Case digests
Legal Ethics
IN RE: LUIS B TAGORDA
G.R. NO. 32329, 23 MARCH 1929
MALCOM, J.:
Facts:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and
a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that
previous to the last general elections he made use of a card
written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads
as follows:
"LUIS B. TAGORDA "Attorney
"Notary Public
"CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER”
"Province of Isabela”
Atty. Tagorda, in his card written in Spanish and Ilocano,
noted his capability as a lawyer such as executing a deed of
sale, collection of loans, etc. Also, in his letter addressed to
a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality, he also
advertised his profession as a lawyer and even asked a favor
to disseminate this information to the barrio people in any of
their meetings or social gatherings. If the people in the
locality have not as yet contracted the services of other
lawyers in connection with the registration of their land
titles, that said respondent would be willing to handle the
work in court and would charge only three pesos for every
registration.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Luis B. Tagorda should be
disbarred for soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain.
Ruling:
Yes. The acts of Atty Tagorda of direct and indirect
advertising and stirring up litigation were violative of the
Code of Ethics. Still, the most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and
especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust.
In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine Bar Association,
said codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding
at the end thereof the following:
"The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
The statue as amended conforms in principle to the Canons
of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar
1
Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association
in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT.
— The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially
with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
well- merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust.
This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character
and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary
simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or
local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se
improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or
interviews not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional. the judgment of the court is that the
respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from
the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month
from April 1, 1929.
____________
LEDESMA V. CLIMACO
G.R. No. L- 23815, June 28, 1974,
Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an
accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge.
On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election
Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental.
He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to
withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The
respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as
counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6,
Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel
de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service
which could prevent him from handling adequately the
defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this
certiorari proceeding.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in
denying the motion of the petitioner is a grave abuse of
discretion?
2. Whether or not the petitioner should be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio.

Ruling:
1. No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his
lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal
profession. He ought to have known that membership
in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal
profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not
a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as
counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are
rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's
zeal.
2. If respondent Judge were required to answer the
petition, it was only due to the apprehension that
considering the frame of mind of a counsel loath and
reluctant to fulfill his obligation, the welfare of the
accused could be prejudiced. His right to counsel
could in effect be rendered nugatory. The admonition is
ever timely for those enrolled in the ranks of legal
practitioners that there are times, and this is one of
them, when duty to court and to client takes precedence
over the promptings of self-interest.
Ratio:
“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of
their office are Judges, or other officials or employees of the
superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section
32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer involved not
being among them, remained as counsel of record since he
did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellant’s
counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds. Nor was
substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new
counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA
G.R. Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an
indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as
counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of
an accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is
a constitutional right of the highest importance, and there can
be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully
informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to
enjoy them (People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)
The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the
accused with a counsel de officio for such action as it may
deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muñoz Palma, L-15325, August 31,
1930)
_______________
2
Case digests
Legal Ethics
TAN TEK BENG V. DAVID
126 SCRA 389
Facts:
In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer,
entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will
supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty.
David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorney’s fees
collected as the latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed
not to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly
without the latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to
allegations of double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng
denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did not
seek the enforcement of their agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.
Held:
Yes. The agreement between Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng
is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is
“the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers”
Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily
refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical
meaning to the term “malpractice”.
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion
that the practice of law is a profession, not a business. “The
lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional”.
On the agreement to divide the attorney’s fees, the Supreme
Court noted: No division of fees for legal services is proper,
except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service
or responsibility.
On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with clients
supplied by Beng directly: The professional services of a
lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between
client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and
qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations
which direct the performance of his duties by or in the
interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his
client should be personal, and the responsibility should be
direct to the client. . . .”
________________

