Rule 1.

01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in
dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.

Here are select August 2012 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial
ethics:

Attorney; failure to account for money.  The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 16-A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.

Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others
kept by him.

Rule 16.03-A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose, should be
immediately returned. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of
his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation
of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment.Emilia O. Dhaliwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing.  A.C. No. 9390, August 1, 2012.
Attorney; grave misconduct and dishonesty. The purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the
public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and
trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.  The Court cited the case of In
Re: Sotto and ruled that “One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is
the possession of good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar
clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the
conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he
disregards the rule of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of
the court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard
of professional conduct, to make use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which
he so unworthily abused.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in
dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.

Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, respondent may either be disbarred or
suspended for committing deceitful and dishonest acts. This rule provides that in any of the following
circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct;(5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) wilful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so;  the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the
extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. Grace M. Anacta vs. Atty. Eduardo D.
Resurrecction.A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012.
Attorney; immorality. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those
who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As
such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the
Code. Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards
whether in their professional or in their private capacity.
The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Respondent violated
the Lawyer’s Oath14 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Engr.Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R.
Pefianco.A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012
Attorney; representing conflicting interest. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests
or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former
client. This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer’s part does
not make it inoperative. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former client’s
doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the
trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. It would simply be
impossible for the lawyer to identify and erase such entrusted knowledge with faultless precision or
lock the same into an iron box when suing the former client on behalf of a new one. Santos Ventura
Hocorma Foundation, Inc., represented by Gabriel H. Abad vs. Atty. Richard V. Funk.  A.C. No. 9094, August
15, 2012
Attorney; sharing of fees with non- lawyers.  Respondent’s defense that forgery had attended the
execution of the August 11, 1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have
undertaken the payment of complainant’s commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap.
Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from
dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law,
except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty.
Mariano R. Pefianco.A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012.
Court personnel; disgraceful and immoral conduct. Immorality has been defined to include not only
sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency,
depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference
to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good
order and public welfare. Respondent engaged in sexual relations with a married man which not only
violate the moral standards expected of employees of the Judiciary but is also a desecration of the
sanctity of the institution of marriage.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any
whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the judicial branch but also to his behavior
outside the court as a private individual.  There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also
judged by his private morals.  The exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly
adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the Judiciary.  Respondent, as a
court stenographer, did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life.

Public office is a public trust.  The good  of the  service  and  the  degree  of morality,  which  every 
official  and  employee  in  the  public service must observe,  if respect  and  confidence  are to  be
maintained by the Government in  the  enforcement  of the  law,  demand that no  untoward 
conduct  affecting morality, integrity, and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper
and  commensurate  sanction,  all  attendant  circumstances  taken  into account.  Judge Armando S.
Adlawan, Presiding Judge, 6th MCTC, Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis Occidental vs. Estrella P.
Capilitan, 6th MCTC, Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis Occidental. A.M. No. P-12-3080. August 29,
2012
Court personnel; dishonesty and falsification of public document.   Willful concealment of facts in the
Personal Data Sheet (PDS)  constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. Likewise,
making a false statement in one’s PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official
document.  Dishonesty has been defined as intentionally making a false statement on any material
fact. Dishonesty evinces a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
Civil service rules mandate the accomplishment of the PDS as a requirement for employment in the
government. Hence, making false statements in one’s PDS is ultimately connected with one’s
employment in the government. The employee making false statements in his or her PDS becomes
liable for falsification. Moreover, for respondent to be meted the penalty of dismissal, her dishonesty
need not be committed in the performance of official duty.

As the Court has previously ruled: “The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or
employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of
character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The
Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly
and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to
commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the
government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and
possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct,
oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
actuations.
When official documents are falsified, intent to injure a third person is irrelevant because the
principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as claimed in
thatdocument.The act undermines the integrity of government records and therein lies the prejudice to
public service. The act need not result in disruption of service or loss to the government. It is the act
of dishonesty itself that taints the integrity of government service. A government officer’s dishonesty
affects the morale of the service, even when it stems from the employee’s personal dealings. Such
conduct should not be tolerated from government officials, even when official duties are performed
well.
Employment in the judiciary demands the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency from its personnel. All judiciary employees are expected to conduct themselves with
propriety and decorum at all times.  An act that falls short of the exacting standards set for public
officers, especially those in the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Manolito C. Villordon vs. Marilyn
C. Avila, Court Interpreter I, Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Branch 3, Cebu City. A.M. No. P-10-2809,
August 10, 2012
Court personnel; neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a
task or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. The Court ruled in Pilipina v.
Roxas: “The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the
people’s confidence in the judiciary and ultimately in the administration of justice. By the very nature
of their duties and responsibilities, public servants must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render
inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Memoranda of Judge Eliza B. Yu issued to Legal Researcher Marie Joy P.
Lagman and to Court Stenographer Soledad J. Bassig, all of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay
City. A.M. No. P-12-3033, August 15, 2012.
Court personnel; simple neglect of duty. Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court clearly mandates the
sheriff or other proper officer to file a return and when necessary, periodic reports, with the court
which issued the writ of execution. The writ of execution shall be returned to the court immediately
after the judgment had been partially or fully satisfied. In case the writ is still unsatisfied or only
partially satisfied 30 days after the officer’s receipt of the same, said officer shall file a report with the
court stating the reasons therefor. Subsequently, the officer shall periodically file with the court a
report on the proceedings taken to enforce the writ every 30 days until said writ is fully satisfied or its
effectivity expires. The officer is further required to furnish the parties with copies of the return and
periodic reports.
Difficulties or obstacles in the satisfaction of a final judgment and execution of a writ do not excuse
respondent’s total inaction. Neither the Rules nor jurisprudence recognizes any exception from the
periodic filing of reports by sheriffs It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the
suit and is the life of law. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for
the prevailing party. Therefore, sheriffs ought to know that they have a sworn responsibility to serve
writs of execution with utmost dispatch. When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial
duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their
mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is
not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily
as possible. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs

