PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC | “In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.

” -Earl Warren
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS appearance fee and that he also threatened to file a case if the
complainant would not confer with him and settle the matter
SPECIFIC AREAS within 30 days.

OBSERVANCE OF LAW AND COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S ORDER Respondent alleged that complainant, Federico Ramos, who was
OR PROCESS deaf and could only speak conversational Tagalog haltingly,
assisted by his brother, Dionisio, went to his Makati office to
TABLE OF CONTENTS engage his professional services in connection with the said 2-
1. Ramos v. Ngaseo (A.C. No. 6210) 1 hectare land which the complainant's family lost 7 years earlier
2. Umale v. Villamor, Jr. (G.R. No. 171634) 2 through an execution sale in favor of one Alfredo Castro. No
3. Heirs of Carlos v. Linsangan (A.C. No.11494) 5 lawyer in San Carlos City was willing to handle the case.
4. Sps. Partoza v. Montano, et al. (Re: CA-G.R. CV No. 96282) 7 Complainant avers that he has consulted 2 local lawyers but
5. Dimayuga v. Rubia (A.C. No. 8854) 8 did not engage their services because they were demanding
6. Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho (A.C. No. 10498) 9 exorbitant fees. Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
7. Zafra III v. Pagatpatan (A.C. No. 12457) 10 acceptance fee of P60,000.00 plus an appearance fee of
8. Rodil v. Corro, et al. (A.C. No. 10461) 11 P3,000.00 per hearing.
9. Justice Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon (A.C. No.12415) 14
10. In re: Atty. Leon Maquera (B.M. No. 793) 16 Six months later, complainant, assisted by one Jose Castillo,
11. In re: Haron S. Meling (B.M. No. 1154) 17 went to respondent's office to discuss the legal fees.
12. Yap v. Buri (A.C. No. 11156) 18 Complainant was willing to pay an acceptance fee of
13. Fabugais v. Faundo, Jr. (A.C. No. 10145) 19 P40,000.00, P20,000.00 of which shall be paid upon
14. Sanidad v. Aguas (A.C. No. 9838) 20 engagement and the remaining P20,000.00 to be paid after
15. Bunagan-Bansig v. Celera (A.C. No. 5581) 21 their treasure hunt operations in Nueva Viscaya were terminated.
16. Valdez v. Dabon, Jr. (A.C. No. 7353) 23 He offered, in lieu of P3,000.00 per appearance, 1,000 sq. m.
17. Castillo-Macapuso v. Castillejos, Jr. (A.M. No. P-19-3985) 24 of land from the land subject matter of the case, if they win,
18. HDI Holdings, Phil., Inc. v. Cruz (A.C. No. 11724) 25 or from another piece of property, if they lose. In addition,
19. Turla v. Caringal (A.C. No. 11641) 27 complainant also offered to defray the expenses for
20. Lim v. Mendoza (A.C. No. 10261) 28 transportation, meals and other incidental expenses.
21. Nulada v. Paulma (A.C. No. 8172) 30
22. Barrios v Martinez (A.C. No. 4585) 31 Respondent claims that after the trial court dismissed Civil Case
23. Soriano v. Dizon (A.C. No. 6792) 33 No. SCC 2128, he led a timely notice of appeal and thereafter
moved to be discharged as counsel because he had colon
cancer. Complainant, now assisted by one Johnny Ramos,
implored respondent to continue handling the case, with an
1. Ramos v. Ngaseo (A.C. No. 6210) offer to double the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land earlier promised
and the remaining balance of P20,000.00 acceptance fee and a
FACTS: written commitment and P3,850.00 for the expenses of the
preparation of the appellant's brief.
Complainant Federico Ramos engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Patricio Ngaseo as counsel in a case involving a piece of land in The Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision ordering the
San Carlos, Pangasinan. The latter agreed to handle the case for an return of the disputed land to the complainant, which became
acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fee of P1,000.00 per final and executory on January 18, 2002. Since then
hearing and the cost of meals, transportation and other incidental complainant allegedly failed to contact respondent so he send a
expenses. Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay the demand letter on January 29, 2003.
respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance fees.
On February 14, 2003, complainant led a complaint before the
Upon inquiry of the complainant about the status of the case, he was IBP charging his former counsel, respondent Atty. Ngaseo, of
informed that the decision was adverse to them because a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
congressman exerted pressure upon the trial judge. Respondent demanding the delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which
however assured him that they could still appeal the adverse was the subject of litigation.
judgment and asked for the additional amount of P3,850.00 and
another P2,000.00 as allowance for research made. In a report by IBP Commissioner Villanueva-Maala found the
respondent guilty of grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming
Although an appeal was led, complainant however charges the of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional
respondent of purposely failing to submit a copy of the summons Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended from the
and copy of the assailed decision and alleged that the respondent practice of law for 1 year which was adopted by the IBP Board
led the notice of appeal 3 days after the lapse of the of Governors with a modification of 6 months suspension.
reglementary period.
Respondent led a petition for review assailing the said decision.
On January 29, 2003, complainant received a demand-letter from He argued that he did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil
the respondent asking for the delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece Code because when he demanded the delivery of the 1,000 sq.
of land which he allegedly promised as payment for respondent's m. of land the case has been terminated. Respondent further

EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020 Page 1 of 34

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
contends that he can collect the unpaid appearance fee even
without a written contract on the basis of the principle of
quantum meruit. He claims that his acceptance and appearance
fees are reasonable because a Makati based legal practitioner would
not handle a case for an acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and
P1,000.00 per court appearance.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Article 1491 of the Civil Code.
RULING:
NO. Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited
from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or
rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they
intervene by virtue of their profession. The prohibition on purchase
is all embracing to include not only sales to private individuals but
also public or judicial sales.
The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy
disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
involved (trust and confidence, partnership bitch, you gots this) It is
founded on public policy because by virtue of his office, an
attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance
of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his
client.
The said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the
property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving
the client's property. Consequently, where the property is acquired
after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5,
Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
ITCAB, there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation
since the respondent only made a written demand for its delivery
which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for delivery
of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership,
hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of
Article 1491.
Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is
unethical, respondent's act does not fall within the purview of
Article 1491. The letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was
made long after the judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became
final and executory on January 18, 2002.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Patricio A.
Ngaseo is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the
legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon 20 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a
warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
severely.
NOTE: The violation of the respondent of Canon 20, CPR was not
discussed in the case.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
2. Umale v. Villamor, Jr. (G.R. No. 171634)
FACTS:
The factual background of the Complaint was culled from the facts
stated in petitioner's Complaint in Civil Case No. 70251, entitled
Leonardo S. Umale v. Atty. Alfredo Villamor, Jr., et al., which was
filed by petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
PETITIONER ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING:
Petitioner stated that there was this “Payanig Property” which
belongs to Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation (Mid-Pasig).
The latter is a corporation surrendered by the Campos family to the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Since
obtaining control of the Payanig property, the PCGG, through Mid-
Pasig, has leased, and granted options to lease parcels of the said
property. The Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC) was awarded a lease
contract over a 5,000-square-meter property located along Meralco
Avenue.
Petitioner alleged that sometime in 2003, PPC officers approached
him with a proposal for a business venture for the development of
property. He expressed his interest to develop not only the 5,000-
square-meter property, but also other parcels of land within the
Payanig property, some of which were under litigation. PPC agreed
to negotiate with Mid-Pasig for the right over these other parcels of
land. In exchange for petitioner's commitment to develop the 5,000-
square-meter property, now known as Metrowalk, PPC allegedly
committed to deliver to petitioner the proceeds obtained from some
of these litigated parcels of land.
Petitioner also alleged that during the development of the
property occupied by Metrowalk, the former and PPC worked to
obtain rights to the other litigated parcels of the Payanig Property,
including the land occupied by MC Home Depot. The rights to MC
Home Depot was being litigated with a former lease holder, Rockland
Construction Company. In consideration of petitioner's efforts, work
and investment, PPC allegedly agreed that in the event that it
obtained any rights or interests, concessions, option, contract and/or
proceeds in relation to the parcel of land occupied by MC Home
Depot, the said rights or interest would belong to petitioner, and that
any proceeds and/or checks obtained would be remitted immediately
to petitioner as the beneficial owner.
After negotiations with Mid-Pasig for an option to lease the property
occupied by MC Home Depot, petitioner stated that he used his
personal funds to pay to Mid-Pasig, the option money for the lease
of the said property. That to protect his interest in the MC Home
Depot property, petitioner allegedly requested respondent
Atty. Alfredo Villamor, Jr., a lawyer he personally knew and who
was acceptable to all investors whom he transacted with, to
negotiate and act in his behalf and PPC in relation to the MC
Home Depot property. Respondent allegedly knew about the
agreement between petitioner and PPC.
Petitioner allegedly required respondent to insist that any
agreement with MC Home Depot, Inc. must contain two conditions:
(1) that in the event of default in payments, petitioner's personal
lawyer, Atty. E. Hans S. Santos, would have the right and authority
to recover actual possession over the property, and that this
authority could not be rescinded or revoked without the consent of
Atty. E. Hans S. Santos; and, (2) that all check payments be issued
payable to "Cash" and not payable to PPC, so that these checks
could be immediately turned over and delivered to petitioner who
Page 2 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
could encash, negotiate them or rediscount them as he saw fit.
Petitioner stated that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between PPC and MC Home Depot, Inc., included these two conditions.
Moreover, under the terms of the MOA, MC Home Depot, Inc. agreed
to pay PPC P4.5 million per month for the next four years for the
use and occupation of the property, and P18 million as goodwill.
Pursuant to the agreement, the officers of MC Home Depot, Inc.
issued a total of 20 pay-to-cash checks in payment for the
agreed monthly rate and for goodwill. Respondent allegedly
received these checks from MC Home Depot, Inc. on behalf of petitioner
as the beneficial owner.
Petitioner alleged that three of the 20 checks were promptly turned
over to him, and also all proceeds in relation to the MC Home Depot
property. However, the respondent continued to hold on to the
other 17 checks which were not turned over by the respondent
despite repeated demands. Subsequently, the respondent delivered
only two checks.
According to petitioner, the crux of the dispute in Civil Case No.
70251 was respondent's refusal to deliver to him checks and
proceeds from MC Home Depot, Inc. issued and given pursuant
to the MOA claiming that respondent received those checks and
proceeds in trust for him (petitioner), as respondent was fully aware
of the arrangement between him (petitioner) and PPC.
Further, petitioner contended that in regard to his application for
preliminary mandatory injunction/temporary restraining order in Civil
Case No. 70251, respondent filed an Opposition thereto justifying his
refusal to deliver the amounts demanded on the grounds that:
1. Respondent received the checks for and on behalf of PPC as its
attorney-in-fact.
2. PPC has an ostensible right to the checks under the provisions of
the contract.[3]
3. The contract was between the issuer of the checks, MC Home
Depot, Inc., and PPC, represented therein by respondent, and
petitioner was not a party to the agreement between MC Home Depot,
Inc. and PPC.
Petitioner further contended that the rights and interests of PPC
over the proceeds from MC Home Depot Inc. was waived, assigned and
transferred to the Defensor Briones Villamor and Tolentino Law Offices
without any consideration per the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Board of Directors of PPC. That as petitioner learned that respondent
never delivered or turned over to PPC any amount received by him from
MC Home Depot, Inc, petitioner sent a demand letter to respondent
requiring an explanation for the waiver, as well as the misrepresentation
in the pleadings, but respondent failed and refused to explain why they
failed to remit the proceeds to him or to PPC.
Petitioner claimed that respondent lied in his pleadings in Civil
Case No. 70251, stating that he was an attorney-in-fact of PPC,
when respondent allegedly knew that he was not, which was violative
of the duty of respondent as a lawyer to be truthful to the courts,
and truthful in his pleadings.
Petitioner also contended that whether he or PPC is the client, the fact
remains that respondent kept the proceeds from MC Home Depot,
Inc, which he admittedly received, and respondent did not turn
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
over the checks to him or to PPC, his alleged principal, in
violation of his duty and responsibility as a lawyer.
In addition, petitioner stated that it appeared from the Minutes of
the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of PPC that the fees
due to the Defensor Briones Villamor and Tolentino Law Offices for
legal services performed for PPC amounts to over P200 million.
Petitioner contended that the amount received and pocketed by
respondent and/or the Defensor Briones Villamor and Tolentino Law
Offices is staggering, shocking and unconscionable, and
violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states, "A
lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees."
RESPONDENT’S SIDE:
Respondent denied that the complaint was instituted for a valid
cause, and stated that it was another harassment suit filed against
him by petitioner. He stated that in Civil Case No. 70251 before the
RTC of Pasig City, petitioner failed to obtain a temporary
restraining order and he has not been granted any
provisional remedy with respect to the checks being claimed
by him.
Respondent categorically denied the charge of deliberate
misrepresentation made in the pleadings. He asserted that the
pleadings clearly showed that the legal arguments advanced therein
were to oppose petitioner's application for injunctive writ and
temporary restraining order.
Respondent stated that whatever rights PPC had under the "Option
to Lease that portion of the property commonly known as the MC
Home Depot '' were subject of waiver, assignment and transfer in his
favor, acting as counsel for an undisclosed client. He stated that
PPC's rights were then subject of pending litigation between
claimants and there was nothing certain and definite as to whether
PPC would be able to obtain possession of the MC Home Depot
property without it incurring more expenses due to the pending
litigation involving the right to possession of the said property; thus,
PPC did not see any practical and beneficial outcome from the said
option. Insofar as the MC Home Depot property was concerned, PPC
did not pay anything therefore nor lost anything by the waiver in
favor of the respondent.
Respondent alleged that in consideration of the waiver by PPC, he
strove to obtain legal possession of the MC Home Depot property
and was successful in defeating other claimants thereto. To protect
the rights of PPC regarding the MC Home Depot property,
respondent dealt with the owner of MC Home Depot property, Mid-
Pasig, for the purpose of formalizing a lease contract over the MC
Home Depot property and the acceptance by Mid-Pasig of
respondent's offer of reasonable compensation for the use of the MC
Home Depot property.
Respondent contended that he has not committed any violation
of any provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and any of
his sworn responsibilities and duties encompassed in his oath as a
lawyer.
Respondent averred that he had no duty to remit, either to
petitioner or to PPC any premiums or rentals from the MC
Home Depot property. Respondent stated that with respect to the
premiums and rentals and/or checks due from the MC Home Depot
Page 3 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
property for the period from December 2004 up to October 2005, he
acted as lawyer for a client with regard to the premiums and
rentals or checks due from the MC Home Depot property, and he
is barred and prevented by his confidential relations with his
said client to disclose, without permission from the client, any
communications which he and his client may have made regarding the
subject of the lawyer-client relationship.
IBP-COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE:
The Commissioner stated that the two issues to be settled in this case
are: (1) the alleged non-remittance by respondent to petitioner of
the rental proceeds from the MC Home Depot, Inc.; and (2) the
alleged misrepresentation by respondent as to his relation with PPC.
Commissioner submitted that respondent did not commit any act for
which he should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned, and
recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit, to wit:
FIRST ISSUE: the petitioner claimed that the checks received by the
respondent should have been remitted to him as the "beneficial owner."
However, the petitioner did not adduce any documentary or
testimonial evidence showing that he is the real or intended
beneficiary of the MOA. He found it strange that a commercial and
business transaction worth more or less P200 million would have no
signed documentation to show petitioner's beneficial ownership
or other financial interest. He averred that PPC could have validated
petitioner's undocumented claim that he is the "beneficial owner" of the
subject checks, but it did not do so.
SECOND ISSUE: The misrepresentations were not satisfactorily
established. The Commissioner observed that the reading of the said
pleadings showed that they were not signed by the respondent.
Moreover, assuming that respondent did claim and act as
attorney-in-fact of PPC, it could not be readily said that this
position would conflict with the waiver, assignment and transfer of
PPC's interests to respondent's law firm and, therefore, constitute
misrepresentation. That respondent's receipt of the checks had not been
repudiated or challenged by PPC or by respondent's law firm; thus, it
could be concluded that respondent's receipt of the checks was with the
consent and agreement of both PPC and respondent's law firm. Any
irregularity in the respondent's behavior should have been challenged by
either PPC or the respondent's law firm, as they were the parties that
would be directly affected by any misrepresentation on the part of the
respondent.
Further, the Commissioner averred that whether respondent received
the checks on behalf of PPC or on behalf of respondent's law firm was
immaterial to petitioner, who was not party in the said agreement. The
assignee and transferee were the respondent's law firm and not the
respondent himself.
The Board of Governors of the IBP passed the Resolution dismissing
the case for lack of merit.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Villamor, Jr. committed violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
2) Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Villamor, Jr. should be held accountable
for his claim of having acquired the interest of his supposed client over
the property that is a subject of litigations?
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
RULING:
The Supreme Court (SC) denied the petition.
FIRST ISSUE: NO.
The pleadings in Civil Case No. 70251 referred to by petitioner were
respondent's Opposition (To Application for Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Mandatory
Injunction) and his Memorandum (Opposition to Application for
Temporary Restraining Order) which was not given merit by the
Court. By his complaint, plaintiff has not shown any present, clear,
and unmistakable right to be protected. On the contrary, it is
defendant Villamor who appears to have a clear and present
right under the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement.
It is defendant Villamor, as attorney-in-fact of the Pasig Printing
Corporation (PPC), or, more properly, it is Pasig Printing Corporation
(PPC) itself who has an ostensible right to the checks under the
provisions of the contract attached to the complaint. Even plaintiff
himself acknowledged that "under the terms of said agreement, MC
Home Depot, Inc. agreed to pay PPC the amount of Four Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP4,500,000.00) per month, for the next
four years, for the use and occupation of the MC Home property,
and the payment of Eighteen Million Pesos (PHP 18,000,000.00) as
goodwill," and that pursuant to said Agreement, MC Home Depot,
Inc. and its officers issued a total of twenty (20) pay to cash checks
in payment for the agreed monthly rate, and for the goodwill, all of
which checks were received by defendant Villamor from MC Home
Depot, Inc.
The Court found that the statement, "it is defendant Villamor, as
attorney-in-fact of the Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC), or, more
properly, it is Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC) itself who has an
ostensible right to the checks under the provisions of the contract
attached to the complaint," is not cause for administrative
sanction by the Court as it did not appear to mislead the RTC
of Pasig City, in its decision on petitioner's application for a
temporary restraining order in Civil Case No. 70251. In fact, the
respondent stated therein that PPC had the right to the checks
under the provisions of the contract, which was correct
under the MOA. It was within the discretion of the respondent's
counsel to determine whether or not to mention in the said
Opposition the supposed waiver of rights of PPC over the MC Home
Depot Property in favor of his law office. In fact, mentioning the said
waiver would bolster the claim of respondent that petitioner is not
entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
Under the MOA, wherein PPC was represented by respondent, PPC
has the right to payment by MC Home Depot, Inc. for the use and
occupation of the property sub-leased. It appeared that PPC
allowed respondent to collect the checks and proceeds from
MC Home Depot, Inc., which may have led to the statement in the
aforementioned Opposition that it is defendant Villamor, as attorney-
in-fact of the Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC), or, more properly, it
is Pasig Printing Corporation (PPC) itself who has an ostensible right
to the checks under the provisions of the contract (MOA) attached to
the complaint.
On the other hand, it is alleged that under the PPC Board Resolution,
PPC waived its rights over the MC Home Depot property in favor of
respondent's law office, the Defensor Briones Villamor and Tolentino
Page 4 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
Law Offices. Thus, respondent found support in the said waiver to
assert that petitioner is not entitled to the checks and proceeds
from MC Home Depot, Inc. and that whatever rights PPC had
under the Option to Lease the MC Home Depot property were
subject of "waiver, assignment and transfer" in his favor, acting
as counsel for an undisclosed client. However, it should be pointed
out that the validity of the waiver is still the subject of a pending intra-
corporate case entitled Balmores v. Ignacio, et al., wherein
petitioner therein prayed, among others, for the annulment of the Board
Resolution.
Hence, the SC agreed with the IBP Board of Governors and the
Commission on Bar Discipline that there was no misrepresentation on
the part of the respondent.
Petitioner also contended that respondent did not turn over the subject
checks to him or to PPC in violation of respondent's duty as a lawyer
Petitioner failed to present evidence showing that he was
entitled to the checks from MC Home Depot, Inc., pursuant to
the MOA. The MOA did not state that petitioner was the "beneficial
owner" of the checks, and petitioner was not a party to the agreement.
As regards the issue on the non-delivery of the subject checks to
PPC, the same is still the subject of a pending intra-corporate case
seeking, among others, the annulment of the Board Resolution, which
board resolution waived the rights of PPC over the MC Home Depot
property in favor of respondent's law office.
SECOND ISSUE: NO.
Petitioner cited Ordonio vs. Eduarte and Bautista vs. Gonzales, which
held that under Article 1491 of the New Civil Code, lawyers are
prohibited from acquiring by assignment property and rights which may
be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of
their profession.
However, the cases cited by petitioner involved the prohibited acquisition
by a lawyer of his client's property that was the object of the litigation in
which the lawyer represented his client. However, in the case at bar, the
property occupied by MC Home Depot is registered under Mid-
Pasig, and the records show that the litigation over the property
was between Rockland Construction Company, Inc. and Mid-
Pasig. Petitioner failed to prove that the respondent's case is
within the ambit or is violative of the New Civil Code.
3. Heirs of Carlos v. Linsangan (A.C. No. 11494)
FACTS:
The parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntilupa City was previously
owned by the Spouses Felix and Felipa Carlos. Their son, Teofilo Carlos
(Teofilo), convinced them to transfer said title to his name with a promise
to distribute the same to his brothers and sisters. Teofilo delivered the
owner's duplicate copy of the title to his brother, Juan. However, Teofilo
sold the entire property to Pedro Balbanero (Pedro). Pedro, however,
failed to pay the agreed installment payments.
For purposes of recovering the subject property from Teofilo (and
Teofilo's supposed wife, Felicidad), and from Pedro, Juan engaged the
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
services of Atty. Linsangan. It appears that Atty. Linsangan, for
Juan, filed the following cases: (a) a case against Felicidad which
was settled with the latter acknowledging Juan's one-half interest
and ownership over the property; (b) a case against Pedro which
was concluded on September 12, 1997; and (c) another case
against Felicidad, albeit filed by another lawyer who acted under
the direct control and supervision of Atty. Linsangan. In this case
against Felicidad, it appears that the other half of the property
was adjudicated to Juan, as Teofilo's sole heir. Said adjudication
was appealed to the CA.
It further appears that Atty. Linsangan represented Juan in the
following cases, likewise all involving the subject property: (a) an
action for partition filed by Bernard Rillo against Pedro; (b) an
ejectment case filed by Juan against Pedro; and (c) Juan's
intervention in the case between Pedro and Teofilo.
It finally appears that Atty. Linsangan also represented Juan in the
certiorari cases and petitions for review filed before the CA and
this Court, likewise involving the same property.
During the pendency of the above cases, or on September 22,
1997, Atty. Linsangan and Juan executed a Contract for
Professional Services enumerating the above cases being handled
by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. In said Contract, Atty. Linsangan and
Juan agreed, as follows:
CLIENT hereby confirms and
ratifies that he has agreed and bound
himself to pay ATTORNEY a contingent fee
in an amount equivalent to FIFTY PERCENT
(50%) of the market value of the property,
or portion thereof, which may be recovered,
or the zonal value thereof, whichever is
higher.
xxx xxx xxx
However, it was not only Juan who went after the property, but
also Bernard Rillo and Alicia Carlos, a sister-in-law. The latter also
filed an action for recovery of their share and by Compromise
Agreement, an area of 2,331 square meters was awarded in their
favor, leaving a 10,000 square meter portion of the property.
This remaining 10,000 square meter portion was eventually
divided in the case filed by Juan against Felicidad (which Atty.
Linsangan admits to have filed albeit through another lawyer who
acted under his control and supervision), through a Compromise
Agreement wherein 7,500 square meters of the subject property
was given to the heirs of Juan while the remaining 2,500 square
meters thereof was given to Felicidad. In said Compromise