KHAN VS. SIMBILLO,
A.C No. 5299, August 19, 2003
Facts:
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was
published which reads:
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”.
Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number
but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her
husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling
annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-
6mos provided the case will not involve separation of
property and custody of children. It appears that similar
advertisements were also published. An administrative
complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to
suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the
name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement,
he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he
should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the
absolute prohibition against advertisement because the
interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the
prohibition.
Issue:
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 & Rule 3.01.
Held:
Yes. The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession
in which the primary duty is public service and money.
Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty
to public service and administration of justice should be
primary.
Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest. Worse,
advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist”
he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still
considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people
otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it
to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the
legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that
purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily
paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to
be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar.
3
Case digests
Legal Ethics
_______________
ROBERTO ANTONIO et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-77656 Aug 31, 1987
Facts:
Roberto Antonio et al. are lessees of an apartment building
foreclosed by the GSIS after its original owner failed to pay
back his loan. After due notice to Robert Antonio et al. the
property was sold to the private respondent Alicia Bilan at a
public bidding held on July 29, 1982. The bidding was not
attended by the lessees believing as tenants, they have
priority in law to acquire the property and their participation
would be deemed a waiver of their right to question the act
of the GSIS in selling the property and would adversely
affect their offer to buy the same. The property was awarded
to private respondent by GSIS and certified as the owner of
the property.
The GSIS advised the petitioners to pay their rent and
arrearages to Alicia Bilan. But despite repeated written
demands Roberto Antonio and others failed and refused to
settle their accounts prompting Alicia Bilan to file a
complaint for ejectment case with Metropolitan Trial Court.
Said court rendered judgment on January 8, 1985, ordering
the petitioners to vacate the premises. Antonio and others
appealed to RTC which, on August 20, 1985, rendered a
decision affirming in toto the judgment of the MTC. The
petitioners’ counsel of record is the law office Funelas, Perez
and Associates represented by Atty. Funelas filed a petition
for review on certiorari with CA. On December 5, 1986, CA
dismissed the petition and copy of same was received by said
law firm on January 6, 1987 thru its messenger. Atty.
Funelas then was abroad and petitioners were not informed
of the decision which became final and executory on January
22, 1987.
On February 23, 1987 Roberto Antonio et al through their
new counsel, filed an "Appearance and Motion for leave to
Admit Motion For Reconsideration, together with the
Motion For Reconsideration with Prayer For Issuance
TRO," with the CA, obviously filed beyond the
reglementary period for filing the same. They alleged that
their counsel of record abandoned them and migrated to the
United States without at least informing them that a decision
was rendered against them. On December 5, 1986, CA
denied the petition.
Issues:
WON the client is bound by the negligence of counsel.

Held:
Yes, client is bound by the negligence or failings of counsel.
It is the duty of an attorney to himself and to his clients to
invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of
receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence
from his address of record. The attorney must so arrange
matters that communications sent by mail addressed to his
office or residence, may reach him promptly.
_______________
DACANAY VS. BAKER & MC KENZIE
A.C. NO. 2131 05/10/1985
Facts:
Atty. Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other
lawyers from practicing law under the name Baker and
McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In 1979
respondent Vicente A. Torres used the letterhead of Baker &
McKenzie which contains the names of the ten lawyers
asking Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty.
Dacanay replied denying any liability of Clurman and asking
the lawyer his purpose of using the letterhead of another law
office.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents should enjoin from practising
law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
Held:
YES. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of
Court).
Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as
such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constitutes a representation that being associated with the
firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality
to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
foreign trade and investment" which the Court finds
unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to
practise law here.
4
Case digests
Legal Ethics
WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from
practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
_______________
OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE V. ALEONAR
G.R. NO. 97664, October 10991
Facts:
Private respondent International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI)
filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
City against Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc.
(Mercantile) and petitioner Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc.
(OASI) for replacement of certain equipment imported by
IPI which were insured by Mercantile but were lost on
arrival in Cebu City, allegedly because of mishandling by
petitioner OASI.
Petitioner OASI’s answer was filed by the law firm of
Ledesma, Saludo and Associates (LSA) and signed by Atty.
Manuel Trinidad of the Cebu office or branch of LSA.
However, Atty. Fidel Manalo, a partner from the Makati
office of LSA filed to postpone the hearing stating that the
case had just been endorsed to him by petitioner OASI.
After trial which Atty. Manalo handled for OASI, the trial
court rendered a decision holding Mercantile and petitioner
OASI jointly and severally liable for the cost of replacement
of the damaged equipment plust damages, totalling
P435,000.00.
Only Mercantile appealed from the decision. When the IPI
filed a motion for execution of the decision against petitioner
OASI which public respondent granted, the petitioner’s
cousel, through Atty. Catipay of the Cebu Branch of the
LSA, filed a notice of appeal claiming that the decision was
“mistakenly sent” by the trial court to the law firm’s Head
Office in Makati.
Petitioner, through the same counsel, filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order granting the writ of execution
alleging that the failure to file an appeal was due to excusable
neglect and slight “oversight” claiming that there was
miscommunication between LSA-Cebu and LSA main
office as to who would file the notice of appeal. The
respondent judge denied OASI’s motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit and ordered that the writ of execution be
enforced.
On appeal, the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the
grounds that there had been a valid service of the decision
and that it was final and executor upon OASI.
Hence, petition for review to the Court.