Canon IV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel that reads, “Court personnel shall
at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence.”  Astorga and Repol Law Offices,
represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares vs. Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66,
Makati City.  A.M. No. P-12-3029, August 15, 2012.
Attorney; representation of non-client. Atty. Espejo’s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just
to extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that under Rules 2.01and
2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not
accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as
defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the RTC case.
Needless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not
been represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.
The Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well that Rodica is not their law firm’s client and
without the knowledge and consent of his

superiors, gave in to Rodica’s request for him to indicate in the said motion the names of his law
firm, Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle for the purpose of “giving more weight and credit to the
pleading.” As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know that motions and pleadings filed in
courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or lack of it, and not on the reputation of the law
firm or the lawyer filing the same. More importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was
actually assisting Rodica in misrepresenting before the RTC that she was being represented by the
said law firm and lawyers, when in truth she was not.

It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he is first and foremost an
officer of the court. Hence, he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealings
and must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. He must likewise ensure that he acts within
the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and
justice.  Jasper Junno F. Rodica vs. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al. A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012

Cases
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 6273               March 15, 2010

ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA, Complainant, 

vs.
ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

An Information for Estafa1 was filed on June 21, 2001 against Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa
(complainant) along with others based on a joint affidavit-complaint which Atty. Oscar Paguinto
(respondent) prepared and notarized. As the joint affidavit-complaint did not indicate the involvement
of complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial court
granted.2 Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the quashal of the Information was denied 3

Respondent also filed six other criminal complaints against complainant for violation of Article 31 of
Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, but he eventually filed a Motion to Withdraw them. 4

On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on
October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the Board of Directors (the Board),
including her and the General Manager.5 The notice was signed by respondent.

At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt.
Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the then current Board, 6 Gerango,
complainant’s predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair, appointed
others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.

On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises,
the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter-notices to
complainant and the four removed directors informing them of their removal from the Board and as
members of GEMASCO, and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties
of their positions.7

Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)-
Calamba a complaint for annulment of the proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001 Special
General Assembly.

The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February 21, 2002, declared the
questioned general assembly null and void for having been conducted in violation of GEMASCO’s
By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. 8 The RD’s Resolution of February 21, 2002
was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction9 of CDA.
In her present complainant10 against respondent for disbarment, complainant alleged that
respondent:

X X X PROMOTED OR SUED A GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR UNLAWFUL SUIT, AND GAVE AID

AND CONSENT TO THE SAME11

X X X DISOBEYED LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE[D] DISRESPECT FOR LAW AND THE
LEGAL PROFESSION12

X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD
HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND ENGAGED IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL13

X X X VIOLATED CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW14

X X X RUINED AND DAMAGED NOT ONLY THE GEN. MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES
COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO, INC.) BUT THE ENTIRE WATER-CONSUMING COMMUNITY
AS WELL15

Despite the Court’s grant,16 on respondent’s motion,17 of extension of time to file Comment,
respondent never filed any comment. The Court thus required him to show cause why he should not
be disciplinarily dealt with,18but just the same he failed to comply.19

The Court thus referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report, and recommendation.20

It appears that during the mandatory conference before the IBP, complainant proposed the following
issues:

1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly the following:

1.1 Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal [processes].

1.2 Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.

1.3 Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

1.4 Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law.

1.5 Rule 12.03 – A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

2. Whether or not the above acts of respondent constitute violations of his lawyer’s oath,
particularly the following:
 2.1 support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein

2.2 will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court

2.3 will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid nor consent to the same

2.4 will delay no man for money or malice

3. Whether or not the above acts of [respondent] complained of are grounds for disbarment
or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court as provided for in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court.21

Respondent’s counsel who represented him during the conference proposed the issue of whether,
on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, misconduct was committed by respondent. 22

After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to submit position
papers.23 Complainant filed hers,24 but respondent, despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time,
did not file any position paper.

In her Report and Recommendation,25 Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing found

respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Noting that respondent had already been previously suspended
for six months, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for two years.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors opted for the dismissal of the
complaint, however, for lack of merit.261avvphi1

On Motion for Reconsideration, 27 the IBP-CBD Board of Governors recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board of Directors and the
GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines
and the GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyer’s Oath, which provides that a lawyer shall
support the Constitution and obey the laws.

When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant, he violated
the Lawyer’s Oath that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same."

When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint, respondent failed to file
any and ignored this Court’s subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering
an explanation for his failure to do so." Sebastian v. Bajar 28 teaches:

x x x Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree
of irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with
the Court’s orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.

Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment
for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a
lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their
processes.29 (Citations omitted).

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for six
months for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 30 he having been found to have
received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her when
he had not.31 It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe
penalty this time is thus called for.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice

of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: