You are on page 1of 17

PLUMPTRE V.

ATTY SOCRATES RIVERA

Ground for disbarment: absconding funds received for handling referrals

Receipt of fund to supposedly bribe a judge

Canon 1  member of CPR

Canon 16  fiduciary duty

Canon 17  fidelity

Canon 18  Compliance and diligence

SC: 3 year suspension

DR GAMILLO VS MARINO

Ground for disbarment  failure to account an amount of money received in a compromise agreement between
UST and its employees union

Canon 16 Fiduciary Duty

Canon 15  Conflict of interest

SC. Arty Marino was guilty of conflict of interest for serving two adverse parties

VIRAY VS SANICAS

SANICAS Represented Viray in a labor dispute

VIRAY  driver of Sps Lopez

 Money judgment was appropriated by Atty Sanicas w/o accounting the proceeds out of the labor case

SC Atty Sanicas is guilty of gross maisconduct.

The lawyer defrauded the client and making it appear to Sps Lopez that Viray authorize the lawyer to
collect the money judgment. Concept of extraordinary attorney’s fees

COMPASSIONATE JUDICIAL DISCRETION

GERNANDEZ VS ATTY JOSE GO

Ground of disbarment : violation of the trust and confidence of the client Atty Go did not sell the property to be used
to settle monetary obligations of the client. By his act, the client lost the property and all other assets used to secure
the outstanding obligations of the client

SC: Lawyer is disbarred

ANACTA VS ATTY RESURECTION

*When can the court recognize a case as a disbarment case?

 engaged in the service of the respondent for annulment of marriage.

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 1|Page


As proof of engagement gave Anacta a copy of the alleged Petition for Annulment with stamped received including a
docket no

 Despite Lapse of 3 years respondent failed to account for 42 K he received

SC: Lawyer defrauded the client when he made it appear that he filed Petition for Annulment

He also failed to account for the 42K he received

Penalty= Return of 42K + suspension

*Burden is always on the complainant

MALANGAS VS ATTY ZAIDE

 Action for tort based on an accident


 Paid 50k as his professional fees
 ATTY ZAIDE PROMISED COMPLANANT, the court will award 5M in Damages
 Lost the case due to lack of interest to prosecute
 Asked for the return of 50k he paid

SC: Lawyer violated Canon 16. He was ordered to return 50k + 2 years suspension

CONCEPCION VS DELA ROSA

ALL COMPLAINT TO LAWYERS MUST BE VERIFIED!!!

 Entered into a retainer agreement with counsel dela rosa


 Allowed Dela Rosa to borrow 2.5M
 Dela Rosa failed to pay 2.5 within 5 days as agreed with spouses concepcion
 Alleged lawyers violated Canon 16

SC: Lawyer is guilty of violating Canon 16. Disbarment requires only preponderance of evidence Canon 7 was also
violated

TAROG VS ATTY RICAFORT

Charged the lawyer for violating canon 16

Lawyer failed to account 30k he received from the complainant

He used the money for his own personal interest

SC: Lawyer is disbarred. Belated return of 30K will not exempt

Ricaforts arrogance in not responding to the SCs order to comment on the complaint showed UTTER DISRESPECT
towards the judiciary. Such act diminishes the respect of the public in the judiciary system.

BELATED PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT OR REIMBURSEMENT WILL NOT EXONERATE THE LAWYER

CANON 1 + CANON 7  MEMORIZE (will attack the bar)

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 2|Page


YU vs DELA CRUZ

 Charged Atty Dela Cruz for violation of his fiduciary duty


 Respondent lawyer failed to return jewelries borrowed from Yu
 Respondent lawyer issued worthless checks to cover the value of jewelries he borrowed
 -respondent pledged the jewelries

SC: Suspension for 3 years

SISON VS CAMACHO

Charged Atty. Camacho of entering into a compromise agreement without the consent of the client

There has been failure to account the full amount of the docket fees.

