Samonte v. Atty.

Abeljana

Facts: Complainant Samonte engaged the services of Atty. Abeljana as his counsel for a civil case.
However, because of the latter’s showing of dishonesty and acts of falsehood, complainant herein filed
an administrative complaint. The acts which confirmed his dishonesty were:

The outright falsification by superimposing “0” on “4” to mislead his client to believe that he had already
filed the complaint in court

Knowingly submitted two documents as annexes of his comment during the IBP investigation and that
the said documents have been a part of the records of the case in RTC but in reality they were forged
documents as evidenced by the rubber stamp marks which were not the official RTC seal.

Also his tardiness in attending meetings and late submission of formal offer of evidence were expressly
noted by the RTC judge.

The said case was referred to the IBP were they found respondent negligent and was recommended for
disbarment but then was modified by the IBP Investigating Commissioner to suspension of one year
from practice of law.

Issue: W/n Atty. Abellana violated the Code of Professional Conduct.

Held: Yes. A lawyer In his dealings with his client and with the courts, is expected to be honest,
imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding, are the
professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given
full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission
as a bona fide member of the Law Profession.

A lawyer who willfully resorts to any falsehood in order to mislead the courts or his clients on
the status of their causes exhibits his unworthiness to remain a member of the Law Profession.
This is because he is always expected to be honest and forthright in his dealings with them. He
thereby merits the condign sanction of suspension from the practice of law, if not disbarment.

Decision of the IBP affirmed but modified-6 months suspension.

OCA v. Flores

Facts: In this case were two consolidated administrative complaints filed against Judge Alan Flores.
The first case was pursuant to two anonymous letters with regards to the respondent taking cognizance
of annulment cases even said cases were beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts he presided
and those criminal cases that were resolved beyond the reglementary period and that were remaining
pending even after the period provided has already lapsed.

Issue: W/n Judge Flores’ acts constitutes Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct

Held: