CASE DIGEST FOR RECITATION

Note: For purposes of the Ruling, memorize the Canons and its rules.

1) Perea vs. Almadro

Facts
• A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty Ruben Almadro for failure to
file dumurrer to evidence in the case of the complainant, Edgar Perea where he
is being charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
• The complainant thought that
respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him dismissed but later on
the trial court ordered the
herein complainant to present evidence in his defense and a warrant was issued
for his arrest
prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail.
• Atty Almadro, who is in solo practice, said in his defense that he had finished
the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading
which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its
submission in court;
a few days before the deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from
the diskette but
said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him
to believe that the
drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed since it
is his practice to
expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized and acted upon.

Issue:
• W/N the respondent be subjected for disciplinary action for neglect to his duties
as a lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court
and the authority it represents.

Ruling:
• The responsent was held liable for violationg Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04
• It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to
evidence for which
he had earlier asked permission from the trial court and which his client, herein
complainant was
relying on. More than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter
about the
developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and without
any protection when
 years later, he received summons from the trial court asking him to present
evidence in his defense
and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.
• The respondent claims he is in solo practice. How then can he honestly claim
that when he could not
find the draft of his demurrer in the magnetic computer diskette where he
allegedly stored it, he was
led "to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions
thereof accordingly
filed." As a solo practitioner like this representation, we
can only surmise that logically, nothing happens or "goes down" in Mr. Almadro’s
office without his
knowledge and indispensable participation. If so, how could he have been led to
believe anything? No one else could have signed that demurrer.
• Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal
believe the story of how
his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the
absence of such file in
his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed in court. In his
Answer, he even tried
to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling
on the procedural
steps he would undertake regarding complainant’s case when instead he
received a copy of this
complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only
outrageous but is
contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
• The respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year and FINED for Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos

Jam sent May 10 at 10:49 PM

Bawasan mo nalang Atty para maging maiksi lang tulad ng gawa mo. Thank you
Tue 8:20 AM

2) Santos vs. Llamas

FACTS:
 The complaint is for the misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership
dues filed against the respondent.
 Based from the report of Commissioner Sanz, the complainant has shown
respondent’s non-indication of the proper O.R. and Professional Tax Receipt
numbers in his pleadings, more particularly his use of IBP Rizal 259060 for 3
years.
 Moreover, the record has shown that a certification provides that the
respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991, although the respondent
invoked that he is legally exempted under Section 4 of R.A. 7432 beginning in
1992. Finally, the complainant asserted that the respondent has misled that court
regarding his standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. No. in his
pleadings of at least 6 years.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for misleading
the court for his misrepresentation in his pleadings?
RULING:
 The respondent should be suspended for violating Canon 10 and Rule 10.01.
 The respondent admitted that since 1992, he is still in the practice of law
although limited but such is immaterial and he is indeed should pay his IBP dues
to be validly engaged in the practice of law under Section 1 of Rule 138.
 With respect to his contention on the applicability of R.A. 7432, the exemption
does not include payment of membership or association dues.
 Respondent’s failure to pay his dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings
he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty.
 The fact that the respondent indicated IBP-Rizal 259060 in the pleadings he filed
in court at least for the years 1995-1997 thus misrepresenting that such was his
IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which those
pleadings were filed.
 The lawyer was suspended for 1 year, or until he has paid his dues.

