PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Digested Cases in relation to the Four-fold responsibility of lawyers who are public
officers

Case Digest In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani (Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer)

November 10, 2010

Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to
submit his proof of service in his appellant’s brief which subsequently caused the inability of the
appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite
repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the IBP’s query.
Hence, this administrative complaint.

Held: GUILTY. Atty. Bayani’s failure to submit proof of service of appellant’s brief and his
failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the
Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that Atty. Bayani
has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always
remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the
exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further, lawyers are expected
to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure and anyone who deals with them
has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a
whole-hearted fealty to his client’s cause. Having been remiss in his duty to the Court and to the
Bar, Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he
complies with the Order of the Supreme Court to submit the required proof of service

Case Digest on Julieta B. Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag (Duty to the community)
Gross Immoral Conduct

FACTS: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her
husband courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by
her.  Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed
the complaint out of spite.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Narag should be disbarred.

HELD: Atty. Dominador Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the
testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and
brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children.  Good moral character is a continuing
qualification required of every member of the bar.  Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the
exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to
practice law.  (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition
precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing  qualification for all members.  Hence when a
lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.  Grossly
immoral means it must be 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.  As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous
relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he
is flouting those moral standards

DUTY TO THE COMMUNITY

1. Canon 1
2. Canon 2
3. Canon 3
4. Canon 4
5. Canon 5
6. Canon 6

DUTY TO THE COLLEGUE

1. Canon 7
2. Canon 8
3. Canon 9

DUTY TO THE COURT

1. Canon 1O
2. Canon 11
3. Canon 12
4. Canon 13

DUTY TO THE CCLIENT

1. Canon 14
2. Canon 15
3. Canon 16
4. Canon 17
5. Canon 18
6. Canon 19
7. Canon 20
8. Canon 21
9. Canon 22