Legal Ethics Case Digests – Imposition of

Proper Penalty
Felicidad Dadizon vs. Judge Aniceto Lirios
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1295. August 1, 2000

Facts: Felicidad Dadizon was the complainant in a prosecution for Falsification of a Public
Document (Art. 172, RPC) which was tried and decided by Judge Aniceto Lirios of the MTC of
Naval, Biliran. Judge Lirios convicted the accused, Pablo Suzon, and sentenced him to a straight
penalty of 7 months imprisonment and imposed a PhP 1,000 fine. Dadizon questioned the
punishment meted by the said judge, alleging that the straight penalty of 7 months is way below
the penalty provided by law. Judge Lirios defended his decision, stating that he had to appreciate
the mitigating circumstance that Suzon was already 70 years of age.

Held: GUILTY. As judge of thirty-three (33) years, respondent should have known that the
Indeterminate Sentence Law provides for the imposition of a prison sentence in the minimum and
maximum term for offenses punishable by the Revised Penal Code or the special laws. The offense
committed was Falsification by a Private Individual and Use of Falsified Document punishable
under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code which provides for a penalty of imprisonment of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1
days to 6 years) and a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). Respondent Judge
appreciated one (1) mitigating circumstance (old age), which is merely an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. The imposition of a straight penalty of seven (7) months by respondent Judge is
clearly erroneous. While a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every
erroneous order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or
abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives. It is true that a judge may err in
fixing the minimum and maximum terms of an indeterminate sentence. However, the unawareness
of or unfamiliarity with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and duration and
graduation of penalties merit disciplinary action from reprimand to removal. Every judge should
know that in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law for offenses penalized under the Revised
Penal Code, the indeterminate sentence should have a fixed minimum and maximum. And when
the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. Judge Aniceto Lirios was fined in the amount of PhP 5,000 and issued stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely by the Court.

Legal Ethics Case Digests – Grant of a

Motion for Reconsideration
SEP 8

Posted by Magz
Gloria Lucas v. Judge Amelia A. Fabros
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226. January 31, 2000

Facts : Complainant Lucas was the defendant in an ejectment case pending before respondent
judge. She alleges that Judge Fabros granted the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after the
case had been dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff and her counsel to appear at the
Preliminary Conference. She averred that it is elementary, under Section 19(c) of the Rules of
Summary Procedure, that a motion for reconsideration is prohibited, but respondent judge, in
violation of the rule, granted the motion for reconsideration. She added that, notwithstanding the
fact that the respondent herself had pointed out in open court that the case is governed by the
Rules on Summary Procedure, the judge ordered the revival of the case out of malice, partiality
and with intent to cause an injury to complainant. Thus, the instant complaint, charging
respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion

Held: NOT GUILTY. The SC held that respondent judge not guilty of gross ignorance of the law
and grave abuse of discretion.

As a rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 19 of the

Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. This rule, however, applies only where the judgment sought
to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. Here, the order of dismissal issued by
respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is
obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case. Hence, a motion for the
reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under Section 19 (c) of
the present Rule on Summary Procedure. Thus, respondent judge committed no grave abuse of
discretion, nor is she guilty of ignorance of the law, in giving due course to the motion for
reconsideration subject of the present
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Issuance of an
Order of Release
SEP 8

Posted by Magz
Jesusa Santiago vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos
Margarita Sanchez vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289. August 1, 2000

Facts: Jesusa Santiago and Margarita Sanchez were complainants in two different criminal cases
before the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan and the RTC of Rosales, Pampanga, respectively. The
suspects in each of the criminal cases were caught by authorities and detained. However, both
suspects were released by order of Judge Eduardo Jovellanos, presiding judge of the MCTC of
Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan. The complainants questioned both Orders for Release issued by Judge
Jovellanos, alleging that the requirements for the bailbond had not been fulfilled and that the
said judge had no jurisdiction to order the release.

Held: GUILTY. There are two defects in the Orders for Release signed by Judge Jovellanos. First,
in both cases, the detainees had not registered the bailbond in accordance with the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. One may not be given provisional liberty if the bailbond is not registered with
the proper office. Secondly, Judge Jovellanos did not have jurisdiction to order the release of the
detainees. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that when a suspect is arrested outside of the
province, city or municipality where his case is pending, he may either apply for bail with the
court where his case is pending or with any RTC in the province, city or municipality where he was
arrested. If a RTC judge is not available, he may apply for bail with any MTC or MCTC in the place
where he was arrested. In this case, Judge Jovellanos entertained motions for bail and ordered
release for suspects whose cases were not pending in his court nor were they arrested within his
jurisdiction. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected
to keep abreast with and be proficient in the interpretation of our laws. A judge should be
acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with statutes and procedural rules.
Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence which goes against Canon 3,
specifically Rule 3.01, of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Having accepted the exalted position of a
judge, Judge Jovellanos owes the public and the court he sits in proficiency in the law. He must
have the basic rules at the palm of his hands as he is expected to maintain professional
competence at all times. Judge Jovellanos was suspended for 1 year without pay issued the
warning that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Granting
of Bail
SEP 8