Issue:
Whether or not LSA having represented itself to the public
as a single firm, be allowed to contend that its main office
and its branch office in effect constitute separate law firms
with separate and distinct personalities and responsibilities.
Ruling:
Petitioner’s counsel was and is the firm of Ledesma, Saludo
and Associates (and not any particular member or associate
of that firm) which firm happens to have a main office in
Makati and a branch office in Cebu City. The Court notes
that both the main and branch offices operate under one and
the same name, Saludo Ledesma and Associates. Having
represented itself to the public as comprising a single firm,
LSA should not be allowed at this point to pretend that its
main office and its branch office in effect constitute separate
law firms with separate and distinct personalities.
_______________
DIA-AÑONUEVO, vs. MUN. JUDGE BONIFACIO B.
BERCACIO OF TABACO, ALBAY,
A.M. No. 177-MJ, November 27, 1975
Facts:
Mrs. Concepcion Dia-Añonuevo, claims to be a co-owner of
an undivided interest of a certain parcel of irrigated riceland
situated in Cabilogan, Sto. Niño, Sto. Domingo, Albay. This
property was the object of a deed of sale executed by
Maximo Balibado, Justo Balibado and Petrona Balibado de
Barrios in favor of Alfredo Ong and acknowledged before
Municipal Judge Bonifacio Bercacio, respondent herein, as
ex-officio notary public, on January 25, 1972.
Complainant informed respondent judge that the vendors
owned only one-third undivided portion of the property and
that she and other cousins of hers owned two-thirds thereof.
Judge Bercacio advised the complainant to redeem or
repurchase the property from the vendee, Alfredo Ong.
Complainant then requested the judge to intercede in their
behalf with the vendee to allow them to redeem the property
and for that purpose she gave respondent the amount of
P3,500.00 to be used to pay Alfredo Ong. Respondent agreed
and received the amount of P3,500.00. Respondent sent the
corresponding letter to Alfredo Ong but the latter did not
answer. Forthwith a complaint was filed on March 8, 1972
with the Court of First Instance of Albay.
During the pendency of the civil case, complainant asked
respondent judge to allow her to withdraw P3,500.00 she had
5
Case digests
Legal Ethics
deposited with him as she was then in need of money, but no
action was taken by respondent.
Issue:
WON respondent is engaging in the practice of law violating
Judiciary Act of 1948
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent violated Section 77 of the Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended, which provides in part:
All provisions relative to the observance
of office hours and the holding of sessions
applicable to courts of first instance shall
likewise apply to municipal judges, but the
latter may, after office hours and with the
permission of the district judge concerned,
engage in teaching or other vocation not
involving the practice of law ...
Respondent submits that it was Atty. Berango and not he
who assisted the complainant, Mrs. Añonuevo, and her co-
plaintiffs as counsel in the civil case. Respondent's claim is
belied, however, by the active interest he took in the case of
Mrs. Añonuevo manifested as follows:
(a) He gave Mrs. Añonuevo legal advice on the remedy
available to her and her co-owners with regards to the
property sold to Alfredo Ong.
(b) He accepted from Mrs. Añonuevo the sum of P3,500.00
for purposes of redeeming the property from the vendee, plus
P100.00 for incidental expenses.
(c) He wrote to Alfredo Ong for and in behalf of Mrs.
Añonuevo and her co-owners offering to redeem the land in
question.
(d) When his attempts at an out-of-court settlement failed,
he caused the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 4591
for which he was issued a receipt for docket and legal
research fees.
(e) He was present together with Atty. Berango at the pre-
trial of July 5, 1972, and although, as he claims, it was Atty.
Berango who made an appearance for that pre-trial, the trial
Judge nonetheless took note of respondent's presence so that
the Order dictated on that occasion reads:
"Attys. Berango and Bercacio are notified of the date of the
trial. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
in court or participation in court proceedings but also
includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of