Agreement, the parties likewise agreed to waive as against each
other any and all other claims which each may have against the
other, including those pending in the CA and this Court. This
Compromise Agreement was approved by the trial court on
December 11, 2009.
Subsequently, a Supplemental Compromise Agreement dated
December 16, 2009 was submitted by the heirs of Juan and Atty.
Linsangan, dividing among them the 7,500 square meter-portion of
the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the heirs of Juan
and 3,750 square meters to to Atty. Linsangan pursuant to the
Contract for Professional Services.
Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement was likewise approved
by the trial court in its Decision dated December 18, 2009. There
was no mention in the record, however, that the Compromise
Page 5 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
Agreement and the Supplemental Compromise Agreement were
likewise presented for approval before the several courts where the
other cases were pending.
On December 10, 2015, Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale with a certain Helen S. Perez (Helen) covering the entire 12,331
square meters of the subject property for a purchase price of One
Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (PhP150,000,000). Atty. Linsangan sold
the entire property.
Upon learning of the sale, complainants allegedly requested from Atty.
Linsangan for their shares in the proceeds and for the copies of the
Special Power of Attorney as well as the case records, but that Atty.
Linsangan refused. Complainants also requested from Atty. Linsangan,
this time through another lawyer, Atty. Victor D. Aguinaldo, that their
shares in the subject property be at least segregated from the portion
sold.
On August 20, 2016, complainants wrote a letter to Atty. Linsangan
revoking the Special Power of Attorney which they executed in the
latter's favor. In said letter, complainants accused Atty. Linsangan of
conniving with their mother, Bella N. Vda. De Carlos, in submitting the
Compromise Agreement and in selling the subject property.
Complainants, however, recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which
they proposed that the latter be paid on the basis of quantum meruit
instead of fifty percent (50%) of the subject property.
Subsequently, or in September 2016, complainants filed the instant
administrative complaint against Atty. Linsangan accusing the latter of
forcing them to sign pleadings filed in court, copies of which were not
furnished them; of selling the subject property in cahoots with their
mother; of evading the payment of income taxes when he
apportioned his share in the subject property to his wife and children.
By way of Comment, Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental
Compromise Agreement was never questioned by the complainants
until now and that they had never requested for a copy thereof from
him. Atty. Linsangan admits that the subject of the sale with Helen is
the property in Alabang, Muntinlupa City and that complainants were
not given a share from the payments because such were specifically
made applicable to his and his family's share in the subject property
only. Atty. Linsangan also contends that the proposal that he be paid
on the basis of quantum meruit is only for the purpose of reducing his
50% share as stated in the Contract for Professional Services he
executed with Juan, so that the balance thereof may accrue to
complainants.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent is guilty of violating his lawyer's oath.
RULING: YES.
After a careful review of the record of the case, the Court finds that
respondent committed acts in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby
warranting the Court's exercise of its disciplinary power.
The record shows and Atty. Linsangan does not deny, that while the
cases involving the subject property were still pending resolution and
final determination, Atty. Linsangan entered into a Contract for
Professional Services with Juan wherein his attorney's fees shall be
that equivalent to 50% of the value of the property, or a portion
thereof, that may be recovered. It is likewise not denied by Atty.
Linsangan that he apportioned upon himself, and to his wife and
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
children, half of the property awarded to complainants as heirs of
Juan, through a Supplemental Compromise Agreement. Similarly,
such Supplemental Compromise Agreement was entered into by
Atty. Linsangan and the heirs of Juan concurrently with the
pendency of several cases before the CA and this Court involving
the very same property. What is more, Atty. Linsangan, probably
anticipating that he may be charged of having undue interest over
his client's property in litigation, caused another lawyer to appear
but all the while making it absolutely clear to Juan that the latter's
appearance was nevertheless under Atty. Linsangan's "direct
control and supervision." acEHCD
Plainly, these acts are in direct contravention of Article 1491 (5) of
the Civil Code which forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase
or assignment, the property that has been the subject of litigation
in which they have taken part by virtue of their profession. While
Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states
that "[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject
matter of the litigation which he is conducting," is no longer
reproduced in the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
such proscription still applies considering that Canon 1 of the CPR
is clear in requiring that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
process" and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to take
an oath to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein."Here, the law transgressed by Atty.
Linsangan is Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, in violation of his
lawyer's oath.
What is more, Atty. Linsangan, at the guise of merely waiving
portions of the subject property in favor of his wife and children,
actually divided his attorney's fee with persons who are not
licensed to practice law in contravention of Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
the CPR.
Another misconduct committed by Atty. Linsangan was his act of
selling the entire 12,331 square meters property and making it
appear that he was specifically authorized to do so by
complainants as well as by the other persons to whom portions of
the property had been previously adjudicated. However, a perusal
of the supposed Special Power of Attorney attached to the Deed
of Absolute Sale, save for that executed by his wife and children,
only authorizes Atty. Linsangan to represent complainants in the
litigation of cases involving Juan's properties. Nothing in said
Special Power of Attorney authorizes Atty. Linsangan to sell the
entire property including complainants' undivided share therein.
Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having received the
downpayment for the property from Helen. Atty. Linsangan does
not also deny failing to give complainants' share for the reason
that he applied said payment as his share in the property. In so
doing, Atty. Linsangan determined all by himself that the
downpayment accrues to him and immediately appropriated the
same, without the knowledge and consent of the complainants.
Such act constitutes a breach of his client's trust and a violation of
Canon 16 of the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer is not entitled to
unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere
fact that the client owes him attorneys fees. The failure of an
attorney to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to
the prejudice and violation of the general morality, as well as of
professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment. In short, a lawyer's
Page 6 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this
case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan LIABLE for violations
of his lawyer's oath, Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02,
Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) months
4. Sps. Partoza v. Montano, et al. (Re: CA-G.R. CV No. 96282)
DOCTRINE: A recalcitrant lawyer who defies the directives of the court
"must deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the
higher ends of justice."
FACTS: (takenote of the resolutions of CA)
Bayani and Myrna Partoza (SPS PARTOZA) filed against Lilia Montano and
Amelia Solomon a civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of REM,
Reconveyance of TCT and Damages was filed by the spouses Bayani and
Myrna M. Partoza (spouses Partoza). The case was dismissed by the RTC.
Therefore, a notice of appeal (docketed as CA G.R.CV No. 96282) was
filed by counsel on record, Atty. Samson Villanueva (ATTY. VILLANUEVA).
April of 2011, Atty. Villanueva filed his withdrawal of Appearance;
subsequently, a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief,
was also filed. Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal carried the conformity of
the appellant's attorney-in-fact, Honnie Partoza (Honnie) who, on the
same occasion, also acknowledged receipt of the entire records of the
case from Atty. Villanueva.
Thereafter, Respondent Atty. Santamaria (RESPONDENT) submitted an
Appellant's Brief dated July 4, 2011. (he’s the substitute counsel of the
Partoza)
In a Resolution dated August of 2011, the CA directed Atty.
Villanueva within 5 days to submit proof of authority of Honnie to
represent appellants as their Atty-in-fact and the latter's conformity to
Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance; in the same resolution,
CA also required respondent to submit his formal Entry of
Appearance.
Atty. Villanueva filed a Manifestation with motion explaining that he
communicated with Honnie and with appellants, but was informed that
appellants were residing abroad (in Germany at the time). He then
requested for a period of 15 days, or until September 15, 2011, to
comply with the CA's Resolution.
March 2012 resolution, CA granted such, and
1. Ordered Atty. Villanueva to show cause, within 10 days from notice,
why he should not be cited in contempt for his failure to comply with the
CA's August 2011 Resolution, AND
2. With respect to respondent, show cause why the Appellant's Brief
filed by respondent should not be expunged from the rollo of the case
and his appeal be dismissed for failure to comply with the August
resolution.
September 2012 Resolution, CA declared that:
1) Respondent received the copy of its March 20, 2012 Resolution; as
shown by the Registry Return Receipt
2) Judicial Records Division reported that no compliance with the March
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
20, 2012 Resolution had been filed by respondent; and
3) CA for the last time directed respondent;
a. To comply with the March 20, 2012 Resolution within 5
days from notice and
b. to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt
for his failure to comply with the CA's August 2011
Resolutions, and March 20, 2012; and
c. Show cause why the Appellant's Brief filed by him should
not be expunged from the rollo of the case and the appeal
be dismissed.
All these directives by the CA were ignored by respondent.
In the October 2012 Resolution, CA cited respondent in contempt.
In the same resolution, the CA once again directed respondent:
(1) To comply with the requirements of a valid substitution of
counsel and to file his formal Entry of Appearance within 5 days from
notice; and
(2) To comply the March 2012 resolution.
Ultimately, in April 2013 resolution. The CA ordered appellants
brief filed by respondent expunged from the rollo and dismissed the
appeal. Also, CA directed him to explain why he should not
be suspended from the practice of law for willful
disobedience to the orders of the court. Respondent paid no
heed to this resolution.
CA referred this matter to the IBP.
IBP Report and Recommendation: Found respondent liable for
willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the CA and recommended
he be suspended for 6 months.
The act of respondent in not filing any of the compliances required of
him in the 4 August 2011, 20 March 2012, 5 September 2012, and
25 October 2012 Resolutions of the CA despite due notice,
emphasized his contempt and total disregard of the legal
proceedings, for which he should be held liable.
The compliances required of the respondent by the CA are provided
under the rules for a valid substitution of counsel and validity of the
appeal and may not be disregarded.
Respondent contended: (in case mu ask si Atty.)
(1) that the spouses Partoza sought his opinion on the case and later
on requested that he handle their appeal before the CA;
(2) that he advised the spouses Partoza to inform Atty. Villanueva of
their decision to engage the services of a new counsel;
(3) that he relied on the Withdrawal of Appearance filed by Atty.
Villanueva and then prepared the Appellant's Brief;
(4) that he was not aware of the authority of Honnie to represent
spouses Partoza as well as of Honnie's conformity to the Withdrawal
of Appearance by Atty. Villanueva;
(5) that he believed that he had no personality to represent the
spouses Partoza in the case, and to address the
problems/compliances pertaining to appellant's appeal; and
(6) that it was still Atty. Villanueva who should have continued to
represent the spouses Partoza
Page 7 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
IBP Board of Governors: Resolved to adopt and approved the
recommendation.
ISSUE: WON respondent is administratively liable for willfully disobeying
the lawful orders of the CA
RULING: YES.
The SC explained the crucial role played by lawyers in the administration
of justice in Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr.,
Canon 12 of the CPR states that A lawyer shall exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.'….
Xxxxx
A lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the
administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs,
perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes
misconduct and justices disciplinary action against him.
There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with 5 Resolutions of
the CA.
His actions were definitely contumacious. By his repeated failure, refusal
or inability to comply with the CA resolutions, respondent displayed not
only reprehensible conduct but showed an utter lack of respect for the
CA and its orders.
Respondent’s ought to know that a resolution issued by the CA, or any
court for that matter, is not a mere request that may be complied with
partially or selectively. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
and authority of the court
Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of the ROC states;
it "is the duty of an Attorney to observe and maintain the
respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers."
Canon I of the CPR mandates that;
"[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Canon 11 provides that;
a "lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Sec. 27, Rule 138 of ROC warrants disbarment or suspension in
case of;
…. a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court …..
In Anudon v. Cefra citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, held that a
lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders not only
betrayed a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscored his
disrespect towards the Court's lawful orders which was only too
deserving of reproof.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
ITC, respondent deliberately ignored 5 CA Resolutions, thereby
violating his duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts.
PENALTY: Suspension for 6 months.
5. Dimayuga v. Rubia (A.C. No. 8854)
FACTS:
This is a Complaint for disciplinary action against Atty. Vivian Rubia
for gross negligence, misrepresentation, and violation of the lawyer’s
oath.
Dimayuga engaged the legal services of Atty. Rubia to effect the
transfer of their deceased father’s property to them, which services
were supposed to include preparation, notarization, and processing
of the transfer document and payment of taxes and other fees for
such transfer.
Atty. Rubia prepared an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
with Waiver of Rights. However, the transfer did not happen.
Upon inquiry, they learned that Atty. Rubia paid the transfer and
donor’s tax, and entered the Amendment Extrajudicial Settlement
with the RD, only 5 years thereafter.
It is the complainant’s theory that Atty. Rubia may have
misappropriated the money they paid 5 years ago for her personal
use.
Moreover, complainants also sought the legal services of the
respondent for the purchase of a real property which was actually a
land covered by CLOA which contains a limitation that it shall not be
disposed for a period of 10 years. Hence, the sale of the property in
June 2003 was still prohibited but the respondent still assented to
the sale of the property despite the prohibition.
Hence, this complaint.
The following are the acts of respondent (related to our topic):
● Failed to heed the Court’s order to comment twice (so 5 na
tanan)
● Failed to pay the imposed fine once
● Explained that failure to pay was because the 1st notice
was lost
● Paid the increased fine with two expired postal money
orders
● Failed again to file her comment
● Complied with the show cause order explaining that she
suffered from trauma and stress due to previous cases
filed against her and that she had undergone life-
threatening situations due to some high-profile cases she
handled, hence, her failure to comment.
● Failed again to file the required comment twice
(He failed to comply with the orders of the the Court through its
resolutions)
Page 8 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
ISSUE: WON the acts of respondent is constitutive of a blatant
disregard for or defiance of the law, and the court’s orders.
RULING:
YES.
SC as to respondent’s failure to comply with court’s order
The CS has been very tolerant with the respondent's apathetic attitude
towards the case. Respondent has been given several opportunities to
file her comment and explain her side on the accusations against her
since 2011 but, up to present (2018), respondent has yet to file the
required comment.
The respondent’s acts or inaction were deliberate and manipulating,
which unreasonably delay this Court’s action on the case.
These acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
Court, which not only works against here case as she is deemed to have
waived the filing of her comment, but more importantly is in itself a
sufficient cause for suspension or debarment under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of
the RoC. Such attitude constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. “A Court’s Resolution is not be construed as a mere request,
nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.
In Sebastian v Atty. Bajar, the Court, considered the failure to comply
with the court's order, resolution, or directive as constitutive of gross
misconduct and insubordination.
As to respondent’s blatant disregard of the law:
In preparing and notarizing a deed of sale within the prohibited period to
sell the subject property under the law, respondent assisted, if not led,
the contracting parties, who relied on her knowledge of the law being
their lawyer, to an act constitutive of a blatant disregard for or defiance
of the law.
Respondent likewise displayed lack of respect and mockery of the
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment as her act of notarizing
such illegal document entitled it full faith and credit upon its face, when
it obviously does not deserve such entitlement, considering its illegality
due to the prohibition.
It is incumbent upon a notary public to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation.
Notarization is not just an empty or meaningless routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may be commissioned to perform the same.
With all these infractions committed by the respondent, the Court
ordered that Atty. Rubia is suspended from the practice of law for 3
years.
(As to the issue of misappropriation, which is not really our topic, the
court ruled that the complainant failed to substantiate sufficiently their
allegations of delay in the performance of duty and misappropriation of
funds. There is nothing in the records, except complainant’s bare
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
allegation, which proves that the 150K was indeed given to the
respondent on the claimed date.)
6. Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho (A.C. No. 10498)
FACTS:
Judge Dumlao – complainant Atty. Camacho – respondent
Complainant is the judge of a case between Pathways(plaintiffs) and
Univet (defendants)," was pending. Respondent is Pathways' counsel.
While the case was pending, respondent attempted to fraternize with
the judge. Respondent casually mentioned his closeness to important
personages, which included Justices of the Supreme Court. He also
tried to impress complainant with his influence by dropping names of
notables and his connection with (UP) College of Law, where he
served as a professor. Eventually, the judgment of the case was
entered and defendants were ordered to pay plaintiffs the following
Defendants, through their new counsel, filed a notice of appeal
before the RTC.
Respondent started to call complainant and even promised to share a
portion of his attorney's fees with complainant in exchange for the
denial of the notice of appeal filed by defendants and the issuance of
the writ of execution. The promise was accompanied by a threat that
if the offer is refused, respondent would file a disbarment case
against complainant and he insinuated that through his connections,
complainant would surely be disbarred.
Respondent declared that the case of Pathways was closely
monitored by the named Supreme Court Justices and he insisted that
a portion of the judgment would be donated to the U.P. Law Center.
He also stated that then President Aquino III would supposedly
appoint him as a Presidential Legal Consultant. Complainant denied
defendants' notice of appeal because it was filed by their counsel,
who was not properly substituted as the counsel for defendants. It
underscored that defendant’s counsel had no standing to represent
defendants.
Complainant issued a Certificate of Finality and a Writ of Execution.
On the very same morning that the writ of execution was issued,
respondent went to the RTC together with the representatives of
Pathways. He demanded the court sheriff to go with them and serve
the writ of execution at the office of defendants. Subsequently,
respondent barged into complainant's chambers and demanded that
he order the court sheriff to sign the Garnishment Order, which
respondent himself prepared. The said garnishment order sought the
release of the supposed garnished check of one of the defendants,
addressed to RCBC in the amount of around 18m in favor of
Pathways.
The sheriff justifiably refused to sign the document prepared by
respondent. He explained that since defendants offered their personal
property for satisfaction of the writ of execution, the enforcement of
the notice of garnishment must be held in abeyance pursuant to the
prescribed procedure under the ROC. Meanwhile, respondent also
sent several text messages to complainant stating that the latter and
the sheriff are guilty of graft and that they will receive pleadings from
the SC.
Page 9 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
IBP Commissioner: disbarment IBP Board of Governors: suspension
form practice of law for 6 months
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of misconduct as a lawyer
RULING:
Yes. The Court finds that respondent violated the Code and the Lawyer's
Oath for influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers
and disrespecting court processes.
Influence Peddling and Attempted Bribery
A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a
favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code.
Canon 13 and Canon 13.01 state:
Canon 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his
cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the court.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges.
A lawyer who commits attempted bribery, or corruption of public officials,
against a judge or a court personnel, violates Canon 10 and Rule 10.01
of the Code, to wit:
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Threatening Court Officers and Disrespecting Court Processes
A lawyer who disrespects the court and its officers violates Canon 11 and
Canon 11.03 of the Code, to wit:
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Proper Penalty
Respondent had been previously disbarred. In Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho,
the ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed against respondent for
violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.01 of the Code. In that case, respondent
entered into a compromise agreement without the conformity of his client
and he failed to account for the money he received from his client in the
amount of P1,288,260.00.
In our laws, there is no double or multiple disbarment. Neither does our
jurisdiction have a law mandating a minimum 5-year requirement for
readmission. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be
imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. At best, the Court may
only impose a fine or order the said lawyer to pay the monetary
obligation to his or her client.
In Paras v. Paras, the Court ruled that the penalty of suspension or
disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been
previously disbarred.
Accordingly, in those cases, the purpose of giving the penalty against the
disbarred lawyer was only for purposes of recording. The Court shall be
fully informed by his personal record in the OBC that aside from his
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
disbarment, he also committed other infractions that would have
merited the imposition of penalties were it not for his disbarment.
These factors shall be taken into consideration should the disbarred
lawyer subsequently file a petition to lift his disbarment.
DISPOSITION: as respondent was previously disbarred, it is proper
to give the corresponding penalty of suspension for two (2) years
from the practice of law for the sole purpose of recording it in his
personal file in the OBC. In the event that respondent should apply
for the lifting of his disbarment in Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, the
penalty in the present case should be considered in the resolution of
the same.
7.Zafra III v. Pagatpatan (A.C. No. 12457)
FACTS:
Reverend Father Jose Zafra III filed a case for estafa against Buniel
and Guirnalda (clients of Atty. Renato Pagatpatan). While the case
was pending, Pagatpatan allegedly wrote a letter to the Bishop of the
Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur requesting for investigation of Fr.
Zafra for concocting stories against his clients who were charged with
estafa, that such action “was not only a sin but a MORTAL SIN.”
Zafra was able to clear his name but was embarrassed by the
malicious letter, so he filed an administrative complaint against
Pagatpatan for violation of Rule 1.02 of the CPR and for engaging in
unauthorized practice of law alleging that:
- The act of writing was not from a sense of duty but to
certainly gratify the personal vendetta and animosity of his
clients.
- Pagatpatan was suspended by the SC for 2 years in 2005
and despite the fact that the order of suspension has not
yet been lifted by the court, he continued to practice law
by representing clients in several cases.
Respondent’s Contention:
- He merely aided his clients and did not intend to malign the
reputation of Fr. Zafra. The letter was for the purpose of
convincing Fr. Zafra to settle "silently" and "not go to the
extent of having the estafa charges ventilated in a full-
blown trial
- Admitted engaging in practice despite suspension
explaining that he needed to sustain the needs of his family
since her wife was ill and eventually passed away.
- No intention to defy the order of suspension and manifests
the withdrawing of his appearances in cases he’s handling.
IBP Decision:
- On the Alleged Malicious Letter: no malice imputed and no
prohibition for lawyers to write a letter to bishop on
matters pending before the courts.
- On the Unauthorized Practice: Pagatpatan has no discretion
on the effects of the suspension. His act constitutes willful
disobedience.
- Penalty: Suspension for 3 years. Modified to 2 years by the
Board of Governors of the IBP.
ISSUES:
1. WON Atty. Pagatpatan maliciously sent the letter.
Page 10 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
2. WON Atty. Pagatpatan was engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
RULING:
1. YES. Att. Pagatpatan admits to writing the letter to the Bishop
in order to resolve the estafa case since the settlement
proceedings with the regular courts proved to be futile.
The letter was not based on a sincere purpose to discipline Zafra, but
mainly to threaten Fr. Zafra and force him to settle the estafa case filed
against his clients. Rule 138 Sec. 20 of ROC provides that: lawyers are
duty bound "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 is in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
Pagatpatan is an “oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not
to his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought
to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. However,
disbarment is a penalty too severe and the facts show that Pagatpatan is
only guilty of simple misconduct with regard to this act.
2. YES. Atty. Pagatpatan had been representing party litigants in
court from 2005 until the instant case was filed before IBP in
2016. He has made a mockery of SC’s authority by defying the
suspension order for over 11 years.
If Fr. Zafra had not filed the instant case, Atty. Pagatpatan would have
continued disregarding the suspension order. His actions clearly
constitute gross misconduct provided in Sec. 27, Rule 138 of ROC, which
is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment:
“A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
xxx for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority so to do.”
Penalty:
1. Simple Misconduct and Fined P5,000.00 for unethical behavior
in writing the letter
2. Disbarred for willful disobedience.
8. Rodil v. Corro, et al. (A.C. No. 10461)
FACTS:
The alleged incident occurred when Atty. Corro was formerly detailed as
a Court Attorney at the Office of then SC Associate Justice Villarama, Jr.
In his letter-complaint, Dr. Rodil averred that his friend, Atty. Aguinaldo,
asked him if he had any connection with the SC who could help his client
who had a pending criminal case. In the said case, the trial court
convicted accused-appellant Alejandro for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to serve life imprisonment. Since
the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, the case was elevated to
the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal.
In view of this, Dr. Rodil contracted the assistance of respondents
Posadas, Records Officer II of the Reporters Division in the CA, and
Ancheta, Records Officer III, Third Division of the SC, who purportedly
both facilitated the alleged transactions with Atty. Corro.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
Relevantly, Ancheta gave Dr. Rodil information about Atty. Corro
after finding out that the case was raffled to then Associate Justice
Villarama. Eventually, in exchange for a favorable decision acquitting
Alejandro, Atty. Corro allegedly asked for a total of Php 10-M. Atty.
Corro supposedly received the said amount at Max's Restaurant
along Maria Orosa Street, Manila in 4 payments or installments: 1)
PhP800K given by Dr. Rodil to Posadas who turned over the cash to
Ancheta for delivery to Atty. Corro; 2) PhP700K, again given by Dr.
Rodil through Posadas who passed it on to Ancheta for delivery to
Atty. Corro; 3) PhP5-M, when Dr. Rodil personally met Atty. Corro
and his friend Rico Alberto; and 4) PhP3.5-M, which Dr. Rodil also
gave to Atty. Corro with Rico Alberto as witness.
Afterwards, Atty. Corro supposedly gave Ancheta the advanced copy
of the decision in the criminal case and instructed them to open the
envelope outside Max's Restaurant, since other court employees
might be around the establishment. Dr. Rodil later on discovered
that the advanced copy was actually a fake after he requested
an official copy of the decision in the Reporters Office of the
Supreme Court. Dismayed, Dr. Rodil tried to contact Atty. Corro but
he completely ignored the former. Because of this, Dr. Rodil sent his
representative to the Office of then Associate Justice Villarama to
find Atty. Corro. He subsequently learned that Atty. Corro had
already resigned from the Supreme Court. This prompted Dr. Rodil
to file a complaint against Atty. Corro.
During the initial hearing of the case:
● Atty. Corro failed to appear despite notice.
● Dr. Rodil testified that Atty. Aguinaldo, counsel of
Alejandro in the criminal case, appropriated for himself the
11,294-square meter property titled to Dr. Rodil's daughter.
● Dr. Rodil explained that he was compelled to surrender the
title to Atty. Aguinaldo because the latter's group harassed
and threatened him since the family of Alejandro were
awaiting the return of the Php10-M bribe.
● Hence, Dr. Rodil stated that he initiated the complaint
against Atty. Corro in order to retrieve the title of the lot
which he was forced to surrender to Atty. Aguinaldo for
supposed safekeeping. In addition, Dr. Rodil asserted that
he exchanged several text messages with Atty. Corro.
After the complaint was filed against Atty. Corro, he was given
several opportunities to present his side but he failed to personally
appear. Instead, his counsel, Atty. Dumlao, stated that they will
submit a memorandum within 20 days. All the same, since the OBC
believed that Atty. Corro did not have any intention to personally
appear in any of the proceedings, it deemed it best to submit a
report on Atty. Corro's case.
The Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC):
● Found that Atty. Corro, Ancheta and Posadas, as court
employees, committed grave misconduct as they were
parties to a corrupt practice in the government in order to
secure a favorable ruling.
● However, it limited itself to Atty. Corro's case since the
cases of the other two court personnel, Ancheta and
Posadas, should be referred to the Office of Administrative
Services of the SC and the CA, respectively.
● Found that Atty. Corro vehemently disrespected the lawful
orders of the Court by ignoring its series of resolutions.
Page 11 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
● Instead of filing a comment on Dr. Rodil's complaint and
complying with the show cause order, Atty. Corro found time
in filing manifestations and ways to question the Court's
processes. He even employed delaying tactics and treated the
process server of the Court with disrespect.
● Hence, the OBC stated that Atty. Corro's acts constitute as
willful disobedience tantamount to gross misconduct and
insubordination to the lawful orders of the Court which
rendered him morally unfit to continue to become a member
of the Bar.
In light of these, the OBC ruled that Atty. Corro violated the Lawyer's
Oath as well as Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR when he repeatedly
ignored court directives despite notice.
● More importantly, it held that Atty. Corro violated the law
against bribery, graft and corruption for demanding and
accepting the amount of Php10-M.
● He used his position as a court attorney and an officer of the
court, and betrayed the confidentiality of the assigned cases in
the office of an Associate Justice.
● He committed gross dishonesty, deceit and willful breach of
ethical commitment as well as gross misconduct, which render
him unfit to continue to enjoy being a member of the legal
profession.
● Declared that Atty. Corro's acts, in refusing to comply with the
Court's resolutions and in consistently being absent in the
hearings, amount to gross misconduct and willful disobedience
which are valid grounds for suspension or disbarment.
● Hence, the OBC recommended that Atty. Corro be disbarred
from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Corro is guilty of the charges against him.
RULING:
As recommended by the OBC, the Court imposes the absolute
penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Corro.
1. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, they belong to a class of
their own, and are distinct from that of civil or criminal actions.
● To be sure, a finding of liability in a civil case or a conviction in
a criminal case is not necessary for finding a member of the
bar guilty in an administrative proceeding.
● This case is unique because it involves a lawyer who
previously worked in the halls of the Supreme Court, and
disrespected the institution by placing it in a bad light.
● Thus, the Court may consider the totality of circumstances and
evidence presented in order to determine Atty. Corro's liability
and appropriate penalty.
2. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that disbarment or
suspension may be imposed upon a lawyer based on certain grounds, as
follows:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. x x x.
Taking these grounds into account, there is no doubt that by
demanding and accepting the bribe in the amount of PhP10-M, Atty.
Corro, as found by the OBC, committed gross misconduct and
grossly immoral conduct, and violated the laws against bribery, graft
and corruption in the government service.
● That Atty. Corro provided the terms of payment and
profited from the illegal transactions.
● That the purported text messages between Dr. Rodil and
Atty. Corro showed that the latter supposedly still
attempted to fix the problem, that is, until he suddenly did
not respond to the former anymore, which further
displayed Atty. Corro's participation in the despicable
transactions.
● Copies of the text messages appended to the records
showed Dr. Rodil's conversation with Atty. Aguinaldo
regarding the return of the PhP10-M bribe to Alejandro's
family, Dr. Rodil's conversation with the individual named
Rico Alberto, and Dr. Rodil's conversation with Posadas, all
of which pertain to the illegal transactions and the ensuing
demands for the return of the money.
3. Atty. Corro received the full amount of Php 10-M from Dr. Rodil in
exchange for a favorable decision of acquittal for Alejandro in the
criminal case.
● This warrants Atty. Corro's disbarment since he is guilty of
gross misconduct as well as grossly immoral conduct for
committing such reprehensible acts.
● His additional infractions in ignoring and disrespecting
lawful issuances or orders from the Court only added to
the long list of reasons why he should no longer be given
the privilege to practice law or to be a member of the Bar.
● Indeed, in order to maintain membership in the law
profession, "[a] lawyer at no time must be wanting in
probity and moral fiber which not only are conditions
precedent to his entrance to, but are likewise essential
demands for his continued membership in, a great and
noble profession."
4. Atty. Corro displayed characteristics and committed contemptible
acts contrary to what is expected of a lawyer, violating the Lawyer's
Oath.
● He disobeyed the legal orders of the Court and did not
conduct himself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge
and discretion given that he initiated and participated in
illegal transactions which ran afoul to his duty to maintain
good fidelity to the courts and even to litigants. By acting
in conspiracy with Dr. Rodil, Ancheta, and Posadas to
commit corrupt acts, Atty. Corro additionally broke the
laws against bribery, graft and corruption.
5. Also, the Court found that Atty. Corro essentially violated the
following provisions of the CPR, to wit:
Page 12 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
de6ance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
6. Atty. Corro tried to deflect the accusations by placing the blame on Dr.
Rodil, Posadas, and Ancheta as the orchestrators of the corrupt
transactions.
● However, it should be emphasized that the subject of this
disbarment case solely involves Atty. Corro as a member of
the Bar, and not the other parties to the case since they would
have to answer for their individual liabilities in different fora as
applicable to their personal circumstances and violations.
7. Atty. Corro focused on the supposed issue that he was not charged
with a specific offense and that he was denied due process.
● He conveniently forgot that the Court gave him the clearance
or permission to procure a copy of the letter-complaint of Dr.
Rodil against him;
● that he was well-represented by counsel during the hearings;
and
● that he received notices from the Court which he could have
clarified or inquired further into if he only bothered to show up
to the hearings or to at least make efforts to personally secure
copies of the records.
However, Atty. Corro conjured up numerous excuses so as not to set
foot in the SC premises, and even enlisted the help of other individuals
(whose reputations he also jeopardized by being associated with him) to
acquire the documents he needed instead of doing it himself. If it was
truly important for him to clear his name, then he should have pulled out
all the stops to speedily dispose or dismiss the instant case against him
on the merits.
8. Atty. Corro should be reminded that as a member of the Bar, he is
subject to full investigation by the Court.
9. Atty. Corro harped on the instance that he was supposedly not
allowed to procure a copy of his alleged text messages with Dr. Rodil.
Yet, Atty. Corro also stated that such text messages could have been
tampered with due to the advances in technology.
● Even so, Atty. Corro should remember that he was given the
opportunity to apprise himself regarding the incidents of his
case but he chose to disregard such chance.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
● At this juncture, the Court would like to point out that Atty.
Corro would still be found liable even without a copy of the
said text messages. In other words, the existence of such
"proof" is not indispensable to the case at bench.
10. Atty. Corro mentioned that he was present at the SC premises,
specifically that he was in his work station, during the time of the
alleged incidents. Thus, he posited that he could not have left his
work station at those times since the said transactions were
conducted during business hours. He argued that if he left, his pay
slips should have reflected the corresponding deductions on his
salary.
● SC: this defense ridiculous as it was not physically
impossible for him to leave his work station during those
times.
● Unquestionably, there is still a possibility that he went to
Max's Restaurant to receive the money even if he was on
leave at the time. Simply put, he has no solid alibi to
negate his presence on the alleged dates of the illegal
transactions.
11. As for Atty. Corro's attempts to display his character by
submitting his performance evaluation forms, his application to
become a judge, or his clearance from the Court after he resigned.
● SC: These are not conclusive to show that he is not guilty
of the accusations against him.
● Submitting such documents is a feeble yet unconvincing
endeavor to sway the Court of his supposed "good
character." Yet, it is common sense to know that a
person's true character cannot be determined solely by
such evaluations and documents.
● This is akin to the belief that one person may not look like
a villain but can very well be one in secret or that a person
may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
● Likewise, presenting a copy of his 2013 SALN, even if it
suggested that he has more than enough to sustain his
daily sustenance and activities, does not necessarily mean
that he is incapable of amassing wealth through illegal
means.
12. Atty. Corro maintained his innocence from the deed. Yet, he
consistently and continuously ignored and disrespected the Court
when he failed to attend the hearings despite notice, which would
have been the best avenue to clear his name if he is truly blameless.
● Atty. Corro, surely, had connections who could inform him
of the status of his administrative case. In fact, he had his
own counsel who represented him in the proceedings.
● He has had the full opportunity to defend himself, and that
because of his own negligence or calculated maneuvers,
he has waived his right to be heard.
● If Atty. Corro truly valued his standing in the legal
profession, he would have exerted every effort to keep his
name untarnished and not disregarded the Court's
issuances.
● Instead, Atty. Corro, when he agreed to "review"
Alejandro's case and promised an acquittal for a
consideration while he was still an employee of the
Supreme Court, then and there, already ruined his own
reputation.
Page 13 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
● Hence, he has nobody to blame but himself.
13. The acts of Atty. Corro are "so reprehensible, and his violations of
the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to
discharge his duties as a member of the Bar.”
● He is not worthy of bearing the honor of being called an
officer of the court or a member of the Bar.
● Therefore, considering the totality of his violations as well as
the damage and prejudice that he has brought upon the good
name and reputation of the SC and the judiciary as an
institution, it is but right to impose upon Atty. Corro the
ultimate penalty of disbarment.
● This is without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
criminal charges against Atty. Corro by those concerned and if
they so deem it fit.
9. Justice Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon (A.C. No.12415)
This is a Joint Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment filed by CA Associate
Justices Lampas-Peralta, Chairperson of the 6th Division, Cruz, Senior
Member of the 5th Division, and Hernando, then Junior Member of the
5th Division, now a member of this Court (complainants), against Atty.
Marie Frances E. Ramon (respondent), a member of the bar, before the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission).
FACTS:
It came to the knowledge of complainants that a certain De Jesus went
to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of the CA 5th Division to
ascertain the veracity and authenticity of a Decision purportedly written
by complainants in a criminal case entitled, "People of the Philippines v.
Tirso Fajardo y Delos Trino,".
Thus, complainants filed the present administrative complaint
In the said decision, complainants allegedly ordered the acquittal of
alleging that respondent should be disbarred due to the following
Tirso Fajardo (Fajardo), cousin of De Jesus, for the crime of violation of
reasons:
Sections 5 and 7 of R.A. No. 9165. The said decision was given to De
Jesus by respondent, who was their counsel, to serve as proof that
Fajardo had been acquitted. However, respondent informed De Jesus
that the promulgation of the said decision would supposedly depend on
the payment of a large sum of money to respondent.
Complainants checked the cases assigned to them and discovered that
the said criminal case of Fajardo was still in the completion stage
and was assigned to former CA Associate Justice Tijam, who was then a
member of the CA 4th Division. This was affirmed by the CA Clerk of
Court's Certification.
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
● Complainants alleged that respondent was engaged
(December 2015) by MS. FAJARDO to appeal the decision
of the Makati RTC convicting her son TIRSO FAJARDO for
violation of R.A. 9165.
● From said date until March 2016, respondent allegedly
repeatedly asked for money which eventually reached the
total amount of about one million pesos purportedly for
legal fees and representation expenses.
● On March 2, 2016, Complainants, who are the cousin and
best friend, respectively, of TIRSO FAJARDO, met with
respondent and one ROWALES whom respondent
introduced as a Sheriff of the CA and who showed to them
a purported DECISION of the CA dated February
2016,acquitting TIRSO FAJARDO and they asked for
[P]150K to hasten the release of the purported decision
and the eventual release of TIRSO FAJARDO.
● Complainants first paid half of the demanded amount and
verified the purported decision, which they discovered to
be fake. They then reported the matter to the NBI Anti-
Fraud Division,which then planned an entrapment
operation.
● On March 8, 2016 at about 12:15 PM, the undersigned
Agents, together with the Complainants, conducted an
entrapment operation and proceeded to Jollibee
Restaurant, where Complainants and Subjects agreed to
meet, where Complainants are to deliver the balance of
[P]75K.
● Complainant AQUINO arrived and after conversing with
respondent, he handed the marked money contained in a
brown envelope to respondent, who then received the
envelope and placed it in front of her. After conversing
some more, Complainants and respondent stood up
holding the brown envelope with the marked money.
● At this juncture, Subject was immediately arrested and the
marked money was recovered.
● for representing herself as a lawyer who can influence
Justices of the Court of Appeals to secure the acquittal of
an accused;
● for defrauding the relatives of accused Fajardo to amass a
large amount of money in the total amount of
P1,000,000.00;
● for utter show of disrespect to complainants, the Court,
and the Judiciary as a whole; and for committing the
crimes of estafa and falsification.

