You are on page 1of 6

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA.

LOURDES OLIVEROS

CANON 8 unmarried mestizo who lives with Carmen.” He further


RULE 8.01 described Atty. Deguma as “an unmarried maiden of
certain age” and a “love-crazed female Apache who is
TIONGCO YARED V. ILARDE [PEREZ] ready to skin the defendant alive for not being a bastard”
G.R. No. 114732 (1 August 2000) and a “horned spinster and man-hungry virago and
female bull of an Amazon.” He also stated that Atty.
Petitioner: Estrella Tiongco Yared (deceased) substituted by Deguma is using PAO (Public Attorney’s Office) as a
one of heirs, Carmen Matilde Tiongco “marriage bureau for her own benefit.”
Respondent: Judge Ricardo Ilarde of RTC Iloilo, Jose Tiongco
and Antonio Doronila Jr. Issue: WON Jose Tiongco, being also one of the counsels of
the defendants, violated the Code of Professional
Facts: Responsibility.
1. Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
assailing the Order dated March 17, 1994 1 of RTC Iloilo Ruling:
which reinstated an earlier order cancelling the notice of Yes. With the language that he employed, he obviously violated
lis pendens annotated on the back of Transfer Canon 8-A Rule 8.01 which states that a lawyer shall not, in his
Certificates of Title Nos. T-92383 and T-5050, of the professional dealings, use languages which is abusive,
Registry of Deeds of Iloilo City covering Lots 3244 and offensive, or otherwise improper. He also violated Rule 11.03
3246, respectively, located in Iloilo City. which says that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
2. Estrella Yared, substituted by Carmen Tiongco because offensive, or menacing language before the courts.
the former is now dead, and Jose Tiongco were
opposing parties to a property in litigation. Carmen The SC also cited Romero vs Valle, “although allowed some
directly filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the latitude of remarks or comment in furtherance of the cause he
Supreme Court because Judge Ilarde of the RTC upholds, his arguments, both written or oral, should be gracious
ordered the cancellation of annotation of notices of lis to both court and opposing counsel and be of such words as
pendens. The Supreme Court noticed and commented may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.” Jose
that Carmen has failed to comply with the principle of Tiongco was merely warned.
judicial hierarchy and that she should have filed the
petition in the CA first. Note: In the first part of the case, even the title of the case, it
3. However, the Supreme Court also noticed the improper was not mentioned whether Jose Tiongco is a lawyer or not.
and unethical language employed by Jose Tiangco, who Then, there‘s one sentence which addressed him “Atty. Jose
was also a counsel for the private respondents, in his Tiongco.”
pleadings and motions filed both in SC and lower court.
He described the counsel of the petitioner, Atty. The petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
Marciana Deguma, “a rambunctious wrestler-type
female of 52 who does not wear a dress which is not red, CANON 9
and who stampedes into the court room like a mad fury ZETA V. MALINAO [VILLAFUERTE]
and who speaks slang English to conceal her faulty A.M. No. P-220 (20 December 1978)
grammar.” Jose Tiongco alleged that Atty. Deguma
does that “to please and tenderize and sweeten towards FACTS:
her own self the readily available Carmelo Tiongco, an
G01 2017-2018 1
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS

An administrative complaint was filed against Felicisimo HELD:


Malinao, court interpreter of the CFI of Catbalogan, Samar, ● The defense of Malinao that “his participation for
charging him of illegally appearing in court, grave misconduct in defendant’s cause was gratuitous as they could not
office, the crime of Falsification, and violation of Section 12, engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and
Rule 28 of the Civil Service Law. Accordingly, Malinao had been the absence of one in the locality” cannot, even if true,
appearing as an attorney in the municipal courts of Catbalogan, carry the day for him, considering that in appearing as
Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora, and Sta. Rita, Samar, despite the counsel in court, he did so without permission from his
fact that he was not authorised to do so. It was also alleged that superiors, and worse, he falsified his time record of
he would instigate persons, especially in his barrio, to grab land, service to conceal his absence from his office on the
rob, or coerce, inciting them and telling them not to be afraid; dates in question.
that since he was a court employee, he had influence over the ● Indeed, the number of times that Malinao acted as
judges. With respect to the crime of Falsification, he made it counsel under the above circumstances would indicate
appear on his daily record that he was present in his office on that he was doing it as a regular practice obviously for
several dates, when in fact, he was attending to different cases. considerations other than pure love of justice.
Lastly, the Civil Service Law that Malinao had allegedly violated ● It is quite obvious that the offence committed by Malinao
prohibits civil service employees from engaging in private is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic sanction than
practice of any profession or business without permission from that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa.
the Department Head.
RULING:
In his answer, Malinao stated that he did not violate any rule or Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his
law, much less Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules; position as interpreter in the CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar.
that his participation for defendants’ cause was gratuitous as
they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND
poverty and the absence of one in the locality. GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

