1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
1.b. SALAMIDA
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.
EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
AC-1928
December 19, 1980
FACTS:
 Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the
Philippines;
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of
the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to
the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys
for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's
constitution notwithstanding due notice;
 The respondent, however, objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A —
in accordance with which the Bar of the Philippines was integrated — and to the
provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws;
 The core of the respondent's arguments: the above provisions constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a
pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence
of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is
admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty
and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent
concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are
void and of no legal force and effect;
 The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his
name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among
the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is rather of an "administrative nature
pertaining to an administrative body.
ISSUES:
1. WON to compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of
his constitutional freedom to associate? (NO)
2. WON the questioned provision of the Rules of Court requiring payment of a
membership fee is void? (NO)
3. WON the enforcement of the penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation
of property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional
rights? (NO)
4. WON the Supreme Court has the power to strike the name of a lawyer from its
Roll of Attorneys? (YES)
RULING:
1. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is
not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which
every lawyer is a ready a member.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is
free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the
State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to
be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the
police power of the State.
2. Nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law
and the integration of the Philippine Bar. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed
imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the
objectives and purposes of integration.
3. It must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a property right but a
mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to
exact compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
4. It is sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment
and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are
indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the
authorities holding such are legion. Thus, the Court's jurisdiction was greatly
reinforced by our 1973 Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court the power
to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and the admission to the practice
of law and the integration of the Bar (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the
fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the legal profession is indeed
undoubtedly vested in the Court.
Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is hereby DISBARRED, and his name is hereby
ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
1.c. ABUDA
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Page 1 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND proposition in the common compliance that their issuance of the statement was in
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT” keeping with their duty to participate in the development of the legal system by
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the
March 8, 2011 administration of justice under Canon 4, the SC cannot agree that they have fulfilled
the same in keeping with the demands of Canon 1, 11, and 13 to give due respect to
FACTS: legal processes and the courts, and to avoid conduct that tends to influence the courts.
As members of the Bar, they cannot be selective regarding which canons to
Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. abide by given particular situations. With more reason that law professors are not
Executive Secretary, the counsel for the petitioners Atty. Harry Roque and Atty. allowed this indulgence, since they are expected to provide their students exemplars
Rommel Bagares therein filed, of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole and not just their preferred
portions thereof.
1) a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental responsibility No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause
of states in protecting its citizens’ human rights specifically pertaining to jus there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior
cogens norms; and, that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute.

2) a supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized

from different sources and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources
were twisted by the ponente to suit the arguments laid down in said
decision.

Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate the veracity of the

alleged plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly plagiarized sent their
respective letters to the Supreme Court. Due to this, the faculty of UP College of Law
came up with a statement (Restoring Integrity Statement), which alleged plagiarism
against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established fact, but as a
truth. Said statement was posted online and at the College’s bulletin board and was
submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause
Resolution directing respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
WON respondents as Members of the Bar should be disciplined? (YES)

RULING:
It would do well for the Court to remind respondents that, in view of the
broad definition of Cayetano vs Monsod, lawyers when they teach law are considered
engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in other disciplines and more that
lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the 1.d. AGBON
ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be AMADO T. DIZON, complainant, vs. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA
measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of A.C. No. 7676.
members of the Bar as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined June 10, 2014
with the fact they are lawyers. Even if the court was willing to accept respondents’

