CANON 19

CASE NO. 1
BRIONES V. JIMENEZ / A.C. 6691 / April 27, 2007

FACTS
Complainant Briones is the Special Administrator of the Henson Estate, while respondent Jimenez is the
counsel for Heirs of Henson. Atty. Jimenez filed with the RTC a notice of appeal questioning the payment
of commission to Atty. Briones. Atty. Jimenez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, appointing the firm of Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at
the expense of the late Luz J. Henson. Atty. Briones. Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a
criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against Atty Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying
the RTC Order. Atty. Briones filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum shopping
and violation of Canons19 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent claims that he
acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the
criminal complaint against herein complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him; and
that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Atty. Jimenez should be held liable for violating Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

RULING
Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with
zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyer’s performance of his duties towards his client must
be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. To permit lawyers to resort
to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the
purposes of the state – the administration of justice. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the
interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget that they are,
first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. Although respondent failed to live up to this expectation, there is noevidence
that he acted with malice or bad faith. Consequently, it is but fit to reprimand respondent for his act of
unfair dealing with complainant. It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severeform of
disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar mustalways be exercised with great caution for
only the most imperativereasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing andmoral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment
should not be decreedwhere any punishment less severe—such as reprimand, suspension, or fine—would
accomplish the end desired. Atty. Jimenez was reprimanded.
CASE NO. 2
PEÑA V. APARICIO / A.C. 7298 / June 2, 2007

FACTS
Atty. Aparicio was the legal counsel for Hufana in an alleged dismissal case before the NLRC against
Pena. Atty. Aparicio prayed that his client be given separation pay, which Peña rejected. Thereafter, Peña
sent notices to Hufana to return to work. Atty. Aparicio replied with a letter reiterating the claim of his
client. The letter also contained threats against the company stating that if the claim is not paid on Aug.
10, 2005, they will file multiple charges such as, criminal charges for tax evasion, falsification of
documents, and for the cancellation of the company’s business license. Peña filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Aparicio with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for violating Rule
19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Aparicio in turn filed counterclaims
for the defamatory charges against him. The IBP dismissed the complaint because Peña had allegedly
failed to file his position paper and the certification against forum shopping. The IBP transmitted the
records of the case to the SC. Atty. Aparicio filed an MR with the SC reiterating his claim for damages
against Peña in the amount of P400M for filing false, malicious, defamatory, fraudulent suit against him.
Peña likewise filed this Petition for Review alleging that he submitted his position paper and that the
dismissal denied him of due process.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Aparicio should be held liable for violating Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING
Yes. The SC found that Peña actually submitted his position paper. In addition, disbarment proceedings
are sui generis, hence, the requirement of a certification of forum shopping is not to be strictly complied
with in such a case. At any rate, Peña actually submitted a certification against forum shopping after Atty.
Aparicio filed the motion to dismiss, curing the supposed defect in the original complaint. Under Rule
19.01 of Canon 19 , a lawyer should not file or threaten to file baseless criminal cases against the
adversaries of his client to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield to the claims of the
lawyer’s client. This is exactly what Atty. Aparicio did in this case. Furthermore, his threats were not only
unethical, but they amounted to blackmail – extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure in
the public prints. Blackmail and extortion would not only entail disbarment but also possible criminal
prosecution. Worse yet, Atty. Aparicio actually admitted and even found it his obligation to tell the truth
of the offenses he imputed against Peña. He also stated that the writing of demand letters is standard
practice. SC ruled that Atty. Aparicio’s assertions are misleading because the fact of the matter is, he used
such threats to gain leverage against Peña and force the latter to accede to his client’s claims. The letter
even implied a promise to “keep silent” about the said violations if the claim is met. While it is true that
writing demand letters is standard practice in the profession of law, such letters must not contain threats
such as those found in this case. Nevertheless, SC held that disbarment is too severe a penalty considering
that Atty. Aparicio wrote the letter out of his overzealousness to protect his client’s interests. Therefore,
the SC reprimanded Atty. Aparicio with a stern warning.
CASE NO. 3
DIAZ VS. PEOPLE / G.R. No. 180677 / February 18, 2013.

FACTS
After receiving information that Diaz was selling counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring,
Levi’s Philippines hired a private investigation group to verify the information. Surveillance and
the purchase of jeans from the tailoring shops of Diaz established that the jeans bought from the
tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S 501. Levi’s Philippines then
sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for purposes of applying for
a search warrant against Diaz to be served at his tailoring shops. The search warrants were issued
in due course. Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents searched the tailoring shops of Diaz
and seized several fake LEVI’S 501 jeans from themThe records reveal that Diaz’s counsel
thrice sought an extensionof the period to file the appellant’s brief. The first time was onMarch
12, 2007, the request being for an extension of 30 days to
commence on March 11, 2007. The CA granted his motion under itsresolution of March 21,
2007. On April 10, 2007, the last day of the30day extension, the counsel filed another motion,
seeking anadditional 15 days. The CA allowed the counsel until April 25, 2007to serve and file
the appellant’s brief. On April 25, 2007, the counselwent a third time to the CA with another
request for 15 days. TheCA still granted such third motion for extension, giving the counseluntil
May 10, 2007. Notwithstanding the liberality of the CA, thecounsel did not literally comply,
filing the appellant’s brief only onMay 28, 2007, which was the 18th day beyond the third
extension period granted.

