdrawal, respondent still called Lim said Judge was temporarily assigned from November 1984 to April 1986 and of which one of the
threatening the latter that he would pursue the case, have his establishment closed and he undersigned complainant (sic), LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA is the Branch Clerk of Court;
would be jailed if he did not come up with P20,000.00 as settlement. In the evening of August
14, 2000, respondent reiterated his demand for P20,000.00, again with the threat of closure of It was alleged that Judge Abaya denied the application for bail of the accused in Criminal Case
the billiard center and putting Lim in jail. Notably, almost nine months before the filing of his No. 5304 entitled "People vs. Henry Arias and Fernando Oniot for murder, in consideration of
complaint, or on August 14, 2000, complainant Lim personally submitted a letter to the NBI the sum of P 2,000.00 given by Mrs. Leonila Fuertes, complainant and mother of the victim in
requesting the NBI to investigate respondent Atty. Edilberto Barcelona.[4] According to the NBI the aforesaid case. Angel R. Miclat, then acting City Fiscal for Puerto Princess City handling
report, after due investigation, it decided to conduct an entrapment operation. On August 15, Criminal Case No. 5304. He testified that Mrs. Fuertes came to him in August of 1986 to inform
2000, Special Investigator Marvin de Jemil, sent nine five hundred peso bills and five one him that Judge Abaya was asking P5,000.00 from her so that the bail application of the accused
hundred peso bills for fluorescent powder dusting to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. would be denied. While he advised her to file a complaint against Judge Abaya, he was informed
Further, the NBI reported that thru the NBI Identification and Records Division, it found no record later on that Mrs. Fuertes gave Judge Abaya not the amount being asked, but only about
of such person named Edilberto Barcelona. Lim informed the NBI operatives that at around 7:00 P1,200.00.
p.m. respondent would drop by his pool house to collect the money. At around 6:30 p.m., the
operatives went to the pool house and strategically positioned themselves and posed as pool 3. Illegal exaction of portion of the salaries of his subordinate Edgardo Servando as part and
players. At about 7:20 p.m., respondent arrived, sat on a plastic chair and talked to complainant condition of his continued employment in Branch 51, where Judge Abaya is the presiding judge.
Lim. At around 7:30 p.m., Lim handed the marked money to the respondent who, in turn, upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya, declared a job recommendation was made in
received it. While respondent was counting the money and about to place it inside his bag, he consideration of his agreement to give Judge Abaya Pl,000.00 from his initial salary and
was immediately arrested. Richard Tan also had the same experience with Atty. Barcelona. thereafter a monthly amount of P400.00, which undertaking he complied with. However, in
December when the Judge before leaving for Manila for the Christmas vacation asked him for
Defense of Barcelona: He was forced by Lim to count the money. And for Tan’s case, he did not Pl,000.00 from as fringe benefits, medical allowance and year-end bonus, he was unable to
receive any money from Tan. comply as he did not then have cash, the payment of said benefits having been in checks. A
week later, he received a notice of termination effective at the close of business hours on Lim-Santiago. Taggat employees alleged that complainant, who took over the management and
December 31, 1984 from the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya. Nilo control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages
Jamora, a former stenographer of Branch 51 testified that since his employment in said Branch, without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Respondent, as Assistant Provincial
Judge Abaya had been exacting from him P350.00 every payday, which exaction ceased only in Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation. He resolved the criminal
March 1986 when Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria filed her charges against Judge Abaya. He complaint by recommending the filing of 651 Informations 10 for violation of Article 288 in
further stated that when he refused to retract his charges against Judge Abaya before the relation to Article 116 12 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Sangguniang Panlalawigan despite the Judge's offer of money, the latter demoted him to
process server. Complainant now charges respondent with the following violations:

Judge Abaya denied all these charges in his comment dated August 29, 1986, filed in 1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
compliance with the Court Resolution of August 12, 1986. He asserted that these charges were
concocted in retaliation against the administrative complaint docketed as Adm. Matter No. 698-P Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent,
he earlier filed on July 18,1986 against one of his accusers, Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria for being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of
dishonesty and grave misconduct in having forged his signature in a probation order in Criminal Taggat very well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and
Case No. 4995 of the RTC, Branch 52, Puerto Princess, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. deciding the case filed by Taggat employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent
Leonardo Cruz," for attempted murder. Adm. Matter No. 698-P was followed by a petition dated instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and threatened Taggat employees to
August 5,1986 docketed as Adm. Case No. 2909 for the disbarment of Atty. Ligaya Gonzales- accede and sign an affidavit to support the complaint.
Austria based on the same alleged offense.
