CANON 7

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

Atty. Aurelio Angeles, Jr etc v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay A.C. No. 8103, December 3, 2014

The 18 letters in this case contained the affidavits of the persons who caused the documents to be
notarized which showed a common statement that they did not see respondent Renato C. Bagay
sign the documents himself and it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents
came out of the office already signed.

Upon verification with the Bureau of Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C. Bagay
departed from the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008. The copy of the
Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration was also attached to the letter. 3

WHETHER respondent violated canon 7 of the CPR

Yes, Respondent violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people, who came into his
office while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein.
They expected that their documents would be converted into public documents. Instead, they later
found out that the notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and
effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person,
their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.

Rule 7.01, Canon 7 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

(In re: Victorino Lanuevo, A.M. No. 1162, August 29, LEGAL ETHICS 40 1975).

An investigation conducted by the NBI upon request of the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination
Committee as Investigation Officer, showed that one Romy Galang y Esguerra, alias Ramon E.
Galang, a student in the School of Law of Manuel L. Quezon University charged with the crime of
slight physical injuries in the Municipal Court of Manila committed on Eufrosino F. de Vera, another
student of the same university. Confronted with this information at the hearing of August 13, 1973
respondent Galang declared that he does not remember having been charged with the crime of
slight physical injuries in that case. (Vol. VI, pp. 45-60, rec.).

Respondent Galang, in all his application to take the bar examinations, did not make mention of this
fact which he is required under the rules to do.
Whether Galang should be disbarred from practicing law

Yes.

The concealment of an attorney in his application to take the bar exams of the fact that he
had been charged with or indicted for an alleged crime, is ground for revocation of his
license to practice law

Concealment will be taken against him. It is the fact of concealment and not the commission
of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. When he made
concealment he perpetrated perjury.

Rule 7.02, Canon 7 A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education or other relevant attribute.

IN RE: MELING B.M. No. 1154.

June 8, 2004 Atty. Melendrez filed a complaint before the OBC to disqualify Haron Meling from
taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose upon him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Melendrez alleged that Meling did not disclose in his Petition
to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending cases against him: two (2) for
Grave Oral Defamation and one (1) for Less Serious Physical Injuries filed by Melendrez and his
wife. Further, he alleged 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.

ISSUE: Whether Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty.

HELD: YES. The 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. His concealment speaks of his lack of the requisite
good moral character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon him as a member
of the Shari’a Bar. Further, his use of the title “Attorney” cannot go unchecked knowing that he is
not entitled to its use

Rule 7.03, Canon 7 A lawyer shall not engage in a 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

(Vitug v. Roncal, A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006)

Complainant narrates that she and respondent met sometime in December 2000 when she was
looking for a lawyer to assist her in suing Arnulfo Aquino ("Aquino"), the biological father of her
minor daughter, for support.

At around this point, by complainant's own admission, she and respondent started having a sexual
relationship. She narrates that this twist in the events began after respondent started calling on her
shortly after he had sent the demand letter in her behalf. Respondent allegedly started courting her,
giving her financial aid.

Soon he had progressed to making sexual advances towards complainant, to the accompaniment of
sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services
as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino. Complainant acknowledges that
she succumbed to these advances, assured by respondent's claim that the lawyer was free to marry
her, as his own marriage had already been annulled.

Complainant avers that respondent failed to protect her interest when he personally
prepared the Affidavit and caused her to sign the same, which obviously worked to her
disadvantage. In making false promises that all her problems would be solved, aggravated
by his assurance that his marriage had already been annulled, respondent allegedly
deceived her into yielding to his sexual desires.

ISSUE: whether Atty Rongcal violated rule 7.03 of CPR

A: YES, it violates Rule 7.03 of CPR. The fact that he shamelessly flaunts his mistress
constitutes an act which embarrasses and discredits the law profession since it is his duty
and obligation to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession. The actuation of Atty.
Perenia is contrary to good morals. While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere
fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the
marital vow of fidelity.

Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, 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

(Re: Complaints of Mrs. Milagros Lee & Samantha Lee against Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito,
A.M. No. 2008-19-SC, August 18, 2010).
On June 27, 2008, Atty. Capito went to Mrs. Lee’s house to borrow money. She told him that she
does not have any, and that his (Atty. Capito[’s]) friends, the De Guzman spouses, induced her to
invest money that would earn a lot, but the money was not returned anymore. She was in short,
scammed.

She mentioned, however, that she has an existing bracelet which Atty. Capito asked her to pawn and
give him the money so he could redeem his cell phone from the casino. The bracelet was pawned
for ₱7,000.00 and the ₱4,000.00 was allegedly lent to Atty. Capito.

 despite the borrowed sum not having been returned yet, Atty. Capito again borrowed ₱10,000
from Mrs. Lee and promised that he will return the money immediately. His debt with the
complaint allegedly reached to ₱16,000.