The Department of Justice that had jurisdiction over the matter,


SEC. 20 (D), RULE 138, RULES OF COURT. It is the duty of
referred the complaint and answer to District Judge Segundo
an attorney:
Zosa for investigation, report, and recommendation. Inspite of
diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the
d. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
complainant, Julio Zeta, the same had failed because he
confided to him, such means only as are consistent with
appeared to be a fictitious person. Nevertheless, the Court
truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or
proceeded with the investigation by calling the respective
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
Judges of the courts in which Malinao had appeared in. After
or law;
careful review, Judge Zosa recommended that Malinao be
given a stern warning and severe reprimand for the irregularities
presented.
Rule 10.1. Shall do no falsehood
ISSUE:
W/N Felicisimo Malinao should be administratively liable for his
conduct. YES. MALIGAYA V. ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA [BASA]
A.C. No 6198 (15 September 2006)
G01 2017-2018 2
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS

liability somewhat. First, we give him credit for exhibiting


Facts: enough candor to admit, during the investigation, the falsity of
An action for damages was filed by Renato Maligaya against the statement he had made in Judge Daway's courtroom.
several military officers whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. Second, the absence of material damage to complainant may
At one point in the hearing, Atty. Doronilla said: “And another also be considered as a mitigating circumstance. And finally,
matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he since this is Atty. Doronilla's first offense, he is entitled to some
[complainant Maligaya] filed before against the same measure of forbearance.”
defendants. We had an agreement that if we withdraw the case
against him, he will also withdraw all the cases. So, with that
understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving YOUNG V. CAESAR BATUEGAS, ET AL. [LIMOSNERO]
pension.” A.C. No. 5379 (9 May)

The presiding judge ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his Doctrine: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon
statements into writing and file the appropriate pleading. Atty. his admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor
Doronilla however did not submit any pleadings after many consent to the doing of any in court” and he shall “conduct
weeks. Maligaya then filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
for "misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
resulting [in] obstruction of justice," clients.” He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court
his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Darilla is guilty of his false and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving
statements? at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled
to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
Held: Yes. pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost
By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be
agreed to withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these at the expense of truth.
peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated
the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing Facts:
of any in court," of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but In a criminal case for murder, Atty. Young was the counsel for
restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer's duty to "never the plaintiff, Attys. Batuegas and Llantino were the counsel for
seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or the accused, and Atty. Susa was the clerk of court of RTC. Atty.
false statement of fact or law." Young, filed for disbarment against Attys. Batuegas, Llantino
and Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court
WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby and violating the lawyer's oath in a criminal case for murder.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO MONTHS. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct Attys. Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed for
shall be dealt with more severely. bail dated December 13, 2000, alleging that the "accused has
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and now under
Note: Penalty is light because the SC gave him considerations. detention. Upon personal verification with the NBI where
accused allegedly surrendered, Atty. Young learned that he
“We need to consider a few circumstances that mitigate his
G01 2017-2018 3
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS

surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys.
Certificate of Detention. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino are found
guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they are
Attys. Batuegas and Llantino contended that on December 13, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
their client, they filed for bail with the trial court. Then they act will be dealt with more severely.
immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to
the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic,
they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the CHERYL VASCO-TAMARAY V. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS
certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered [ANDAL]
on December 14, 2000. They argued that there was neither (26 January 2016)
unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as their
client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI. FACTS:
- Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray (Vasco-Tamaray) filed a
As for Atty. Susa, he calendared the motion on December 15, Complaint Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the
2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, Philippines on July 30, 2007, alleging that respondent
namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant, Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis (Atty. Daquis) filed, on her
violation of the three-day notice rule. behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
without her consent and forged her signature on the
In defense, Atty. Susa argues the inclusion of the motion in the Petition.
court's calendar on December 15, 2000 was authorized by the - She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for
presiding judge and, thus, was done by Atty. Susa in faithful Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as "counsel for
performance of his ministerial duty. petitioner," referring to Vasco-Tamaray.
- Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty. Daquis was not her
Issue: W/N Attys. Batuegas, Llantino and Susa guilty of counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Regala
deliberate falsehood and violated the lawyer’s oath. Tamaray.

Held: Yes. ISSUE:


W/N Atty Daquis should be held administratively liable for
Attys. Batuegas, Llantino and Susa fell short of the duties and making it appear that she is counsel for complainant Cheryl
responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Vasco-Tamaray and for the alleged use of a forged signature
Anticipating that their motion for bail will be denied by the court on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that HELD:
accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority Yes
and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a - SC states that Atty. Daquis violated violated Canons
deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to 1, 7, 10, and 17 of the Code of Professional
injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the Responsibility.
pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. - By pretending to be counsel for complainant,
They violated their oath when they resorted to deception. respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and failed to uphold her duty
G01 2017-2018 4
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS

of doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any production of documents to be reasonable and for the
falsehood in court as stated in the Lawyer's Oath. documents themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry
- Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, should, in the first place, be one that the Ombudsman can
Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a forged legitimately entertain, investigate and rule upon. 

In the
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized. present case, the matter that gave rise to the issuance of a
- Atty. Daquis violated Canon 17 because failed to protect subpoena duces tecum was a criminal complaint filed by the
the interests of her client when she represented complainants Lozano for the alleged violation by retired
complainant, who is the opposing party of her client Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and retired
Leomarte Tamaray, in the same case. Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria -Martinez of Section 3(e) of
- Atty. Daquis was disbarred by the Supreme Court. R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act). 

