PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JANUARY 2013

Title of the Case / Date of the Problem Areas Canons violated Penalty Imposed by the Court
Decision
Anastacio N. Teodoro III vs. Atty. Romeo S. ●Resorting to Forum Shopping ●Canon 1 of the Code of Professional ●Censure
Gonzales Responsibility
A.C. No. 6760
January 30, 2013

Fe A. Ylaya vs. Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott ●Neglect. ●Canon 16

A.C. No. 6475 (1)Allowing a party to take the original “hold in trust all moneys and properties
January 30, 2013 TCTs of properties owned by another – an of his client that may come into his
act that could result in damage – should possession.”
merit a finding of legal malpractice.

While it was his legal staff who allowed

the complainant to borrow the TCTs and
it does not appear that the respondent
was aware or present when the
complainant borrowed the TCTs, the
court still held the respondent liable, as
the TCTs were entrusted to his care and
custody; he failed to exercise due
diligence in caring for his client’s
properties that were in his custody.

(2)Failed to file the Motion for Leave to ● Canon 18, Rule 18.03
Intervene on behalf of his clients.

Sps. Arcing and Cresing Bautista, et al. vs. ●Lack of diligence
Atty. Arturo Cefra (1) Atty. Cefra failed to submit a formal
A.C. No. 5530 offer of documentary evidence within the
January 28, 2013 period given by the RTC;
(2) He failed to comply with the two
orders of the RTC directing him to submit
a formal offer of documentary evidence;
(3) Atty. Cefra failed to file an appropriate
● Canon 18 of the Code of Professional ●Disciplinary sanction.
Responsibility and Rules 138 and139 of
the Rules of Court.
“a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.”
” a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
 motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial
measure to contest the RTC’s decision;
(4) He failed to file an appropriate motion
or appeal, or avail of any remedial
measure to contest the RTC’s decision
which was adverse to complainants.
connection therewith shall render him
liable.”
” a lawyer has the duty to “keep the client
informed of the status of his case.”

Florence Teves Macarubbo vs. Atty.
Edmundo L. Macarubbo; Re: Petition (for
Extraordinary Mercy) of Edmundo L.
Macarubbo.
A.C. No. 6148
January 22, 2013
Mariano T. Ong vs. Eva G. Basiya-Saratan,
Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 32, Iloilo City.
A.M. No. P-12-3090
January 7, 2013
●Seeking Judicial clemency for ●Disbarment (previous case) ● REINSTATED
reinstatement in the roll of attorneys.
●In a previous Decision, the Court
disbarred respondent from the practice of
law for having contracted a bigamous
marriage with complainant Teves and a
third marriage with one Constantino
while his first marriage to Esparza was still
subsisting. These acts, according to the
court, constituted gross immoral conduct
●Refusal to perform duty. ● Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of ●
●Respondent unjustifiably failed to issue Conduct for Court Personnel
the alias writs of execution to implement
the judgment in a Civil Case, despite
orders from the RTC. Moreover, she failed
to file the required comment in disregard
of the duty of every employee in the
judiciary to obey the orders and
processes of the Court without delay.

Re: Verified complaint of AMA Land, Inc.
against Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, et al.
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 12-202-CA-J
January 15, 2013
Geoffrey Beckett vs. Judge Olegario R.
Sarmiento, Jr., RTC, Branch 24, Cebu
City. A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326
January 30, 2013
●Here, other than AMALI’s bare and self-
serving claim, no act clearly indicative of
bias and partiality was alleged except for
the claim that respondent CA Justices
misapplied the law and jurisprudence.
●Gross ignorance of law.
●In arbitrary defiance of his own
September 25, 2006 Decision which
constitutes res judicata or a bar to him to
pass upon the issue of Geoffrey, Jr’s.
custody, granted, via his March 15, 2011
Order, provisional custody over Geoffrey,
Jr. to Eltesa. The Decision adverted to
● --- ●The presumption that the respondent
judge has regularly performed his duties
shall prevail.
●Respondent judge cannot be held guilty ● ----
of the charges hurled by the complainant
against him since there is no finding of
strong reasons to rule otherwise. The
preference of a child over 7 years of age
as to whom he desired to live with shall
be respected. Moreover, custody, even if
previously granted by a competent court

Re: Complaint of Leonardo A. Velasco
against Associate Justices Francisco H.
Villaruz, Jr., et al.
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J January
15, 2013
Kareen P. Magtagñob vs. Judge Genie
G. Gapas-Agbada.
OCA IPI No. 11-3631-RTJ
January 16, 2013
refers to the judgment on compromise
agreement
●Grave Misconduct
●This is with regard to the actions of the
Sandiganbayan Justices respecting the
execution of the final judgment against
accused Velasco
●Abuse of authority when Judge did not
renew a temporary appointment
in favor of a parent, is not permanent
● In grave misconduct, as distinguished ●
from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law
or flagrant disregard of an established
rule must be established.
●Records are bereft of evidence showing
any trace of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of the
rules as to hold the Sandiganbayan
Justices administratively liable for grave
misconduct.
● Since there is no proof that respondent
judge abused her position, the case
against her should be dismissed.
●Complainant, a former Court
Stenographer III at the RTC, failed to show
any proof that she was entitled to a
permanent position.