a litigation, giving of legal advice to clients or persons
needing the same, etc. The rule disqualifying a municipal
judge from engaging in the practice of law seeks to avoid the
evil of possible use of the power and influence of his office
to affect the outcome of a litigation where he is retained as
counsel. Compelling reasons of public policy lie behind this
prohibition, and judges are expected to conduct themselves
in such a manner as to preclude any suspicion that they are
representing the interests of a party litigant.
_______________
CRUZ V. SALVA
G.R. No. L-12871, July 5, 1989
Facts:
Petition to restrain City Fiscal Francisco Salva from
continuing with the preliminary investigation in connection
with the murder case of Manuel MonroyManuel Monroy
was murdered and Oscar Castelo was the prime suspect. He
was convicted in the Court of First Instance (Pasay City). He
appealed the sentence but was convicted again by the same
trial court..Castelo wrote to Salva to conduct reinvestigation
on the basis of the new confessions. The Phil. Constabulary
furnished Salva with copies of the new testimonies and
affidavits.
Ultimately, Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation
and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as the
instigator for the new affidavits and confessions.
Investigation was conducted not in respondent'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
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated CPR 3.04
Ruling:
Yes. The members of the Court were greatly disturbed and
annoyed by such publicity and sensationalism, all of which
may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. In this,
he committed what was regard a grievous error and poor
judgment for which we fail to find any excuse or satisfactory
explanation. His actuations in this regard went well beyond
the bounds of prudence, discretion and good taste.
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
6
Case digests
Legal Ethics
sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case
is on appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal,
the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and
the 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.
_______________
MARTELINO vs. ALEJANDRO
G.R No. L-30894, March 25, 1970
Facts:
Major Eduardo Martelino is charged with the violation of the
94th and 97th Articles of War, as a result of the alleged
shooting on March 18, 1968 of some Muslim recruits then
undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor.
On August 12, 1969 Martelino sought the disqualification of
the President of the general court-martial, following the
latter's admission that he read newspaper stories of the
Corregidor incident. Martelino contended that the case had
received such an amount of publicity in the press and other
news media and in fact was being exploited for political
purposes in connection with the presidential election on
November 11, 1969 as to imperil his right to a fair trial. After
deliberating, the military court denied the challenge.
Respondents assert that despite the publicity which the case
had received, no proof has been presented showing that the
court-martial's president's fairness and impartiality have
been impaired. On the contrary, they claim, the petitioner's
own counsel expressed confidence in the "integrity,
experience and background" of the members of the court.
Issue:
Whether the publicity given to the case against the
petitioners was such as to prejudice their right to a fair trial?
Held:
NO, the spate of publicity in this case did not focus 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.
If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, 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 venue or to
postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall
have subsided. Indeed we cannot say 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.
Granting the existence of "massive" and "prejudicial"
publicity, since the petitioners here do not contend that the
respondents have been unduly influenced but simply that
they might be by the "barrage" of publicity, we think that the
suspension of the court-martial proceedings has
accomplished the purpose sought by the petitioners'
challenge for cause, by postponing the trial of the petitioner
until calmer times have returned. The atmosphere has since
been cleared and the publicity surrounding the Corregidor
incident has so far abated that we believe the trial may now
be resumed in tranquility.
________________
CORDOVA v. HON. EMMA C. LABAYEN
249 SCRA 172
Facts:
Maribeth Cordova‘s mother was involved in an ejectment
case. When the mother died, they (present petitioners)
became the party in interest. They hired Atty. Salvador Sabio
as their legal counsel. When the municipal trial court
rendered a decision adverse to them (ordering their
ejectment and the payment of rental fee until they vacate it),
they appealed. However, the petitioners in that case
motioned for the issuance of the writ of execution, arguing
that while the party had appealed, they did not file a
supersedeas bond [a kind of surety bond that a court requires
from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment
until the appeal is over] or made a deposit every month of
the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land
from which they are ordered ejected, as required by the [old]
Rules of Court. On this ground, despite their appeal, the
court proceeded with the execution of judgment.
Cordova, thru Atty. Sabio appealed the decision to the RTC
and later on, the CA, arguing that the writ of execution is not
valid and illegal according to the Rules of Court, on the
ground that they have a pending appeal. However, the
Regional and Appellate Courts upheld the decision of the
MTC. Hence, the present case charges the Judges Labayen
and Moscardon with manifest partiality and breach of
7
Case digests
Legal Ethics
judicial trust, and with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to excess in jurisdiction.
The Court in this case required Atty. Sabio to show cause
why he should not be disciplined for violation of the CPR,
particularly Rules 1.02 and 1.03. In his answer, he asserted
that the writ of execution was issued pending appeal despite
the filing of a supersedeas bond and the payment of advance
rentals, and this was illegal, and constituted the charged
violations by the impleaded judges.
It is now alleged that Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of the
groundless accusations against the impleaded judges.
Issues:
1. WON Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of the present
charges against the judges;
2. 2. WON Atty. Sabio‘s act constitutes violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
Held:
1. Yes
2. Yes. Atty. Sabio is suspended for six months.
Ratio:
(1) Upon review of the rules of court, it is clear that the
judges acted in conformity with the rules, and in good
faith. It was too manifest that a lawyer like Atty. Sabio
could not have known that. The Court finds that the
actions of the impleaded judges are correct and in
accordance with law and existing rules of court.
In his response to the show-cause order, Atty. Sabio
averred that he was not given a copy of the court order
(writ of execution), so the same could not take effect.
That bad faith attended the filing of this administrative
charge was unwittingly disclosed by the allegations of
Atty. Sabio in this. No explanation was made by him
nor did he invoke any authority of law or jurisprudence,
since decidedly there is none, to support his theory that
execution should not issue where the adverse party is
not served a copy of the order even where the grant
thereof had become a matter of right. The inescapable
conclusion is that the filing of the present complaint
was, at the very least, ill-conceived and malicious, and
was resorted to as a last-ditch effort and a face-saving
recourse of counsel.
It must be noted that the administrative complaint was
filed only after the Court of Appeals had rendered a
decision. This in itself is already a clear indication that

