PROBLEM AREAS IN

LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGESTS

MARK JOSEPH M. VIRGILIO

3-MANRESA
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

RULE ON PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

UY CHICO vs. THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY

GR No. L-9231
January 6, 1915

FACTS: The instant case is an offshoot of a case involving a dispute over two insurance
policies. Plaintiff Uy Chico seeks to recover the face value of two insurance policies upon a
stock of dry goods destroyed by the fire. The insurance company contended that plaintiff had
agreed to compromise settlement of the policies, showing evidence that Uy Chico’s counsel had
already surrendered the policies with the understanding that such is submitted for compromise.

The attorney was called to testify to such mater, however objected thereto on the ground that
the testimony of his counsel was privileged.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TESTIMONY IN QUESTION IS PRIVILEGED

RULING: No.

Our practice Act provides: "A lawyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence and preserve
the secrets of his client. He shall not be permitted in any court, without the consent of his client,
given in open court, to testify to any facts imparted to him by his client in professional
consultation, or for the purpose of obtaining advice upon legal matters." (Sec. 31, Act No. 190.)

It is noted that the evidence in question concerned the dealings of the plaintiff's attorney with a
third person. As ratiocinated by the Supreme Court: “Of the very essence of the veil of secrecy
which surrounds communications made between attorney and client, is that such
communications are not intended for the information of third persons or to be acted upon by
them, put of the purpose of advising the client as to his rights. It is evident that a communication
made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third
person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. When the attorney has
faithfully carried out his instructions be delivering the communication to the third person
for whom it was intended and the latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning
whatever, be classified in a legal sense as a privileged communication between the
attorney and his client. It is plain that such a communication, after reaching the party for
whom it was intended at least, is a communication between the client and a third person,
and that the attorney simply occupies the role of intermediary or agent.” 

In the case at bar, it is manifest that the objection to the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney as to
his authority to compromise was properly overruled. The testimony was to the effect that when
the attorney delivered the policies to the administrator, he understood that there was a
compromise to be effected, and that when he informed the plaintiff of the surrender of the
policies for that purpose the plaintiff made no objection whatever. The evidence is sufficient to
show that the plaintiff acquiesced in the compromise settlement of the policies. Since the
communication was intended for the information of third persons, there should be no bar in
calling the lawyer to testify as a witness on the grounds of the atty-client privileged
communication rule.

1
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

WILLIAM ONG GENATO vs. ATTY. SILAPAN

AC NO. 4078
March 12, 1998

FACTS: In July 1992, respondent Atty. Silapan asked if he could rent a small office space in
complainant’s building for his law practice. Complainant agreed. The conflict between the
parties started when respondent borrowed P200,000.00 from complainant as downpayment for
his new car. In January 1993, respondent introduced a certain Romero, who also wanted to
borrow money from the complainant. Complainant likewise agreed.

Respondent then failed to pay the loan on the car, and his postdated checks were dishonored.
Failing to heed the complainant’s demands, Genato filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22,
and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

In his answer in the foreclosure case, respondent made the following allegations:
1. That complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate business, trading
and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady deals
and has many cases pending in court; and
2. That Genato, his former client, wanted him to offer bribe money to the members of the
review committee of the Department of Justice, the prosecutor, and the presiding judge
in a pending case against him for his acquittal. He further alleged that complainant
confided to him that it was he (Genato) who was really involved in the commission of the
crime that he was charged of.

Complainant charged that in making such allegations, respondent is guilty of breaking their
confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively liable therefor.

When reffered to the IBP, the Board of Governors found him Atty. Silapan guilty as charged and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 1 year.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. SILAPAN COMMITTED A BREACK OF TRUST AND

CONFIDENCE BY IMPUTING TO COMPLAINANT ILLEGAL PRACTICES AND DISCLOSING
COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGED INTENTION TO BRIBE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN
CONNECTION WITH A PENDING CASE

RULING: YES.

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose
communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter
consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the
inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease
with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.

Scope and limitation of privileged communication

2
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential

communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and
properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those
made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful purpose is avowed,
as in this case, the complainant's alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to his
case, the communication is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the
lawyer professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he
may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does
not attach, there being no professional employment in the strict sense.

However, the disclosure was still deemed to be improper

Be that as it may, respondent's explanation that it was necessary for him to make the
disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to
protect his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the
respondent to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject
matter of litigation therein and respondent's professional competence and legal advice were not
being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.

SAURA vs. ATTY. AGDEPPA

Admin. Case No. 4426
February 17, 2000

FACTS: 2 petitions, one by Ramon Saura Jr. and the other by Helen and Raymundao Saura
were filed before the Supreme Court charging Atty. Lalaine Agdeppa for violation of her lawyer’s
oath and disregard of Sections 15, 22, 25, 29, 31, and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The said complaints arose from the resondent’s handling of a settlement case involving a piece
of property owned in common by petitioners and other siblings.