Page 2 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
FACTS:
 Amado Dizon alleged that he, along with his siblings engaged the services of
Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates to represent them in a case.
 The complainant claimed that Atty. De Taza demanded the sum of PhP75,000.00
from him to expedite the proceedings before the Court. This amount was over
and above the parties' stipulated retainer fee as evidenced by a contract.
 According to the complainant, unknown to him at that time was that, a month
earlier, Atty. De Taza had already demanded and received a total of
PhP800,000.00 from his sibling Aurora Dizon, for the same reason that Atty. De
Taza proffered to him, which was to expedite the proceedings of their case before
the Court.
 Handwritten receipts signed by Atty. Norlita De Taza were submitted by the
complainant.
 Later in 2007, the complainant learned that the Court had already denied the
petition on November 2006, contrary to Atty, De Taza’s representations that the
case was still pending.
 He tried to communicate with Atty. De Taza, but she could no longer be found.
 Thereafter, the complainant instituted a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
De Taza. He also attached checks and/or failed to pay off her debts to them.
 In its report and recommendation the IBP Commission on Bar discipline
recommended that Atty. De Taza be suspended for 2 years.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. De Taza should be held administratively liable for issuing bouncing
checks, demanding and/or receiving money from her clients under the guise of
having the proceeding before the court expedited? (YES)
RULING:
The Court acknowledges the fact that Atty. De Taza was NOT able to refute
the accusations against her. Numerous attempts were made to afford her an
opportunity to defend herself from the complainant’s allegations, but all these efforts
were only met with silence. Her failure and/or refusal to file a comment will not be a
hindrance for the Court to mete out an appropriate sanction.
The Court has time and again ruled that disciplinary proceedings are
investigations by the court to ascertain whether a lawyer is fit to be one. There is
neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein.
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount
of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, is required." Based on the documentary evidence submitted by the
complainant, it appears that Atty. De Taza manifested a propensity for borrowing
money, issuing bouncing checks and incurring debts which she left unpaid without
any reason.
Such conduct, while already off- putting when attributed to an ordinary
person, is much more abhorrent when the same is exhibited by a member of the Bar.
As a lawyer, Atty. De Taza must remember that she is not only a symbol but also an
instrument of justice, equity and fairness.
Atty. De Taza's actuations towards the complainant and his siblings were
even worse as she had the gall to make it appear to the complainant that the
proceedings before the Court can be expedited and ruled in their favor in exchange for
an exorbitant amount of money. Said scheme was employed by Atty. De Taza just to
milk more money from her clients. Without a doubt, Atty. De Taza's actions are
reprehensible and her greed more than apparent when she even used the name of the
Court to defraud her client.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the
disbarment or suspension of a lawyer for any of the following: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7)
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.
"Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only
upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important,
morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all
times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach." "The Judiciary has been
besieged enough with accusations of corruption and malpractice. For a member of the
legal profession to further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system with such
irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated."
All told, the Court holds that there is no reason to deviate from the report
and recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline which is to SUSPEND
Atty. De Taza from the practice of law for two years.
1.e. MACASA
STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET vs. ATTY. RONALD L.
GUAREN
A.C. No. 10164
March 10, 2014
FACTS:
Page 3 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Ronald L. Guaren was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months
by the IBP Board of Governors for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Despite the acceptance of P7,000.00 for the titling of complainant spouses Brunet's
lot, Atty. Guaren failed to perform his obligation and allowed 5 long years to elapse
without any progress in the titling of the lot. In addition, despite their attorney-client
relationship, Atty. Guaren appeared in a case against complainants without a written
consent from the latter.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Guaren is guilty of violating the CPR. (YES)

RULING:
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves.
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

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 diligence.

In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of
P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his
obligation to file the case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5
years.
Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and
diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.

Atty. Guaren is found guilty and is suspended from practice for 6 months. 1.f. EBIO
NENITA D. SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS
A.C. No. 10543
March 16, 2016

FACTS:
Complainant Sanchez charged respondent Atty Aguilos with misconduct for the
latter's refusal to return the amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for unfulfilled
professional services.