ISSUE
Whether or not Diaz should be held guilty because of his counsel’s incompetence

RULING
No. Under the circumstances, the failure to file the appellant’s brief on time rightly deserved the outright
rejection of the appeal. The acts of his counsel bound Diaz like any other client. It was, of course, only the
counsel who was well aware that the Rules of Court fixed the periods to file pleadings and equally significant
papers like the appellant’s brief with the lofty objective of avoiding delays in the administration of justice.
We feel that despite the CA being probably right in dismissing the excuses of oversight and excusable
negligence tendered by Diaz’s counsel to justify the belated filing of the appellant’s brief as unworthy of
serious consideration, Diaz should not be made to suffer the dire consequence. Any accused in his shoes, with
his personal liberty as well as his personal fortune at stake, expectedly but innocently put his fullest trust in
his counsel’s abilities and professionalism in the handling of his appeal. He thereby delivered his fate to the
hands of his counsel. Whether or not those hands were efficient or trained enough for the job of handling the
appeal was a learning that he would get only in the end. Likelier than not, he was probably even unaware of
the three times that his counsel had requested the CA for extensions. If he were now to be left to his unwanted
fate, he would surely suffer despite his innocence. How costly a learning it would be for him. That is where
the Court comes in. It is most important for us as dispensers of justice not to allow the inadvertence or
incompetence of any counsel to result in the outright deprivation of an appellant’s right to life, liberty or
property. We do not mind if this softening of judicial attitudes be mislabeled as excessive leniency. With so
much on the line, the people whose futures hang in a balance should not be left to suffer from the
incompetence, mindlessness or lack of professionalism of any member of the Law Profession. They
reasonably expect a just result in every litigation. The courts must give them that just result. That assurance is
the people’s birthright. Thus, we have to undo Diaz’s dire fate. Diaz was acquitted.
CASE NO. 4
RICARDO ESPINA V. ATTY. JESUS CHAVEZ / A.C. 7250 / April 20, 2015

FACTS
Atty. Espina’s parents, represented by Atty. Espina, filed an ejectment complaint against Enguio, represented
by Atty. Chavez. During the pendency of the ejectment case, Atty. Espina sent a letter DOJ Secretary
captioned “Abrasive and harassment tactics of Public Attorney III Jesus G. Chavez.” The letter alleged that
the Answer Atty. Chavez prepared in the ejectment case contained offensive statements. Also while the
ejectment case was pending, Atty. Chavez, as a Public Attorney, endorsed through a letter (transmittal letter)
to the Provincial Prosecutor, the filing of a criminal complaint for Violation of Article 172 (Falsification by
private individual and use of falsified document) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against Atty. Espina, his
wife (who is a partner in his law office) and his parents. The criminal complaint was based on the affidavit-
complaint executed by Enguio. In this affidavitcomplaint, Enguio alleged that “in order to fashion a case for
Ejectment, respondents made an untruthful statement in the narration of facts . The Provincial Prosecutor
dismissed the falsification complaintfor lack of probable cause. The Chief PAO, dismissed the complaint
against Atty. Chavez.

ISSUE:
Whether or not ATty. Chavez should be held liable fr violating the Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responjsibility

RULING
No. Atty. Espina did not only fail to substantiate his allegation that Atty. Chavez masterminded the filing of
the criminal
complaint for falsification; he also failed to show that the criminal complaint was patently frivolous, meritless
and groundless, and that it was filed to gain improper advantage in favor of his client. What Rule 19.01
prohibits is the filing or the threat of filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals or clearly groundless
actions for the purpose of gaining improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Two elements are
indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated
this rule: (i) the filing or threat of filing a patently frivolous and meritless action or appeal and (ii) the filing or
threat of filing the action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or proceeding. It is also unwise
to characterize every criminal complaint that arose from or is connected with a separate case or proceeding to
be within the coverage of Rule 19.01. The better policy is to balance the prohibition under Rule 19.01 with
the equally important right of the State to prosecute
criminal offenses. We stress that the key test is whether the criminalcomplaint is patently meritless and
clearly filed to gain improper advantage.Unless the criminal complaint is patently frivolous and obviously
meant tosecure an improper advantage, a lawyer who files such criminal complaintshould not be
automatically deemed to have violated Rule 19.01. Otherwise, lawyers who have a valid cause for filing a
criminal action may becompelled not to proceed because of fear of administrative sanctions. The disbarment
complaint against Atty. Chavez was dismissed.
CASE NO. 5
SPOUSES NUEZCA V. ATTY. ERNEST V. VILLAGARCIA / A.C. 8210 / August 8,
2016

FACTS
Complainants averred that respondentsent them a demand letter copy furnishedto various offices and
persons, which contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the demand
letter seriouslymaligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients. Complainantslikewise posited
that several news clippingsthat were attached to the demand letter were intended to sow fear in them,
and claimed that the circulationthereof caused them sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and
besmirched reputation. Thus, they maintained that respondentshould be held administratively liable
therefor. The Court directedrespondent to file his comment to the verified complaint. However,
for failure to serve the aforesaid Resolution, thecomplainants were then orderedto furnish the Court
the completeand correct address of respondent. Still, complainants failed tocomply with the Court’s
directive; thus, the Court referred the case to the IBP, which set the case for a mandatory
conference /hearing. Unfortunately, despite notices, complainants failed to appear for the scheduled
mandatory hearings. Likewise, the notices sent to respondent were returned unserved. IBPBoard of
Governors resolved to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Villagarcia should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of
the verified complaint.

RULING:
Yes. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation ofthese standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability. profession.Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
illuminating but not offensive. Atty. Villagarcia is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) month, and is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
moreseverely.