3) Macias vs. Salda

FACTS:
 Under the facts of the case, the respondent was engaged as a counsel of Norma
Lim who is private protestee in an election case. The respondent withdrew from
the case and provided as grounds for such that he could not cope with the pace
of the proceedings because in doing so he will not be able to properly attend
other cases including his classes at Philippine Advent College. Consequently, the
complainant granted the motion and relieved the respondent from all of his
responsibilities as a counsel.
 Unexpectedly, the respondent disavowed the grounds for withdrawing as a
counsel and swore that he only filed the motion on account of pre-judgment by
the complainant on the case wherein chaos would result if the client will be
unseated and that withdrawal was his best recourse.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for doing
falsehood and thereby misled the court?
RULING:
 The respondent violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01.
 When the respondent executed an affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing
as a counsel, he acknowledged under oath his misrepresentation and has misled
the court.
 Candor to courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer.
 The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
4) Florido vs. Florido
FACTS:
 Under the facts of the case, the respondent demanded custody of his two
children with the complainant by presenting an alleged resolution issued by the
court of appeals granting him of a temporary child custody of which the
complainant doubted and did not agree.
 Due to some unfavorable events instigated by the respondent in pursuing his
right on child custody, the complainant verified the authenticity of the CA’s
resolution and obtained a certification stating that no such resolution ordering her
to surrender custody had been issued. Hence, this complaint.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for his reliance
on and attempt to enforce a spurious resolution of the CA?
RULING:
 The respondent violated Canon 10 and Rules 10.01 and 10.02.
 Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or the text of a decision or
authority. Such being the case, the rule was violated when he manufactured,
flaunted and used a false or spurious resolution from the Court of Appeals.
 The respondent was suspended in the practice of law for 2 years.
5) Adez Realty Inc vs. Eugenio
> In a SC resolution, it directed Atty. Benjamin Dacanay counsel for petitioner Adez
Realty, Inc., to "SHOW CAUSE within 5 days from notice why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a
quo thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of
misleading the SC in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus failing to live up
to the standards expected of a member of the Bar.
> In his defense, he humbly submitted to the court and threw himself at its mercy. He
explained that whenever he prepares pleadings, he dictates to his secretary and if
portions of the decision or order to be appealed from have to be quoted, he simply
instructs his said secretary to copy the particular pages of the said decision or order.
In the case at bar, he did instruct his secretary to copy the corresponding pages in
the decision of the CA. Somehow, however, some words were intercalated on a
particular paragraph. He reasoned that it was his secretary who was at fault.
> His secretary attached an Affidavit supporting the explanation made by Dacanay
and admitted that it was her who committed the error.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Dacanay should be disbarred for intercalating a material fact in a
judicial decision.
HELD:
> YES. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck the
allegations in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions, and ensure that
the statements therein are accurate and the reproductions faithful, down to the last
word and even punctuation mark. The legal profession demands that lawyers
thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and other documents dictated or prepared by
them, typed or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the
court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should
counsel be bound by the acts of his secretary who merely follows his orders.
> The distortion of facts committed by counsel, with the willing assistance of his
secretary, is a grave offense and should not be treated lightly, not only because it
may set a dangerous precedent but, rather, because it is a clear and serious
violation of one’s oath as a member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility directs that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a
provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.”
> Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision constitutes willful
disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with
the truth. A lawyer should never venture to mislead the court by false statements or
quotations of facts or laws. Thus, in Bautista v. Gonzales, We suspended
respondent for six (6) months for, among others, submitting to the lower court
falsified documents, representing them to be true copies. In Chavez v. Viola, We
suspended respondent counsel for five (5) months after he filed an Amended
Application for Original Registration of Title which contained false statements.
> WHEREFORE, We find ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner,
guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial Decision elevated to Us on
certiorari, thereby altering its factual findings with the apparent purpose, and no
other, of misleading the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus
miserably failing to live up to the standards expected of him as a member of the
Philippine Bar. Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is hereby
DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law.

6) Olivarez Vs. Villalon

FACTS:
 This is a complaint for disbarment and suspension against respondent Atty.
Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. filed by Pablo R. Olivares and/or Olivares Realty
Corporation for violation of Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the CPR and the rule on
forum shopping.
 Olivares alleged that Atty Villalon’s client, Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed,
repeatedly sued him for violations of the lease contract which they executed over
a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Parañaque.
FIRST SUIT, 1993: Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibition with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction in the RTCourt of Manila – dismissed
for improper venue.
SECOND, 1999: Al-Rasheed filed an action for breach of contract with damages
in the RTC of Parañaque. – dismissed for failure to prosecute.
: appealed the dismissal to the CA – denied.
: filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC – denied
THIRD, 2004: Al-Rasheed re-filed the 1999 suit in the RTC of Parañaque -
dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and prescription.
ATTY. VILLALON’S ARGUMENTS:
1. He was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute
the interests of his client.
2. Denied that he was forum shopping as his client, in her certificate of non-forum
shopping, disclosed the two previous cases involving the same cause of action
which had been filed and dismissed.
3. He could not refuse his client's request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed
was the "oppressed party" in the transaction.
ISSUE: W/N ATTY VILLALON VIOLATED THE CPR AND THE RULE ON FORUM
SHOPPING
RULING: YES
 All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an
empty formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate their lives to
the pursuit of justice. They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land.
As the first Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility states, "[a] lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes." Moreover, according to the lawyer's oath they took,
lawyers should "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same."