2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor
ISSUE: WON Judge Abaya is guilty of misconduct in connection to Canon 6
Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law
HELD: YES, Judge Abaya is GUILTY as charged except that of illegal exaction. He is while working as a government prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE and all benefits forfeited but he is NOT DISBARRED. We find the respondent received P10,000 as retainer’s fee for the months of January and February 1995, 16
charges against Judge Abaya and Annabelle Cardenas to be supported by substantial evidence. another P10,000 for the months of April and May 1995, 17 and P5,000 for the month of April
It is indeed quite intriguing that during the ten-month period under consideration, the court 1996.
calendar for Branch 51 never once carried Annabelle Cardenas' name to signify her attendance
at a court session. Moreover, she could not produce any single order, transcript or official ISSUE: WON He violated CPR for engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession.
stenographic notes that had been taken by her in any case, civil or criminal. All she presented
were so-called practice notes. HELD: YES, He is SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS. The Court exonerates respondent from the
RE 2nd Complaint: We find no improper motive as to why Mrs. Fuertes, a school teacher, would charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the Court
impute such a serious offense against a judge unless it be the truth. Mrs. Fuertes is not a finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
disgruntled litigant. Judge Abaya having denied the petition for bail of the suspected killer of Mrs, Responsibility against unlawful conduct. Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he
Fuertes' son, she should, under normal circumstances be grateful to the Judge. Yet she charged violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
him with a serious offense, and travelled all the way from Palawan to Manila to testify against the Employees or Republic Act No. 6713. Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in
Judge. Under the circumstances, We cannot accept Judge Abaya's contention that Mrs. Fuertes government service in the discharge of their official duties." A government lawyer is thus bound
perjured herself just to accommodate the vengeanceful ire of Atty. Austria against Judge Abaya. by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting interests." However, this rule is subject to certain
That would be contrary to the ordinary prompting of men. limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of
interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts
RE 3rd Complaint: Judge Abaya likewise denied this charge, labelling the same as sheer or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering the serious
vindictiveness due to Servando's termination and Jamora's demotion, fanned by Atty. Austria's consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant
proddings. He insists that the personnel action taken on Servando and Jamora was due to their evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. Respondent is also
inefficiency. While the investigating officer, Justice Herrera observed that both Servando and mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in "unlawful conduct." Unlawful conduct
Jamora "testified in a natural and straightforward, albeit in an angry manner without attempting includes violation of the statutory prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the
to conceal their contempt for Judge Abaya he concluded that "the evidence in this regard would private practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that
be unable to withstand judicial scrutiny for want of ample corroboration. It would simply be the such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] official functions." Complainant’s
word of one against a judge. We are in accord with this observation, for indeed, the charge if evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent represented conflicting interests.
true is so demeaning to an RTC judge that it requires more than a bare allegation to sustain it. In
this regard, we give respondent Judge the benefit of the doubt. Respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.
The Court has defined the practice of law broadly. Respondent admitted that he rendered his
SANTIAGO V. SAGUCIO 2006 legal services to complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the receipts he
FACTS: Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and Special Administratrix of his signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer’s fee." Thus, as correctly pointed
estate. Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the former President of Taggat Industries, Inc. Atty. out by complainant, respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713. However, violations
Carlos B. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility
Industries, Inc. until his appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional
in 1992. Taggat Industries, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of timber Responsibility. Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 – the
concessions from the government. The Presidential Commission on Good Government Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees – unless the acts
sequestered it sometime in 1986, 5 and its operations ceased in 1997. Sometime in July 1997, involved also transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
21 employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie
Here, respondent’s violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, classified as doubtful and P0.505 million as uncollectible. As a bailout, the Central Bank
which mandates that "lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful extended emergency loans to GENBANK which reached a total of P310 million. Despite the
conduct." Respondent’s admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while mega loans, GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. On March 25, 1977, the Central
serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with
1.01. safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its liquidation. A public
bidding of GENBANKs assets was held from March 26 to 28, 1977, wherein the Lucio Tan group
MALIGAYA V. DORONILLA 2006 (NO MENTION OF CANON 6) submitted the winning bid. Subsequently, former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a
FACTS: Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M. petition with the then Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the
Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several court in GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265.
military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point during the February 19,
2002 hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla said: In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos government. One of the first acts of
President Corazon C. Aquino was to establish the Presidential Commission on Good
And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he Government (PCGG) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand
[complainant Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We had Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed
an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him, he will also with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and
withdraw all the cases. So, with that understanding, he even retired and he damages against respondents Lucio Tan et al. the PCGG issued several writs of sequestration
is now receiving pension. on properties allegedly acquired by the Tan et al by taking advantage of their close relationship
and influence with former President Marcos. Respondents Tan, et al. repaired to this Court and
Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge Reynaldo B. Daway asked a filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction to nullify, among others, the writs of
number of clarificatory questions and thereafter ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his statements in sequestration issued by the PCGG. After the filing of the parties comments, this Court referred
writing and "file the appropriate pleading." Weeks passed but Atty. Doronilla submitted no such the cases to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition. In all these cases, respondents Tan, et
pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments. al. were represented by their counsel, former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, who has
then resumed his private practice of law. On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to
On April 29, 2002, Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the Integrated Bar of the disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. The motions alleged that
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.4 The complaint, which charged Atty. Doronilla respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank, actively intervened
with "misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting [in] obstruction of justice," in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and
was referred to a commissioner6 for investigation. Complainant swore before the investigating became Allied Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza allegedly intervened in the
commissioner that he had never entered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuits. acquisition of GENBANK by respondents Tan, et al. when, in his capacity as then Solicitor
General, he advised the Central Banks officials on the procedure to bring about GENBANKs
Doronilla’s defense: his main concern was "to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms liquidation and appeared as counsel for the Central Bank in connection with its petition for
without going to trial" assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from
ISSUE: WON He misled the court in violation of his oath of office and Canon 10 accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service.