Page 4 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
She sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in the annulment
of her marriage with her estranged husband.
She alleged further that the respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his fee at
P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing; that she then gave to him
the initial amount of P90,000.00; that she had gone to his residence to inquire on the
developments in her case, but he told her that he would only start working on the case
upon her full payment of the acceptance fee; that she had only learned then that what
he had contemplated to file for her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the
annulment of her marriage; that he further told her that she would have to pay a
higher acceptance fee for the annulment of her marriage; that she subsequently
withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of the amounts already paid,
but he refused to do the same as he had already started working on the case; that she
had sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return of her
payment less whatever amount corresponded to the legal services he had already
performed.
In his answer, the respondent alleged that the complainant and her British
fiancee sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment of her
marriage; that based on his evaluation of her situation, the more appropriate case
would be one for legal separation anchored on the psychological incapacity of her
husband. Aguilos stated that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of paper because
the demand lacked basis in law. He wrote in the last part of his answer dated in
relation to the demand letter the following:
Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund dated
15 August 2005 as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her
counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ, who unskillfully relied on an unverified
information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its
rightful purpose.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct?
(YES)
2. WON he should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid? (YES)
RULING:
Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to
return the entire amount received from the client
The respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. He did not know the distinction between the grounds for legal
separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have been basic
and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either
causes of action.
He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may
render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards his professional colleague.
The Rules of Court mandates members of the Philippine Bar to "abstain from
all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation
of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged."
This duty of lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, whose Canon 8 provides: "A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel." Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 specifically
demands that: "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
He is reprimanded, with the stern warning that a repetition of the offense
will be severely punished.
1.g. DACILLO
ARNOLD PACAO vs. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS
A.C. No. 11246
June 14, 2016
FACTS:
Arnold’s wife, Mariadel, was charged for qualified theft before the
Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office by BHF Pawnshop. During the preliminary
investigation, Atty. Sinamar Limos appeared as counsel for BHF. To buy peace, the
complainant-initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty. Limos, for a possible
settlement.
Page 5 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

After a series of negotiation, Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is willing to accept
payment of P530,000, to be paid in four instalments. Later, Atty. Limos accepted the
amount of P200,000.00 as partial payment, in behalf of BHF, with an undertaking to
provide a signed affidavit of desistance, and a joint motion to compromise agreement.
Despite receipt of the amount, however, Atty. Limos failed to deliver on her
promise; she even tried to collect the next instalment but complainant refused. Arnold
was informed by Camille Bonifacio, BHF’s representative, that Atty. Limos was no
longer BHF’s counsel and was not authorized to negotiate any settlement nor receive
any money in behalf go BHF. She also told him that BHF did not receive the money
given to Atty. Limos.

ISSUE:
WON the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to
disbar Atty. Limos from the practice of law? (YES)

RULING:

The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section 27,[18]
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court, however, does not hesitate to
impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.
Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of Atty. Limos' prior
misconduct which grossly degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the
ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted.

“The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those
who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by
law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions.” “Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most
sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men
in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to
ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office, and sets a 1.h. SALAMIDA
pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.” ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA
A.C. No. 11350
Indeed, Atty. Limos has disgraced the legal profession. The facts and evidence August 9, 2016
obtaining in this case definitely establish her failure to live up to her duties as a
lawyer in accordance with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional FACTS:
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby making her unworthy  Complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre filed a complaint for disbarment against
respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera alleging that he called respondent and asked for
to continue as a member of the bar.
help in his application for a work permit from the Bureau of Immigration;
 He paid respondent P10,000 as professional fee;
 The second time they met, complainant gave respondent another P10,000
together with his passport for the processing of his work permit;

Page 6 of 7
1 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

 The third time, respondent asked complainant to submit ID photos and asked for Respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
another P10,000 but complainant refused to pay since they only agreed on the for three (3) years and ordered to RETURN to complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre the
amount of P20,000; amount of ₱28,000.00 with interest.
 Respondent also asked for an additional P8,000 for the other case involving the
complainant he was working on;
 Complainant claims that after respondent received the money, he never received
any updates on the status of his work permit and pending court case. Further,
whenever he called respondent to follow up on his work permit, respondent
hurled invectives at him and threatened him and his wife;
 The Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent’s suspension for two
(2) years from the practice of law and the return of P28,000 to complainant;
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and approved
the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation, but modified to disbar
respondent from the practice of law.

ISSUE:
WON the acts of Atty. Rivera warrants disbarment? (NO)

RULING:
Atty. Rivera failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence, and diligence.
He not only neglected the attorney-client relationship established between them; he
also acted in reprehensible manner towards complainant. Respondent’s behavior
demonstrates his lack of integrity and moral soundness.
Although nothing in the records showed whether the court case was indeed
decided in complainant’s favor, respondent’s act of soliciting money to bribe a judge
served to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the impression that court cases
are won by the party with the deepest pockets and not on the merits.
By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the sum of P8,000,
respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence
on the judiciary. This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting
in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his character.
To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the
high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity_ and fair
dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this
standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an
appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in
consideration of the surrounding facts.
“A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Further, “a lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.”

Page 7 of 7