The dispute arose when the petitioners learned that the subject property was sold with the
assistance of Atty. Agdeppa, as she notarized the deed of sale herself without the knowledge
and participation of the petitioners. Despite repeated demands, respondent refused to disclose
the amount of the sale or account for the proceeds, hence they resorted to the filing of criminal
and civil actions.

In her motion for reconsideration, Atty. Agdeppa claims that she could not answer the
administrative charges against her without divulging certain pieces of information in violation of
the attorney-client privilege.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUEST FOR THE DISCLOSUE OF INFORMATION

REGARDING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROCEEDS
THEREOF IS A VOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

RULING: NO. The request for the information regarding the sale of the property and to account
for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-client privilege.

Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. The following persons

cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

3
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity.

The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The petitioners are only asking for
the disclosure of the amount of the sale or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly
have the right to ask for such information since they own the property as co-heirs of the late
Ramon E. Saura and as co-administrators of the property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse
to divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the attorney-client relationship.

GLORITO MATURAN vs. ATTY. GONZALES

AC No. 2597
March 12, 1998

FACTS: Spouses Antonio Casquejo instituted their son-in-law, Glorito Maturan as their
attorney-in-fact, through a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to file ejectment cases and
for violation of PD 772 against squatters for occupying their lot (Lot 1350-A). Respondent Atty.
Gonzales then prepared and notarized the said SPA.

Civil Case No. 2067

Subsequently, petitioner Maturan engaged the services of respondent in ejecting several
squatters of the same lot. While the lot was registered in the name of Celestino Yokingco,
Antonio Casquejo had instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity
against the former.

Civil Case No. 1783-11

As a consequence of his engagement by petitioner, respondent represented petitioner in
several cases for forcible entry and damages. Judgments to said cases were rendered in favor
of Maturan and so, respondent filed a motion for writ of execution.

While the motion for issuance of a writ of execution was pending, and without withdrawing as
counsel for petitioner, respondent filed, on behalf of Celestina Yokingco, et. al an action to annul
the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 2067. Aggrieved by respondent’s acceptance of
professional employment, petitioner filed an administrative complaint- alleging that privileged
matters relating to the land in question had been transmitted by petitioner to respondent in Civil
Case 1783-11.

In his defense, respondent reasoned that he is not guilty of any malicious, unethical, immoral or
anomalous act against his client since he believed that the filing of a motion for issuance of a
writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-client relationship between himself and
petitioner. He also claims that his formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos was
unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer-client relationship between them.

The investigating commissioner of the IBP found respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests and recommended that he be suspended for 3 years.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP HAS ALREADY

BEEN SEVERED

4
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

RULING: NO. This Court adopts the findings of the investigating commissioner finding
respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests.
A lawyer is not permitted to unilaterally terminate a case
A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion for a writ of execution. His
acceptance of a case implies that he will prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not
be permitted to unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client.

Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide in part:

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned

given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

Good faith is not a tenable defense for a lawyer representing conflicting interests
It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is
his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or
discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act
as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.  That the
representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the
lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative.

Rationale for the prohibition, fiduciary relationship

The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust
and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected
with his client's case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the
strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No
opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the client's secrets. A lawyer must have the
fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the
loss thereof. 

PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, HONRADA, ET. AL

GR Nos. 115439-41
July 16, 1997

FACTS: Respondent Paredes was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor of
the same provice, and at present a Congressman. Respondent Atty. Sansaet is a practicing
attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several instances. In 1976, respondent Paredes
applied for a free patent over Lot No. 3097-A, and it was granted to him. However, the Director
of Lands filed an action for the cancellation of respondent Paredes patent and certificate of title
since the land had been designated and reserved as a school site in the subdivision survey. The
patent was then nullified by the trial court after finding out that Paredes had obtained the same
through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. Respondent Sansaet served as
counsel of Paredes in that civil case.

On January 23, 1990, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer, initiated perjury and graft charges against
Paredes and Sansaet, claiming that they acted in conspiracy, by not filing an arraignment in the
criminal case. To evade responsibility for his own participation, Atty. Sansaet testified that he

5
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

did so upon the instigation and inducement of Paredes, and to discharge himself as a
government witness. The Sandiganbayan claimed that there was an attorney-client privilege,
and resolved to deny the discharge.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECTED TESTIMONY OF ATTY. SANSAET AS
PROPOSED STATE WITNESS IS BARRED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

RULING: NO.

The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases, as the facts thereof and the actuations
of both respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule.

1. It may correctly be assumed that there was a confidential communication made by

Paredes to Sansaet, since Paredes was the accused and Sansaet his counsel therein. is
significant that the evidentiary rule on this point has always referred to any
communication, without distinction or qualification.

GEN RULE:
There is no particular mode by which a confidential communication shall be made by a client
to his attorney. The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications made by the
client to his attorney but extends as well to information communicated by the client to the
attorney by other means.

Confidential communications relating to past crimes committed vs. future crimes

A distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be committed, by the client.

PAST CRIMES FUTURE CRIMES

 Covered by confidential communications  Not covered by confidential
communications.