SC: DISBARRED si CAMACHO

IN RE: ATTY MAQUERRA

Effect of suspension in a foreign jurisdiction

The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law in Guam

The lawyer exorbitant fee in handling a land dispute case in Guam

SC Guam endorsed to SC Philippines then referred to the IBP

GR: A foreign judgment involving the violation of his duties as a lawyer can be a basis of a disbarment case in the
Philippines

SC: this rule cannot apply to Atty Maquerra  information was lacking

Penalty 1 year suspension for non-payment of IBP dues

SANCHEZ VS AGUILOS

Sanchez engaged the services of Aguillos for annulment of her marriage

He filed LEGAL SEPARATION CASE and NOT ANNULMENT

She asked for refund

SC: CONCEPTS / PRINCIPLES

1. Fees based on quantum meruit bases of legal fees of lawyer is based on the extent of the lawyer’s services
2. COMPETENCE  knowledge of the law
3. Respect towards a fellow lawyer
4. Reprimand + fine 10k + return of 70k

DONGA-AS VS ATYS CRUZ-ANGELES AND PALER

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 3|Page


Challenged the amounts which the lawyers collected from him

1. 100k as acceptance fee and docket fee


2. 250k as additional fees to continue handling the case

SC: Lawyer violated Canon 1, 7 and 18

Lawyers were suspended for 3 years and ordered return of the full amount of 350K

DIONA VS BALAGUE

Civil suit was filed against respondent for a 45K

Court ruled in favor of the credit

The debtor questioned the judgment

 12% per annum


 60% per annum
 GENERAL RULE: Negligence of the counsel binds the client

SC: Annulment of judgment may be availed if where the acts of a lawyer would impair the substantive rights of the
client

SC may discipline a lawyer without filing disbarment case (Motu Proprio)

DE JUAN VS BARIA III

 Filed a labor case of agreement to pay his fees based on contingency fees
 The NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter
 She lost the case due to failure of the counsel to file a Motion for Reconsideration

DEFENSE: He does not know how to file a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Negligence of the counsel binds the client is applied

SC: The Court fined the counsel 5k

FABLE VS REAL

 Engaged the services of respondent for the transfer of title donated to him by Pacia sisters
 He turned over the respondent the Deed of Donation, TCT covering the donated property
 Counsel received 40K to undertake the referral

REAL  alleged that the engagement was for the settlement of the estate of the father of Fable

SC: violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for negligence in handling a case referred by his
client

He also violated his fiduciary duty for failure to return documents he received 40k from his client

NONATO VS ATTY FUDELIN

Engaged in the services of Fudelin for an ejectment case.

He lost the case but respondent never informed of the status of the case

FUDELIN’S DEFENSE : he suffers from several health issues ( high blood, stroke, diabetes )

SC: Atty Fudelin is guilty of negligence His failure to file the appropriate pleadings resulted to disbarment of the case
POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 4|Page
PENALTY: increased from 6 months to 2 years

LAZARETE VS ACCORDA

Engaged on the services of respondent for extrajudicial settlement of his father’s estate

To the dismay of the complainant, he found that despite the payment of professional fees, the lawyer defrauded
him.

SC: Lawyer was guilty of negligence and suspended for 3 years

VC PONCE CO. VS. MUNICIPAL OF PARANAQUE

Challenged the reward of just compensation a 75 pesos/ sqm

Filed MR

MR was denied

Appeal filed 58 days after judgment

SC: The company is bound by the mistake of the lawyer

THE COURT WILL NOT TOLERATE THE RESORT OF CLIENTS TO DELAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

A LAYWER MUST NOT ALLOW HIS CLIENT TO CONTOL COURT PROCEEDINGS

SPS WARINER VS ATTY DUBLIN

Sps filed a complaint against Atty Dublin for failure to file the FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE to file his comment to
the Formal offer of evidence of the opposing party

Atty Dublin was ordered arrested

After 5 years, Dublin filed Formal offer of Evidence

He said that the delay was caused by his extensive research on matters regarding the cases

SC: Suspended for 6 months. Atty Dublin was found guilty of violating Canon 18 for negligence

CABAUATAN VS. ATTY VENIDA

 Filed a disbarment against the counsel for gross negligence for failure to file pleadings on behalf of his client

