#20

Saburdino vs. Madroño

AC No. 4497 / September 26, 2001

Facts:

Sps. Saburdino filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Madroño.
They alleged that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against
them.

Respondent is a former judge of MTC. Mr. Saburdino is a police officer and his wife is a
public school teacher. Previous to this administrative complaint, complainants filed separate
administrative cases against respondent where respondent was found guilty and consequently
was dismissed from service and his retirement benefits were forfeited.

In the present case, complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by
filing numerous complaints against them, namely:
1. Respondent claimed that Mr. Saburdino lent his service firearm to an acquaintance
who thereafter extorted money from public jeepney drivers while posing as a
member of the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group
2. Respondent averred that Mr. Saburdino, with the help of his co-respondents in a
case, inserted an entry in the police blotter regarding the loss of his firearm
3. Respondent alleged that Mr. Saburdino, without permission from his superior, took
into custody a prisoner who thereafter escaped.
4. Respondent alleged that Mrs. Saburdino served as chairperson of the BEI despite
being related to a candidate for Brgy. Councilor.

Complainants allege that respondent filed those cases against them in retaliation, since
they had earlier filed administrative cases against him that resulted in his dismissal from the
judiciary. Complainants assert that due to the complaints filed against them, they suffered
much moral, mental, physical, and financial damage.

Respondent contends that the grounds for the administrative cases in which he was
dismissed did not constitute moral turpitude, hence he could not be disbarred thereof.

IBP recommends that respondent be suspended from practice of law for one year.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant
the imposition of administrative sanction.

Ruling: YES

Rule 7.03 of CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
affects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall be whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent’s act of filing multiple complaints reflects on his fitness to be a member of

the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait whether in a
lawyer or another individual, as complainants were instrumental in respondent’s dismissal from
judiciary. Respondent’s tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants is not the
persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to
exact revenge.

Although the complainants asked for the disbarment of respondent, however the court
find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent.
 Delos Reyes vs. Atty. Aznar
AM No. 1334 / November 28, 1989

Facts:

Complainant, a 2nd year medical student of Southwestern University, filed a complaint

for disbarment against Atty. Aznar, chairman of the said university. Delos Reyes alleged that
respondent had a carnal knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in
her subject if she would not submit to respondent’s lustful desires.

Respondent denied any personal knowledge of the complainant as well as the

allegations. He averred that complainant is a woman of loose morality. While respondent
denied having taking complainant to the hotel in Manila and had sexual intercourse with her
there, he did not present any evidence to show where he was at that date. While this is not a
criminal proceeding, respondent would have done more than keep his silence if he really felt
unjustly traduced. The Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent
has been substantiated by sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentary.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct and thus be disbarred.

Ruling: YES

It is the duty of the lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy the
court that he is a fir and proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. When his
integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he
must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still
maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him.

Complainant submitted to respondent’s solicitation for sexual intercourse not because of

a desire for sexual gratification but because of respondent’s moral ascendancy over her and
fear that if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. A lawyer may be disbarred
for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
A member of the Bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

Narag vs. Narag

AC No. 3405 / June 29, 1998

Facts:

Mrs. Narag filed a complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Narag.
Complainant alleged that Respondent was a professor in a graduate school and had an illicit
relationship with his student and subsequently abandoned his family to live with the said
student.

Respondent, in his answer, denied the allegations against him. He averred that it was
the complainant who harassed and humiliated him because of jealous rage. He said that
complainant told everyone, everywhere that her husband was worthless, good for nothing, evil
and immoral. And because of that he was disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. He averred that
he never abandoned his family and that it was his family who forcibly drove him out of the
conjugal home.

Respondent did not present himself on the witness stand to testify and be cross-
examined on sworn comment nor did he present his alleged paramour to disprove the
adulterous relationship.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent should be disbarred

Ruling: Yes

The court found that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the penalty of
disbarment. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. When a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

On the strength of the testimony of Complainant’s witnesses, she was able to establish
that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman. While the burden of proof
is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to himself but also to the court to
show that he is morally fit to remain as member of the bar. mere denial does not suffice. Thus,
when his moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing is profession is
imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the roll of attorneys.
This he failed to do.