The announced intention of a client to commit

a crime is not included within the confidences
which his attorney is bound to respect.

In the case at bar, Respondent court appears, to believe that in the instant case it is dealing with
a past crime, and that respondent Sansaet is set to testify on alleged criminal acts of
respondents Paredes and Honrada that have already been committed and consummated.

GEN RULE:
For the application of the attorney-client privilege, however, the period to be considered is
the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to
either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the
future

In other words, if the client seeks his lawyers advice with respect to a crime that the former has
theretofore committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the
attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the clients consent.

IN THE CASE AT BAR

6
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are the communications
made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Paredes at the time he and
Honrada, either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in
the process of falsifying, the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet
and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan. Clearly, ,
the confidential communications thus made by Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of
and in reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past
by Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-respondents, later committed.
Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those communications are outside the pale
of the attorney-client privilege.

Atty. Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification

It is well settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may be
privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an
unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.

RULE ON MULTIPLICATION OF SUITS

AND FORUM SHOPPING

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE vs. ATTY. FLORES

AC NO. 4058
March 12, 1998

FACTS: On Feb 25, 1993, Labor Arbiter Rimando of the NLRC, Baguio City issued a Writ of
Execution to collect the amount of P344,000.00 from Peter Consalan, upon motion of Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO). Respondent Flores, as counsel for the losing litigant-
members of the BENECO Board of Directors, filed a Motion for Clarification before the third
division of the Supreme Court.

FIRST ACTION FILED

He then instituted an injunction suit with the RTC, Branch 7, Baguio City, seeking to enjoin the
levying of the properties in satisfaction of the said writ of execution. This case was dismissed.

SECOND ACTION FILED

On May 26, 1993, he again filed with the RTC, Branch 9, La Trinidad, Benguet, separate
complaints for Judicial Declaration of Family Home Constituted, Ope Lege, with Damages, etc.
docketed as Civil Case Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93-F-0415.21

BENECO thereafter filed an administrative complaint against Ernesto Flores on the ground of
forum shopping, amounting to grave misconduct, unduly delaying the administration of justice,
and violating with impunity his oath of office and applicable laws and jurisprudence. The
Supreme Court received a resolution from the IBP, finding Flores guilty of violating Canons 10
and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- and as punishment, should be suspended
from the practice of law for 6 months. Commissioner Jose ratiocinated, among others, that “the
complaint filed by respondent before the RTC of Baguio City that it lacks the certification
required by SC Circ. No. 28-91.”

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. FLORES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FROM THE

PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS

7
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

RULING: YES. The SC affirms the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Flores from the
bar, but that the period of suspension be increased to 1 year and 6 months.

Respondent's failure to attach the said certificate cannot be deemed a violation of the
aforementioned circular, because the said requirement applied only to petitions filed with this
Court and the Court of Appeals. Be that as it may, respondent is still guilty of forum
shopping.

Forum shopping, what constitutes

In a long line of cases, this Court has held that forum shopping exists when, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The
most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the "vexation caused
the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or
related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs."

Subject properties are already deemed constituted as family homes by operation of law
Civil Case Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93-F-0415 are groundless suits. It has long been held that a
family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family
residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as required in the
Civil Code. Hence, the subject properties are deemed constituted as family homes by operation
of law under Article 153 of the Family Code.

The suits for the constitution of a family home were not only frivolous and unnecessary; they
were clearly asking for reliefs identical to the prayer previously dismissed by another
branch of the RTC- to forestall the execution of a final judgment of the labor arbiter. That they
were filed ostensibly for the judicial declaration of a family home was a mere smoke screen; in
essence, their real objective was to restrain or delay the enforcement of the writ of execution.

Hence, Respondent Atty. Flores is indeed guilty of forum-shopping. And in consonance to the
period of suspension, it has been held in cases of Millare vs. Montero and Garcia vs. Francisco
that the violation of the proscription against forum shopping warrants the delinquent lawyers a
suspension from the practice of law for atleast one year.

ROSALINA BUAN, ET. AL vs. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE GEMILIANO LOPEZ, JR.

GR No. 75349
October 13, 1986

FACTS:

FIRST ACTION FILED (RTC Case No. 86-36563)

On July 7, 1986, a special civil action of prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed by
Samahang Kapatiran Sa Hanapbuhay ng Bagong Lipunan, Inc. in RTC of Manila. Said petition
was filed against Gemiliano Lopez Jr, who was acting as Mayor of the City of Manila, because
he had revoked or cancelled their licenses on May 3, 1986.

SECOND ACTION FILED

On August 5, 1986 petititioners, who were vendors of religious articles, medicine herbs, and
plants around the Quiapo Church in Manila, instituted a special civil action for prohibition before

8
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

the Supreme Court, grounded on the same facts. There was also similarity as to its parties. The
president of the Samahan is Rosalina Buan and its Press Relations Officer, Liza Ocampo.
Rosalina Buan and Liza Ocampo are two of the five petitioners in the case at bar. 1 The three
other petitioners also appear to be Samahan members.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS’ ACTS CONSTITUTED FORUM SHOPPING

RULING: YES.