HELD: Yes, He is suspended for 2 mos. By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant
had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical On April 22, 1991 the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying
conduct. Not only that, he violated the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the PCGGs motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. It found that the PCGG failed to prove the
doing of any in court," of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor
on every lawyer's duty to "never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. It noted that
false statement of fact or law." Atty. Doronilla's unethical conduct was compounded, moreover, respondent Mendoza did not take a position adverse to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank
by his obstinate refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of what he had done. From the very during his term as Solicitor General. It further ruled that respondent Mendoza’s appearance as
beginning of this administrative case, Atty. Doronilla maintained the untenable position that he counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section
had done nothing wrong in the hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778. He persisted in doing so 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. The said
even after having admitted that he had, in that hearing, spoken of an agreement that did not in section prohibits a former public official or employee from practicing his profession in connection
truth exist. Rather than express remorse for that regrettable incident, Atty. Doronilla resorted to with any matter before the office he used to be with within one year from his resignation,
an ill-conceived attempt to evade responsibility, professing that the falsehood had not been retirement or separation from public office.
meant for the information of Judge Daway but only as "a sort of question" to complainant
regarding a "pending proposal" to settle the case. ISSUE: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
Mendoza.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN 2005
FACTS: This case is prima impressiones and it is weighted with significance for it concerns on HELD: No, Petition denied. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional
one hand, the efforts of the Bar to upgrade the ethics of lawyers in government service and on Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a
the other, its effect on the right of government to recruit competent counsel to defend its Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 (Liquidation of Genbank) is an intervention on a matter
interests. In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096 (Defense of unsequestered assets of
difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital Development Genbank).Further, on June 21, 1988, this Court promulgated the Code of Professional
Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current account with the Central Responsibility. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility should be subject to a
Bank.[1] It was later found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans to prescriptive period. Mr. Justice Tinga opines that the rule cannot apply retroactively to
directors, officers, stockholders and related interests totaling P172.3 million, of which 59% was respondent Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that (1) when
respondent Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 has not yet adopted by the IBP and Requirements for application to the Bar
approved by this Court, and (2) the bid to disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the
lapse of time whose length cannot, by any standard, qualify as reasonable. At bottom, the point IN RE: GALANG (in connection with IN RE LANUEVO)
they make relates to the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period and FACTS: Administrative proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo — for disbarment; Ramon E.
retroactively, at that. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang — for disbarment.

PNB V. CEDO 1995 In his request dated March 29, 1972 contained in a confidential letter to the Court for re-
FACTS: In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant Philippine National correction and re-evaluation of his answer to the 1971 Bar Examinations question, Oscar
Bank charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Landicho — who flunked in the 1971, 1968 and 1967 Bar Examinations with a grade of 70.5%,
Management Group of complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03. By appearing as 65.35% and 67.55%, respectively — invited the attention of the Court to "The starling fact that
counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank in which respondent during the grade in one examination (Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason
his employment with aforesaid bank, had intervened. or another, before the bar results were released this year" This was confirmed, according to him,
by the Civil Law Examiner himself (Hon. Ramon C. Pamatian) as well as by Bar Confidant
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging Victorio D. Lanuevo. He further therein stated "that there are strong reasons to believe that the
the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for grades in other examination notebooks in other subjects also underwent alternations — to raise
P200,000. He even "noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in the grades — prior to the release of the results. Note that this was without any formal motion or
favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division request from the proper parties, i.e., the bar candidates concerned. If the examiners concerned
Compound. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and reconsidered their grades without formal motion, there is no reason why they may not do so now
complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had when proper request answer motion therefor is made. It would be contrary to due process
since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. postulates. Might not one say that some candidates got unfair and unjust treatment, for their
grades were not asked to be reconsidered 'unofficially'? Why the discrimination? Does this not
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by afford sufficient reason for the Court en banc to go into these matters by its conceded power to
complainant bank against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and ultimately decide the matter of admission to the bar?"
dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the Civil
Service Commission. Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of Acting on the aforesaid confidential letter, the Court checked the records of the 1971 Bar
complainant’s Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of Examinations and found that the grades in five subjects — Political Law and Public International
the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law and Remedial Law — of a successful bar
the couple. When a civil action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a candidate with office code No. 954 underwent some changes which, however, were duly initialed
result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & and authenticated by the respective examiner concerned. Further check of the records revealed
Associates" of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners. that the bar candidate with office code No. 954 is one Ramon E. Galang, a perennial bar
candidate, who flunked in the 1969, 1966, 1964, 1963, and 1962 bar examinations with a grade
ISSUE: WON Atty. Cedo violated Canon 6.03 of CPR of 67.55%, 68.65%, 72.75%, 68.2%, 56.45% and 57.3%, respectively. He passed in the 1971
bar examinations with a grade of 74.15%, which was considered as 75% by virtue of a Court of
HELD: YES, Atty Cedo is SUSPENDED for 3 years. The IBP found a deliberate intent on the 74.15%, which was considered as 75% as the passing mark for the 1971 bar examinations.
part of respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of
complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former ISSUE: WON Ramon Galang must be Disbarred for falsehood.
employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the
IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he HELD: YES, Atty. Galang is DISBARRED. This is a necessary consequence of the un-
expected to earn. Further, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasize the authorized re-evaluation of his answers in five(5) major subjects — Civil Law, Political and
paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests. Having been an International Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Mercantile Law. The re-evaluation by the
executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite Examiners concerned of the examination answers of respondent Galang in five (5) subjects, as
side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while already clearly established, was initiated by Respondent Lanuevo without any authority from the
still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on Court, a serious breach of the trust and confidence reposed by the Court in him as Bar
adverse influence and conflicting interests Confidant. Consequently, the re-evaluation that enabled respondent Galang to pass the 1971
Bar examinations and to be admitted to the Bar is a complete nullity. The Bar Confidant does not
B. TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the Bar. He is
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF not clothed with authority to determine whether or not an examinee's answers merit re-
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. evaluation or re-evaluation or whether the Examiner's appraisal of such answers is correct.
Respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is guilty of fraudulently concealing and
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing withholding from the Court his pending criminal case for physical injuries in 1962, 1963, 1964,
a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971; and in 1966, 1967,1969 and 1971, he committed perjury when he
declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court. By falsely representing to the
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person Court that he had no criminal case pending in court, respondent Galang was allowed
known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute. unconditionally to take the Bar examinations seven (7) times and in 1972 was allowed to take his
oath. That the concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of the
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for revocation
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of his license to practice law.
of the legal profession.
MORAL FITNESS – RULE 7.03 Id. certificates of his children and in his certificate of candidacy are acts constituting falsification of
public documents; and respondents acts betray his lack of good moral character and constitute
BARRIENTOS V. METEORO 2009 grounds for his removal as a member of the bar. Respondent filed his Comment wherein he
FACTS: Before this Court is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran- states that complainants, who are his political opponents in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, are merely
Meteoro for deceit and non-payment of debts. A letter-complaint dated May 21, 2001 was filed filing this case to exact revenge on him for his filing of criminal charges against them;
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) under the names of Isidra Barrientos and Olivia complainants illegally procured copies of the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela
C. Mercado, which was signed, however, by Isidra only. It states that: sometime in September of Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, in violation of Rule 24,
2000, respondent issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of both Isidra and Olivia, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, thus, such documents are inadmissible in evidence;
amounting to P67,000.00, and in favor of Olivia, totaling P234,000.00, for the payment of a pre- respondent did not participate in the preparation and submission with the local civil registry of
existing debt; the checks bounced due to insufficient funds thus charges for violation of B.P. 22 subject birth certificates; respondent never declared that he had two wives, as he has always
were filed by Isidra and Olivia with the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan; respondent sent text declared that he is separated in fact from his wife, Felicitas V. Valderia; and complainants have
messages to complainants asking for the deferment of the criminal charges with the promise that used this issue against him during elections and yet, the people of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro still
she will pay her debt; respondent however failed to fulfill said promise; on May 16, 2001, elected him as Mayor, hence, respondent has not offended the public’s sense of morality.
respondent, through her sister-in-law, tried to give complainants a title for a parcel of land in
exchange for the bounced checks which were in the possession of complainants; the title ISSUE: WON Atty. Mendoza engaged in immoral activities in violation of CPR code 1 Rule 1.01
covered an area of 5,000 square meters located at Bantug, La Torre, Talavera, Nueva Ecija,
registered in the name of Victoria Villamar which was allegedly paid to respondent by a client; HELD: YES, Atty. Norberto Mendoza is SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY. Witness Melgars
complainants checked the property and discovered that the land belonged to a certain Dra. testimony that respondent had been publicly introducing Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife is
Helen Garcia, the sole heir of Victoria Villamar, who merely entrusted said title to respondent corroborated by the contents of an article in the Naujanews, introducing respondent as one of
pursuant to a transaction with the Quedancor; complainants tried to get in touch with respondent Naujans public servants, and stating therein that respondent has been blessed with two beautiful
over the phone but the latter was always unavailable. children with his wife, Marilyn dela Fuente. It should be noted that said publication is under the
control of respondent, he being the Chairman of the Board thereof. Thus, it could be reasonably
ISSUE: WON Atty Libiran-Meteoro is guilty of gross misconduct. concluded that if he contested the truth of the contents of subject article in the Naujanews, or if
he did not wish to publicly present Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife, he could have easily ordered
HELD: Yes, She is SUSPENDED for 6 mos. We have held that deliberate failure to pay just that the damning portions of said article to be edited out. With regard to respondents argument
debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may that the credibility of witnesses for the complainants is tainted by the fact that they are motivated
be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. They are expected to maintain not only by revenge for respondents filing of criminal cases against them, we opine that even if witnesses
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that Melgar and Laygo are so motivated, the credibility of their testimonies cannot be discounted as
the peoples’ faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Respondent in her answer they are fully supported and corroborated by documentary evidence which speak for
initially tried to deny having any obligation towards Isidra Barrientos. Upon appearing before the themselves. The birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra
IBP-CBD, however, respondent eventually acknowledged her indebtedness to Isidra in the Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza born on June 16, 1988 and May 22, 1990, respectively,
amount of P134,000.00, promising only to pay in a staggered basis. Her attempt to evade her to Norberto M. Mendoza and Marilyn Dela Fuente; and the Certification from the Office of the
financial obligation runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Local Civil Registrar of Bulacan attesting to the existence in its records of an entry of a marriage
above quoted, and violates the lawyers oath which imposes upon every member of the bar the between respondent and one Felicitas Valderia celebrated on January 16, 1980, are public
duty to delay no man for money or malice. Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, documents and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, as provided for under
regardless of whether or not the same were issued in his professional capacity to a client, calls Article 410 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
for appropriate disciplinary measures. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or
disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in Verily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza
his non-professional or private capacity. Where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyers and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza and respondents Certificate of Candidacy
professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and dated March 9, 1995 wherein respondent himself declared he was married to Felicitas Valderia,
unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified were never denied nor rebutted by respondent. Hence, said public documents sufficiently prove
in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney. that he fathered two children by Marilyn dela Fuente despite the fact that he was still legally
married to Felicitas Valderia at that time.