the acts of the judges are valid and legal. Yet, Atty.
Sabio persisted in instituting these baseless charges to
their proven prejudice. As correctly observed by the
Bar Confidant, it is apparent that complainants decided
to institute the present case only on the advice and/or
upon the urging of Atty. Sabio.
(2) As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty
to assist in, not to impede or pervert, the administration
of justice (in relation to Canon 12). Lawyers should not
be filing totally baseless and unfounded charges against
judges and court personnel in a vain attempt to escape
the consequences of their own negligence or in an effort
to transgress the lawful orders of the court.
The present administrative charge seeks to cast doubt
on the integrity of the impleaded judges, the judicial
personnel and the court which they represent, in
flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a
lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to courts
of justice. Atty. Sabio thus deserves to be punished for
instigating the filing of an administrative complaint by
his clients, in the guise of upholding their rights but
actually to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court
orders and consequently obstruct the desirable norms
and course of justice.
(Note: The Court charged Sabio with violations of rules 1.02
and 1.03, but the statement in Ratio #2 is the most related
with Canon 12, under which this case had been assigned in
our syllabus).
_______________
PASCUAL V. LIM
G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012
Facts:
The present controversy involves a parcel of land located in
Valenzuela City registered under the name of the Spouses
Lim (or private respondents). On September 2004, the
petitioner filed before the Office of the Regional Agrarian
Reform (RARAD) for Region IV-A a petition to be
recognized as a tenant of a property located in Valenzuela
City against one Deato. At that time, the property was under
Deato’s name. During the pendency of the petition, Deato
sold the property to Spouses Lim. The sale was registered on
December 2004 leading to the issuance of a TCT in favor of
the private respondents. Thus, the petitioner filed a motion
on March 2005 to implead the Spouses Lim.
On December 2005, the petition was granted by the Regional
Adjudicator (RA). The dispositive portion of the decision
8
Case digests
Legal Ethics
includes, inter alia, that the petitioner is the tenant of the
subject land by succession from her deceased father and that
she should be subrogated to the rights of the private
respondents. The judgment of the RA became final. Thus,
Consolacion filed a motion for execution to which a writ of
execution was issued by the RA on January 2008. Seven
days after, the petitioner filed a petition against the private
respondents and the Registrar of Deeds praying for the
issuance of an order directing Spouses Lim to accept the
amount of P10million which she undertook to tender,
declare the property redeemed and cancel the TCT.
RARAD: The petition was given due course by the RA, the
dispositive portion of the decision stating that the property is
lawfully redeemed, ordering the private respondents to
accept the amount consigned with the DARAB, execute a
deed of redemption in favor of the petitioner and directing
the RD to cancel the TCT registered in the name of the
private respondents and issue a new one in favor of the
petitioner.
DARAB: The decision of RARAD was reversed.
Consolacion moved for reconsideration which the DARAB
denied.
CA: Consolacion filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court. The CA did not give due course to the
petition due to the following technical grounds: a) failure of
counsel to indicate in the petition his MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Exemption Number and b) the jurat of
Consolacion’s verification and certification against non-
forum-shopping failed to indicate any competent evidence
of Consolacion’s identity apart from her community tax
certificate.
She moved for reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
WON the petition should be denied due to the unexplained
failure to comply with basic procedural requirements of the
Rules of Court.
Ruling:
Yes, the petition should be denied.
Consolacion and her counsel claimed inadvertence and
negligence but they did not explain the circumstances
thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested
leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules
appears to be an afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. The
CA saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the
rules. Neither did the Court see any.

