Resolutions of the Supreme Court as a collegiate court, whether en banc or division, speak

for themselves and are entitled to full faith and credence and are beyond investigation or
inquiry under the same principle of conclusiveness of enrolled bills of the legislature. The
supremacy of the Supreme Court’s judicial power is a restatement of the fundamental
principle of separation of powers and checks and balances under a republican form of
government such that the three co-equal branches of government are each supreme and
independent within the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with the
performance of the duties of the other.

There was no violation. The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible tendency," it was
simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety of
contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct
or degrade the administration of justice."

Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-of-interest test," the Court held that the
statements made by respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in such a manner and
under such circumstances, as to transcend the permissible limits of free speech. What is here at stake is
the authority of the Supreme Court to confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting not only of the
obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but also the avoidance of the broader evil of the
degradation of the judicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of professional
conduct required from members of the bar and officers of the courts, which has some implications to the
society.

Canon 22 of the Canons of Legal Ethics reminds the lawyer to characterize his conduct with candor and
fairness, and specifically states that “it is not candid nor fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote.”.

RATIO:

a) On the Third Motion for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court finds language that is not to be expected of an officer of the courts. Atty. Santiago
pictures petitioners as “vulturous executives” and speaks of this [Supreme] Court as a “civilized,
democratic tribunal”, but by innuendo would suggest that it is not. Atty. Jose Beltran Sotto has
misbehaved, under Section 3 (a), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court; and that he too has committed, under
Section 3 (d) of the same rule, improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of justice. Atty.
Regala did not even know that his name was included as co-counsel in this case. Finally, borne out by
the record is the fact that Atty. Uy was not also involved in the preparation of any of the pleadings
subject of the contempt citation.

b) On the Fourth Motion for Reconsideration

Atty. Santiago is a lawyer of record for respondent MacArthur in this case. He has not resigned from his
position as such lawyer. He has control of the proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes should be
within his knowledge and responsibility. Indeed, Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics should have
reminded him that “[a] lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from
doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct
towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing the
lawyer should terminate their relation.”

Atty. Caling lifted Section 1. Rule 51, Rules of Court, out of context. He has not shown to the satisfaction
of this Court that he should be exempted from the contempt charge against him. He knows that he is an
officer of this Court. He admits that he has read the fourth motion for reconsideration before he signed
it. While he has been dragged in only at the last minute, still it was plainly his duty to have taken care
that his name should not be attached to pleadings contemptuous in character.

As to Mr. Meads, having admitted having prepared the fourth motion for reconsideration, he cannot
beg off from the contempt charge against him even though he is not a lawyer.

YES. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Ethics states that, “it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain
towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office
but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.” Worth remembering is the attorney’s duty to the
courts “can only be maintained by rendering no service involving disrespect to the judicial office which he
is bound to uphold”.

In the case, the Court felt that Atty. Armonio’s language makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of
the SC blindly adhere to earlier rulings without making “any reference and analysis” of the pertinent
statutes of the CIR. The statements made by counsel detract much from the dignity and respect of the
SC.

Atty. Armonio was admonished by the SC.

No. The ruling in the Millares case is not conclusive because such case has different circumstances. It must be
clarified though that as far as practicable, in case of a vacancy, the next in line shall be promoted by the appointing
authority. But if not, the vacancy may be filled either by transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification —
not necessarily in that order. There is no rule which states that the mayor must appoint the next in line. It is not his
ministerial duty to do so nor is it mandatory. The appointing power can choose whether to appoint by promotion,
transfer, reinstatement, or certification. It is necessary for effective public administration that the mayor appoints
men of his confidence, provided they are qualified and eligible, who in his best estimation are possessed of the
requisite reputation, integrity, knowledgeability, energy and judgment. After all, it is the local executive, more than
anyone else, who is primarily responsible for efficient governmental administration in the locality and the effective
maintenance of peace and order therein, and is directly answerable to the people who elected him.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the only time that an appointing power is required to provide specific reasons
on why a next in rank is not appointed is that if the appointing power chose promotion as the method to fill up the
vacancy.

Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference
between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” Many people think of morality
as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the
standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or
social setting. For example, your local community may think adultery is
immoral, and you personally may agree with that. However, the distinction can
be useful if your local community has no strong feelings about adultery, but
you consider adultery immoral on a personal level. By these definitions of the
terms, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community. In popular
discourse, however, we’ll often use the terms moral and immoral when talking
about issues like adultery regardless of whether it’s being discussed in a
personal or in a community-based situation. As you can see, the distinction
can get a bit tricky.
ADVERTISING
It’s important to consider how the two terms have been used in discourse in
different fields so that we can consider the connotations of both terms. For
example, morality has a Christian connotation to many Westerners,
since moral theology is prominent in the church. Similarly, ethics is the term
used in conjunction with business, medicine, or law. In these cases, ethics
serves as a personal code of conduct for people working in those fields, and
the ethics themselves are often highly debated and contentious. These
connotations have helped guide the distinctions between morality and ethics.
Ethicists today, however, use the terms interchangeably. If they do want to
differentiate morality from ethics, the onus is on the ethicist to state the
definitions of both terms. Ultimately, the distinction between the two is as
substantial as a line drawn in the sand.

It is glaringly clear that respondent’s non-remittance for over one year of

the funds coming from Encarnacion is gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The belated payment does not
excuse his misconduct. Neither would his defense that the acts
complained of were not done by him in his office as a prosecutor
exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion may not strictly be
considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer’s
handling of funds of a client is applicable.

Respondent’s failure to immediately remit the amount gives rise to the

presumption of misappropriation. That is in gross violation of general
morality as well as professional ethics, it impairs public confidence in the
legal profession and deserves punishment.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high

sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of
every member of the Bar.

Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer

who holds a responsible public office.
The respondent was reprimanded with stern warning.
WON the respondent be reprimanded for professional
non-feasance.

RULING:

No. The Court found the evidence adduced

insufficient to warrant the taking of disciplinary
action against respondent. But the Court cannot but
counsel against his actuations as a member of the
Bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role
in the community than merely complying with the
minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of
the law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen. His
conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers
his professional services.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to obey notices from the IBP investigators
constitutes an unethical act.

HELD: Yes. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the
dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the
oath he has taken. It is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The highest form of
respect to the judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience
to court orders and processes.

We agree with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the IBP or by this Court
for failing to pay her obligation to complainant. Complainant's remedy is to file a collection case before a
regular court of justice against respondent. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or
disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his
non-professional or private capacity. We, however, find the recommendation to suspend respondent
from the practice of law for six months to be grossly disproportionate to the act complained of, i.e., her
failure to appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. With her legal knowledge and
expertise, respondent may have known all along that the Commission has no jurisdiction over a
complaint for collection of a sum of money which she borrowed in her private capacity. Hence, her
adamant refusal to appear before said body.

a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
on him. Failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility CANON 18 - A
LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

At this juncture, we would like to remind litigants that lawyers are not demi-gods or "magicians" who
can always win their cases for their clients no matter the utter lack of merit of the same or how
passionate the litigants may feel about their cause. While lawyers are expected to serve their clients
with competence and diligence, they are not always expected to be victorious. In every litigation, there
will always be a "winner" and a "loser", unless the parties agree to settle the controversy between
themselves and to work at a "win-win" solution to their problems.

CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF
THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

ISSUE:
Should Daarol be disbarred?

Holdings:

1) Victoria was never informed of the status of Daarol and was led to believ that he is
single. It was deception that Daarol promised to marry her when he knew as an Attorney
that he is not capacitated to marry.
2) Daarol’s claim that he embraced the Muslim religion does not excuse him since his first
marriage is under the Christian religion, therefore it follows the Civil Code. This is also
contradicting to his reason to Victoria that he will be charged with bigamy if he marries
her.
3) Grounds for his disbarment:
a) Deceit and grossly immoral conduct under Section 27 of Rule 138
b) Lack of good moral character under Section 2 of Rule 138

ISSUE:
WON Balaoing’s admin complaints hold merit? NO.
Is Balaoing guilty of gross misconduct? YES.
 HELD:
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS DISMISSED. BALAOING DISBARRED.
1. CANON 11: Lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.
1. Rule 11.03: Lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before Courts.
2. Rule 11.04: Lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by record or have no materiality to the
case.
2. Complaints are based on his personal interpretation of the law and not on material allegations of fact,
substantiated by evidence.

b. Fernandez vs. Grecia, June 17, 1993

The act of stealing the exhibits can be treated as an unlawful and dishonest act of a lawyer, a violation of
his bounden duty to uphold the Code of Professional responsibility.

"Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct."
"Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has
demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his
moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of
lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
"Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person
to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity
of an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal
profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public." (Marcelo
vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, p. 15.)