TOLENTINO V. MENDOZA
FACTS: Before us is a complaint filed by Pedro G. Tolentino, Romeo M. Laygo, Solomon M. Immoral conduct is defined as a conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
Lumalang, Sr., Meliton D. Evangelista, Sr., and Nelson B. Melgar against Atty. Norberto M. indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore,
Mendoza for Grossly Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct. such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that respondent, a former Municipal Trial Court under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Judge, abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of his paramour, Marilyn dela The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman who is not his
Fuente, who is, in turn, married to one Ramon G. Marcos; respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral character. Respondent
have been cohabiting openly and publicly as husband and wife in Brgy. Estrella, Naujan, should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
Oriental Mindoro; respondent had fathered two children by his paramour Marilyn dela Fuente; precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain
respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their two daughters that ones good standing in the legal profession.
they were married on May 12, 1986, making it appear that their two children are legitimate, while
in respondents Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995 elections, ARNOBIT V. ARNOBIT 2008
respondent declared that his wife is Felicitas V. Valderia; in respondents certificate of candidacy FACTS: Rebecca B. Arnobit, in her affidavit-complaint dated May 11, 1975, prays that the Court
for the 1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated; such declarations in the birth exercise its disciplinary power over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the
grounds of Immorality and Abandonment. In her complaint, Rebecca alleged that she and respondent was nowhere to be found. Complainant, with the help of an informer, was able to
respondent were married on August 20, 1942. Twelve children were born out of this union. locate respondent who turned out to have transferred his residence to Makati City. Upon
Rebecca further alleged seeing respondent through law school, continuously supporting him confrontation, respondent retorted that he could not give back the title to the land. Instead, he
until he passed the bar examinations and became a member of the Philippine bar. Several years offered to buy the property. Thus, he issued checks to complainant that when they were
after, however, or in 1968, respondent left the conjugal home and started cohabiting with one deposited, all the checks bounced for the reason closed account.
Benita Buenafe Navarro who later bore him four more children. Respondents infidelity, according
to Rebecca, impelled her to file a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case for On 29 August 2001, this Court, acting on the Complaint, issued a resolution requiring the
adultery against Benita and respondent later followed. In his Answer dated July 31, 1975, respondent to comment thereon on the complaint. On 22 November 2001, respondent filed an
respondent admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife and the mother of their 12 children. He Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Comment and for a Formal Hearing. In this motion,
denied, however, having cohabited with Benita. And he pointed to his complaining wife as the he bared that the Courts resolution requiring him to comment was sent to his parents residence.
cause of their separation, stating the observation that she was always traveling all over the He claimed he has been living for the past two years in a rented house at Signal Village, Taguig,
country, ostensibly for business purposes, without his knowledge and consent, thereby Metro Manila, and has been in the province for the last three weeks attending to business
neglecting her obligations toward her family. concerns. He said he was not aware that a disbarment complaint has been filed against him.
While he admitted that there were cases previously filed by complainant against him, said cases
Aside from her testimony, Rebecca presented two other witnesses, viz: Venancia M. Barrientos, had already been withdrawn and the corresponding desistance, waiver and quitclaim had been
her sister, who identified a letter dated August 28, 1970 written by respondent to her, addressing signed by her and that complainant had in fact received (already) the monetary claims or their
her as Vending, therein asking for forgiveness for the unhappiness he caused his family; and equivalent involving said cases. He said, he was unaware that warrants for his arrest were
Melecio Navarro, husband of Benita, who testified about how respondent took his wife Benita as issued.
a mistress, knowing fully well of their lawful marriage. Rebecca also presented the affidavits of
National Bureau of Investigation agents Eladio C. Velasco and Jose C. Vicente to show the In a resolution dated 28 January 2002, this Court resolved to grant respondents Omnibus Motion
existence of a prima facie case for adultery. The pictures and baptismal and birth certificates of for Leave of Court to Admit Comment on the administrative complaint and for a Formal Hearing,
Mary Ann, Ma. Luisa, Caridad, and Ponciano Jr., all surnamed Arnobit, were submitted to prove and noted the comment therein. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
the fact that respondent sired four illegitimate children out of his illicit cohabitation with Benita. recommendation within ninety days from notice. On 02 May 2002, complainant submitted a letter
to the IBP withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent, stating that after much
CBD: That he be SUSPENDED for 3 mos. reflection and recall of the antecedent facts that led to the filing of the complaint, I have finally
decided to withdraw the same as it arose purely out of misunderstanding and miscommunication
ISSUE: WON Atty. Ponciano Arnobit engaged in immoral conduct making him unfit in the and definitely not warranting any disciplinary action much less disbarment and apologize for
profession. whatever inconvenience the complaint had cause[d] the office.