Case should be dismissed for existence of lis pendens

As there exists between the action before this Court and the RTC identity of parties, or at least
such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on
the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under
consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.
Forum shopping, when applicable
As held by the SC en banc, the acts of petitioners constitute a clear case of forum-shopping, an
act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their
processes. Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines provides that no such petition may
be filed in the Intermediate Appellate Court ‘if another similar petition has been filed or is
still pending in the Supreme Court’ and vice versa. The Rule orders that ‘A violation of the
rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both
petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party
concerned.’ The rule applies with equal force where the party having filed an action in the
Supreme Court shops for the same remedy of prohibition and a restraining order or
injunction in the RTC or vice versa.

According to the facts in the case at bar, Rosalina Buan and Liza Ocampo, through their
lawyers, tried to amend this defect by filing:
1. “Manifestation with Affidavit of Withdrawal” on August 11, 1986,
2. another "Manifestation and Motion" on August 29, 1986,
3. and an "Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Strike-Out the name Rosalina Buan and
Liza Ocampo" on September 13, 1986.

Their actions and attempts were proved to be futile, as it was so out of the ordinary as to require
clear and convincing evidence of its actuality, which they lacked. Consequently, their petition
before the Supreme Court was denied for lack of merit, and the case in the RTC ordered
dismissed.

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CO. vs. CA AND PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

GR No. 130068
October 1, 1998

FACTS: On June 2, 1980, the M/V PAVLODAR, owned and operated by the Far Eastern
Shipping Company (FESC) arrived at the Port of Manila from Vancouver and was assigned
Berth 4 of the Manila International Port its berthing space. When the vessel reached the
landmark, appellant Senen Gavino (who was assigned to conduct docking maneuvers for the
safe berthing) ordered the engine to be stopped. And when the vessel was already about 2,000
feet from the pier, he ordered that the anchor be dropped. However, the left anchor did not take

9
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

hold as expected, and neither did the vessel slow down. Gavino then gave the “full-astern”
code, but just as the right anchor and additional shackles were to be dropped, the bow of the
vessel rammed into the apron of the pier, causing considerable damage to both the pier and the
vessel.

GR No. 130068
FESC, through its counsel, Atty. Herbert Tria, filed a verified motion for extension of time to file
its petition for thirty (30) days from August 28, 1997 or until September 27, 1997. It asserts to
the CA that it was Captain Gavino who was solely responsible for the damage caused upon the
pier, and not the owners of the vessel. It also alleges that Manila Port Authority (MPA) should be
solidarily liable.

GR No. 130150
On the other hand, MPA, as petitioner, avers that the CA’s errors consisted in disregarding and
misinterpreting Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65. And as for Capt. Gavino, MPA’s
counsel states that the former has retired from active pilotage services, ceasing to be a member
of their association. His whereabouts are unknown.
However, on matters of compliance with procedural requirements, it was noted that the conduct
of the respective counsel for FESC and PPA leaves much to be desired, to the displeasure and
disappointment of the Court.

The records show that the required sworn certification against forum shopping was defective for:
1. Failure to make disclosure of Manila Pilots Association’s petition (GR. No. 130140);
2. It being filed by the counsel, and not the petitioner himself.

ISSUE: WON THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING IS DEFECTIVE

RULING: YES.

Certification Against Forum Shopping

The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42 provides:

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he
has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if
there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other
tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

G.R. No. 130068 commenced with the filing by FESC through counsel of a verified motion for
extension of time to file its petition for thirty (30) days. Attached to said motion is their
Certification against Forum Shopping which states, among others that-

“3. Petitioner has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in
this Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, but to the best of his knowledge, there is an action or proceeding pending in this
Honorable Court, entitled Far Eastern Shipping Co., Petitioner, vs. Philippine Ports Authority
and Court of Appeals with a Motion for Extension of time to file Petition For Review by Certiorari

10
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

filed sometime on August 18, 1987. If undersigned counsel will come to know of any other
pending action or claim filed or pending he undertakes to report such fact within five (5) days to
this Honorable Court.”

Petitioner failed to inform the court of the status of G.R. No. 130150
Petitioner FESC failed to inform the court of the fact of MPA’s petition (GR No. 130150) through
its certification against forum shopping, even when it presumable already received a copy of the
former. For failure to make such disclosure, the certification then becomes defective, and can
be a ground for dismissal thereof.

Assuming arguendo that FESC had not yet received its copy of MPA’s petition at the time it filed
its own petition and executed said certification, it still failed to comply with such procedural
requirement because it failed to report such fact within 5 days to the Supreme Court. It cannot
likewise feign non-knowledge because FESC itself filed a motion for consolidation in GR No.
130150 of these two cases on April 24, 1998.