The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where
technicalities were liberally construed. However, in these
cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence
of a satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties
therein who prayed for liberal interpretation were able to
hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an
exceptional treatment. It was never the Court’s intent “to
forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with
impunity.”
This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards
procedural rules. It is the duty of every member of the bar
to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek
exceptions should they fail to observe these rules and
rationalize their omission by harking on liberal construction.
While it IS the negligence of Consolacion's counsel that led
to this unfortunate result, she is bound by such.
_______________
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK)
encountered financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended
considerable financial support to Filcapital Development
Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its
current account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans
GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. The
Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK
insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its
depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its
liquidation.
A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where
Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor
General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI
praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After
EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to
recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos,
his family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG
filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,
reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan,
at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage
of their close relationship and influence with former Pres.
Marcos.
The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented
as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG
filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel
for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was
alleged that Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central
9
Case digests
Legal Ethics
Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK
which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et. al.,
which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan
issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an
inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former
function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel
of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court
assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
Issue:
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. The
prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while
in the said service.”
Ruling:
The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect
of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no
adverse interest problem when he acted as SOlGen and later
as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan.
However there is still the issue of whether there exists a
“congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify
respondent Mendoza from representing respondents et. al.
The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes
and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter.
Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent
Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising
the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in
CFI of Manila. The Court held that the advice given by
respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that
“drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope
of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent
Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central
Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in
the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the
liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration
cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include