HELD: YES, Atty. Ponciano is DISBARRED. While the Court concurs with the inculpatory In an Order dated 19 June 2002, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala of the IBP,
findings of the IBP on the charge of abandonment, it cannot bring itself to agree that respondent Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), to whom the case was assigned for investigation, report
is liable only for that offense (Adultery). As it were, the charge for gross immoral conduct has and recommendation, notified the parties to appear for a hearing at said office on 03 July 2002.
sufficiently been proven. Following established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be Per order dated 03 July 2002 of Commissioner Maala, it appears that when the case was called
disbarred. A review of the records readily reveals that despite the protracted delay in the for hearing, neither complainant nor respondent appeared. It was not shown, however, whether
hearings mainly caused by respondent’s failure to appear, complainant relentlessly pursued this they received notices of the scheduled hearing, hence, the same was ordered cancelled and
administrative case against her husband. She was, to be sure, able to establish by clear, reset to 17 July 2002.
convincing, and preponderant evidence his commission of marital infidelity and abandonment of
his family. Although respondent in his answer denied abandoning complainant and their children ISSUE: WON Atty. Ramon Dio is guilty of gross misconduct
and offered an explanation as to the cause of his and his wifes separation, he opted not to take
the witness stand and be cross- examined on his sworn answer. Neither did he bother to call HELD: YES, He is SUSPENDED from the practice for 1 year. Respondent’s issuance of
and present his alleged paramour, Benita, who could have had disproved an existing adulterous checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. 22 constitutes serious misconduct and in addition
relationship between them, or, at least, confirm his protestation about the paternity of her four respondent committed gross misconduct when he failed to comply his promise to complainant to
children. Significantly, Benitas husband, no less, risked personal ridicule by testifying on the illicit settle the case. Quite conspicuously, despite the opportunities accorded to respondent to refute
liaison between his wife and respondent. the charges against him, he failed to do so or even offer a valid explanation. The record is bereft
of any evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence to meet the
The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession charges against him. His nonchalance does not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of
would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct respect towards the public officers who were assigned to investigate the cases.
which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the
charges against him. He must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must
RANGWANI V. DIO show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed against Atty. Ramon S. Dio by Carmelina Y. expected of him.
Rangwani before this Court. In her complaint, Rangwani alleged that sometime in the years
1995 to 1996, Atty. Dio befriended her. Owing to his status in the community as a good lawyer Respondents act of having borrowed the title to the land of complainant, his presumed use of the
and businessman, respondent was able to convince the complainant to part with her title to a said title for his personal gain, his failure to return the same despite repeated demands and
parcel of land located in Dasmarias, Cavite, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2791- worse, his issuance of three checks in exchange for the said land title which bounced, constitute
97, Entry 5320-102. After the lapse of five months, complainant demanded the return of her title gross misconduct for which he must be disciplined. In this connection Rule 16.04 of the Code of
from respondent who promised to return the same but failed to do so. After ten months, Professional Responsibility is unequivocal. It states:
HELD: SC modified the recommendation of IBP. Atty Garrido and Valencia are BOTH
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests DISBARRED. Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. We make these
The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or distinctions as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral,
takes advantages of the confidence reposed in him by his client. not simply immoral, conduct.

Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of Atty Garrido
the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any
circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him. Canon 15 of the Code of The time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is not
Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer should observe candor, fairness and loyalty material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for admission to the
in all his dealings and transactions with his client. A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, practice of law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the legal profession. From this
in his professional or private capacity, which renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of were committed before Atty. Garrido
court. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public was admitted to the practice of law. In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy,
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional as he entered this second marriage while his first marriage with Constancia was subsisting. He
Responsibility commands all lawyers at all times to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his petition to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea. He
profession. violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which commands that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
GARRIDO V. GARRIDO deceitful conduct; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands that [a] lawyer shall at all times
FACTS: Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before Responsibility, which provides that, [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline charging them with gross on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
immorality. That Atty. Angel married one Atty Valencia and that He left the conjugal home and scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence. In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Garrido
denied Maelotiseas charges and imputations. By way of defense, he alleged that Maelotisea Atty Valencia
was not his legal wife, as he was already married to Constancia David (Constancia) when he
married Maelotisea. He claimed he married Maelotisea after he and Constancia parted ways. He The records show that Atty. Valencia consented to be married in Hongkong, not within the
further alleged that Maelotisea knew all his escapades and understood his bad boy image before country. Given that this marriage transpired before the declaration of the nullity of Atty. Garridos
she married him in 1962. As he and Maelotisea grew apart over the years due to financial second marriage, we can only call this Hongkong marriage a clandestine marriage, contrary to
problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty. Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia to whom he the Filipino tradition of celebrating a marriage together with family. Despite Atty. Valencias claim
confided his difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal problems and his financial that she agreed to marry Atty. Garrido only after he showed her proof of his capacity to enter into
difficulties with his second family. Atty. Garrido denied that he failed to give financial support to a subsequent valid marriage, the celebration of their marriage in Hongkong leads us to the
his children with Maelotisea, emphasizing that all his six (6) children were educated in private opposite conclusion; they wanted to marry in Hongkong for the added security of avoiding any
schools; all graduated from college except for Arnel Victorino, who finished a special secondary charge of bigamy by entering into the subsequent marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction. In this
course. Atty. Garrido alleged that Maelotisea had not been employed and had not practiced her regard, we cannot help but note that Atty. Valencia afterwards opted to retain and use her
profession for the past ten (10) years. surname instead of using the surname of her husband. Atty. Valencia, too, did not appear to
mind that her husband did not live and cohabit with her under one roof, but with his second wife
Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he became a member of and the family of this marriage. Apparently, Atty. Valencia did not mind at all sharing her
the bar on May 11, 1979, with the third marriage contracted after the death of Constancia on husband with another woman. This, to us, is a clear demonstration of Atty. Valencia’s perverse
December 26, 1977. Likewise, his children with Maelotisea were born before he became a sense of moral values.
lawyer. In her Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Valencia denied that she was the mistress of Atty. Garrido.