Certification against Forum Shopping must be executed by the Petitioner, not Counsel
A certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification, equivalent
to non-compliance with the requirement, and constituting a valid ground for dismissal. In
the case at bar, the initial certification appended to the motion for extension of time to
file petition in G.R. No. 130068 is executed in behalf of FESC by Atty. Tria. But
considering that it was a superfluity at that stage of the proceeding, it being unnecessary
to file such a certification with a mere motion for extension, the SC disregarded such
error. Furthermore, the certification subsequently executed by Teodoro P. Lopez in
behalf of FESC cures that defect to a certain extent, despite the inaccuracies earlier
pointed out.

SUB-JUDICE RULE

EDUARDO MARTELINO, ET. AL vs. JOSE ALEJANDRO, ET. AL

GR No. L-30894
March 25, 1970

FACTS: In a previous case, petitioner Eduardo Martelino of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and his officers were charged before the military court for the shooting of Muslim
recruits then undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor. On August 12, 1969
during the hearing of the case, petitioner Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of
the general court-martial, based on what he read in the newspaper regarding the Corregidor
incident. He contended that the case had received such an amount of publicity in the press and
other news media, and was being exploited for political purposes in connection with the
upcoming presidential election, therefore imperiling his right to a fair trial.

The military court denied his petition. The pettitioners therefore filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the Supreme Court, alleging that the adverse publicity given in the mass
media to the Corregidor incident, coupled with the fact that there was an upcoming election
amongst them, unduly influenced the decision of the members of the trial.

11
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLICITY GIVEN TO THE CASE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS WAS SUCH AS TO PREJUDICE THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

RULING: NO.

The petitioners argue that they could not expect a just and fair trial and that, based on this
ground, the general court-martial committed a grave abuse of discretion. In support of their
contention they invoke the rulings of the United States jurisprudence in Irvin v. Dowd, Rideau
vs. Louisiana, Estes v. Texas, and Shepard v. Maxwell.

The Supreme Court concludes that their cited cases find no application to their own
IRVIN v. Shortly after the petitioner’s arrest for commission of six murders, the
DOWD prosecutor and police officials issued press releases stating that the petitioner
had confessed to the six murders, and that a “barrage of newspaper hadlines,
articles, cartoons, and pictures were unleashed against him 6 or 7 months
before trial. The Supreme Court therefore reversed his conviction, finding that
the jury’s opinion was impartial.
RIDEAU v. The petitioner, suspect in the robbery of a bank and the kidnapping of its
LOUISIANA employees was given a “trial by publicity.” The day after his arrest, a moving
picture film was taken of him in an "interview" with the sheriff. The "interview,"
which lasted approximately 20 minutes, consisted of interrogation by the sheriff
and admission by Rideau that he had perpetrated the bank robbery,
kidnapping and murder. The interview was seen and heard on television by
24,000 people. Two weeks later he was arraigned. His lawyers promptly
moved for a change of venue but their motion was denied and Rideau was
convicted and sentenced to death.

In reversing his conviction, the Supreme Court held that there was a denial of
due process of law in refusing the request for change of venue, after the
people of Calcasieu Parish had been exposed repeatedly and in depth to the
moving picture film.
ESTES v. The Supreme Court voided a televised criminal trial for being inherently, a
TEXAS denial of due process. It held that the use of television was “without injustice
to the person immediately concerned”, basing its position on the fact that the
petitioner has established no isolate prejudice.
SHEPARD v. The Supreme court observed a "carnival atmosphere" in which "bedlam
MAXWELL reigned at the courthouse ... and newsmen took over practically the entire
courtroom, hounding most of the participants in the trial, especially Sheppard."
It observed that "despite the extent and nature of the publicity to which the jury
was exposed during the trial, the judge refused defense counsel's other
requests that the jury be asked whether they had read or heard specific
prejudicial comment about the case.

Publicity was focused on the Government, not on the petitioners

In contrast, the publicity in this case did not center on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on
the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim
trainees. And assuming arguendo that there was a "trial by newspaper" it was not of the
petitioners but of the Government. Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to
protect the accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of
the trial either by a failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial to another

12
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have subsided. The SC held
that it cannot conclude that the trial of the petitioners was being held under circumstances which
did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of procedure which have come to
be identified with due process.
TIMOTEO CRUZ vs. FRANCISCO SALVA
GR No. L-12871
July 25, 1959

FACTS: In a criminal case revolving around the killing of Manuel Monroy, then President
Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case pending appeal.

However, the investigation was conducted not in respondent Francisco Silva’s office but in the
session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that
wanted to witness the proceeding, including members of the press. A number of microphones
were installed. Reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures.
Furthermore, it was shown by the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during said
investigation that on two occasions:
1. After Oscar Caymo had concluded his testimony respondent Salva, addressing the
newspapermen said, "Gentlemen of the press, if you want to ask questions I am willing
to let you do so and the question asked will be reproduced as my own"; and
2. After Jose Maratella y de Guzman had finished testifying and respondent Salva,
addressing the newsmen, again said, "Gentlemen of the press is free to ask questions
as ours."

