2/25/2019 November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

Updates and Articles on Philippine Law and Jurisprudence

November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Ramon G. Songco • Posted in Legal Ethics, Philippines - Cases,
Philippines - Law
Here are selected November 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial
ethics:

A orney; aiding illegal practice of law. It has been established that Dela Rosa who is not a member of
the Bar misrepresented herself as respondent’s collaborating counsel. There was also sufficient evidence
to prove that respondent allowed Dela Rosa to illegally practice law, appear in court, and give legal
assistance to respondent’s client. This is in violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that “[a] lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.” The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding
one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as
a orney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law
office for the general practice of law. A y. Edita Noe-Lacsamana v. A y. Yolando F. Busmente. A.C. No.
7269. November 23, 2011. (h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/7269.html)

A orney; competence and diligence required. Respondent a orneys were engaged to represent
complainant and his son in in a civil case for forcible entry and damages. However, respondents failed
to file an answer within the 10-day period required by the summons and the Rules of Court.
Respondents claimed that, to their mind, the civil case was actually for possession, notwithstanding that
its title is for forcible entry, and that they mistakenly assumed that the court would first issue an order
stating that the case falls under the rules on summary procedure before requiring their clients to answer.
They further claimed that when no such order was issued by the court, they again incorrectly assumed
that the regular rules of procedure will apply and that they have fifteen days to answer. All these,
without seeking a clarification from the court or ascertaining exactly when the answer should be filed
and despite the summons issued and served stating a ten day period to file an answer. The Supreme
Court did not find respondents’ defenses acceptable as it betrayed a lack of necessary competence and
diligence. The respondents had in fact been negligent, or worse, had failed to exercise the required
competence and diligence in filing the answer to the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal
procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of
professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client’s cause. Rogelio F.
Estavillo v. A ys. Gemmo G. Guillermo and Erme S. Labayog. A.C. No. 6899. November 16, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6899.htm)

A orney; conflict of interest. Respondent a orney drafted a demand le er on behalf of complainant in

connection with the dishonored checks issued by Ms. Koa. In the ensuing criminal cases, respondent
filed a Motion for Consolidation on behalf of Ms. Koa and appeared at the preliminary investigation
hearing as Ms. Koa’s counsel. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between
him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered.
Moreover, he argued that he drafted the demand le er only as a personal favor to complainant who is a
close friend. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between
complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant sought legal
advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand le er respondent
further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand le er was not utilized in the criminal
https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/november-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/#more-4005 1/4
2/25/2019 November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the
criminal cases is of no moment. Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate
respondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying
with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The prohibition a aches from the
moment the a orney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the duration of the
professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. A y. Rodolfo Galing. A.C. No. 6174. November 16, 2011
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6174.htm).

A orney; gross misconduct. Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent to assist her and her
child in pursuing and protecting their rights as heirs of her deceased husband who was a British
national, including claiming insurance proceeds due to the complainant and her child, as well as
processing visa applications for travel to England. Respondent solicited various sums from the
complainant, allegedly for purposes do defraying expenses in connection with the engagement.
Respondent admi ed having received money from complainant but failed to render an accounting or, at
least, apprised the complainant of the actual expenses incurred. Worse, respondent even inculcated in
the mind of the complainant that she had to adhere to the nefarious culture of giving “grease money” or
lagay to the British Embassy personnel, as if it was an ordinary occurrence in the normal course of
conducting official business transactions as a means to expedite the visa applications. This runs afoul
the dictum in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Respondent’s repeated
reprehensible acts of employing chicanery and unbecoming conduct to conceal her web of lies, to the
extent of milking complainant’s finances dry, and deceitfully arrogating upon herself the insurance
proceeds that should rightfully belong to complainant, in the guise of rendering legitimate legal services,
clearly transgressed the norms of honesty and integrity required in the practice of law. This being so,
respondent should be purged from the privilege of exercising the noble legal profession. Marites
Freeman v. A y. Zenaida P. Reyes. A.C. No. 6246. November 15, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/6246.htm)

