PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (AY 2018-2019, SECOND SEMESTER)

Discussion Sheet

NAME OF STUDENT BISCARRA, HAZEL L.

REPORTER / REPORT
REPORTER # 4
NUMBER

DATE OF REPORTING

Nelson Valdez v. Atty. Antolin Dabon Jr.

TITLE OF CASE
A.C. No. 7353, November 16,2015.

FACTS Nelson is married to Sonia,a court stenographer in the Court of

Appeals. Atty. Jun, a Division Clerk of Court in the CA, married to
Atty. Joy. Nelson filed a disbarment case against Atty. Jun due to
the existence of adulterous and immoral relationship between Sonia
and Atty. Jun. Sonia alleged that the relationship has been
attended by sexual assault and maintained through intimidation
and threats of exposure, humiliation and embarrassment. Atty. Jun
alleged that the charges were pure fabrication solely intended to
malign his name and honor. He claims that the relationship is one
between two consenting adults.
ISSUE / VIOLATION Whether Atty. Jun is liable for breaching the following ethical
standards:
● Rule 1.01
● Canon 7
● Rule 7.03.
PLOT TWIST In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds Sonia’s allegation
that the illicit relationship was made possible by sexual assault and
maintained through threat and intimidation, to be untrue. Certainly,
a sexually assaulted woman could not be expected to lavish her
oppressor with expensive gifts or pay him affectionate compliments
or words of endearment. The natural reaction of a victim of a sexual
molestation would be to avoid her ravisher. The court cannot
fathom why Sonia never reported the alleged sexual abuse.

The affair of Sonia and Atty. Jun was established by the Court to be
consensual. Sonia used to give notes and cards to Atty. JUN
containing personal and intimate messages in her own handwriting.
She even referred to him as “hon” or “honey”. There were also gifts
she gave him on special occasions such as signature shoes, watch
and shorts. Sonia frequently visited hin in his office either to bring hin
food, fruits and other goodies or to invite him for lunch.
RULING Atty. Jun was held liable for breaching the following ethical
standards :
● Rule 1.01
● Canon 7
● Rule 7.03.

The penalty of disbarment has been imposed upon him. His

misconduct and unrepentant demeanor clearly showed a serious
flaw in his character, his moral indifference to the sanctity of
marriage and marital vows and his outright defiance of established
Page 1 of 6
 norms. All these could not put the legal profession in disrepute and
place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES Cheating is never a mistake. It is a choice. And so are the

consequences that come with it.

REMARKS

NOTES IN GROUP
DISCUSSION

Page 2 of 6
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (AY 2018-2019, SECOND SEMESTER)

Discussion Sheet
.
NAME OF STUDENT BISCARRA, HAZEL L.

REPORTER / REPORT
REPORTER # 4
NUMBER

DATE OF RE JANUARY 31, 2019

Mary Ann T. Flores v. Atty. Jovencio Ll. Mayor Jr.

TITLE OF CASE
A.C. No. 7314, August 25,2015.

FACTS Jose Roberto Flores filed with the NLRC a case for illegal dismissal
against its employer, JMJB International Services, Inc. where the
Labor Arbiter who handled the case was Atty. Jovencio. The LA
dismissed the case because Jose allegedly resigned from the
company. When brought to the Court of Appeals, the latter ruled in
favour of Jose declaring the NLRC Resolution void and granted
monetary awards to Jose. The latter sought the execution of the CA
decision but for some reason, Atty. Jovencio was not acting on the
motion until so much time has lapsed that the case was even
archived. As a result, it was only after 2 years that the Writ of
Execution was issued against the former employer of Jose. Felt
aggrieved, Mary Ann,wife of Jose, filed an administrative case
against Atty. Jovencio.

ISSUE / VIOLATION Whether Atty. Jovencio is guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the
Code of Professional Responsibility and other ethical standards.
PLOT TWIST The name of the Corporation in the Writ was JMJB International
Services, Inc. But at the time the same was enforced, the name of
(Not appreciated) the corporation has already been amended to F. O. Maidin
International Services, Inc. Flores sought that the amendment of the
name of the Corporation in the Writ but Atty. Jovencio refused to
amend the same and reasoned that F. O. Maidin International
Services, Inc. is not a party to the case.
RULING Atty. Jovencio was found guilty of violation of his oath as a lawyer to
delay no man for money or malice and abandonment of his
professional responsibility to exert every effort and consider it his duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Atty.
Jovencio was disbarred.

Grant and issuance of a Writ of Execution is purely a ministerial act

which must have been done by Atty. Jovencio upon motion. Failure
to do so justifies his disbarment. Also, he was already suspended for
6 months in which he was found guilty of gross ignorance. For that
offense, he was warned that the commission of similar offense would
result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES Do not give your all to those who need you because in the end, there might be
too little left for you, or worse, none at all.

Page 3 of 6
 REMARKS

NOTES IN GROUP
DISCUSSION

Page 4 of 6
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (AY 2018-2019, SECOND SEMESTER)

Discussion Sheet
.
NAME OF STUDENT BISCARRA, HAZEL L.

REPORTER / REPORT
REPORTER # 4
NUMBER

DATE OF RE MARCH 6,2019

Melvyn Garcia v. Atty. Raul Sesbreno

TITLE OF CASE
AC. NO. 7973 AND AC NO. 10457,February 3,2017

FACTS Melvyn was in Japan when Atty. Raul filed an action for support in
behalf of Maria (39) and Angie (35), daughters of Melvyn, but was
later dismissed. Upon Melvyn’s return in the Philippines on 2007,Atty.
Raul filed again an action for support against him. Melvyn learned
that Atty. Raul was convicted of homicide, a crime involving moral
turpitude. Melvyn filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Raul
averring that the latter should not be allowed to engage and
continue in the practice of law due to his prior conviction. Atty. Raul
countered that Homicide is not a crime involving moral turpitude.
Also, the complaint was motivated only by vengeance as he
represented Melvyn’s daughters in Court.
ISSUE / VIOLATION Whether Homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude.

PLOT TWIST
RULING Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness and depravity in the
private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the
degree of the crime committed. The meaning of which must be left
to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as cases are reached.

Atty. Raul killed two drunk men who just passed by his house early in
the morning by firing at them using his rifle. The drunk men never
provoked him, onyl that they might have disturbed the stillness of the
dawn causing Atty. Raul to be awakened from his deep sleep after
a tiring day. The court held that Atty. Raul was adjudged guilty of a
crime involving moral turpitude.

The penalty of disbarment is imposed on Atty. Raul. The practice of

law is not a right but a privilege granted only to those who possess
good moral character. A violation of the high moral standards of the
legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty
against a lawyer including disbarment.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES You cannot control the fact that people will annoy you, but what
you can control is your reaction to it.
REMARKS

Page 5 of 6
NOTES IN GROUP
DISCUSSION

Page 6 of 6