Posted by Magz
Romulo Tolentino v. Judge Policarpio S. Camano, Jr.
A.M. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000

Facts: Respondent Judge is being charged with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of
discretion, grave abuse of authority, violation of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and incompetence in connection with granting bail to the accused in a criminal case for
child abuse.

The complaint alleges that respondent Judge granted bail while pending the holding of a
preliminary investigation. The defense moved to quash the information against the accused on the
alleged absence of a preliminary investigation. Consequently, respondent Judge ordered that a
preliminary investigation be had by the state prosecutor. During the pendency of this, he granted
bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearing to the state prosecutor to which the
latter failed to appear. After such grant, complainant herein now accuses respondent of denying
the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong
and that bail should not have been granted in his favor.

Held: NOT GUILTY. There was no denial of due process. It was not necessary to hold hearing so
that the prosecution could show that evidence of guilt of the accused was strong since a
preliminary investigation had been ordered by the court. At that point, bail was still a matter of
right. Respondent judge, knowing that bail was indeed a matter of right at that stage,
nevertheless set the hearing for the petition for bail four times. However, complainant failed to
appear and present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong. It thus appears that
complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties. Considering that
the case was referred to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, the
accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of right. Thus, respondent judge’s
decision granting bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Payment of
Docket Fees in Election Cases
SEP 8

Posted by Magz
Alfredo B. Enojas v. Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513. January 19, 2000

Facts: Judge Gacott is being administratively charged in this case with serious misconduct,
inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law. This complaint arose when respondent Judge
dismissed an election case on the ground of non-payment of docket fees, although the case was
had been previously admitted and was deemed properly filed by the original Judge (inhibited
himself due to relationship to one’s of the parties) whom Judge Gacott replaced. Jugde G issued
the dismissal order relying on a case (Manchester vs. CA) which states that – a case is deemed
commenced only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. To his opinion, the required fees in
this case was not yet paid by the protestant. Hence, this complaint charging him primarily with
gross ignorance of the law.

Held: GUILTY. Based on the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, the election protest
was properly filed. In fact, the original Judge already made an order that from the deposit given
by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ballots, an amount shall be
allocated for the payment of the required fees. More importantly, the Court held that the
Manchester ruling relied upon by respondent Judge does not apply to election cases. In a latter
case ( Pahilan), the evil sought to be avoided in the Manchester case does not exist in election
cases. Truth is, the filing fee in an election case is fixed and the claim for damages, to which the
docket fees shall be made to apply, is merely ancillary to main cause of action and is not even
determinative of the court’s jurisdiction.

While it is true that not every error or mistake of a judge renders him administratively liable, in
this case, it is clear that the respondent judge was in utter disregard of established rules
amounting to gross ignorance of the law. The Pahilan case was decided long before the
respondent made a ruling on the election case. Thus, the respondent judge was duty bound to
adhere to, and apply the recent ruling, and he cannot feign ignorance thereof, because the Code
of Judicial Ethics requires him to be an embodiment of, among other things, judicial competence.
On e of the principal duties of a judge is to be abreast with law and jurisprudence since the
administration of justice requires continuous study of the law and jurisprudence. A perusal of the
challenge order reveals that respondent judge failed to live up to what is expected of him as a
dispenser of justice.

Legal Ethics Case Digests – Improper

Imposition of the Punishment
of Contempt
SEP 8

Posted by Magz
Flaviano B. Cortes v. Judge Felina Bangalan
A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129. January 19, 2000

Facts: Complainant was one of the co-accused in an adultery case filed before the sala of
respondent Judge Bangalan. In a letter-complaint, he moved for the voluntary inhibition of
respondent judge on the ground that the latter cannot be impartial over the criminal case because
complainant previously filed an opposition to the appointment of respondent as RTC judge.

For this, respondent judge issued an order citing Complainant in direct contempt of court,
averring further that his pleading contained derogatory, offensive or malicious statements
“equivalent to misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the proceedings before the same within the meaning of Rule 71. When complainant
appealed said order in the same court, after posting a notice of appeal, respondent judge ordered
him to submit a record on appeal. Upon failure to do so, respondent judge issued a warrant of
arrest against Complainant for which he was arrested and jailed for 1 day with a fine of P10.00.