She explained that Maelotisea was not the legal wife of Atty. Garrido since the marriage Measured against the definition of gross immorality, we find Atty. Valencia’s actions grossly
between them was void from the beginning due to the then existing marriage of Atty. Garrido immoral. Her actions were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man
with Constancia. Atty. Valencia claimed that Maelotisea knew of the romantic relationship who, in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a family. Her actions
between her and Atty. Garrido, as they (Maelotisea and Atty. Valencia) met in 1978. Maelotisea were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido,
kept silent about her relationship with Atty. Garrido and had maintained this silence when she she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during the
(Atty. Valencia) financially helped Atty. Garrido build a house for his second family. Atty. subsistence of his two previous marriages. As already mentioned, Atty. Valencias conduct could
Valencia alleged that Maelotisea was not a proper party to this suit because of her silence; she not but be scandalous and revolting to the point of shocking the communitys sense of decency;
kept silent when things were favorable and beneficial to her. Atty. Valencia also alleged that while she professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped the second family build a house
Maelotisea had no cause of action against her. prior to her marriage to Atty. Garrido, and did not object to sharing her husband with the woman
of his second marriage.
IBP: Atty. Garrido is DISBARRED; Case against Atty Valencia is DISMISSED. GALICINAO V. CASTRO 2005
FACTS: This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court.
ISSUE: WON Atty Garrido and Atty Valencia engaged in immoral conduct and are guilty of gross Members of the bar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner befitting their
immorality. noble profession. Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-
Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire
whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784, had already been remanded to the court of that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should
origin. It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either party in Civil bear the consequences of his actions.
Case No. 784. Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted
since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent retorted CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
scornfully, Who will certify the Court of Appeals Decision, the Court of Appeals? You mean to HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified true copy? Surprised at this outburst,
complainant replied, Sir, its in the Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the party you Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
claim to be representing. Respondent then replied, Then you should have notified me of the said abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office since then, but
you never bothered to notify me. Complainant replied, It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
said requirement. Respondent then answered, You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor,
record of the case? Complainant responded, No, Sir, I mean, its not our duty to notify you that to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals decision. Respondent angrily declared in neglectful counsel.
Ilocano, Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay? (You mean to say you dont care
anymore? Is that the way it is?) He then turned and left the office, banging the door on his way QUE V. REVILLA 2009
out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by the people at the FACTS: In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. before
adjacent RTC, where a hearing was taking place. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar
Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the Code of
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondents abuse of court
complainant and shouted, Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak remedies and processes by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two
ah! (Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on petitions for annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of
me!) Complainant was shocked at respondents words but still managed to reply, I dont even judgment before the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively,
know your client, Sir. Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainants window, he subject cases) to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
again shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!) Complainant suffered and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondents clients. The
acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of which she was, and still is, respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and
the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and diminished, RTC knowing fully-well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The
eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff. respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings’ titles over the property
subject of the unlawful detainer case;
IBP: That he be reprimanded
The respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede,
ISSUE: WON Atty. Castro is guilty of violating the CPR obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to
defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in
HELD: YES, Atty. Castro is FINED in the amount of 10K. Had he been counsel of record, it the unlawful detainer case;
would have been easy for him to present the required certified true copy of the decision of the
Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the The respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to
decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate falsehood and deception to misguide, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. The
original or certified true copy of its decision. His explanation that he will enter his appearance in respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition
the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the for annulment of judgment by fabricating an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in
counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent them, open court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said
respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court. case. The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation;
the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above
Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, falsehood.
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that
case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith. Moreover, in the course of his The respondents willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good
questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an officer name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of
of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of the respondents clients.
invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to
a woman and in front of her subordinates. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional ISSUE: WON the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor professional misconduct.
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct HELD: YES, Atty. Anastacio Revilla is DISBARRED. The respondents repeated attempts go
themselves without reproach at all times. beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of
his client. These are already uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of final judgments
Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent of the MeTC and RTC. In these attempts, the respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the
had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules
that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for the of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. By his actions, the
consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards. The fact remains
respondent used procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration
of justice, resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case. The Motion for Disbarment charges the lawyers of petitioners with:
(1) unlawfully advising or otherwise causing or inducing their clients — petitioners Buenaseda, et
The respondent also committed falsehood in his motion for reconsideration of the order al., to openly defy, ignore, disregard, disobey or otherwise violate, maliciously evade their
dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment where he misrepresented to the court and his preventive suspension by Order of July 7, 1992 of the Ombudsman . . ."; (2) "unlawfully
clients what actually transpired in the hearing of June 28, 2002 in this wise: interfering with and obstructing the implementation of the said order and (3) violation of the
Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of unprofessional and unethical conduct
Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June 28, 2002) show, that after "by foisting blatant lies, malicious falsehood and outrageous deception" and by committing
both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending incident, the Honorable Presiding subornation of perjury, falsification and fabrication in their pleadings.