Respondent did not submit any answer in spite of receipt of the

Subsequently, complainants learned through a newspaper item and
order from the IBP Commission. She also failed to appear at the
television news program that an entrapment operation was conducted
mandatory conference despite due notice. Only complainants
by the members of the NBI against respondent, where she was caught
submitted their Joint Position Paper to the IBP Commission.
red-handed receiving marked money from Carlos Aquino (Aquino), a
friend of Fajardo, for the issuance of the aforementioned fake decision.
IBP Report and Recommendation: Recommended that
Complainants also learned that the NBI filed a Criminal Complaint
respondent be disbarred as a lawyer for committing acts that were in
against respondent and a certain Alex Rowales before the Office of the
violation of her sworn duties as a lawyer and the CPR, and for
City Prosecutor of Manila for the crimes of estafa under Article 315,
unreasonably involving the Justices in the incident to their damage
paragraph 2, and falsification under Article 172 of the RPC. The
and prejudice.
complaint stated that: (Summary sa Complaint na lang kay taas
kaayo)

EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020 Page 14 of 34

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted the findings of fact and
recommendation of the IBP Commission imposing a penalty of
disbarment against respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of the charge against her.
RULING:
YES. Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's
Oath, Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02,
and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Grave
Misconduct. For reasons above stated, she is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and her name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
1. Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with
honesty and integrity in all their dealings.
● Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves
according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to
delay no man for money or malice.
● These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with
their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship.
2. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
● A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during
good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
opportunity to be heard has afforded him.
● Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, and
attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a
proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct
rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties
and responsibilities of an attorney.
● However, in consideration of the gravity of the consequences
of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar, the
Court have consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the
presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his
complaint through substantial evidence.
3. The Lawyer's Oath requires every lawyer to "support the Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein" and to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court."
● To the best of his ability, every lawyer is expected to respect
and abide by the law, and to avoid any act or omission that is
contrary thereto.
● A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his
character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the law
on the part of the public.
4. Respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR; Grave
misconduct
● She represented to De Jesus and Aquino that she could secure
the acquittal of Fajardo and even used the names of the
Associate Justices to accomplish her ill motives.
● Respondent also defrauded her clients by drafting a fake,
spurious, and sham decision regarding the purported acquittal
of Fajardo.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
● She placed the names of complainants in the fake decision
even though the criminal case of Fajardo was raffled in a
different division and assigned to a different Associate
Justice.
● Glaringly, she discredited and disrespected members of
the judiciary by wrongfully involving complainants' names
in her fraudulent scheme.
● She also maliciously represented to her clients that she
can influence Associate Justices of the CA to ensure the
acquittal of an accused.
5. Further, respondent exacted exorbitant fees from her clients, in
the amount of P1,000,000.00 more or less, as evidenced by receipts
she signed.
● In her ultimate desire to extort more money from Fajardo's
relatives, she presented the fake decision of acquittal and
asserted that the promulgation of the said decision would
allegedly depend on the payment of a large sum of money
to respondent.
● Through the operation of the NBI, respondent was
arrested in an entrapment operation when she received
the marked money from Aquino for the purported decision
of acquittal.
● Respondent's arrest and modus operandi were even
broadcasted in television and published in the newspaper,
causing further shame, disrepute, and disgrace to the legal
profession.
6. Respondent was given an opportunity to controvert the allegations
against her, however, she neither filed her answer nor attended the
mandatory conference in the IBP Commission.
7. Verily, the acts exhibited by respondent violated the Lawyer's
Oath. Her acts are also contrary to Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules
1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 because respondent
violated the laws, particularly Articles 172 and 315, par. 2 of the RPC,
tarnished the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
committed falsehood and deceit against her clients and the courts.
8. Respondent's acts also constitute grave misconduct.
● The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or
to disregard established rules, which must be established
by substantial evidence.
● As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge
of grave misconduct.
● Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in
the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully
and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure
some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to
duty and the rights of others.
Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to violate the law when she
fraudulently drafted a fake decision of the CA, falsely including
therein the names of complainants, and presenting it to her clients
for monetary consideration.
● These acts show respondent's wanton disregard of the law
and a patent propensity to trample upon the canons of the
Code.
Page 15 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
● Hence, respondent should also be held administratively guilty
for grave misconduct.
9. Proper penalty
The Court finds that complainants have established by substantial
evidence that respondent:
● drafted a fake decision of the CA acquitting Fajardo;
● falsely and shamelessly included the names of complainants in
the fake decision even though the criminal case was raffled to
another division and handled by a different Justice;
● maliciously represented that she can influence Associate
Justices of the CA to acquit an accused;
● fraudulently presented this fake decision to her clients in
exchange for a hefty monetary consideration;
● exacted exorbitant fees from her clients in the amount of
P1,000,000.00; and
was caught red-handed by the NBI operatives when she received the
marked money from her client for the fake decision of the CA.
As discussed above, these acts constitute violations of the Lawyer's Oath,
and Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and
10.03 of the Code. Respondent is guilty of grave misconduct because
her transgression showed her clear intent to violate the law and
disregard the Code.
10. A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the Lawyer's
Oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied
in the Code.
● For the practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust,
the performance of which is entrusted to those who are
qualified and who possess good moral character.
● The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the
exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding
facts.
In fine, respondent's acts should not just be deemed as unacceptable
practices that are both disgraceful and dishonorable; these reveal a
moral flaw that makes her unfit to practice law.
● She has tarnished the image of the legal profession and has
lessened the public faith in the Judiciary.
● Instead of being an advocate of justice, she became a
perpetrator of injustice.
● The ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon
respondent. Her name should be stricken off immediately and
without reservation in the Roll of Attorneys.
MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS
10. In re: Atty. Leon Maquera (B.M. No. 793)
DOCTRINE:
1. The requirement of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is
also a continuing requirement to maintain ones goods
standing in the legal profession
2. Foreign judgment on suspension from the practice of law
against a lawyer, who is admitted into the practice of law in
that said foreign state as well as in the Philippines, only
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
constitutes a prima facie evidence of the unethical acts of
such lawyer.
FACTS:
The District Court of Guam informed the Supreme Court of the
suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of
law in Guam for two (2) years pursuant to the Decision rendered by
the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996 in a disciplinary case
filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera.
Maquera was admitted to the Philippine Bar on February 28, 1958.
On October 18, 1974, he was admitted to the practice of law in the
territory of Guam. He was suspended from the practice of law in
Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence
obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case.
The facts of the disciplinary case in Guam are as follows:
· Edward Benavente, the creditor of a certain Castro,
obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil case.
Maquera served as Castro's counsel in said case. Castro's
property subject of the case, a parcel of land, was to be
sold at a public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to
Benavente. Castro, however, retained the right of
redemption over the property for one year.
· At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castro's
property for Five Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$500.00), the
amount which Castro was adjudged to pay him
· Castro, in consideration of Maquera's legal services
in the civil case involving Benavente, entered into an oral
agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of
redemption in favor of the latter.
· Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by
paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction of the
judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the
property transferred in his name.
· Thereafter, Maquera sold the property to C.S.
Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred Twenty
Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).
IBP recommendation:
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP
concluded that although the said court found Maquera liable for
misconduct, there is no evidence to establish that Maquera
committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines. However, the IBP still
resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual
dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a
ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the
Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules
of Court.
ISSUE:
WON the following acts of Maqueras violate Philippine law or the
standards of ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and
thus constitute grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this
jurisdiction:
(1) acquiring by assignment Castros right of redemption over the
property subject of the civil case where Maquera appeared as
counsel for him;
(2) exercising the right of redemption; and
(3) subsequently selling the property for a huge profit
Page 16 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
violate Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior for members of
the Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds for his suspension or
disbarment in this jurisdiction.
RULING:
Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2) -year suspension
from the practice of law in that jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his
suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines. Such acts are
violative of a lawyer's sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients.
They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically, Canon 17 which states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed
in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
continuing requirement to maintain one's goods standing in the legal
profession.
However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Guam Superior Courts
judgment ordering Maqueras suspension from the practice of law in
Guam does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in
the Philippines. It only constitutes prima facie evidence of
Maqueras unethical acts as a lawyer. More fundamentally, due
process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and
to present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter.
The Supreme Court stated that is still a need to ascertain Maqueras’
current and correct address in Guam in order that another notice, this
time specifically informing him of the charges against him and requiring
him to explain why he should not be suspended or disbarred on those
grounds.
The Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from
the practice of law for one (1) year or until he shall have paid his
membership dues, whichever comes later, for non-payment of his IBP
membership dues from 1977 up to the present.
11. In re: Haron S. Meling (B.M. No. 1154)
FACTS:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S.
Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose
on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar.
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his
Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending
criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for
Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious
Physical Injuries. The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident
which occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered
defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media
practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit
the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title
“Attorney” in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato
City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the
Petition is an indorsement letter which shows that Meling used the
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
appellation and appears on its face to have been received by the
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002, Meling
filed his Answer with the OBC.
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal
cases filed against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy
Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his
misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in good faith that the
case would be settled because the said Judge has moral ascendancy
over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law,
Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a single
incident and involving the same parties as “closed and terminated.”
Moreover, Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts
complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of
his communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they
were, according to him, typed by the office clerk.
DECISION OF THE OBC
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed
against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous.
He should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction
can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact,
the cases filed against Meling are still pending. Furthermore, granting
arguendo that these cases were already dismissed, he is still required
to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral
character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under
oath, and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.
ISSUE:
WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is
proper and shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s
oath and signing on the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
The court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OBC.
Meling, however, did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This
renders the Petition moot and academic. However the court
considered the petition for appropriate actions as member of sharia
bar.
NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE PENDING CASES
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not
a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals
who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to
possess good moral character. The requirement of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law.
The standard requires the applicant to aver that he or she "has not
been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or
indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any
offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending
case or charge against him/her."
Page 17 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine
whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the
applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against the
applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he is endowed
with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even
if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant. Meling in
such case therefore lacks good moral character.
USAGE OF ATTORNEY
Moreover, his use of the appellation "Attorney", knowing fully well that
he is not entitled to its use, cannot go unchecked. In Alawi v. Alauya,
the Court declared that: "persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-
fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law
before Shari’a courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a
Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be
considered "counselors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in
a professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney." The title
"attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations,
have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction".
The judiciary has no place for dishonest officers of the court, such as
Meling in this case. The solemn task of administering justice demands
that those who are privileged to be part of service therein, from the
highest official to the lowliest employee, must not only be competent and
dedicated, but likewise live and practice the virtues of honesty and
integrity. Anything short of this standard would diminish the public's faith
in the Judiciary and constitutes infidelity to the constitutional tenet that a
public office is a public tru
12. Yap v. Buri (A.C. No. 11156)
FACTS:
Michelle Yap was the vendor in a Contract of Sale of a condominium unit
while Atty. Grace Buri, Yap’s close friend and her daughter’s godmother,
was the vendee.
Atty. Buri made an offer to purchase the property but asked that the
price be reduced from P1.5M to P1.2M. After consulting with her
husband, Yap agreed. However, of the P1.2M, P200K remained unpaid.
Atty. Buri insisted that she would pay the balance on installment but did
not specify the amount to be paid on each installment.
Because Yap trusted Buri, she gave her the full and immediate
possession of the condominium upon completion of the P1M despite the
outstanding balance and without the Deed of Absolute Sale. When Yap
demanded for the balance, Buri said she would pay on monthly
installments of P5K until fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she
would cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri threatened her through text
messages and later, filed a case for estafa against Yap.
In the criminal case, Buri alleged that when she found out that the sale
was made without the consent of Yap’s husband, Yap cancelled the sale
and promised to return the P1M initial payment. Despite demands, Yap
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
failed and refused to return the amount. Thus, the case, which was
later dismissed.
Yap then filed an administrative complaint against Buri for the
accusations made against her. Buri did not submit an answer, she
also did not appear during the mandatory conference. Thus, parties
were required to submit position papers to which only Yap complied.
IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline: Recommended 3-month
suspension, and payment of the P200K balance.
IBP-Board of Governors: APPROVED with modification to 1-year
suspension and deletion of order to pay. There was a violation of
Canon 1.
HELD:
Instead of paying Yap the remaining balance of the purchase price of
the condominium unit, Buri opted to threaten her and file a criminal
case against her. Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap and
prevent her from collecting the balance of P200K.
When given a chance to defend herself, Buri chose to stay silent and
even refused to file an answer, attend the hearing, or to submit her
position paper, despite due notice. Hence, Yap's version of the facts
stands and remains uncontroverted. This inaction shows not only
Buri’s lack of responsibility, but also her lack of interest in clearing
her name, which is indicative of an implied admission of the charge.
Her persistent refusal to pay despite frequent demands reflects her
lack of integrity and moral soundness; taking advantage of her
knowledge of the law, she resorted to threats and intimidation in
order to get away with what she wanted, constituting a gross
violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in
the legal profession. She disregarded the Lawyer's Oath that enjoins
her to support the Constitution and obey the laws. She forgot that
she must not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same.
She also took for granted the CPR, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03
of Canon 7:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
The stated canons require from lawyers a high sense of
responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and emphasize the
high standard of honesty and fairness not only in the practice of the
legal profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A lawyer must
Page 18 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond
reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and
keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree
of social responsibility and are mandated to behave at all times in a
manner consistent with truth and honor.
There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a
malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed
outside of his professional capacity.
Likewise, the Lawyer’s Oath, impresses upon lawyers the duty of
exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. The practice of law is imbued with public
interest. A lawyer owes substantial duties, not only to his client, but also
to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the public, and
takes part in the administration of justice as an officer of the court.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and
required of a member of the bar. The nature of the office of a lawyer
requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession,
but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing
in the profession.
HERE, Buri has fallen short of the high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing expected of her.
● she employed her knowledge and skill of the law in order to
avoid fulfillment of her obligation, thereby unjustly enriching
herself and inflicting serious damage on Yap.
● repeated failure to file her answer and position paper and to
appear at the mandatory conference aggravated her
misconduct.
These demonstrate high degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect for
the IBP and its proceedings. Her attitude severely stains the nobility of
the legal profession.
As to sanction
1 year suspension & deletion of P200K payment as it is not
intrinsically linked to the administrative case, it should only revolve
around the determination of the lawyer’s administrative liability, not civil.
Civil liability should be threshed out in a separate civil action.
13. Fabugais v. Faundo, Jr. (A.C. No. 10145)
FACTS:
Oliver Fabugais is married to Annaliza Lizel Fabugais. They have a 10
year old daughter called Marie Nicole Fabugais. Sometime in October
2006, Annaliza, her daughter Marie Nicole, a certain Ate Mimi and Ate
Ada stayed over in the house of Atty. Berardo Faundo. Marie Nicole refers
to Atty. Faundo as ‘Tito Attorney’. Marie Nicole testified that when
nighttime fell, she saw ‘Tito Attorney’ sleeping with her and her mother in
the same bed, and that ‘Tito Attorney’ and her mother were embracing
each other (jusko).
Marie Nicole further testified that the next day, ‘Tito Attorney’ appeared
in the room after showering, clad only in a towel or tapis. ‘Tito Attorney’
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
then asked Marie Nicole, Ate Mimi and Ate Ada to step out of the
room. Only ‘Tito Attorney’ remained in the room along with Annaliza.
Because of these developments, complainant Oliver Fabugais was
impelled to file a declaration of nullity of marriage with prayer for
custody of minor children. Atty. Faundo subsequently entered
appearance as collaborating counsel for Analiza (eyy. #lovewins)
Complainant further averred that on two separate occasions, Atty.
Faundo chased him while he riding a motorcycle, challenging him
into a fistfight and threatening to kill him. Complainant also claimed
that Atty. Faundo harassed his sister by trailing her vehicle.
Respondent Atty. Faundo claimed that regarding the chasing incident,
it was actually complainant who stared at him menacingly. He also
denied any claims of immoral relations between him and Annaliza.
He was merely helping her with her custody battle against her
husband. He invited them into his house when Marie Nicole’s
grandmother sought his help.
He claimed that h isfriendly demeanour towards Annaliza is because
she was his student before. Respondent claimed that he was a good
father to three children, was a respected civic leader and has never
even been the subject of a complaint with the police. Thus, he
incapable of committing the misconduct.
Investigating Commissioner: Investigating Commissioner Dennis
B. Funa found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and
recommended suspension for one month. Regarding the motorcycle
chasing incident, the commissioner opined that the identities of the
parties riding on the motorcycle could not categorically established.
Same for the harassment claims regarding complainant’s sister.
However commissioner found that respondent lawyer acted
inappropriately with Annaliza, creating the appearance immorality.
Although there was not categorical evidence of sexual activity,
respondent still did not behave in the way a lawyer should behave,
especially around minors. In Tolosa v. Cargo (A.M. No. 2385, March
8, 1989), the Court held that creating the appearance that a lawyer
is flouting with moral standards is sanctionable. Thus, while the
charge of immorality, viz[.], adulterous relationship, was not
factually established, certain behavior of the respondent did not
escape notice of the Court.
In this case, while sexual immorality was not established, respondent
should be held to account for his inappropriate behavior which
created the image or appearance of immorality especially in the
presence of a minor girl. Respondent's act of lying in bed with
another married woman, while he himself is a married man, in the
presence of the woman's daughter could raise suspicions, as in fact
it did.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted the findings of the
commissioner. Complainant however passed away in 2011 and
counsel for complainant file a notice for withdrawal. Notwithstanding
this notice, IBP-BOG denied respondent lawyer’s motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Did respondent lawyer in fact commit acts that are grossly immoral,
or acts that amount to serious moral depravity, that would warrant or
call for his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law?
Page 19 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
RULING: Yes.
Regarding the chasing incident, the SC agreed with the findings of the
commissioner that the identities of the parties were not categorically
established.
Regarding the issue of withdrawal of complain, the SC noted that
disciplinary proceedings are sui generis. They are intended and
undertaken primarily to look into the conduct or behavior of lawyers, to
determine whether they are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal
profession, and to hold them accountable for any misconduct or
misbehavior which deviates from the mandated norms and standards of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It is not easy to define what constitutes as grossly immoral conduct.
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct which is so willful,
flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community.21 This Court has held that
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
"grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree."
In the present case, going by the eyewitness testimony of complainant's
daughter Marie Nicole, raw or explicit sexual immorality between
respondent lawyer and complainant's wife was not established as a
matter of fact.
That said, it can in no wise or manner be argued that respondent
lawyer's behavior was par for the course for members of the legal
profession. Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar at all times
and to help maintain the respect of the community for the legal
profession under all circumstances.25 Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility further provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As officers of the court, lawyers must in fact and in truth be of good
moral character. They must moreover also be seen or appear to be of
good moral character; and be seen or appear to – live a life in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. The acts
complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly immoral in its
rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt condemnable
In the context of the circumstances obtaining in this case, and hewing to
jurisprudential precedence, and considering furthermore that this is
respondent lawyer's first offense, this Court believes that a one-month
suspension from the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP, would
suffice.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
14. Sanidad v. Aguas (A.C. No. 9838)
FACTS:
Paz Sanidad alleged that she and respondent Atty. Joseph John
Gerald M. Aguas, together with the latter's brother, Julius M. Aguas
(Julius), entered into a verbal agreement for the sale of the co-
owned subject property of the latter. They agreed that the subject
property will be sold for P1,500,000.00 and to be paid in installments.
Sanidad averred that she has been residing in the said subject
property. Sanidad claimed that she has made several payments to
respondent and Julius by depositing in their BPI bank accounts.
Sanidad also alleged that while she has been depositing payments in
their bank accounts, no acknowledgment receipt was ever issued to
her. She, however, maintained that she has deposited a total
payment of One Million One Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P1,152,000.00) on respondent's and Julius's BPI bank accounts,
However, Sanidad lamented that respondent took advantage of his
legal knowledge as a lawyer and employed several tactics to defraud
her. She claimed that respondent, after receiving the total amount of
P1,152,000.00 from her, sent her demand letters and threatened her
with eviction. Respondent also avoided meeting her and became
unreachable. Sanidad averred that she would receive telephone calls
from him pressuring her to immediately vacate the property or she
will be evicted. Sanidad filed a disbarment complaint.
Respondent commented that Sanidad's allegations are bereft of
factual basis. He averred that Sanidad has been a tenant of the
subject property since 1980 whose lease had long lapsed and is
facing eviction for non-payment of rentals. He further asserted that
Sanidad's occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance,
and because her eviction from the subject property was imminent,
she allegedly fabricated lies against him.
Furthermore, Sanidad merely paid P5,468.75 as rentals. He claimed
that it was only in 2010 that they agreed on the sale of the subject
property for an amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) but Sanidad failed to pay the said amount, thus, she
was given an eviction notice. Respondent maintained that all of
Sanidad's payments made between 2001 to 2010 were just
payment for the rental of the subject property.
However, he and Sanidad mutually agreed to amicably settle which
resulted to the dismissal of the civil case which the latter filed
against him. He added that he had already turned over the title of
the subject property to Sanidad even without receiving a single
centavo as payment.
The IBP found respondent to have indeed used his legal knowledge
to defraud and mislead Sanidad by sending her demand letters to
vacate the subject property despite the sale of the same and
payments made to him. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent
be given a warning that any repetition of the same will be dealt with
severely.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Aguas defrauded and misled Sanidad by using
his legal knowledge.
Page 20 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
RULING:
YES. There is substantial evidence that Sanidad indeed entered into a
contract of sale, albeit verbal, with respondent by showing proof of
payments made to the latter. She presented copies of bank deposit slips
as evidence that she has been depositing her payments for the sale of
the subject property.
Respondent's allegations that the payments were for rentals and his
denial of the existence of the contract of sale between him and Sanidad
fail to convince considering that the amounts of deposits made by
Sanidad in respondent's and Julius's bank account were too substantial
to be regarded as payments of rentals. Despite the receipt of payments
from Sanidad, respondent apparently used his legal knowledge when he
sent a demand letter dated April 10, 2012 to vacate the subject property.
Equally important, that while respondent denied that he entered into a
contract of sale with Sanidad, records show that he eventually decided
to turn over the title of the subject property to Sanidad based on a
settlement agreement that the cases filed against him will be withdrawn.
Clearly, this act of respondent is inconsistent with his claim that
Sanidad's payments were for rentals, and that no payment was actually
made for the sale of the property.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." It is well
established that a lawyer's conduct is "not confined to the performance
of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by,
or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful."
"Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality
although the concept is broad enough to include such element.
To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud
or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in
principle, fairness and straightforwardness while conduct that is
"deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive
misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is
ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party
imposed upon.
Respondent's conduct in dealing with Sanidad was wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and fairness. While the court cannot
conclude that respondent indeed entered into a verbal contract for the
sale of a real property despite knowledge that said verbal contract is
unenforceable due to lack of clear evidence, it is, however, apparent due
to the fact that he eventually agreed to surrender the title of the subject
property to Sanidad, that he has certainly entered into a contract of sale
of the subject property with Sanidad for which he received payments.
Respondent never denied that he received the deposits made by Sanidad,
but he never issued her any acknowledgment receipts. He claimed that
Sanidad has been their tenant since 1983 yet no contract of lease was
ever presented to support his claim. It, thus, appears that while
respondent profited from receiving substantial amounts of money from
Sanidad, the latter, however, holds no concrete proof that he has been
actually receiving her payments.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
The lack of transparency due to respondent's failure to give
acknowledgment receipts and the lack of written contracts is highly
suspicious of deceit and fraud because it inevitably placed Sanidad in
a rather disadvantageous position. Worse, respondent has utilized
the lack of written contracts and acknowledgment receipts in
threatening to evict complainant n despite the apparent receipt of
payments
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with
the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the
course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity. Public confidence in the law and lawyers may be eroded by
the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar.
Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner
that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.
15. Bunagan-Bansig v. Celera (A.C. No. 5581)
FACTS:
On May 8, 1997, Atty. Rogelio Celera (respondent) and Gracemarie R.
Bunagan (Bunagan), entered into a contract of marriage, Bansig is
the sister of Gracemarie R. Bunagan, legal wife of respondent.
However, notwithstanding respondent's marriage with Bunagan,
respondent contracted another marriage on January 8, 1998 with a
certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba (Alba).
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with
Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly
immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which
renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
The Court resolved to require respondent to file a comment on the
instant complaint.
Respondent failed to submit his comment on the complaint, despite
receipt of the copy of the Court's Resolution, as evidenced by
Registry Return Receipt No. 30639. Thus, the Court, in a Resolution
dated March 17, 2003, resolved to require respondent to show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for
failing to file his comment on the complaint against him.
Bansig filed an Omnibus Ex Parte Motion praying that respondent's
failure to file his comment on the complaint be deemed as a waiver
to file the same, and that the case be submitted for disposition.
In a Motion, respondent claimed that while it appeared that an
administrative case was filed against him, he did not know the
nature or cause thereof since other than Bansig's Omnibus Motion,
he received no other pleading or any processes of this Court.
Respondent, however, countered that Bansig's Omnibus Motion was
merely a ploy to frighten him and his wife from pursuing the criminal
complaints for falsification of public documents they filed against
Bansig and her husband.
Respondent pointed out that having been the family's erstwhile
counsel and her younger sister's husband, Bansig knew his law office
Page 21 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
address, but she failed to send a copy of the complaint to him. He added
that Bansig has an unpaid obligation amounting to ₱2,000,000.00 to his
wife which triggered a sibling rivalry.
In a Resolution dated July 7, 2003, the Court resolved to (a) require
Bansig to furnish respondent with a copy of the administrative complaint
and to submit proof of such service; and (b) require respondent to file a
comment on the complaint against him.
In compliance, Bansig submitted an Affidavit of Mailing to show proof
that a copy of the administrative complaint was furnished to respondent
at his given address which is No. 238 Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino
Subdivision, Angeles City, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 2167.
On March 17, 2004, considering that respondent failed anew to file his
comment despite receipt of the complaint, the Court resolved to require
respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with
or held in contempt for such failure.
On June 3, 2004, respondent, in his Explanation, reiterated that he has
yet to receive a copy of the complaint. He requested anew that Bansig
be directed to furnish him a copy of the complaint.
The Court granted respondent's prayer that he be furnished a copy of
the complaint, and required Bansig to furnish a copy of the complaint to
respondent.
On May 16, 2005, the Court anew issued a Show Cause Order to
respondent as to why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in
contempt for failure to comply with the Resolution dated July 7, 2003
despite service of copy of the complaint by registered mail.
On August 1, 2005, the Court noted the returned and unserved copy of
the Show Cause Order dated May 16, 2005 sent to respondent at 238
Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino Subd. under Registry Receipt No. 55621,
with notation "RTS-Moved." It likewise required Bansig to submit the
correct and present address of respondent.
On September 12, 2005, Bansig manifested that respondent had
consistently indicated in his correspondence with the Court No. 238
Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino Subdivision, Angeles City as his residential
address. However, all notices served upon him on said address were
returned with a note "moved" by the mail server. Bansig averred that in
Civil Case No. 59353, pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, respondent entered his appearance as
counsel with mailing address to be at "Unit 8, Halili Complex, 922 Aurora
Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City."
On February 13, 2006, the Court resolved to resend a copy of the Show
Cause Order dated May 16, 2005 to respondent at his new address at
Unit 8, Halili Complex, 922 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City.
In a Resolution dated January 27, 2010, it appearing that respondent
failed to comply with the Court's Resolutions dated June 30, 2008 and
July 7, 2003, the Court resolved to: (1) DISPENSE with the filing by
respondent of his comment on the complaint; (2) ORDER the arrest of
Atty. Celera; and (3) DIRECT the Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to (a) ARREST and DETAIN Atty. Celera for non-
compliance with the Resolution dated June 30, 2008; and (b) SUBMIT a
report of compliance with the Resolution. The Court likewise resolved to
REFER the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
However, the Return of Warrant dated March 24, 2010, submitted by
Atty. Frayn M. Banawa, Investigation Agent II, Anti-Graft Division of
the NBI, showed that respondent cannot be located because neither
Halili Complex nor No. 922 Aurora Blvd., at Cubao, Quezon City
cannot be located. During surveillance, it appeared that the given
address, i.e., No. 922 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City was a vacant
lot with debris of a demolished building. Considering that the given
address cannot be found or located and there were no leads to
determine respondent's whereabouts, the warrant of arrest cannot
be enforced.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, meanwhile, in compliance with
the Court's Resolution, reported that as per their records, the
address of respondent is at No. 41 Hoover St., Valley View Royale
Subd., Taytay, Rizal.
Respondent likewise failed to appear before the mandatory
conference and hearings set by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), despite several notices.
Thus, in an Order dated August 4, 2010, Commissioner Rebecca
Villanueva-Maala, of the IBP-CBD, declared respondent to be in
default and the case was submitted for report and recommendation.
The Order of Default was received by respondent as evidenced by a
registry return receipt. However, respondent failed to take any action
on the matter.
On January 3, 2011, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation,
recommended that respondent Atty. Celera be suspended for a
period of two (2) years from the practice of law.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the respondent is guilty of contracting two
marriages and
(2) Whether or not there was blatant disregard of Court rules which
would suffice the penalty of suspension or disbarment.
RULING:
First Issue:
In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that
respondent contracted a second marriage despite the existence of
his first marriage.
Bansig submitted certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates to
prove that respondent entered into a second marriage while the
latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. We note that the second
marriage apparently took place barely a year from his first marriage
to Bunagan which is indicative that indeed the first marriage was still
subsisting at the time respondent contracted the second marriage
with Alba.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Page 22 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a
mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Second Issue:
This case has dragged on since 2002. In the span of more than 10 years,
the Court has issued numerous directives for respondent's compliance,
but respondent seemed to have preselected only those he will take
notice of and the rest he will just ignore.. He claimed to have not
received a copy of the complaint, thus, his failure to comment on the
complaint against him. Ironically, however, whenever it is a show cause
order, none of them have escaped respondent's attention. Even
assuming that indeed the copies of the complaint had not reached him,
he cannot, however, feign ignorance that there is a complaint against
him that is pending before this Court which he could have easily
obtained a copy had he wanted to.
Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the
lawful orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court is in itself alone a sufficient cause for
suspension or disbarment.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court
grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of
the land but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is,
thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Dispostive Portion:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ATTY. ROGELIO
JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
16. Valdez v. Dabon, Jr. (A.C. No. 7353)
FACTS:
This is a case about gross immorality, gross violation and falsification
filed by Nelson Valdez against Atty. Antolin Dabon who had an illicit
relationship with Sonia Valdez, Nelson’s wife.
June 8 2006, Process server Fernando Sia made a report but failed
to serve a copy upon the respondent because the house maid
refused to receive the same(Pandacan, Manila). Sia also went to the
provincial address at Greenfield Subd, Fernando Pampanga but was
not allowed to enter. He was informed that the respondent left for
the US.
June 16, 2006 the investing Justice cancelled the preliminary
conference and directed the respondent to submit his Answer within
15 days or else the case shall be deemed submitted. Letter was
submitted to the respondents address in the US.
June 23, 2006, Pamela Antonio informed Clerk Court that Atty Dabon
is always out thus failed delivery attempts.
June 28, 2006 an ex parte motion to refer for question documents
and fingerprint examination attached exhibits was filed due to nude
photos his wife, Sonia Valdez, was sent to hum from Nenita
Palupayon.
November 14, 2006, complaint filed ex-parte manifestation and
motion claiming that respondent successfully held abeyance the
proceedings by his refusal to receive and comply with the process.
Nov 30, 2006, it was reported that the respondent no longer lives in
Pampanga and in Pandacan.
Sia then went to the respondents house in Pandacan and left the
envelope underneath the door and went to Greenfields, Pampanga
and left the envelope to the guards. Both envelopes were returned
to the CA via LBC and both opened.
Nelson alleged that his wife, Sonia, admitted to him that she
engaged in an adulterous and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon
since Nov 2000. In 2006 she tried to end the relationship but the
respondent disagreed thus threatened and harassed Sonia. Nelson
alleged that one day after complaint was filed the respondent fled to
the US without a travel authority from the SC. Respondent and his
wife sent text messages to apologise to the petitioner and his wife.
IBP: IBP found that the charge against the respondent to be
sufficiently proven and recommended that he be disbarred and
dropped from the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violated Adm. Matter No. 99-12-08-SC when he left
for the United States before his travel authority could be issued and
gross immoral conduct.
Page 23 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
RULING:
Yes. Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's
bounden duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to
safeguard the Bar's integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity
of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their
exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest
degree of morality.
The Court explained in Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit that "as officers of the
court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A
member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
impression that he is flouting those moral standards." The SC subscribes
to the IBP’s opinion that there was substantial evidence showing that
Atty. Dabon did have an illicit relationship with Nelson’s legal wife.
The respondent's denial is a negative pregnant, a denial coupled with
the admission of substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are
not squarely denied. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of
negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. Where a fact is
alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the
allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held
that the qualifying circumstance alone is denied while the fact itself is
admitted. It is clear from Atty. Dabon's Comment that his denial only
pertained as to the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a
categorical denial thereof, he is deemed to have admitted his consensual
affair with Sonia.
In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds Sonia's allegation that
the illicit relationship was made possible by sexual assaults and
maintained through threat and intimidations, to be untrue. Certainly, a
sexually abused woman could not be expected to lavish her oppressor
with expensive gifts or pay him affectionate compliments or words of
endearment. The natural reaction of a victim of a sexual molestation
would be to avoid her ravisher.
In this case, however, it appeared that Sonia continually remained in the
company of Atty. Dabon for more than five years, even inviting him for
lunch-outs and frequenting his office to bring food whenever the latter
was preoccupied with his workload and could not go out with her to eat.
Verily, Sonia's actuations towards Atty. Dabon are in stark contrast to
the expected demeanor of one who had been repeatedly sexually
abused. It has been repeatedly held that to justify suspension or
disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt as to constitute
a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency. It is willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members
of the community.
In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman
other than his wife showed his moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community. It manifested his
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own
marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, he has
fallen below the moral bar. Such detestable behavior warrants a
disciplinary sanction.
Atty. Dabon's misconduct and unrepentant demeanor clearly showed
a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to the sanctity
of marriage and marital vows, and his outright defiance of
established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in
disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in
peril. Accordingly, the Court finds the need for the imposition of the
extreme administrative penalty of DISBARMENT.
17. Castillo-Macapuso v. Castillejos, Jr. (A.M. No. P-19-3985)
FACTS:
Preciousa Macapuso is a Social Welfare Officer and the Vice
President of the Philippine Association of Court Employees. She met
Atty. Nelson Castillejos, and they got acquainted with each other.
Preciousa went to Isabela for the Regional Election of the PACE. She
met with Atty. Castillejos, to discuss confidential matters. After
entering the car, Atty. Castillejos kissed Preciousa, and they
went to a nearby motel and you all know what happened
next. Atty. Castillejos also revealed there that he had a child with a
live-in partner.
Atty. Castillejos started courting Preciousa and eventually they
became a couple, meeting twice a month. He was also able to
convince Preciousa to have her marriage annulled, he offered that he
will be the one preparing for the petition, hire a lawyer, find a
psychologist, until the issuance of the decree. Preciousa paid
P250,000 as a fee.
Preciousa was scheduled for an operation for hysterectomy. Atty.
Castillejos convinced her to stay in Isabela for her recovery which
she acceded. Atty. Castillejos visited her all the days of the week
where they would have sexual congress. On the days that she
does not want to have sexual intercourse, he asked her to
perform oral sex. (lami ghorl?!)
Preciousa felt pain in her abdomen, he asked Atty. Castillejos if he
had a previous sexual encounter with any woman. He admitted that
he had a sexual encounter with a sexworker in Cebu. Preciousa was
examined and it showed that she had a purulent discharge (nana) as
a result of gonorrhea. It could not determine whether Atty.
Castillejos was the one who transmitted it to her. Cebu is a known
hotspot for HIV and that there is a big possibility that Atty.
Castillejos might be infected given that he had an
unprotected sexual encounter with a commercial sex worker.
(judicial notice lage ni)
Later that year, Atty. Castillejos revealed to her that he was married
but he promised that he will leave his wife if the result will turn out
to be positive and leave with Preciousa. Meanwhile, Preciousa asked
about the status of the nullity case, however Atty. Castillejos
diverted her attention, and later on he said that he knew nothing
about the case. She went to the prosecutor, only to find that there
Page 24 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
was really no case for nullity. She filed a case against Atty. Castillejos for
Violence Against Women and Children.
RESPONDENT’s POSITION:
Atty. Castillejos denied the allegations and averred that he never
concealed his marital status. He said that what transpired between them
was nothing but mutual lust and desire. They very well know that they
were two adults that could not enter into a serious relationship. He also
admitted that he committed a mistake when he had carnal knowledge of
a woman not his wife.
An anonymous complaint was also filed against Preciousa for immorality
and grave misconduct for her alleged affair of Atty. Castillejos.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:
It was recommended that Atty. Castillejos to be suspended for a period
of six months as a member of the Philippine Bar. A memorandum was
passed by the Office of the Court Administrator finding both of them
guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Castillejos is guilty for disgraceful and immoral
conduct.
RULING:
YES. "Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct which is so
willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of
good and respectable members of the community. It is held that "for
such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be 'grossly
immoral,' that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree."
It is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
community's sense of decency.
FOR ATTY. CASTILLEJOS
In the instant cases, it is clearly shown that Atty. Castillejos was amiss in
maintaining his moral righteousness which is expected from officers of
the court. He admitted that his act of entering in a relationship with
Preciousa who is married, though separated, constitutes gross
immorality. What makes it more reprehensible is the fact that Atty.
Castillejos himself is a married man with one child. Describing his
relationship with Preciousa as merely for mutual lust and desire only
proves that his moral fiber is questionable. His sense of propriety and
righteousness has gone beyond control, casually committing infidelity
whenever there is an opportunity to satisfy his carnal desire. The
promiscuous nature of his acts calls for correction. Based on
jurisprudence, extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as offensive
to the sanctity of marriage, the family, and the community.
Possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the
Constitution and obeying the law are obligations imposed on every
citizen, a lawyer's responsibilities under Canon 1, mean more than
just staying out of trouble with the law. As servants of the law and
officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of
observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to
make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation
FOR PRECIOUSA
She definitely commits the same infraction as that of Atty. Castillejos.
To reiterate, she is, herself, married to another at the time of the
illicit relationship with Atty. Castillejos. Moreover, the Court doubts
the truthfulness of the allegation of Preciousa that she did not know
the marital status of Atty. Castillejos. Considering that Atty.
Castillejos is one of the more notable employees of the RTC of
Cauayan City, Isabela, as Clerk of Court VI of the OCC, it is quite
impossible that nobody told her about his real marital status. At the
same time, it is very easy for Preciousa to ask one of her co-
employees about Atty. Castillejos. Instead, she chooses to turn a
blind eye from the truth to satisfy her desire to enter into a
relationship with Atty. Castillejos.
Furthermore, noteworthy to emphasize are the abusive, insulting and
demeaning text messages sent by Preciousa to Atty. Castillejos and
his wife. The said text messages are uncalled for and show the
erratic and impulsive attitude of Preciousa. Aside from that, the court
cannot give credence to the existence and truthfulness of the claim
that Atty. Castillejos received P250,000.00 as facilitation fee for the
nullity case of Preciousa. She has not presented any proof as to the
veracity of her claim.
Indeed, even if not all forms of extramarital relations are punishable
under penal law, the sanctity of marriage is constitutionally
recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special
contract of permanent union. Court employees are enjoined to
adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their
professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name
and integrity of the courts of justice. The conduct of court personnel
must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to
their duties in the judicial branch, but also to their behavior outside
the court as private individuals.
18. HDI Holdings, Phil., Inc. v. Cruz (A.C. No. 11724)
FACTS:
HDI is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the Philippines. HDI alleged in its complaint that they retained
the services of Atty. Cruz as its in-house corporate counsel and
corporate secretary. HDI was pleased with Atty. Cruz's performance,
thus, in time, he earned their trust and confidence to handle the
corporation's important and confidential matters. Ultimately, Atty.
Cruz became a friend to most of HDI's directors, officers and staff
members.
Page 25 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
However, HDI later averred that through Atty. Cruz's deception and
machinations, he managed to misappropriate a total of P41,317,167.18,
in the following manner:
Cash bid and unpaid personal loans:
HDI released P3 million in cash to Atty. Cruz to be used as cash bid for
the purchase of a parcel of land. Atty. Cruz signed a cash voucher as
receipt of said amount. However, after HDI lost in the bid, Atty. Cruz
failed to promptly return the money to the company. HDI made several
demands to Atty. Cruz for the return of the money but it took him 4
months to return the said amount. Months later, Atty Cruz asked to loan
P4 million from HDI, for the purchase of his house. A contract of loan
was executed.
Atty. Cruz informed the management of HDI that there was going to be
another bidding for same property. He sent an e-mail to the Corporate
Treasurer, asking for P3 million for the bid deposit. Banking on his
assurances that the same amount was fully refundable and/or
convertible as earnest money for the sale, HDI again gave P 3M to Atty.
Cruz, who signed a check voucher. Atty. Cruz asked for an additional P
3M for the bid deposit, claiming that it will be added to their earlier bid
deposit.
He again asked for an additional P 4M personal loan, supposedly to pay
off his brother's debts and keep his family out of harm. Feeling sorry for
Atty. Cruz, Mr. Chia agreed to give him a loan out of his own pocket.
HDI learned that it did not win the rebidding on the property. HDI
demanded for the immediate return of the P 6M bid bond. However,
despite several and repeated demands, Atty. Cruz did not heed the same.
Later, in an e-mail Atty. Cruz confessed that he converted the allotted
cash bid bond for his personal use. Feeling sorry for him, HDI decided
to convert the amount to another loan in favor of Atty. Cruz.
Transactions concerning a certain property:
Capital Growth, Inc. (CGI), a corporation wholly-owned by HDI, through
Atty. Cruz, arranged and facilitated the purchase of a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 75276. Atty. Cruz informed the Chairman that CGI
intended to make payment of the purchase price of the property and
thus requested the latter, for P26,987,500.00. The said amount was