Thus, Complainant charges respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, oppressive conduct
and abuse of authority when the latter held him in contempt of court on account of the
statements he made in his letter-complaint which statements, complainant insists, are absolutely
privileged in nature. Complainant further alleges that he filed a notice of appeal from the order of
contempt but respondent directed him to submit a record on appeal despite the fact that the
same is not required under the rules.

Held: GUILTY. Judge B was fined in the amount equivalent to 1-month salary with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more seriously. The Court said that while it is
true that the complainant attached the administrative letter-complaint in his letter for
respondent judge to inhibit in the criminal case, it was used merely to support his contention in
his motion for inhibition. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his inhibition that
questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his supposed predilection to a case pending
before him. Furthermore, the alleged offensive and contemptuous language contained in the
letter-complaint was not directed to the respondent court.

A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern on his impartiality even
if the judge may have been insulted therein. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in
all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of
justice, judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with
utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and
preservation not for retaliation or vindication.

Anent the charge of gross ignorance of the law in requiring complainant to submit a record on
appeal, we find the respondent judge’s order to be not it accord with the established rule on the
matter. Contempt proceedings is not one of those instances where a record on appeal is required
to perfect an appeal. Thus, when the law is elementary, so elementary, not to know it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law.
Legal Ethics Case Digests –
Misrepresentation and Non-payment of
IBP Dues
AUG 21

Posted by Magz

Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R.

Llamas
A.C. No. 4749. January 20, 2000
Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that
Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos.
and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this
for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is
only engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted
from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership
dues.
Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues
and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment
covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the
Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited”
practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from
payment of membership or association dues.

In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misprepresenting
to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chpater, respondent is
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of
Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Duty of
Lawyer to Client/Proper Conduct
AUG 21

Posted by Magz
Teodoro R. Rivera vs. Atty. Sergio Angeles
A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000
Facts: Atty. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a civil case.
Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. Angeles received almost PhP
50,000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the judgement against the
latter. Atty. Angeles, however, never told his clients of the amount he had received and never
remitted the same to him, leaving them to discover such fact on their own. Rivera and his co-
plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angeles.
Held: GUILTY. Atty. Angeles was not disbarred but the Court ruled that his act amounted to
serious misconduct. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral
character as part of a lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his profession. For it cannot be
denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a
member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a
lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should not be
exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should
never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own
lawyer. For deceit in dealing with his client, Atty. Angeles was suspended from the practice of law
for 1 year.

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon
A.C. No. 4690. August 29, 2000
Facts: Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held
the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates.
The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Then Senatorial candidate
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes received by them by
either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing
the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative
complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest
mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had
already exonerated them from any offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by
Pimentel was not filed in time.
Held: GUILTY. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the
canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such
irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the
part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. There is a limit, we
believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the
performance of official duty. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest
mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is
involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as
reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures in one or two
SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of
the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who holds
a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such character as
to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may
be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and correct
the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates
that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By express
provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition,
they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.” The Court found the
respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and issued a stern warning that
similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Duty to
Client/Accounting of Client’s
Money/Negligence
AUG 21

Posted by Magz
Teodulfo B. Basas vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat
A.C. No. 4282. August 24, 2000
Facts: Atty. Miguel Icawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in their
complaint against their employer. The NLRC rendered an adverse decision. Basas and his fellow
workers, however, insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. Icawat, however, failed to file the
required memorandum of appeal. Basas filed an administrative complaint, also alleging that Atty.
Icawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him.
Held: GUILTY. Respondent’s failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC Rules
of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. Respondent practically admitted that he did not
file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly prejudiced the interests of his
clients. Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received from his clients,
respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The
Court fined Atty. Icawat in the amount of PhP 500, with a warning that a repetition of the same
offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
Legal Ethics Case Digests – Duty to the
Court/Negligence of a Lawyer
AUG 21

Posted by Magz
In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani
A.C. No. 5307. August 9, 2000
Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to
submit his proof of service in his appellant’s brief which subsequently caused the inability of the
appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite
repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the IBP’s query.
Hence, this administrative complaint.
Held: GUILTY. Atty. Bayani’s failure to submit proof of service of appellant’s brief and his failure
to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme
Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that Atty. Bayani has fallen
short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always remember
that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the exercise of
utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further, lawyers are expected to be
acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure and anyone who deals with them has
the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a
whole-hearted fealty to his client’s cause. Having been remiss in his duty to the Court and to the
Bar, Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he
complies with the Order of the Supreme Court to submit the required proof of service.