ISSUE: WON THE HEIGHTENED PUBLICITY OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY

SALVA WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PETITIONER

RULING: YES. If the purpose of said investigation was only to acquaint himself with and
evaluate the evidence involved in the affidavits and confessions of Sergio Eduardo, Cosme
Camo and others by questioning them, then he, respondent, could well have conducted the
investigation in his office, quietly, unobtrusively and without much fanfare, much less publicity.

Investigation should have been privately conducted, not sensationalized

The SC members said that they were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and
sensationalism, all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. It is bad
enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the
authorities, even when it being tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is
allowed when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal, the whole
thing becomes inexcusable. The Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, is constrained and
called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by meting an appropriate
disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one liable.

The newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to what took place during the
investigation- involving headlines and extensive recitals, narrations of and comments on the
testimonies given by the witnesses as well as vivid descriptions of the incidents that took place
during the investigation. It seemed as though the criminal responsibility for the killing of Manuel
Monroy was being retried and redetermined in the press.

Penalty
Respondent Francisco G. H. Salva is hereby publicly reprehended and censured for the
uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in

13
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

connection with his investigation, which we consider and find to be contempt of court; and,
furthermore, he is warned that a repetition of the same would meet with a more severe
disciplinary action and penalty. No costs.

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO BAGABUYO

ADM. Case No. 7006
October 9, 2007

FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from the events of Criminal Case 5144. Said case
was originally raffled to RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30, but the judge later inhibited himself
from further trying the case. It was then transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of Surigao City,
where Judge Tan fixed the amount of the bond at P40,000.00.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. But instead of availing himself
of judicial remedies, Atty. Bagabuyo caused the publication of an article regarding the order
granting bail to the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The
article was entitled “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to
bail out.”

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the implementation of the trial court's order of
suspension, and that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a
stern warning that the repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR PUBLICATION

OF THE ORDER

RULING: YES. The Court approves the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

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. The Court is not
against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the
proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution
must always be maintained.

Rules and Canons violated

Respondent violated:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. Respondent's 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”;
4. 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

14
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

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;
5. Respondent also violated the Lawyer's 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."

Penalty
Having been found guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Atty. Bagabuyo
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of this Decision,
with a STERN WARNING that the repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.

RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION MAY 11, 2018 IN REPUBLIC vs. SERENO
AM No. 18-06-01-SC
July 17, 2018

FACTS: Since the filing of respondent Sereno’s impeachment complaint, while the quo warranto
case was ongoing, respondent continuously opted to defend herself in public through speaking
engagements before students and faculties in different universities, public forums, interviews on
national television, and public rallies. Instead of participating in the judicial process, respondent
opted to proceed to a nationwide campaign, conducting speeches and accepting interviews,
discussing the merits of the case and making comments to vilify the members of the Congress,
cast aspersions on the impartiality of the Members of the Court, degrade the faith of the people
to the Judiciary, and falsely impute ill motives against the government that it is orchestrating the
charges against. In other words, respondent chose to litigate her case before the public and the
media, instead of the Supreme Court.

Respondent Sereno’s contentions, among others:

1. That she should not be judged on the stringent standards set forth in the CPR and the
NCJC, emphasizing that her participation in the quo warranto case is not as counsel or a
judge but as a party-litigant; and

2. The imputed acts against respondent did not create any serious and imminent threat to
the administration of justice to warrant the Court's exercise of its power of contempt in
accordance with the "clear and present danger" rule. Respondent avers that she cannot
be faulted for the attention that the quo warranto case gained from the public considering
that it is a controversial case, which involves issues of transcendental importance;

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT MAY BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE

FOR HER ACTIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS AS REGARDS THE QUO WARRANTO
CASE AGAINST HER DURING ITS PENDENCY, THEREBY VIOLATING THE SUB JUDICE
RULE

RULING: YES.

Judges or Justices are held to a higher standard in morality, honesty, and fair dealing
expected and required of lawyers
The fact that respondent was no the judge nor the counsel but the litigant in the subject case
does not strip her off of her membership in the Bar, as well as her being a member of the

15
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

Supreme Court and head of the highest court of the land. Her being a litigant does not mean
that she was free to conduct herself in a less honorable manner than that expected of a lawyer
or a judge. Any errant behavior on their part, which tends to show a deficient in moral character,
honesty, probity, or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.

Sub judice rule

Sub judice is a Latin term which refers to matters under or before a judge or court; or matters
under judicial consideration.19 In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and
disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants
and witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.

Sub judice rule finds support in the provision on indirect contempt under Section 3, Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - x x x, a person guilty of
any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;

As can be observed, discussions regarding sub judice often relates to contempt of court. In this

regard, respondent may be correct in arguing that there must exist a “clear and present danger”
to the administration of justice for statements or utterances covered by the sub judice rule to be
considered punishable under the rules of contempt.

The present case is not a contempt proceeding, but is rather an administrative matter. The
court is not geared towards protecting itself from such prejudicial comments outside of court by
the exercise of its inherent contempt power. Rather, the Supreme Court is discharging its
Constitutionally-mandated duty to discipline members of the Bar and judicial officers.

Rationale for prohibition

A lawyer’s speech is subject to greater regulation for the 2 reasons:
1. Because of the lawyer’s relationship to the judicial process;
2. The significant dangers that a lawyer’s speech poses to the trial process.

The Clear and Present Danger rule does not find application in this case
The Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through administrative
proceedings, to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. Hence, what applies in
this administrative matter is the Code of Professional Responsibility and New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which mandate the strict observance of the
sub-judice rule both upon members of the Bar and the Bench.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE
OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

16
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

CANON 1 - INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual
and institutional aspects.

SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before any court or administrative agency.

SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties
in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence.

CANON 2 - INTEGRITY

Integrity is essentially not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession, and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.

SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before
them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment
in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

CANON 4 - PROPRIETY

SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions
that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and

17
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.

SECTION 6. Judges, like any other Citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves
in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.

While it may be true that the quo warranto case was controversial and naturally invited public
attention to itself without necessity of respondent's statements, the fact remains that respondent
succumbed to and participated in the affray that diverted the quo warranto proceeding from its
primary purpose and created a great deal of antipathy from the public to the Court and its
Members. Particularly, in several occasions, respondent insinuated the following: (i) that the
grant of the quo warranto petition will result to dictatorship; (ii) in filing the quo warranto petition,
the livelihood and safety of others are likewise in danger; (iii) that the people could no longer
rely on the Court's impartiality; and (iv) that she could not expect fairness from the Court in
resolving the quo warranto petition against her.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

MARILI RONQUILIO, ET. AL vs. ATTY. HOMOBONO CEZAR

AC No. 6288
June 16, 2006

FACTS: Complainant Marili Ronquilio and respondent Atty. Homobono entered into a Deed of
Assignment, seeking to transfer his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot for the
price of P1.5 million. Respondent obligated himself to deliver to complainants a copy of the
Contract to Sell, and upon full payment of the purchase price, further undertook to have Crown
Asia (the townhouse developer), execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Ronquilios.

Respondent received P750,000.00 from the complainants upon execution of the Deed of
Assignment. The balance was to be paid by the complainants in four equal quarterly
installments of P187,500.00 each. Respondent encashed the first check dated August 17, 1999.

Subsequently, complainants learned that respondent had actually not been able to pay the full
price of the townhouse to Crown Asia at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment.
He also failed to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell. Hence, Marili Ronquilio
ordered the bank to stop payment on the second check she issued. Complainants informed him
that they were willing to pay the balance of the purchase price on the condition that respondent
execute the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. And in the alternative, they demanded that he
return the amount of P937,500.00 plus legal interest within ten days.

The demand was unheeded. Hence, they filed an administrative complaint that respondent
engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, found respondent guilty of dishonest
and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) years.

18
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT’S ACTS WARRANT HIS SUSPENSION FROM

THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR 3 YEARS

RULING: YES.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct;
(4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party without authority.

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in
this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer's professional duties.

In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a
contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question.

Acts of respondent, falling short of his duty required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
CPR

 When he failed in his undertaking;

 Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonesty and deceitful conduct when he concealed
this lack of right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he has not
yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no
right to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of
Assignment.

 His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-
Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not
entitled to it, made matters worse for him;

 Respondent's adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she
paid him, which was the fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker for ten (10)
years, is morally reprehensible.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is granted only to those of good moral
character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or
the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.

However, the Court acting upon an administrative matter cannot enforce the relief prayed
for

19
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

Be that as it may, we cannot grant complainants' prayer that respondent be directed to return
the money he received from them in the amount of P937,500.00. Disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the court into the
conduct of one of its officers. The only question for determination in these proceedings is
whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.

BELLEZA vs. MACASA

AC No. 7815
July 23, 2009

FACTS: Complainant Dolores Belleza went to see respondent Atty. Macasa to avail of
respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son earlier arrested that day for
alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for ₱30,000.

The following day, complainant made a partial payment to respondent thru their mutual friend
Chua. She gave him an additional ₱10,000 and ₱5,000 as payment for the balance. Both
payments were also made thru Chua. Respondent received ₱18,000 from complainant for the
purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. On all
three occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.

When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit
the amount to the court. Complainant demanded the return of the ₱18,000 from respondent on
several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of
complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s
Office for her son’s defense.

Complainant then filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Negros
Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) found respondent guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED HIS OATH AND THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST BE BARRED TO PRACTICE LAW.

RULING: YES.

Respondent Grossly Neglected the Cause of His Client

Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant's son. Such undertaking
imposed upon him the following duties:

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

20
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

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.

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time,
knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to
the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld
from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.

Respondent Failed to Return his Client's Money

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the
duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from the client.

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for
filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account
to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended
purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or
to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a
blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's funds or properties as they fall due or
upon demand. His failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.

Respondent did not render efficient legal assistance

After accepting the criminal case against complainant's son and receiving his attorney's fees,
respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For
all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of
respondent's continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public
Attorney's Office. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond
to secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latter's
constitutional right to bail.