the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while
SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the
matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In the
metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable
meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional
Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to
influence the subject proceedings.
The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist
where the government lawyer does not act which can be
considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court
rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and
substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court
is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the
Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such
a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual
court litigator protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is
denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, having once held public
office or having been in the public employ, should not after
his retirement accept employment in connection with any
matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in
such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his
public position as a vehicle to promote or advance his private
interests extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in
which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes
this restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once
held public office.” A plain reading shows that the
interdiction;
1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the
government and
2. relates to his accepting “engagement or
employment” in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the service.
________________
IGOY vs. ATTY SORIANO
367 SCRA 70
10
Case digests
Legal Ethics
Facts:
Igoy was a petitioner in a certain case pending in the CA. He
later sought help from a friend to win his case in the event it
would lose in CA. The said friend introduced IGOY from
one of the alleged “JUSTICE” of the SC which later turned
out to be Atty Soriano. The “Justice” offered IGOY to help
him when his case reaches SC for a consideration of 20k.
When then they loss the case in CA, the “Justice” prepared
a petition for review for a consideration of another 20k.
When IGOY found out that the “Justice” is not really a
Justice, and when the petition for review was denied, IGOY
now filed this administrative case against ATTY SORIANO.
Held:
ATTY SORIANO is disbarred.
Rule 6.02. - A lawyer in the government service shall not use
his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
The foregoing command acquires particular significance
given the prevailing facts of this case considering that
respondent is a senior lawyer of this Court. It bears stressing
that government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost
fidelity to the public service, for public service is a public
trust. As such, government lawyers should be more sensitive
to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct
is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.
_______________
REYES, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA,
A.M. No. 1048, July 14, 1995
Facts:
Complainant reported to the NBI that he had been the victim
of extortion by respondent lawyer. An entrapment was set up
by the NBI. Complainant furnished the NBI agents several
peso bills for marking. The paper bills were sent to the
Forensic and Chemistry Division of the NBI and
subsequently returned to complainant for the use in the
entrapment. Complainant went to the respondent’s office
and thereafter handed to respondent the marked money
which he placed in his pocket. The NBI agents then
apprehended respondent and brought him to the NBI
Forensic and Chemistry Division for examination.
Respondent's hands were found positive of the yellow
florescent powder applied earlier to the marked money. The
NBI recommended the prosecution of respondent for
violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 and
recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of

administrative charges and the institution of disbarment
proceedings against him. In his answer to the complaint for
disbarment, respondent asserted that complainant
surreptitiously planted the marked money in his pocket
without his knowledge and consent. In a resolution dated
December 23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the
disbarment case to the Solicitor General for investigation,
report and recommendation. However, upon the adoption of
Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court., the case was
transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation
and disposition. On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente
Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
recommended that respondent be disbarred. Said
recommendation was approved by the IBP Board of
Governors in its resolution dated March 26, 1994.
Issue:
Whether or not the recommendation approved by the IBP
Board of Governors is correct?
Ruling:
Yes. Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government
official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as
a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground. The
extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct
as a public official, which also constitutes a violation of his
oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath, imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The
lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation
is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action.
________________
GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
45 SCRA 508
Facts:
Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during
his term, the Municipality of Numancia purchased
construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial
Development Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the
president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for
allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
particularly for willfully and unlawfully having financial or
pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in
connection with which said accused intervened or took part
11
Case digests
Legal Ethics
in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law
from having any interest.
Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest
from the corporation when he took his office as mayor; that
he sold his shares to his sister; he presented evidence to that
effect. The Solicitor General doubted said sale because it
was not registered in the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Further, the advertisement of Trigen in the
local rotary club shows that Trieste is the president of the
corporation.
In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The new
Sol-Gen gave credit to the arguments presented by Trieste as
it recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that
Trieste did divest his interest from the corporation by virtue
of his selling his shares to his sister; that said sale cannot be
doubted simply because it was not reported to the SEC; that
sales of stocks are not required to be reported in the SEC.
Issue:
Whether or not the recommendation of the Solicitor General
is correct.
Held:
Yes. The Solicitor General is well within his rights to make
such recommendation. A public prosecutor should not
hesitate to recommend to the court the accused’s acquittal if
the evidence in his possession shows that the accused is
innocent. If on appeal by the accused from a conviction by
the trial court he finds no legal basis to sustain the
conviction, he should not also hesitate to recommend that the
accused be acquitted.
_______________
COLLANTES vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON
A.C. No. 3056. August 16, 1991
Facts:
Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes
Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), filed an administrative case
against Atty. Renomeron, for the latter’s irregular actuations
with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163
pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor
of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
V&G complied with the desired requirements, however,
Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents
pending the compliance of the former with their “special