Figueroa vs. Barranco

SBC Case No. 519 / July 31, 1997

Facts:

Complainant petitioned that respondent be denied admission to the legal profession.

Before respondent could take his oath, complainant filed this petition averring that respondent
and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that
respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her. Her trust in him and their
relationship ended when she learned that respondent married another woman.

At first, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable period of time and to allow respondent to take the lawyer’s oath. However, after
such, complainant revived her petition and respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer’s
oath.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct and should not be allowed
to take the lawyer’s oath.

Ruling: NO

The court did not find that the acts of respondent constituted gross immoral conduct that
would warrant the permanent exclusion from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital
sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character
on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. To justify suspension or
disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Respondent and
complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual. Although
respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman, the court cannot
castigate a man seeking out the partner of his dreams. The complaint can be viewed as an act
of revenge of a woman who is scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. It is also intended to
make respondent suffer severely and sacrificing the profession he worked hard to be admitted
into.
 Chua vs. Atty. Mesina
AC No. 4904 / August 12, 2004

Facts:

A complaint was filed against Atty. Mesina for breach of professional ethics, gross
professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice. There was a conveyance of property and
as complainants were apprised of the amount of capital gains tax, they consulted respondent
about it. Respondent suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be
executed that will be antedated before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment of
capital gains tax. This advice was followed by complainants. However later on, complainants
were charged for falsification of public document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code
and that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the property and was
antedated to evade payment of capital gains tax.

A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but he did not appear. Given the length of
time that the case remained pending, the complainants were directed to just file their position
paper with affidavits and supporting document.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and be disbarred.

Ruling: YES

By advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to evade

payment of capital gains tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of law.

Respondent violated his oath of office and Canons 1,7,15, & 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Alcantara vs. Atty. Pefianco

AC No. 5398 / December 3, 2002

Facts:

This is a complaint against Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar
for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault
complainant. The complainant, Atty. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of
PAO in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Salvani was conferring with a client in
the PAO’s office, a woman approached them. Complainant suggested Atty. Salvani to talk with
her when Respondent Atty. Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty.
Salvani and his client. Atty. Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his
outburst. This caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent tried to attack complainant
and even shouted at him, “You’re stupid”. Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty.
Salvani and other persons who witnessed the incident in order to corroborate his allegations.

Respondent said that the sight of the crying woman, whose husband had been
murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her defense. He also averred that it was
Atty. Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: YES
Respondent violated Canon 8 which provides that, a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.

Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without
reproach at all times. In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right
to do so caused the untoward incident. Though he thought that this is righteous, his public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect
for it. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.

Andres vs. Cabrera

94 SCRA 512 / December 14, 1979

Facts:
 Stanley R. Cabrera was a successful bar examinee in 1977
 Atty. Emila Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case
filed by Cabrera’s mother against a certain Atty. Perez
 Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the City Fiscal a criminal charges against
Andres for graft and corruption, & falsification of public documents)
 Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera apparently used in
his affidavit vile, uncivil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic, unparalleled stupidity,
idiotic)
 Cabrera’s oath taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file an answer
as to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabrera’s reply he still used unfit language.
In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words “a victim of the court’s inhuman
and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction”.
 The court thereafter deferred his oath taking until he has shown that he has changes his
ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court and he still used unfit language.
SC required Cabrera to file a reply as to why he should not be held in contempt.
Cabrera filed an apology but the language he used were still improper.

Issue:
Whether or not Cabrera should be held in contempt

Ruling: Yes

A fine was imposed against him amounting to P500 and imprisonment for 50 days.

The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon
lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge
such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney.

Cruz vs. Cabrera

AC No. 5737 / October 25, 2004

Facts:
 Complainant alleges that he is a 4 th year law student, he instituted several actions
against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases; he met respondent
who acted as the counsel of his neighbors during a hearing.
Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court
to ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public,
inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his
behalf as a party litigant in prior cases. Respondent’s imputation of complainant’s
misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his owner, with the
intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was handling. The
manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words” appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka
muna!” uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign, ridicule,
incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Ruling:

The court ruled that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna”
does not amount to a violation under the said Rule. Such single outburst, though uncalled for,
is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a product
of impulsiveness of the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has
been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of
the moment because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language.

Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio

AC No. 6290 / July 14, 2004

Facts:

Complainant, a former employee of respondent in her law office, charged the latter with
deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. Case on
deceit and grossly immoral conduct did not pursue lacking clear and convincing evidence. On
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the respondent
cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the Philippine
Bar.

Respondent averred that that this disbarment complaint was filed by the complainant
just to get even with her. The complainant later filed a motion to withdraw complaint but such
was not acted upon by the IBP and the case was pursued. The IBP found the respondent
guilty of assisting in unauthorized practice of law.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes

A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and
to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that
the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character.
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity: A statement by the faculty
of UP College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the
Supreme Court
AM No. 10-10-4-SC / March 8, 2011

Facts:

On April 28, 2010, the decision of the case Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary was
promulgated with Justice del Castillo as its ponente. The UP College of Law faculty members
gave their opinion on the matter of plagiarism by issuing an article . in said article, the faculty
expressly gave their dismay saying that the court had the hopes of relief from those “comfort
women” during the war “crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and
misrepresentation by the highest court of the land. In the article, it was stated that plagiarism,
as appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s work as one’s own, is considered
as dishonesty. Hence, it was argued that since the decision of Vinuya case form part of the
Philippine judicial system, the court, in fine, as allowing dishonesty to be promulgated.
Furthermore, the plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Vinuya case undermines the judicial
system of our country and is a dirt on the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court, the article
sought for the resignation of Associate Justice del Castillo.

In response to the said article, the court issued a resolution stating that the remarks and
choice of words used were such a great insult to the members of the court and a threat to the
independence of the judiciary, a clear violation of Canon 1, 11 and 13 and the Rules 1.02 and
11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thereafter, the court ordered the signatories
to show cause on why they should not be disciplines as members of the Bar for such alleged
violations.

Issue:

Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute violation of various Canons and
Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: YES

The court rules that the Common Compliance given by the respondent-signatories in
the questioned article is not sufficient in reasoning why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar. the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the
Bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interest of their clients.
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

The accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the
limits of fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected speech. The court further reminded
the respondent law professors of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1. 11, and 13 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the court and to refrain from intemperate
and offensive language tending to influence the court on pending matters or to denigrate the
court and the administration of justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
 Dumali vs. Torres
AC No. 5161 / April 14, 2004

Facts:

Isidra Ting-Dumali, complainant, is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita
Reynante and Vicente Ting. According to her, respondent Atty. Rolando Torres, being her
brother-in-law, took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and immorally used
his profession when he participated in, consented to, and failed to advice against, the perjury
committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when the two made it appear that
they were the sole heirs of the late Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

Ruling: YES

Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable
dishonor to the legal profession. The Court found respondent Atty. Rolando Torres guilty of
gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the
legal profession.

#35

Maligaya vs. Doronilla

AC No. 6198 / September 15, 2006

Facts:
Complainant filed a civil case against several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla
appeared as a counsel. During the hearing, Atty. Doronilla said in court that Complainant will
withdraw the present case if the separate case against him (complainant) will be withdrawn by
Atty. Doronilla in representing his clients. Because of this, Complainant charged Atty. Doronilla
with misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of justice
and he swore before the investigating commissioner that he had never entered into any
agreement to withdraw his lawsuits. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Doronilla
guilty of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Doronilla violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling: YES
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his
lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only that, he
violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court,” of
which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer’s duty
to “never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of
fact or law”.

Atty. Dornilla is suspended from the practice of law for 2 months.

 In Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo
AC No. 7006 / October 9, 2007

Facts:

This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case proceeding
originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser.  Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer
to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution
was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder.  The counsel of the
defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of Bail Bond.  Respondent Atty Bagabuyo, then Senior
state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the
ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject
of bail under the Rules of Court.

Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh
insinuation of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an
impartial magistrate, by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail
bond by counsel for the accused.

Respondent appealed to the CA.  Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in
the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast
Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in
court to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of
the article which degrade the court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to
answer whether he made the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to
dismiss.  For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to
the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:  

WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Ruling:YES

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law
as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by
others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to
the proper authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of
a press conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002
allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was
displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge
for allowing murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article, which were made while
Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which
states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
 In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05
of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper
authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated
Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was
ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying
the law, and that he was a liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a
lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the
example of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.
Montecillo v. Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an
officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he
owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the
stability of our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very
shaky foundation.