SC: Atty Venida was suspended for one year for violating Canon 18

FAJ CONSTRUCTION VS SUSAN SAULOG

Subject matter: construction of duplex at 12 M

- Payment was based on progress building

 Saulog alleged that the structure was defective and she refused to pay any billing presented by FAJ

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 5|Page


 FAJ caused the delay in the proceedings which it instituted against Saulog before the RTC QC
 RTC QC dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and awarded damages to Saulog by way of counterclaim

SC: The Court sustained the decision of the RTC and put the blame on the counsel of FAJ for resorting to delay the
execution of judgment

RUIZ VS SANTOS

RUIZowner of parcel of land

SANTOS  given SPA to sell the land

 Subject matter: client’s case was dismissed for failure of counsel to pay docket fees

*NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT

ROBOSA VS ATTYS MENDOZA AND NAVARRO

 registration of 2 parcels of land

 Engagement was based on a contingency fee (1/5 of the proceeds of the sale )

ROBOSA  instituted against Mendoza and action

ROBOSA  represented by Navarro

Mendoza prevailed in the Civil Suit

 Execution was granted by the Court

ROBOSA  instructed Navarro to appeal the decision BUT the failed to file the appeal

SC: MENDOZA  absolved : Contract based on contingency fee was approved by court

NAVARRO 6 MONTHS SUSPENSION ( Reason: Negligence)

SALABAO VS. ATTY VILLARUEL

Salabao  filed a civil suit to recover a property

Atty Villaruel  counsel of opposing party in a case filed by Salabao

 Resort to dilatory tactics of Villaruel in order to delay the execution of judgment in favor of Salabao.
 Filed several actions involving he same property and identical party
 RTC, CA and SC = IN FAVOR OF SALABAO

SC: Atty Villaruel is found guilty of

1) Filing multiple suits


2) Delaying the execution of judgment

He was suspended for 18 months

 Lawyer- client relationship is NOT needed

DALISAY VS. MAURICIO

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 6|Page


DALISAY charged Atty Mauricio for extortion of professional fee

P1000  Original agreement ( instalment)

P25000 if paid on cash

+ expenses involved in litigation ( P 8000) and appearance fee of P5000

BASIS OF COMPLAINT: Mauricio did not render any legal services

IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and directed Mauricio to reimburse the amounts he received from
Dalisay

SC: Suspension for 6 months

OLIVIDA VS ATTY ARNEL C. GONZALES

SUBJECT MATTER: adjudication of a land case

 Counsel was directed to file a position paper despite receipt of money to pay for docket fee/ engagement of
services
 Case was ruled in favor of the opposing party
 DEFENSE : Olivida refused to heed his legal advice

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

IBP, HOWEVER, DID NOT accept the defense of Gonzales and recommended his suspension

SC: The Court increased the penalty to 3 years suspension for failure to perform the agreed engagement

MASMUD VS NLRC

 Instituted a labor case for illegal dismissal under the following


1. 20% contingency fee
2. 10% of attorneys fees will go to the law office
3. 10% of award in case the labor case is appealed
 Masmud was substituted by his spouse
 Mrs Masmud paid only 20% based on the contingency fee

ISSUE: WON Atty Go may get more than was agreed upon under a contingency fee?

SC: A party may go to the Court to review the terms of the contract. If the terms are ONEROUS, the Court may
reduce the amount awarded. May reduce the amount under the engagement

 20% fee  NLRC


 10% attorney’s fee  OK
 10% CA  OK

RAMOS VS. ATTY PATRICIO A. NGASEO

 Admin case
 Engaged the services of counsel
 Claimed that acceptance will be reduced provided the complainants will give him 1000 square meters of the
property
 S.C.: application of Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 7|Page


 The provision prohibits lawyers, members of the court and court employees for having interest in a property
in litigation
Lawyer was only reprimanded for failure of IBP to specifically cite the violation committed by counsel.