A simple jurisprudential research would easily reveal
that this Court has had the occasion to rule on the liability of
ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO V. ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., Justices of the Supreme Court for violation of Section 3(e) of
supra. R.A. 3019 the very same provision that the complainants
Lozano invoke in this case. 



Rule 10.02. Shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent ISSUES:



1. W/N constitutional provisions were misused.

QUE V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. supra. 2. W/N complainants violated Rule 10.02 of the CPR. 



HELD/RATIO:
RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010
OF ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE 1. YES. The complainants appear to us to have brazenly
OMBUDSMAN [SIOCHI] misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions to
A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC (2 March 2010) justify their case against the retired Justices. We refer
particularly to their use (or strictly, misuse) of Article X, Section
FACTS: 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution which they claim to be the
The subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman has governing rule that the retired Justices should have followed in
been rendered moot and academic. In the appropriate case, the acting on Pael. 

This constitutional provision states: 
Cases
Office of the Ombudsman has full authority to issue subpoenas, heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at
including subpoena duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of least five Members, but if such required number is not obtained
witnesses and the production of documents and information the case shall be decided en banc; Provided, that no doctrine
relating to matters under its investigation. The grant of this or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered
authority, however, is not unlimited, as the Ombudsman must en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by
necessarily observe and abide by the terms of the Constitution the Court sitting en banc.
For failure of the retired Justices to
and our laws, the Rules of Court and the applicable act according to these terms, the complainants claim that the
jurisprudence on the issuance, service, validity and efficacy of former subverted the Constitution by reversing, by a vote of a
subpoenas. Under the Rules of Court, the issuance of majority of only three members, the decision of the First Division
subpoenas, including a subpoena duces tecum, operates under unanimously approved by its full membership of five members.
the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. For the 

Had the complainants bothered to carefully consider the facts
G01 2017-2018 5
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS ATTY. MA. LOURDES OLIVEROS

and developments in Pael and accordingly related these to the and its Members. 
In our view, the complainants errors do not
applicable constitutional provision, they would have discovered belong to the genre of plain and simple errors that lawyers
that Pael was decided in 2003 when the 1987 Constitution, not commit in the practice of their profession. Their plain disregard,
the 1973 Constitution, was the prevailing Charter. They then misuse and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions
would have easily learned of the manner cases are heard and constitute serious misconduct that reflects on their fitness for
decided by Division before the Supreme Court under the 1987 continued membership in the Philippine Bar. 

To emphasize
Constitution. 

Section 4(3), Article VIII of this Constitution the importance of requiring lawyers to act candidly and in good
provides: 
Cases or matters heard by a division shall be faith, an identical provision is found in Canon 22 of the Canons
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the of Professional Ethics. Moreover, lawyers are sworn to do no
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court before they
issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without are even admitted to the Bar. All these the complainants appear
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the to have seriously violated. 


WHEREFORE, premises
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en considered, we DISMISS the criminal complaint entitled Oliver
banc; Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by O. Lozano, et al. v. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al.,
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be OMB-C-C-09-0527-J for utter lack of merit, and DECLARE as
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. 
 
This MOOT and ACADEMIC the question of compliance with the
was the provision that governed in 2003 and still governs to this subpoena duces tecum dated January 11, 2010 that the
day. Thus, the complainants’ argument and basis for their Ombudsman issued against this Court. 

We hereby ORDER
criminal complaint that in ruling on a motion for reconsideration, the complainants Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline
all five members of the Division should concur is totally wrong. Lozano- Endriano to EXPLAIN IN WRITING to this Court, within

 a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be penalized as members of
2. YES. In their criminal complaint, the complainants gave a the Bar and as officers of this Court, for their open disregard of
slanted view of the powers of this Court to suit their purposes; the plain terms of the Constitution and the applicable laws and
for these same purposes, they wrongly cited and misapplied the jurisprudence, and their misuse and misrepresentation of
provisions of the Constitution, not just any ordinary statute. As constitutional provisions in their criminal complaint before the
lawyers, the complainants must be familiar and well acquainted Office of the Ombudsman, entitled Oliver O. Lozano, et al. v.
with the fundamental law of the land, and are charged with the Hilario G. Davide, Jr., et al., OMB-C-C-09-0527-J. 


duty to apply the constitutional provisions in light of their
prevailing jurisprudential interpretation. As law practitioners Note: See also Resolutions dated 15 June 2010 and March
active in the legal and political circles, the complainants can 2012
hardly be characterized as unknowing in their misuse and
misapplication of constitutional provisions. They should, at the
very least, know that the 1973 Constitution and its provisions
have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution, and that they Rule 10.03. Shall not misuse rules of procedure
cannot assail invoking the 1973 Constitution the judicial acts of
members of the Supreme Court carried out in 2003 when the FRANCISCO V. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES [MATIENZO]
1987 Constitution was in effect. Their misuse of the Constitution A.C. No. 10755
is made more reprehensible when the overriding thrust of their
criminal complaint is considered; they used the 1973 provisions
to falsely attribute malice and injustice to the Supreme Court
G01 2017-2018 6