Moreover, respondent rendered no service that would have entitled him to the P30,000
attorney's fees. As a rule, the right of a lawyer to a reasonable compensation for his services is
subject to two requisites: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship and (2) the rendition
by the lawyer of services to the client.31 Thus, a lawyer who does not render legal services is not

21
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

entitled to attorney's fees. Otherwise, not only would he be unjustly enriched at the expense of
the client, he would also be rewarded for his negligence and irresponsibility.

SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ vs. ATTY. LIMOS

AC No. 7618
February 2, 2016

FACTS: Sometime in June 2006, while living abroad, they secured the services of respondent
Atty. Limos as counsel for their adoption proceedings. In consideration thereof, complainants
paid respondent the aggregate amount of P75,000.00, which was duly received by the latter. A
few months later, they purposely came back to the Philippines for a 2 week stay to commence
the filing of the adoption case before the proper court. However, despite payment and
submission of all the required documents to respondent, no petition was filed during their stay.

Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890

On May 2007, complainants received respondent’s letter requesting them to return to the
Philippines to supposedly testify for the adoption case (docketed as Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890).
But upon their return on June 2007, they found out that:
1. Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890 referred to a petition for the declaration of the presumptive
death of another person filed by another lawyer; and
2. Respondent had yet to file a petition for adoption on their behalf.

Utterly dismayed, complainants demanded the return of the P75,000.00 given, as well as legal
fees. However, respondent refused to return such money, justifying that she does not return
acceptance fees.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable, and

recommended that she be meted the penalty of suspension form the practice of law for 3 years,
for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY

LIABLE FOR VIOLATING THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

RULING: YES.

Violation of Canon 18
As correctly pointed out by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent’s acts constituted a
flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.

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.

Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him.21 Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter

22
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively liable.

Violation of Canon 16
In this relation, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when
she failed to return the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees that complainants paid
her.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.

Fiduciary Relationship of a lawyer and his client

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a
lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.23 The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes
upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for
or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on
behalf of his client - as in this case - gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.

Penalty
As penalty, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client’s
affairs and failed to return their money and/or property despite demand, the Court umposed
upon them the penalty of suspension for the practice of law. In this case, not only did
respondent fail to file a petition for adoption on behalf of complainants and to return the money
she received as legal fees, she likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting that she
had already filed such petition when nothing was actually filed, resulting in undue prejudice to
complainants. On top of these, respondent showed impertinence not only to the IBP
Investigating Commissioner, but to the Court as well, when she ignored directives to comment
on the complainants' petition against her and to participate in the investigation of the case.
Under these circumstances, the Court imposes on respondent the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, as recommended by the IBP.

PRESERVATION OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCE

ALCANTARA vs. DE VERA

AC No. 5859
November 23, 2010

FACTS: Atty. De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado. De Vera garnished the bank account of
the opposing party, but he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead, he claimed that he used
the same to pay off the judge and what’s left was for his patty’s fees. Mercado filed an
administrative complaint, which in effect, suspended De Vera from the practice of law for 1 year.
In retaliation, De Vera then filed several lawsuits against the his previous clients, their family

23
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

corporation, the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case for the collection of the
balance of his fee from Mercado, the Chairman and members of the IBP Board who
recommended his suspension, and the Mercados’ present counsel. He also re-filed cases which
were previously dismissed.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT DE VERA SHOULD BE DISBARRED

RULING: YES. The nature of the cases filed shows that De Vera’s acts are beyond justice and
fairness- it is of revenge, hate, anger, and frustration. De Vera not only filed frivolous and
unfounded lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court but also went against a
former client to whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. The cases involved matters and information
acquired by De Vera during the time that he was still Rosario's counsel and must have been
protected by the attorney-client relationship privileges. Which is a direct violation of the Canon
21 (A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the arty-client
relation is terminated).

PROTECTING HIS CLIENT’S INTERESTS

SANTIAGO vs. FOJAS

Adm. Case No. 4103
September 7, 1995

FACTS: An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they have illegally
removed Mr. Paulino Salvador from the union of the Far Eastern University Faculty Association
(FEUFA). The lower court resolved in favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to pay the
latter, jointly and severally.

The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in their petition at
the Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their
counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil complaint on the expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured
them that everything was in order and he had already answered the complaint.

However, the appellants soon discovered that he never answered it after all because, according
to him, he was a very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his “mistake” in failing to file an answer for
the expulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration.
However, such motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his negligence with
the reason that the case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was about
to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants and
for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant. Complainants then filed
for a disbarment case.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

24
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)
Case Digests on PALE, as assigned by Atty. Arnold Abejaron for 3-Manresa (2019-2020)

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client
with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion. This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy
and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense.

In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his non-filing of
the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and
excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court.
Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply
with his duty to file an answer.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires

him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically, Rule
18.03 thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a
“losing cause”. The Supreme Court held that he should have seasonably informed the
complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion
on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understanding the
prospects of the case.

25