HILADO VS. DAVID

SC: A lawyer-client relationship begins when a lawyer renders a legal opinion to a client

DISBARMENT: disqualification based on prior disclosure make upon counsel ( CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

BUN SIONG YAO VS ATTY AURELIO

BUN SIONG YAO retained the services of Atty Aurelio

ATTY AURELIO  also an investor in the companies of the complainants

BUN SIONG YAO filed a complaint against Atty Aurelio for instituting actions against him and other corporate
officer where Aurelio is also a stockholder  charged Atty Aurelio for CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SC: Atty Aurelio is guilty of utilizing his relationship to gain information to institute an action against his client. He
was suspended for 6 months

UY VS ATTY GONZALES

SUBJECT MATTER: sale of land by Gonzales in favor of Uy’s children. It appeard that Uy’s children were minors

Sale was effected by auction

SC: Atty Gonzales was NOT guilty of any violation of a disbarment case

Thus, is not subject to dismissal

MONTANO VS ATTY DEALCA

 Engaged the services of Dealca for P15K; he paid P7500 as initial fee; thereafter, Atty Dealca asked for
another P3500
 DESPITE PAYMENT OF FEES, Atty Dealca DID NOT PERFORM the legal services required of him
 IBP reduced the penalty from suspension to only a reprimand

SC: The Court affirmed the recommendation to ONLY REPRIMAND DEALCA

OBANDO VS. FIGUERRAS

SUBJECT MATTER: Settlement of estate probate of the will

The trial court found there was forgery

At the end of the case, the parties agreed to enter into a compromise agreement

The complaint alleged that Atty Yuseco ceased to be the counsel of the opposing party

SC: CHANGE OF COUNSEL MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COURT

Requisites:

1. Duty of counsel to inform the Court

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 8|Page


2. Approval of the Court
3. Substitution of New Counsel

BERNARDINO VS ATTY SANTOS

SUBJECT MATTER: use of a falsified self-adjudication of the Estate of Rufina Turla

IBP Resolution: SUSPENSION FOR 3 MONTHS

SC: increased the penalty to 1 year

RATIO: IBP resolution in disbarment cases are ONLY recommendatory

SPS. BUFFE VS SEC. RAUL GONZALES

SEC GONZALES  enjoined Private respondents Buffe form discharging her duties as prosecution

SC: Sec of Justice has no jurisdiction over Buffe. As a public officer, Ombudsman has jurisdiction over him. IBP has its
jurisdiction over government lawyers.

MACARRUBO VS. MACARRUBO

Atty Macarrubo  contracted 3 marriages  HELEN  FLORENCE  JOSEPHINE = DISBARRED

After 8 years, Atty Macarrubo PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY OF REINSTATEMENT IN THE ROLL OF ATTYS.

SC: A LAWYER DISBARRED CAN BE REINSTATED.

REQUISITES:

1. Proof of remorse submitted 18 certification for different offices  pictures and letter of apology to all
children
2. Sufficient time has lapse
3. Considering the age of the person
4. Showing of promise of intellectual capacity to help

REINSTATED!!!!

MANIAGO VS DE DIOS

 Complaint was anchored on the fact that the respondent lawyer continued to represent clients despite her 6
month suspension
 REQUISITES FOR RESUMPTION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
1. SUSPENSION
2. Of service of suspension under oath before the office of the bar confidant
3. Server the copy of the oath before
a) IBP chapter
b) Executive judge; RTC
c) Executive judge; MTC
4. Order of lifting the order

SPS. EUSTAQUIO VS ATTY NAVALES

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 9|Page


 Instituted a disbarment case against Atty Navales for failure to comply with the compromise agreement
before the barangay; A similar action was filed before the MTC
 SC ordered Atty Navales suspended for 6 months
 Sps Estaquio Informed the Court that Atty Navales continues to practice law by being appointed as asst.
prosecutor

SC: A lawyer suspended CANNOT PRACTICE LAW and he CANNOT APPLY FOR A POSITION WHICH REQUIRES the
practice of law

RODICA VS. ATTY LAZARRO

STRONG-- > subject of a deportation proceeding

Complainant  client of Atty Tan.. partner ni Atty Ochoa

Rodica alam mabigat kalaban nya.. engaged the services of Atty. Lazaro

RODICA AGREEMENT ATTY. LAZARO: will dismiss the case against the client of Atty Tan as long as my husband will
not get deported

RODICA Filed disbarment case with both counsels

SC: It was legal to deport MR. STRONG (Rodica’s husband). There was basis for his disbarment. No basis for
disbarment of lawyers.