Judge, in open court, and in the presence and within the hearing distance of all the
plaintiffs and their counsel as well as the counsel of the defendants resolved: TO On December 9, 1992, the Solicitor General, commenting on the Petition, Supplemental Petition
DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AND DIRECTED DEFENDANTS and Supplemental Manifestation, stated that (a) "The authority of the Ombudsman is only to
COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE REMAINING recommend suspension and he has no direct power to suspend;" and (b) "Assuming the
PERIOD. Ombudsman has the power to directly suspend a government official or employee, there are
conditions required by law for the exercise of such powers; [and] said conditions have not been
The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28, 2002 was actually for met in the instant case"
the respondents application for temporary restraining order and was not a hearing on the
adverse partys motion to dismiss. ISSUE ON PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION: WON Petitioners can be preventively suspended by
ombudsman.
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent
attacked the name and reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate ISSUE ON CONTEMPT AND DISBARMENT: WON Petitioner’s lawyers violated Rule 8.01
neglect, corrupt motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse party. We find it
significant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he came upon his accusation against HELD:
Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his own admission, only participated in the cases previously ISSUE ON PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION: Yes, Petition dismissed. TRO Lifted and set aside.
assigned to Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the same time, the respondents petition for Ombudsman may proceed with the suspension. Being a mere order for preventive suspension,
annulment of judgment also represented that no second motion for reconsideration or appeal the questioned order of the Ombudsman was validly issued even without a full-blown hearing
was filed to contest the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason and the formal presentation of evidence by the parties. It cannot be said that Director Raul
that the respondent believed the said decisions were null and void ab initio. Under these Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero acted with manifest partiality and bias in
circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been less than fair in his professional recommending the suspension of petitioners. Neither can it be said that the Ombudsman had
relationship with Atty. Catolico and is thus liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of acted with grave abuse of discretion in acting favorably on their recommendation.
Professional Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness,
and candor toward his professional colleagues. He was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing ISSUE ON CONTEMPT AND DISBARMENT: Complaint for disbarment must be filed
to Atty. Catolico without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty. separately (but SC gave its comment on the matter). The Motion for Contempt, which
Catolico, who is now dead and unable to defend himself. charges the lawyers of petitioners with unlawfully causing or otherwise inducing their clients to
openly defy and disobey the preventive suspension as ordered by the Ombudsman and the
BUENASEDA V. FLAVIER, VASQUEZ, NCMH NURSES ASSOC 1993 Secretary of Health cannot prosper. The Motion should be filed, as in fact such a motion was
FACTS: This is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, with Prayer for Preliminary filed, with the Ombudsman. At any rate, we find that the acts alleged to constitute indirect
Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. contempt were legitimate measures taken by said lawyers to question the validity and propriety
Principally, the petition seeks to nullify the Order of the Ombudsman dated January 7, 1992, of the preventive suspension of their clients. On the other hand, we take cognizance of the
directing the preventive suspension of petitioners, Dr. Brigida S. Buenaseda, Isabelo C. Banez, intemperate language used by counsel for private respondents hurled against petitioners and
Conrado Rey Matias,; Cora C. Solis,; and Enya N. Lopez, all of the National Center for Mental their counsel Consolidated: (1) Comment on Private Respondent" "Urgent Motions, etc.; (2)
Health. The petition also asks for an order directing the Ombudsman to disqualify Director Raul Adoption of OSG's Comment; and (3) Reply to Private Respondent's Comment and
Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero, of the Office of the Ombudsman, from participation Supplemental Comment. (Exact words used by counsels not discussed in the case)
in the preliminary investigation of the charges against petitioner. The questioned order was
issued in connection with the administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman by the private A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause. The language of a lawyer,
respondents against the petitioners for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. either oral or written, must be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal
According to the petition, the said order was issued upon the recommendation of Director Raul profession and with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. The use of
Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero, without affording petitioners the opportunity to abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at the same time a
controvert the charges filed against them. Petitioners had sought to disqualify Director Arnaw disrespect to the dignity of the court of justice. Besides, the use of impassioned language in
and Investigator Villa-Rosero for manifest partiality and bias. pleadings, more often than not, creates more heat than light. The Motion for Disbarment has no
place in the instant special civil action, which is confined to questions of jurisdiction or abuse of
On Sept 22. TRO was issued. On September 29, 1992, petitioners filed a motion to direct discretion for the purpose of relieving persons from the arbitrary acts of judges and quasi-judicial
respondent Secretary of Health to comply with the Resolution dated September 22, 1992. In a officers. There is a set of procedure for the discipline of members of the bar separate and apart
Resolution dated October 1, 1992, this Court required respondent Secretary of Health to from the present special civil action.
comment on the said motion. On September 29, 1992, in a pleading entitled "Omnibus
Submission," respondent NCMH Nurses Association submitted its Comment to the Petition,
Supplemental Petition and Urgent Supplemental Manifestation. Included in said pleadings were
the motions to hold the lawyers of petitioners in contempt and to disbar them.