For several times, Mrs. Lee called Atty. Capito in the OCAT through phone, but she received an
answer "wala pa" .Mrs. Lee got angry as they needed the money already that is why they came early
to see him at his office

When Milagros finally met respondent on September 30, 2008, respondent, in the presence of
several others, told her "Eh kung sabihin ko na sugar mommy kita," 3 adding that "Nagpapakantot ka
naman sa akin

Whether Atty Capito violated the CPR

The respondent is guilty of gross discourtesy amounting to conduct unbecoming of a court

employee. By such violation, respondent failed to live up to his oath of office as member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing and improper language. Their every act
or word should be marked by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. Aside from violating Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 8

CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

(Barandon v. Ferrer, Sr., A.C.5768, March 26, 2010).

On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit 1 with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the
disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for the following offenses:

1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case 7040, filed a reply
with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive, and improper
language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court

3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the
start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, "Laban
kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling
na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na
kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito."

Issue:Is he guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon.

Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without
using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded
lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal
system.

Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty.
Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing
in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. 

Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum

Rule 8.01, Canon 8 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

(Castillo v. Padilla Jr., A.M. No. 2339, February 1984) – 8.01

Complainant was the counsel for the defendants for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Caloocan. Respondent was counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November
19, 1981, while complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say "bobo."
When complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the latter looking at him (complainant)
menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of many people, complainant was unable
to proceed with his offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be suspended.

Issue: whether respondent violated rule 8.01 of the CPR

Yes.

Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the remark
"bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to interrupt
complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he
exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court.

By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct
required of a member of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach because this is
not the first time that respondent has employed offensive language in the course of judicial
proceedings. He has previously been admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive
personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings.

(Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, January 27, 1967).

IN RE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE, LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA,

MANUEL G. MONTECILLO, ENRIQUE M. BELO, OSCAR R. ONGSIAKO, and JOSE S. ARMONIO,
members of the Philippine Bar.

Atty. Jose S. Armonio filed a motion for reconsideration which contained disrespectful language.

The Court ordered counsel to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

In respondent attorneys' verified return, they offered "their most sincere apologies for the language
used" and stated that "it was not and it has never been their intention to be disrespectful." They
manifested that the language "was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. [Jose S.]
Armonio, who thought best to focus the attention of this Honorable Court to the issue in the case, as
not in any way meant to slight or offend this Honorable Court. They also said that the unfortunate
Motion for Reconsideration was prepared and filed by Atty. Armonio who had been personally
handling the case since its inception at the Court of Industrial Relations, and who had, perhaps,
become too emotionally involved in the case."

Whether Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed exculpates
responded from violation of CPR
It is in this context that we must say that just because Atty. Armonio "thought best to focus the
attention" of this Court "to the issue in the case" does not give him in bridled license in language. To
be sure, lawyers may come up with various methods, perhaps much more effective, in calling the
Court's attention to the issues involved. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions,
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

We are not unmindful of counsel's statement that the language used "was not in any way meant to
slight or offend" this Court. Want of intention, we feel constrained to say, is no excuse for the
language employed. For, counsel cannot escape responsibility "by claiming that his words did not
mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning."   At best, it extenuates liability.

Rule 8.02, Canon 8 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give
proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel

Likong v. Lim, A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994 - 8.02

Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L.
Yap.

Complainant executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and
receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City.

(3) months after the execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant
revoked the special power of attorney. As a consequence, Geesnell Yap filed a complaint for
injunction with damages against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel
for Yap

complainant and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again without the participation of the
former's counsel.

The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 August 1985.

The complainant filed the present complaint for disbarment, based on the following allegations:

Complainant was even advised by respondent that it was not necessary for her to consult
her lawyers under the pretense that:

(a) this could only jeopardize the settlement;

 (b) she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c)
respondent was assisting her anyway;

(d) she had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign;

(e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time; and in any event
respondent already took care of everything;

Issue: Whether the respondent should be penalized by violating canon rule 8.02 of the Code of
professional responsibility

With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's counsel of the compromise agreement,
it is of record that complainant was represented by two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting and Aumentado.
Complainant states that respondent prevented her from informing her lawyers by giving her the
reasons enumerated in the complaint and earlier quoted in this decision.

There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise
agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of the complainant by her counsel.

Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an
opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise
agreement which, as previously discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial
to complainant.

LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Respondent Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.

Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced
his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance
and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.
Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card.
ISSUE: Whether it is an encroachment on the professional practice of Labiano, thereby
violating rule 8.02 which provides that,

Yes. Settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the
latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result, or reduced fees for his
service. In this case, the promise of a loan

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was
clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a
promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from
their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional
vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no
place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his
culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly
responsible for the printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling cards.