DATU DUQUE vs COMELEC CH BRILLANTES ET AL

 Charged COMELEC et al for gross ignorance of the law


 The Prosecutor dismissed the criminal cases
REASON: ONLY COMELEC can conduct a fact finding investigation involving any election offense

OSG’s postion: Incumbent COMELEC Commissioners can ONLY BE REMOVED THROUGH IMPEACHMENT

REPUBLIC VS SERENO

 QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS


 CAN THE NOT FILING OF SALN STILL PROCEED WITH DISBARMENT?  YES

ESPINO VS TABAQUERO

SUBJECT MATTER: Execution of a Waiver of Rights allegedly executed while affiant was abroad

IBP dismissed the case in view of affidavit of desistance a mutual agreement of parties

SC: A DISBARMENT CASE IS IMBUED WITH PUBLIC INTERET AND NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL

HEIRS OF ATILANO VS ATTY EXAMEN

 Charged Atty Examen of violating his notarial commission for


(a) Allowing his secretary to notarize the disbarment
(b) Notarizing document executed by a relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affiant

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 10 | P a g e


(c) The Revised Administration Code provisions removed the EXCEPTION that a notary public may notarize
the deeds of relatives

CORONEL VS CUNANAN

 Wanted the settlement of the estate of their grand parents


 Lawyer advised direct transfer of the real properties to the heirs
 She paid P70 000 as an initial gee
 She moved for dismissal of the case based on notarial agreement of the parties

SC: Atty Cunanan’s act constitutes gross misconduct. He was suspended for one year

DATU DUMANLAG VS. ATTY INTONG

 Alleged that lawyer continues to refuse to follow the court’s repeated orders

SC: Atty Intongs acts of continued refusal to obey the orders of the court constitute disrespect to the court

BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE CONDUCT OF IBP ELECTIONS

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COURT’S JURISDICTION: Sec 5 (5), Art VIII, Constitution

DOCTRINAL RULING: The election of the officers of the IBP is based on rotation basis

ESPINOSA VS. ATTY UMANA

Atty Umana prepared a notarial deed which effectively annulled the marriage of Espinosas

SC: Atty Umana is guilty of violating her notarial commission. Only a family court can annul a marriage of individuals.
Her commission was revoked and she CANNOT renew the same for two years.

HEIRS OF ALILANO VS. ATTY EXAMEN

HEIRS  challenged the validity of the notarized document

Atty. Examen notarized a document allegedly executed by his brother.

--Revised Administrtive Code is applied, because the new notarial rules took effect only in August 2004

- He was reprimanded.

Not necessary in admin. Code but is necessary in the new notarial rules

1. He cannot notarize his relatives.

2.competent proof of identity

TALISOC VS ATTY RINEN (Former first level court judge)

Rule: First level court judges may act s notary public when there are NO LAWYERS in the area

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 11 | P a g e


NOTE: No notary public.. judge lang available, can he accept a document that he personally notarize as evidence? 
NO. he must inhibit himself and ask another judge to handle it.

METROBANK VS ARGUELLES

Arguelles  entered into a contract with the Trinidads for the sale of a property in Cavite.

Trinidads using the alleged fraudulent Deed of Sale were able to obtain a loan from Metrobank

 Wanted the Notary Public to testify on the valid execution of the Deed of Sale

SC: The notary public CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO SATISFY 12 years after the execution if the document to attest as
to the identities of the affiants

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS RULE 139 -B

SC  motu proprio

IBP  Motu proprio


IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Third party verified complaint

Investigating Commissioners

IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS Conduct of Hearing

MR is allowed

RESOLUTION

IN RE: OATH TAKING OF ARGOSINO BM 712 13 JULY 1995

 Proof of remorse/ proof of good moral character


 Testimonials from two senators/ members of the judiciary

BERNARDO VS. ATTY MEJIA

SC: Atty Mejia was disbarred for gross misconduct. He violated his fiduciary duty and neglect his duties to his clients
POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 12 | P a g e
At 71 years old, Atty Mejia prayed for reinstatement.