Boquiren vs. Del Rosario-Cruz

AC No. RTJ-94-8941 / 244 SCRA 702 / June 2, 1995

The administrative case stemmed from a civil case where complainant was the plaintiff’s
counsel and respondent was the judge of that case. Judge Cruz dismissed the civil case. Atty.
Boquiren filed an administrative complaint against respondent for misconduct, partiality, &
serious nonfeasance to the disposition of the case.

The civil case was appealed by complainant before RTC. His appeal contains a
statement detailing the incidents, perceived improper conduct, orders, proceedings,
misrepresentation, misapprehension of facts, ignorance of the law and rules procedure
allegedly all evidencing the culpability of the respondent judge. The alleged errors committed
by Judge Cruz relative to a disposition of a case are at best errors of judgment and can be
amply remedied by any aggrieved party without recourse to administrative complaint.

The court notes the excessive prose employed by complainant in his motions describing
the court’s resolution as: highly questionable based on insufficient or incorrect reasons, a
classic arbitrarily concluded resolution, a glaring violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics,
pregnant with aptness to mislead, deceptive or delusive quality, patently erroneous, a brazen
lie and mockery of justice, classic carelessness and many more. The foregoing words are
aimed at seriously undermining the integrity of this court. Complainant seems to have forgotten
his duty, as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and judicial officers (Canon 11 of CPR).

The MR filed by complainant regarding the civil case was dismissed and he is ordered
to explain why he should not be cited for contempt and/or subject to disciplinary action.

(note: resolution ra akong nakit-an sa internet… wala ko nakakita sa decision)

 Penticostes vs. Hidalgo
AM No. RTJ-89-331 / 190 SCRA 165 / September 28, 1990

Facts:

Complainant Penticostes has filed a series of administrative charges against Judge

Hidalgo. In the resolution dismissing the complaint, the court reprimanded the complainant to
exercise more care and decorum in filing unfounded and unsubstantiated charges against the
officers of the court in order to maintain and uphold the dignity of the same of which he is a
part. Complainant did not heed this admonition.

In total, the Office of the Court Administrator were able to consolidate 6 administrative
complaints filed by Penticosted against the respondent judge.

Subsequent to the admonition, the complainant continued to file charges against

respondent. He also threatened to bang more cases against the respondent.

In a memorandum, the OCA, after enumerating some of the charges, noted that
complainant’s persistent filing of administrative cases against respondent signifies a desire to
unjustifiably bring respondent to public disdain and ridicule.

Issue:

Whether or not complainant shall be suspended from the practice of law

Ruling: Yes

As a member of the Bar, the complainant has responsibilities to the judiciary, the Code
of Professional Responsibility and the rules there under impose obligations on the lawyer in
relation to the court:
1. Canon 10 states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court
2. Canon 11 provides that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court
and to judicial officers
3. Canon 12 mandates that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Through his imprudent filing of administrative cases against respondent judge, complainant
has transgressed the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and miserably
failed to observe conduct expected of a member of the Bar under the Code and in
accordance with his lawyer’s oath.

#55

Arthur S. Tulio vs. Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin

AC No. 7110 / April 20, 2016

Facts:
Complainant had an agreement with his siblings (regarding a property owned by their
mother) and consequently a Deed of Waiver of Rights was executed by his siblings in his favor
and the Deed was prepared and notarized by Atty. Buhangin. Thereafter, Complaint engaged
the services of Atty. Buhangin to represent him in filing a case for specific performance and
through Complainant’s effort, defendants in the said case agreed to a settlement. To
Complainant’s surprise, Atty. Buhangin represented his siblings and filed a complaint against
him for rescission of the deed of waiver of rights. Complainant filed a motion to disqualify Atty.
Buhangin as a lawyer because there was a conflict of interest on the part of the latter in
representing a case filed by his siblings against him.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Buhangin violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling: YES
Rule 15.03 provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all the concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Under this Rule, it
is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interest oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on
totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy. It
behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.

Atty. Buhangin violated the said Rule when he represented the siblings in filing a case
against Complainant. Although he subsequently filed a withdrawal of his appearance as
counsel but it was too late. He already manifested disloyalty and infidelity to Complainant as
his client. He was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.