released by CGI, upon Atty. Cruz's instructions to one Atty. Cabading,
the alleged attorney-in-fact of the sellers. When CGI met with the seller,
HDI discovered that the purchase price of the property was only
P25,298,400.00 and that they only received the said amount. Further,
the sellers informed them that they never authorized Atty. Cabading to
be their attorney-in-fact. After discovering the discrepancy of
P1,689,100.00 from the true purchase price of the property, CGI
demanded from Atty. Cruz and Atty. Cabading the return of the
difference in the amount, but failed despite numerous demands.
Fictitious Sale of Property:
Atty. Cruz sent an e-mail to Mr. Chia, informing him of a 500 square
meter property for sale located in Quezon City. They were told that the
owner of the Quezon City property died, and the heirs who now owned
the same were already entertaining buyers. Atty. Cruz sent another e-
mail to Mr. Chia con firming the meeting with the sellers and their
lawyer and alleged that he offered P42,500.00 per square meter, as
advised, which price the heirs found acceptable. Thereafter, Atty. Cruz
advised Mr. Chia that the heirs required an earnest money of P 5M but
the full payment of the purchase price of P21,250,000.00 should
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
immediately follow. Because Atty. Cruz emphasized the urgency of
the sale, HDI immediately started processing the earnest money of
P5M. HDI gave Cashier's Check No. in the amount of P5M to Atty.
Cruz as earnest money for the QC property. In return, copies of the
contract to sell and deed of absolute sale were given to HDI. HDI
released to Atty. Cruz another cashier's check in the amount of
P16M representing the balance on the full purchase price of the Q.C.
property. The two checks were deposited into t Account No. of Atty.
Cabading.
HDI directly communicated with one of the heirs. To HDI's surprise,
it turned out that the QC property was never sold to HDI, and the
owners of the QC property was not at all interested in selling the
property. Further, HDI found out that the alleged heirs did not have
a family lawyer by the name of Atty. Cabading. The documents given
were merely forged.
Unremitted Rentals:
CGI owned two (2) parcels of land which were being leased to
Petron Corporation. Since 2011, HDI has not received rental
payments from Petron. The Executive Assistant to the Chairman of
HDI, called Petron to inquire and follow up on the unpaid rentals.
She was then informed that two (2) checks were already released to
Atty. Cruz after he presented a Secretary's Certificate authorizing
himself to receive the rental payments.
Upon discovery, HDI immediately demanded from Atty. Cruz the
rental payments in the total amount of more than P 4M which he
failed to turn over. Later, HDI finally decided to confront him about
his actions. Atty. Cruz went to HDI's office where admitted to
everything. After writing his confession, Atty. Cruz likewise tendered
his resignation.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Cruz is administratively liable for violating Canons 16 and
17 of the CPR.
RULING:
YES. Atty. Cruz has chosen to remain silent despite the severity of the
allegations against him. He was given several opportunities to
comment on the charges yet no comment came. Consequently, we
are left with no choice but to deduce his implicit admission of the
charges levelled against him. Thus, we find that the evidence
submitted by HDI, albeit secondary evidence only being mere
photocopies, when put together with Atty. Cruz' written confession
and his subsequent non-cooperation during the proceedings before
the IBP, would give a convincing conclusion that indeed Atty. Cruz is
guilty of the following reprehensible acts:
(a) misappropriation of the cash bid in the total amount of
P6,000,000.00 which remains unpaid;
(b) contracting unsecured personal loans with HDI in the total
amount of P8,000,000.00 which remains unpaid;
(c) deceiving HDI as to the true selling price of the Q.C. property
which resulted in overpayment in the amount of P1,689,100.00
which remains unpaid;
(d) fabricating a fictitious sale ;
(e) collecting rental payments without authority; and
Page 26 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
(f) executing a fake Secretary’s Certificate appointing himself as the
authorized person to receive the payments of the lease rentals.
Considering all the above-cited infractions, it is beyond dispute that Atty.
Cruz is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. In several
occasions, he manifested a propensity to lie and deceive his client in
order to obtain money. His misrepresentations constitute grave violations
of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These reprehensible conduct of Atty.
Cruz without doubt breached the highly fiduciary relationship between
lawyers and clients Atty. Cruz's failure to return the client's money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed
in him by the client.
Records reveal that he likewise violated Canon. 16.04 of the CPR. In his
private capacity, Atty. Cruz requested from HDI, not just one, but two
loans of considerable amounts as evidenced by contracts of loan and
acknowledgement receipts, the authenticity of which was undisputed.
The first time, he borrowed P4M for the purchase of his house; and the
second time, he borrowed another P4M in order to help his brother’s
debts. Apparently, these acts of borrowing money were committed by
Atty. Cruz in his private capacity.
That being said, the Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to
pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned. However, insofar as the money received by Atty. Cruz from
HDI, in his professional capacity, there must be a separate civil case for
that.
Cruz guilty of gross misconduct by violating the Canon of Professional
Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct,
and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered
DISBARRED.
19. Turla v. Caringal (A.C. No. 11641)
FACTS:
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint filed by Turla
against the respondent, Atty. Caringal before the IBP. Turla is the
petitioner in a Special Proceedings case before the RTC of Quezon City
wherein Atty. Caringal is the counsel for the oppositor.
In her Complaint, Turla charged Atty. Caringal with (1) failure to take
the MCLE seminars for the MCLE II and III compliance periods and (2)
violation of his lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood. Yet, Atty. Carinal
signed the pleadings and motions in several cases.
Atty. Caringal, in his Answer, countered that Turla's Complaint was a
form of harassment since he is the counsel for the oppositor in Special
Proceedings. He also averred that he had taken several units for the
MCLE units but was unable to complete the required units but he paid
the non-compliance fees for his MCLE II and III.
Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Caringal breached his oath to
do no falsehood by stating that he was exempted from complying with
the MCLE requirements when what he really paid for was the non-
compliance fee and not any exemption fee. He likewise noted that Atty.
Caringal's failure to report his MCLE information placed the pleadings he
signed on behalf of his clients at risk of expunction.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
OBC agreed with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
to impose a three-year suspension on Atty. Caringal from the
practice of law.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Caringal violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes.
Turla was able to secure a Certification that Atty. Caringal had not
yet complied with the requirements for MCLE II and III compliance
periods. Despite being confronted with such Certification by Turla,
Atty. Caringal continued to sign and submit pleadings and motions
indicating therein that he was "exempt" from the MCLE requirements
and referring to the Official Receipt for his payment of the non-
compliance fees.
It is clear from the provisions that a non-compliant lawyer must pay
a non-compliance fee of PhP 1,000.00 and still comply with the MCLE
requirements within a sixty (60)-day period, otherwise, he/she will
be listed as a delinquent IBP member after investigation by the IBP-
CBD and recommendation by the MCLE Committee.
It is worthy to note that Atty. Caringal could not be declared a
delinquent member as the sixty (60)-day period for compliance did
not commence to run. There was no showing that he was ever
issued and that he had actually received a Non-Compliance Notice.
In addition, by March 11, 2011, he had already complied with the
MCLE requirements for MCLE II and III compliance periods, albeit
belatedly.
Nevertheless, Atty. Caringal is being held liable for knowingly and
willfully misrepresenting in the pleadings he had signed and
submitted to the courts that he was exempted from MCLE II and III.
Prior to its amendment, BM No. 1922 imposed a stiff penalty for a
practicing lawyer's failure to indicate the details of his/her MCLE
Compliance/Exemption in the pleadings filed before the courts or
quasi-judicial bodies, i.e., the dismissal of the case and expunction of
the pleadings from the records, which, in effect, ultimately penalized
said lawyer's clients, too.
Atty. Caringal, in this case, not only failed to indicate the necessary
MCLE details in his pleadings and motions, but purposely stated
therein the false information that he was exempted from MCLE II
and III. As he had filed the subject pleadings in 2010, prior to the
amendment of BM No. 1922 on January 14, 2014, he risked the
dismissal of the cases and expunction of the pleadings and motions
by the courts, to his clients' detriment. In fact, as Turla mentioned,
the pleadings which Atty. Caringal filed before the RTC Makati were
indeed expunged from the records because of the false MCLE
information he indicated therein.
When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the
pleadings and motions he filed, although in fact he was not, he
engaged in dishonest conduct which was also disrespectful of the
courts. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that pleadings
with such false information produce no legal effect and can result in
the expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the
Page 27 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
cause of his clients and actually violated his duty to serve his clients with
competence and diligence.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. Atty. Jose Mangaser
Caringal is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.
20. Lim v. Mendoza (A.C. No. 10261)
FACTS:
Rufina is the surviving spouse of pastor Lim who died on June 11, 1994.
She claimed that during his lifetime Pastor used conjugal funds to
organized several dummy corporations, Skyline Corp. and Nell
Mart using his mistress and employees as incorporations and/or
stockholders in order to defeat her claims to said properties.
March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a Joint Petition before RTC. For the
settlement of the estate of Pastor. Miguel Lim, half-brother of Pastor, on
mother’s side, filed a petition for Intervention, categorically stating under
oath that Skyline and etc. are dummy corporations and officers are
dummies. That land of the corp. is actually in the name of Pastor.
Petition for Intervention was executed before Atty. Mendoza, as
notary public.
However, Atty. Mendoza, as counsel fo Skyline, argued that
Skyline is the registered owner of several real properties and
that it has all the right to protect its interest against Rufina.
Rufina averred that Atty. Mendoza made such allegation despite his
knowledge that Skyline is a dummy corporation and I has been judicially
declared as conjugal property of Rufina and Pastor.
Rufina’s claim against Atty. Mendoza, who is acting as VP of Nell Mart
that is demanded from tenants to vacate the property, claiming that Nell
Mart owned the same, while knowing that Nell Mart is a dummy corp.
And finally averred that Atty. Mendoza used intemperate language in his
pleadings particularly when he said that Rufina collected “BILLIONS OF
PESOS” as rentals which were “DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLINGS
VICES.”
Atty. Mendoza, in his Answer, countered:
1. Rufina and Pastor were separated for more than 26 years by the time
Pastor died.
2. The couple entered into an Agreement where they already partition
their conjugal properties.
3. As to dummy corporations, there is already an RTC decision declaring
that at "the bank deposits in the names of [Nell Mart] and Skunac
Corporation x x x which were found to be properties distinct from the
estate, are x x x not properties of the estate of x x x Pastor x x x and are,
therefore, ordered excluded therefrom x x x."
4. He admit on having filed the petition for intervention, he said that it
was "pre-arranged between Rufina and Miguel Y. Lim." Unfortunately,
Miguel and Yao Hiong died before they could testify, hence the
statements made in the Petition for Intervention are mere hearsay.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
5. He points out that this is the 2nd complaint filed by Rufina against
him before IBP involving the same issue of ownership and that the
claimed for disbarment is a retaliation for her losses in other cases.
IBP Report and Recommendation
Recommends suspension for 2 years in the practice of law.
· It noted that although Atty. Mendoza admitted that the
Agreement may be improper, he still argues that the same is
valid between the parties. His insistence on this validity of the
Agreement only betrays his ignorance of law which contravenes
Canons 1 and 5.
· The drafting of petition for Intervention, signed the same,
presumption that the contents are true and correct of which to
later assail the truthfulness of the Petition for Intervention,
alleging that it was pre-arranged agreement between client and
complainant, shows he lied to the courts.
· Further noted that despite his knowledge about the irregularity
in the issuance of shares in Nell Mart, he still acquired shares of
stocks and even claimed to be a buyer in good faith.
· As a notary, he notarized affidavits which in effect attested to
repeated violations of the Corporation Code, without any
showing that he even attempted to caution his clients of the
illegality of their acts.
· Respondent also did not deny using offensive language in his
pleadings.
· Finally, the Report noted that respondent's Position Paper lacked
Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime
Number, Roll of Attorneys Number and his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), in clear violation of Bar
Matter Nos. 1132 and 1922
IBP Board Governor adopt the Resolution.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Mendoza violated CPR.
RULING:
Adopt the findings of the Board and noted that this is not his
first infraction thus penalty of disbarment. Disbarred from
practice of law for violations of Canons 1, 5, 10 and Rule
10.01.
Practice of law is a privilege and that they must perform the four fold
duty to society, legal profession, court and clients. It is by no means
a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR emphatically reiterates the
core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer, not just to obey the laws of
the land, but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct
himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity to the courts, as well as to his clients. All lawyers are
servants of the law, and have to observe and maintain the rule of
law, as well as be exemplars worthy of emulation by others. It is by
Page 28 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
no means a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR emphatically reiterates
the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.
Canon 10 – stresses lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. In Rule 10.01. — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.
Flip-flopping of averments on corp. as dummies
Respondent drafted and signed the Petition for Intervention which avers
in essence that the subject corporations, Skyline and etc. were mere
dummies created by the late Pastor Lim. He notarized the affidavits
stating in essence that they were dummies in the corporations of Pastor.
Respondent in his Position Paper before the IBP-CBD claimed however
that the statements in the Petition for Intervention, as well as the
Affidavits in support thereto were not his statements. The petition was
led pursuant to "agreed arrangements" between complainant and the
late Miguel Lim and that the assignment of shares of stock by Miguel to
him, was a "pre-arranged agreement as payments for attorney's fees
and for reimbursements of whatever litigations expenses advanced by
the respondent."
His flip-flopping on his averments in his pleadings betray a lack of
forthrightness and transparency on his part. The incompatibility of the
two positions, it is clear that respondent has been less than truthful in at
least one occasion. As officer of the court, lawyers are expected to act
with complete candor. They may not resort to the use of deception, not
just in some, but in all their dealings. The CPR bars lawyers from
committing or consenting to any falsehood, or from misleading or
allowing the court to be misled by guile in finding the truth. Needless to
say, complete and absolute honesty is expected of lawyers when they
appear and plead before the courts. Any act that obstructs or impedes
the administration of justice constitutes misconduct which merits
disciplinary action on lawyers.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to be a disciple of truth, having
sworn upon his admission to the Bar that he would do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in court, and that he would conduct himself
as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Respondent should
bear in mind that as an officer of the court, his high vocation is to
correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to
aid it in doing justice and arriving at a correct conclusion. Respondent
also cannot feign ignorance as to the veracity of the statements in the
petition because he signed the same. Respondent should not forgot, a
counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality nor even
a mere means for identification. It is a solemn component of legal
practice that through a counsel's signature, a positive declaration is
made. In certifying through his signature that he has read the pleading,
that there is ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay,
a lawyer asserts his competence, credibility, and ethics.
Agreement of Rufina and Pastor improper notarial act
Respondent also erred in asserting that the Agreement between Rufina
and Pastor was "improper for notarial act," it has "binding effect against
third persons." The Agreement in essence was a contract entered into by
the parties, separating their present and future properties, with Rufina
waiving her support from Pastor and both spouses waiving any future
action between them, whether civil or criminal. The sworn obligation of
every lawyer to respect the law and the legal processes is a continuing
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
condition for retaining membership in the profession. He is also
expected to keep abreast of legal developments. To claim that
such agreement is binding against third persons shows
either respondent's ignorance of the law or his wanton
disregard for the laws of the land.
Use of temperate and respectful language in pleadings
Respondent likewise failed to use temperate and respectful language
in his pleading against complainant. In his Comment on the said
proceedings, respondent averred that Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF
PESOS" in rent which were "DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING
VICES."
The Code provides that a "lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper." Lawyers are instructed to be gracious and must use such
words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
Our language is rich with expressions that are emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive. Here, respondent, in his eagerness to advance his client's
cause, imputed on Rufina derogatory traits that are damaging to her
reputation.
Failure to indicate material information required in rules
Finally, respondent failed to indicate in his Position Paper material
information required by the rules. These are, the Professional Tax
Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of Attorneys
Number and his MCLE, in violation of Bar Matter Nos. 1132 and 1922.
These requirements are not vain formalities or mere frivolities.
Rather, these requirements ensure that only those who have
satisfied the requisites for legal practice are able to engage in it. To
willfully disregard them is to willfully disregard mechanisms put in
place to facilitate integrity, competence and credibility in legal
practice.
In Sosa vs. Atty. Mendoza, Atty. Mendoza was found respondent
guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR, for his willful failure to pay a
loan in the amount of P500,000.00. The Court ordered his
suspension from the practice of law for one year with a stern
warning that a commission of the same or similar offense will result
in the imposition of a more severe penalty. In said case, the Court
declared that Atty. Mendoza's "failure to honor his just debt
constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct x x x [which is]
compounded by Atty. Mendoza's act of interjecting flimsy excuses
that only strengthened the conclusion that he refused to pay a valid
and just debt."
The string of offenses committed by respondent betrays his
propensity to ignore, disrespect and make a mockery of the judicial
institution he has vowed to honor and protect. His violations, in not
just one instance, show his recalcitrant character, undeserving of the
privilege to practice in the legal profession. Membership in the Bar is
a privilege laden with conditions, granted only to those who possess
the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers as
instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. As
officers of the courts and keepers of the public's faith, lawyers are
burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility. They are
mandated to behave at all times in a manner that is consistent with
truth and honor and are expected to maintain not only legal
Page 29 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing.
21. Nulada v. Paulma (A.C. No. 8172)
FACTS:
The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint for
disbarment by reason of dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude filed by Complainant Alex Nulada (complainant) against
respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma (respondent).
The complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent issued
in his favor a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment for the
latter's debt. Because of respondent's standing as a respected member
of the community and his being a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo, complainant accepted the
check without question.
Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was
dishonored due to insufficient fluids. Respondent failed to make good
the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor and repeated
demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal complaint for violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against respondent, before the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, which recommended the
filing of the appropriate information against respondent before the
Municipal Trial Court of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC). Subsequently,
said information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604.
MTC Decision:
After due proceedings, the MTC found respondent guilty of violation of
BP 22 and ordering him to pay the amount of P150,000.00 as fine, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay. Records show that
respondent appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court of
Guimbal, Iloilo, (RTC).
RTC Decision:
The RTC affirmed in toto the MTC ruling which then became final and
executory.
Note: Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision,
complainant filed this administrative complaint before the Court,
through the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Respondent’s Argument:
Respondent denied that he committed dishonesty against complainant,
as prior to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there were
insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed
that he merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in
whose favor he obtained the loan, stressing that he did not personally
benefit from the proceeds thereof. Unfortunately, said friend had died
and respondent had no means by which to pay for the amount of the
check. He also claimed that complainant threatened him and used his
unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage.
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
The IBP's Report and Recommendation:
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP issued a Report
and Recommendation dated recommending that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for
violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), as well as for having been found guilty of a
crime involving moral turpitude.
Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Notice of
Resolution adopting and approving with modification the IBP's
Report and Recommendation dated June 26, 2013, suspending
respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for
having violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR, as well as for having
been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
The issue advanced for the Court's resolution is whether or not
respondent should be administratively disciplined for having been
found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
HELD:
The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the
IBP, as approved, adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of
Governors.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct,
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
Or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all members of the bar "to obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law x x x." Rule 1.01
thereof specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By taking the
lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an
indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. As
such, he can be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or
private capacity, which renders him unfit to continue to be an officer
of the court.
In Enriquez v. De Vera, the Court discussed the purpose and nature
of a violation of BP 22 in relation to an administrative case against a
lawyer, as in this case, to wit:
[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the
banking system and the legitimate public checking account users.
The gravamen of the offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x]
Page 30 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in
circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the
deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient
funds, or with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public
nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.
xxxx
Being a lawyer, respondent was well aware of the objectives and
coverage of [BP] 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to
know them, for the law was penal in character and application. His
issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated [BP]
22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his
illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his
Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey
the laws.
Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22
indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on
him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as
to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground
for disciplinary action.
In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime
involving moral turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such
conviction has, in fact, already become final. Consequently, respondent
violated the lawyer's oath, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as
aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to disciplinary
action.
As a final word, it should be emphasized that membership in the legal
profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required
to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in
a public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty on his part
would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode
the public's faith in the legal profession as a whole. In this case,
respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of
him as a member of the bar, for which he must suffer the necessary
consequences.
Wherefore, respondent Atty. Paulma is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of
this Resolution. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
comply with its earlier Resolution, and to submit said Comment, still
he failed to do so. Subsequently, a fine of P1,000 was imposed for
his failure to file said Comment and he was again required to comply
with the previous resolution within ten days, but once again, to no
avail. So, an additional P2,000 was imposed upon him and he was
again required to file his comment within ten days under pain of
imprisonment and arrest for a period of five (5) days or until his
compliance. Finally, on 03 February 1999, or almost three years later,
he was declared guilty of Contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3[b] of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered his imprisonment until he
complied with the aforesaid resolutions.
On 05 April 1999, the NBI reported that respondent was arrested in
Tacloban City on 26 March 1999, but was subsequently released
after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of 17
February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by remitting the amount of P2,000
and submitting his long overdue Comment.
In the said Comment 10 dated 16 March 1999, respondent stated
that:
1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated 17
February 1997 as he was at that time undergoing
medical treatment at Camp Ruperto Kangleon in Palo,
Leyte;
2. Complainant Michael Barrios passed away sometime
in June 1997; and
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil
case which was decided in respondent's favor (as
plaintiff in the said case). Respondent avers that as a
result of his moving for the execution of judgment in
his favor and the eviction of the family of herein
complainant Michael Barrios, the latter filed the
present administrative case.
In the meantime, a certain Robert Visbal of the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First
Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood
charged in another estafa case before the Regional Trial Court of
Tacloban City, Branch 9, as well as a civil case involving the victims
of the Doña Paz tragedy in 1987, the Trial Court rendered a decision
against him; His appeal thereto was also dismissed by the Court of
Appeals for his failure to file his brief, despite having been granted
three thirty (30)-day extensions to do so .
The SC then referred the present case to the IBP for investigation,
recommendation and report.