He asked that he be forgiven as that when he dies he leaves a legacy to a legacy

RE: 2003 Bar Examinations (Atty Danilo De Guzman)

*leakage case

There is no double disbarmen

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW OF BENJAMIN DACANAY

Subject Matter: Readmission to the practice of law of a balikbayan

Dacanay migrated to Canada and became Canadian Citizen

Can we reassume his license to the practice of law?

JUDICIAL ETHICS

JBC 7 members

Acting chairman  chief justice

3 ex-officio  na may 1 representative ang congress

 Secretary of judges

4 regular members  4 years ang term

1. Representative from retired justices of SC


2. Representative from the IBP
3. Representative from academics ( PROFESSOR)
4. Representative coming from private sector

Representative of the congress  based sa term niya

VILLANUEVA VS JBC

SC: The equal protection clause DOES NOT PRECLUDE classification of individuals who may be accorded different
treatment under the law as long as it is REASONABLE AND NOT ARBITRARY

In determining competence, JBC considers, among the classifications, experience and performance.

Five years is considered as sufficient span of time f or one to acquire professional skills for the next level court and
gain extensive experience in the judicial process.

A five year stint in the Judiciary can also provide evidence of integrity probity and independence of judges.

DUE PROCESS was however violated when the assailed policy was not published. It was part of the internal rules.

JARDELEZA VS JBC

SC: under the consti, 4 qualification

1. Competence
2. Integrity
POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 13 | P a g e
3. Probity
4. Independence

ACCUSATIONS:

1. Extra-marital affair
2. Engaged in insider trading
3. You did not do your job as solicitor general of the west Philippine Sea

BARRIOS VS DABALOS (RTC JUDGE OF BUTUAN)

DABALOS  Gross ignorance when he GRANTED BAIL WITHOUT HEARING

SC: ASSOC JUSTICE RUBEN REYES  P 500K  premature releasing of decision  principle of res ipsa loquitor (Ikaw
ang ponente, you had the control) + indefinite suspension

ESTES VS TEXAS

SC: He must be acquitted BECAUSE THE RULING was influenced by the jury

TEJANO VS PEOPLA

Judge only considered the testimony of the informant

The judge should know the ROC

AMPATUAN CASE: Live Broadcast ( coverage in certain areas)

It may affect the sensitivities of people

IN RE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY ONG

Seen in the tektite building with napoles

SC: dismissed from judiciary service

All retirement benefits  forfeited

TALENS- DABON VS. ARCEO

Wrote a letter of lust

SC: dismissed from judiciary service

FORFEITED RETIREMENT BENEFITS

REPUBLIC VS SERENO

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 14 | P a g e


SERENO WAS REMOVED BY QUO WARRANTO. A COURT OFFER MAY BE REMOVED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE WHEN
THERE IS INFERMITY IN HER APPLICATION.

OCA VS JUDGE LEANGCO

The only case where the SC confer the disbarment case to the IBP

SHERIFF FEES Allowed na babayaran yung sheriff sa case

OCA VS MUSNI
SC: DISMISSED FOR GROSS DISHONESTY foe not being able to account 45K which she received and supposedly used
to renovate the court premises
DISMISS  PERPETUAL BAN FROM SERVICE FROM ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT  Forfeiture of benefits

OCA VS DE LEMOS
DE LEMOS (clerk of court – assist trial judge to assure compliance) and 5 other respondents were charged with
dishonesty by tampering with bandicard
SC: has suspension in one count

CAMILANG ET AL VS. HON BELEN


 filed an administrative complaint against Judge Belen for gross ignorance of the law and for being bias
SC: Judge Belen defied the order of the Court of Appeals. The judge showed bias against against the prosecutor

*BAYACA VS. JUDGE RAMOS


ANO ANG EFFECT NG DEATH OF A RESPONDENT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE?
Bayaca  convicted for reckless imprudence
 On appeal with the RTC, the Court removed the penalty of imprisonment
 Judge received money from the accused to release him.
SC: NO more reprimand, dismissal or removal of benefits because the Judge is already DEAD