conditions”, which was that V&G should provide him with
weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus
P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the
sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or
GSIS representatives.
Renomeron formally denied the registration of the
documents. He himself elevated the question on the
registrability of the said documents to Administrator
Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator
then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still
refused the registration thereof but demanded from the
parties interested the submission of additional requirements
not adverted in his previous denial.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer,
may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as
a public official?
Held:
The Court ruled that Renomeron may be disciplined by the
Court as public official for his misconduct constituted a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court;
People vs. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The
lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation
is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983
Edition, pp. 66-67).
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of their official tasks
(Canon 6). As the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials requires public officials and employees
to process documents and papers expeditiously and prohibits
them from directly or indirectly having a financial or
material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of
their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or
anything of monetary value in the course of any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office, the
Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
(Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay
any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule
103).
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
12
Case digests
Legal Ethics
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility.)
This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent,
honorable, and reliable" may practice the profession of law
(Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293) for every lawyer must
pursue "only the highest standards in the practice of his
calling" (Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269,
278).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney
Renomeron committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble
calling of the law (Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142 SCRA
632; Court Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150
SCRA 269).
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron was disbarred from the
practice of law and his name was stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.
_______________
PNB VS. ATTY. TELESFORO CEDO
A.C. NO. 3701
Facts:
Respondent-lawyer was the former Asst. Vice-President of
the Asset Management Group of the complainant bank.
While he was still an employee, he facilitated in arranging
the sale of a steel sheet in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for a
certain amount of money and even noted a gate pass
authorizing the pull out of the sheets in a compound. When
a civil action was filed by the bank against Mrs. Ong Siy, the
respondent act as the counsel for the defendant after he
resigned from the complainant bank. Similarly when PNB
also file an administrative case against one of its employees,
respondent again was the counsel of the erring employee.
This prompted the complainant to file an administrative case
against the respondent lawyer in violation of Canon 6, Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional responsibility which
provides:
A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in
said service.
The Respondent admitted that he is the counsel for Ong Siy
but only with regards the execution pending appeal but did
not participate in the main litigation. He even alleged that he
never appeared in the case of Almeda against the bank.
 Case digests
Legal Ethics

While the law firm” Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo and Associates”

it is only Atty. Ferrer who handled the case and never been
form a partnership with Atty. Ferrer. Each of them handles
their cases separately and independently.

Held:

The court cited the case of Hilado vs. David.

"Communications between attorney and client are, in a great

number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of
entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known
facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of
dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature
suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the
trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the
complainant's cause."

Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent

utilized against his former client information given to him in
a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous
relationship should have precluded him from appearing as
counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case. In the
case ofHilado vs. David, supra, this Tribunal further said:

Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the bare

relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing
incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not
alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from
unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . It is
founded on principles of public policy, of good taste. As has
been said in another case, the question is not necessarily one
of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has
adhered to proper professional standard. With these thoughts
in mind, it behooves attorney, like Caesar's wife, not only to
keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double dealing. Only thus can
litigants. be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
attorneys which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice, It is unprofessional to represent
conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents
conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires
him to oppose. Respondent lawyer must be suspended for 3
years violation of Canon 6 of the CPR.

_______________

13