Court personnel; grave misconduct and dishonesty. Respondent admi ed receiving pay-offs from
Taguinod every time the City Star, the paper published by Taguinod, is awarded a judicial notice from
Branch 21 of the RTC of Santiago City for publication. Respondent’s defense that he “never demanded
any money or any rebate” from Taguinod does not spare him from liability. Section 5 of Presidential
Decree No. 1079 not only prohibits local court personnel from “demanding” pay-offs, it also bars receipt
of such pay-offs. By accepting pay-offs, respondent also violated Section 2(e), Canon III of the Code of
Conduct, mandating that court personnel shall not “[s]olicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount,
favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major
purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.” These violations of
respondent constitute grave misconduct or corrupt conduct in flagrant disregard of well-known legal
rules. Furthermore, by keeping the discounts or rebates for himself and thereby profiting from them, he
had commi ed a clear case of dishonesty. Francisco Taguinod v. Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City. A. M. No. P-09-2660. November 29, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-09-2660.html)

Court personnel; habitual tardiness. Under Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, “[a]n
employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of
minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive
months during the year.” It is clear from the facts that Calingasan has been habitually tardy.
Consequently, as an employee of the judiciary, she failed to live up to the stringent standard of conduct
demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. The excuses offered by
respondent – moral obligations, the performance of household chores, traffic problems, health
conditions, and domestic and financial concerns – are not sufficient causes to excuse habitual tardiness.
Leave Division-OAS, Office of the Court Administrator v. Laraine I. Calingasan Stenographer II, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Sta Rosa, Laguna. A.M. No. P-11-3010. November 23, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-11-3010.htm)

Court personnel; inefficiency; time for completion and submission of TSN. Respondent failed to strictly
follow Administrative Circular No. 24-90 that prescribes a 20-day period from the time the notes are
taken for the completion and submission of the transcript of stenographic notes. Although the Court is
solicitous of the plight of court stenographers, being saddled with heavy workload is not compelling
reason enough to justify respondent’s failure to faithfully comply with the prescribed period provided in
Administrative Circular No. 24-90 and, thus, she must be faulted. Otherwise, every government
employee charged with inefficiency would resort to the same convenient excuse to evade punishment, to

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/november-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/#more-4005 2/4
2/25/2019 November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

the great prejudice of public service. Concerned Citizen v. Maria Concepcion Divina, Court Stenographer,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan. A.M. No. P-07-2369. November 16, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-07-2369.htm)

Court personnel; simple misconduct. Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior
that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers. Respondent’s actions transgressed
the norms of civility expected of judicial officers, even in their private lives, and constitute simple
misconduct that must be squarely penalized. Although beso-beso or air kissing may be considered a
standard greeting between family members, what respondent did was he not merely greeted his sister-
in-law, but encroached into the territory of unwarranted advances that offended acceptable standards of
decency. Regardless of whether it reached the level of criminal malice or lewdness, his conduct was
unbecoming a court personnel, upon whom is placed the heavy burden of moral uprightness. Beatriz B.
Onate v. Severino G. Imatong, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Piat, Cagayan. A.M. No. P-
11-3009. November 16, 2011. (h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/P-11-3009.htm)

Court personnel; simple neglect of duty. Respondent, a security guard at the Court of Appeals
compound in Manila, accidentally fired his service pistol while in the process of unloading it for
turnover to the guard on duty for the next shift. Respondent failed to show that his service pistol was
not mechanically sound at that time. In ruling out mechanical causes, it can only be concluded that the
undesired discharge of respondent’s service pistol was the result of his own negligence; in the usual
course of things, a firearm that is being unloaded should not discharge if gun safety procedures had
been strictly followed. However, we cannot consider the respondent’s negligence as gross in nature
because there is nothing in the records to show that the respondent willfully and intentionally fired his
service pistol. Also, at the time of the incident, the respondent did observe most of the safety measures
required in unloading his firearm. Court of Appeals by: COC Teresita Marigomen v. Enrique Manabat Jr.,
Security Guard I, Court of Appeals, Manila. A.M. No. CA-11-24-P. November 16, 2011.
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/CA-11-24-P.htm)

(Mon thanks Maria Christina C. Ortua for assisting in the preparation of this post.)

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

REPORT THIS AD

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/november-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/#more-4005 3/4
2/25/2019 November 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/november-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/#more-4005 4/4