OCA VS PERADILLA
Peradilla  was not able to account 630K which she received in the course of her duties as Clerk of Court
 She offered to pay to fill the amount of 630K out of her benefit for 16 years of service

CALARITO- VIDAL VS AGUAM


CALARITO-VIDAL  CSC DIRECTOR ( filed a complaint for dishonesty for asking someone else to take the CSC sub-
prof examination
AGUAM  discrepancy
 Picture was not the same person who occupied the seat during the exam
 The signatures differ from the one in the CSC file and her Personal Data Sheet

VISCAYNO VS HONORABLE DACANAY


Sought the inhibition of Hon. Dacanay because he conducted an ocular survey of the property without notice to
petitioner
SC: Hon Dacanay showed impartiality in favor of the plaintiffs. He was fined 30K

LEGASPI ET al VS HON GARRETE


Legaspi were asked to remain single
 Were asked to sign undated letters of resignation
 Were all terminated

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 15 | P a g e


 Filed admin case against judge for immorality
DEFENSE: JOKE JOKE LANG YUN!

*SY vs DINOPOL
charged the judge for:
1. gross ignorance of the law
2. conduct unbecoming of a judge
Hon. Dinopol voluntarily inhibited himself in the case between Spouses Sy and Metrobank. After inhibiting himself,
he issued the Writ of Execution in favor of Metrobank
SC: Issuance of write of execution is ministerial

*CHAN VS MAJADUCON
 filed an admin case against the judge for :
a. not wearing his robe during trial
b. hears cases at 10 AM and at 2/3PM
c. confers with counsels without the presence of the opposing counsels
d. impartiality
SC: The Court agreed with the OCA’s recommendation that the judge violated the rule on the use of robe. He was
fined 10K for this violation and also for communicating with counsels while the court is NOT in session

HERNANDO VS BENGZON
 Sought reconsideration of the one month and one day suspension of the Bengzon without pay for simple
misconduct
BENGZON Legal researcher  76K to facilitate the transfer of the property of Hernando
ISSUE: WON Bengzon be made to suffer a mere severe penalty
SC: YES. SC increased the penalty to 6 months without pay and to return the 76K she received from Hernandez

LORENZANO VS JUDGE AUSTRIA


 Charged Judge Austria for gross ignorance of the law in a rehabilitation case and indecent display of her
outfit in the social media
SC: Judge Austria was ignorant of the law

FOR JUDGES ( up to the 6th level of consanguinity)


 In case of counsels, up to the fourth
 Even an unverified complaint is accommodated

FOR LAWYER  complaint must be verified up to the 4th degree

IN RE: JUDGE MARCOS


 Complaint for IMMORAL CONDUCT (illicit love affair) and illegal solicitation of money to obtain a favourable
order/ judgment
SC: Judge Marcos was suspended 4 months and 1 day while the clerk of court was suspended for one month

TABAO VS ASIS
TABAO  sister of Judge Asis
 Accused the judge for notarizing a document while serving the judiciary
A JUDGE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTICE HIS PROFESSION DURING HIS TURN OF OFFICE
POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 16 | P a g e
OCA VS CASTANEDA
 An administrative investigation was conducted on Judge Castaneda
 Based on the audit of cases, Judge Castaneda failed to act on the cases within the prescribed period under
the Constitution
SC: Hon Castaneda was dismissed with forfeiture of benefits

VIDAL VS JUDGE DOJILLO


DOJILLO  judge actively coaching his son/ counsel of record in an election contest where his brother was a litigant
VIDAL  filed a case
SC: Hon Dojillo was reprimanded

ATTY OMAA VS. HON YULDE (RTC MAKATI)


OMAA charged HON YULDE for drinking during office hours which prevented him from hearing other cases.
During the pendency of his case, he was already retired
SC: Penalty of 10K was deducted from retirement benefits

POST-MIDTERMS ETHICS CASES UNDER ASSOC DEAN LOANZON 17 | P a g e