IBP Investigating Commissioner: Recommended Disbarment.

Thus:
22. Barrios v Martinez (A.C. No. 4585)
1.
FACTS:
In 1996, herein complainant filed a verified petition for disbarment
against respondent Atty. Francisco Martinez for having been convicted
by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude by Branch 8 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City. Complainant further
submitted SC’s Resolution dated 13 March 1996 and the Entry of
Judgment dated 20 March 1996.
Consequently, the SC required respondent to comment on said petition
within ten (10) days from notice, but he failed to do so. For the second
2.
time, the SC issued another resolution requiring him to show cause on
why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him for his failure to
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
Several dates for the hearing of the case were
scheduled but none of the parties appeared before
the Commission, until finally it was considered
submitted for resolution last 27 June 2002. On the
same date respondent filed a motion for the dismissal
of the case on the ground that the complainant died
sometime in June 1997 and that dismissal is
warranted because "the case filed by him does not
survive due to his demise; as a matter of fact, it is
extinguished upon his death.”
Respondent's conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude (estafa and/or violation of BP Blg. 22)
Page 31 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
clearly shows his unfitness to protect the administration
of justice and therefore, justifies the imposition of
disbarment against him.
IBP Board of Governors: Passed a Resolution adopting and
approving the report and recommendation of its Investigating
Commissioner
On 03 December 2003, respondent Martinez filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation, in the instant case. His
allegations:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the IBP Investigating
Commissioner is tantamount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law, although admittedly the
practice of law is a privilege;
2. If respondent is given another chance to have his day in
court and allowed to adduce evidence, the
result/outcome would be entirely different from that
arrived at by the Investigating Commissioner; and
3. Respondent is now 71 years of age, and has served the
judiciary in various capacities (from acting city judge to
Municipal Judges League Leyte Chapter President) for
almost 17 years prior to resuming his law practice.
However, the records show that respondent, indeed, failed to furnish a
copy of said Motion to herein complainant. The records also show that
respondent was given several opportunities to present evidence by this
Court as well as by the IBP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime for which respondent was convicted is one
involving moral turpitude
RULING:
Yes. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of
the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Moral turpitude "includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals." It involves "an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."
In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted
by final judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a
worthless check in the amount of P8,000 (Note: It was not stated in
the case what happened in this BP 22 case)
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without
sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty and
immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and
lawyers. And while "the general rule is that a lawyer may not be
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume
jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or
private capacity, where, however, the misconduct outside of the
lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him
morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his
licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified in
suspending or removing him from the office of attorney."
OTHER MATTERS: Allegations of the respondent (in his
Motion for Reconsideration, as mentioned previously),
answered by the SC:
First: The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Investigating Commissioner is not tantamount to a
deprivation of property without due process of law
As respondent himself admits, the practice of law is a privilege. The
purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is "to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this
important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men
in whom courts and clients may repose confidence." "A proceeding
for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where
the complainant is plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts
of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice
them." "Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. Their
conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers
for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor —
or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court."
Second: Respondent no longer deserves another chance to
have his day in court and to adduce evidence
The inordinate length of time respondent took before submitting his
Comment on the original petition warrants his disbarment. These
acts constitute a willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
Court, which under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself
a cause sufficient for suspension or disbarment. Thus, almost three
years had elapsed from the time SC’s First Resolution on 03 July
1996 requiring him to submit his Comment was issued until 16 March
1999, when he finally submitted said Comment to secure his release
from arrest.
It is revealing that despite the unwarranted length of time it took the
respondent to comply, his Comment consists of all of two pages, a
copy of which, it appears, he neglected to furnish complainant. And
while he claims to have been confined while undergoing medical
treatment at the time SC’s Resolution of 17 February 1997 was
issued, he merely reserved the submission of a certification to that
effect. Nor, indeed, was he able to offer any explanation for his
failure to submit his Comment from the time the First Resolution of
03 July 1996 until 16 March 1999. In fact, said Comment alleged,
merely, that the complainant, Michael Barrios, passed away
sometime in June 1997, and imputed upon the latter unsupported ill-
motives for instituting the said Petition against him, which argument
has already been resolved squarely in the abovementioned IBP
report. Respondent, therefore, squandered away seven years to
Page 32 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC |
"have his day in court and adduce evidence" in his behalf, which inaction
also unduly delayed the court's prompt disposition of this petition.
Third: Complaint should not be dismissed, Respondent should
be Disbarred notwithstanding his old age
For the same reasons, the SC is disinclined to take respondent's old age
and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his
favor. If at all, we hold respondent to a higher standard for it, for a
judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
independence, and his conduct should be above reproach. The fact that
respondent has chosen to engage in private practice does not mean he
is now free to conduct himself in less honorable — or indeed in a less
than honorable — manner.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel , we upheld the imposition of one
year's suspension for nonpayment of debt and issuance of worthless
checks, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the
obligation. However, in these cases, for various reasons, none of the
issuances resulted in a conviction by the erring lawyers for
either estafa or B.P. Blg. 22. Thus, we held therein that the issuance
of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
In the instant case, however, herein respondent has been found guilty
and stands convicted by final judgment of a crime involving
moral turpitude. In a long line of cases, disbarment was found to be
the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude. "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 bands of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the
insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic."
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys.
23. Soriano v. Dizon (A.C. No. 6792)
FACTS:
1. One night, Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the
influence of liquor when suddenly along Abanao Street, Baguio City,
Roberto Soriano, a taxi driver, overtook him.
2. Dizon then tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Soriano, and
held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open
his door, causing Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help
Dizon to get up, but the latter was about to punch him so Soriano
punched Dizon first to fend off an impending attack.
3. Soriano then prevented another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon
went back to his car and got his revolver with the handle wrapped
in a handkerchief. As Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses,
which he just picked up from the pavement, Dizon fired and shot
him. Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the latter merely
pushed him out and sped off. The bullet hit Soriano’s neck and
lacerated his carotid artery.
4. According to the doctors who treated him, he would have died if
not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord
EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020
“In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
injury causing the left side of his body to be paralyzed,
disabling him for his job as a taxi driver.
5. Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was
allowed probation, conditioned on payment of civil liabilities.
However, four years after judgment was rendered, Dizon has
not yet fulfilled his civil obligation.
6. Soriano then filed a complaint before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s disbarment.
COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE:
The Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred for
having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for
violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
IBP:
The IBP adopted the recommendation of the CBD and sent their
resolution to the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUES:
1. WON the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon
involved moral turpitude.
2. WON Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment.
RULING:
1. YES.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the
crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved
moral turpitude.
The court defined moral turpitude as “everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man
owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
Moral turpitude was shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no
justifiable reason. His act definitely did not constitute self-defense. It
was he who was the aggressor because he first tried to punch
Soriano. The latter was merely defending himself when he
counterpunched Dizon.
Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with treachery when he shot
Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up,
when he was shot.
Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the
handle of his gun in handkerchief in order not to leave fingerprints
on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a simple traffic incident
indicated his skewed morals.
2. YES.
The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.”
Dizon failed to obey the laws of the land through his illegal
possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal
processes through his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the
condition for his probation.
Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Page 33 of 34
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. GCC | “In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.” -Earl Warren
Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

Dizon’s violation was exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-court

settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed,
he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to get a
referral to a neurosurgeon.

In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two other
persons who mauled him. According to the three doctors who examined
Dizon, his injuries were so minor that his allegation was so improbable.

The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of
respondent clearly showed his unfitness to continue as a member of the
bar. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege demanding a high
degree of good moral character, which is not only a condition precedent
to admission, but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law.

While the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that
disbarment should never be decreed when any lesser penalty would
accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting out a lesser
penalty would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every
lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice.

Thus, in this case, Atty. Dizon was DISBARRED.

EH 401 | A.Y. 2019-2020 Page 34 of 34