 With all this in mind, respondent should have refrained from filing the second
complaint against Olivares. He ought to have known that the previous dismissal
was with prejudice since it had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. There
was no excuse not to know this elementary principle of procedural law.

 A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Furthermore, he violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
“A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.”
 A lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and
justice. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court's processes. It
constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice.
Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary
action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with
all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be
just and consistent with truth and honor.
 DECISION: 6-month suspension from the practice of law. However, in view of
respondent's death on September 27, 2006, the penalty can no longer be
imposed on him.
7) Manahan vs Flores
FACTS:
 Under the facts of the case, the respondents was the counsel a defendant in a
civil case presided by the complainant.
 During the preliminary conference under the civil case 1863, the respondent
entered his appearance and was given to file for a pre-trial brief. However, after
filing a pre-trial brief, it was immediately expunged for failure to show proof of
MCLE Compliance. After several chances given by the court, the respondent was
not able to comply and instead, he stated in a letter he is no longer interested in
the case. Hence, this complaint.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for using
intemperate language in his dealings?
RULING:
 NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to
submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities
given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As
an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language.
His words “with the small respect that still remains, I am no longer interested in
this case, assign to waste basket of…..
 However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not
commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that
this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not prepared
to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year suspension for
humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has
been in the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight
years. Considering the foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine respondent and
to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court
processes.
8) Baculi vs Battung
FACTS:
 On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of a case,
respondent Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while
arguing his motion. Petitioner, Judge Rene Baculi, had advised respondent to
tone down his voice but the respondent consistently kept shouting, even when he
was warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually being
cited for direct contempt and was imposed a fine of P100.00, the respondent left.
However, while other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court
and shouted “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of
you!” He was escorted out of the courtroom and was again cited for direct
contempt for the second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he
saw petitioner at the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the
latter to a fight. He was then escorted out of the building.
 Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la
Rama, Jr. found that the respondent was the one who shouted first at the
complainant, despite the latter’s claim that he was provoked by the petitioner.
The Commissioner further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule
11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behaviour before the courts. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution
adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his
courtroom?
RULING:
 The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the respondent did
violate Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By
shouting at the petitioner, Atty. Battung clearly disrespected the former in the
presence of litigants and their counsels and court personnel. Furthermore, the
respondent even threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross ignorance
of the law against the latter. The respondent’s actions are found not only against
the person, the position and the stature of petitioner but also against the court
whose proceedings were disrupted.
 As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts. A lawyer who insulted a judge inside a courtroom
completely disregard’s the latter’s role, stature and position in our justice system.
Respects for the courts guarantee the stability of the judicial institution and
without such, the courts would be resting on very shaky foundations and will
thus, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to a file a case against
the judge, Atty. Battung seems to erode public confidence in the petitioner’s
competence. However, incompetence is a matter that, even if true, should be
 handled with sensitivity in the manner that is provided under the Rules of Court,
and not how the respondent handled the situation. The respondent’s actions,
being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system, clearly
showed a violation of the Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
9) Tiongco vs Aguilar
FACTS:
 Atty. Tiongco was charged of a violation to Canon 11 of CPR for falsely and
maliciously insinuating that the court did not properly read the petition and by
characterizing the respondent judge as liar, thief, perfidious and blasphemer.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to
observe the respect that is due to the courts and to judicial officers?
RULING:
 The respondent violated Canon 11 of CPR wherein such duty of a counsel under
this canon is entwined with his vow in the lawyer’s oath to conduct himself as a
lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts and his duty on Section 20 of Rule 138.
 The respondent’s acts had shown his disrespect to and contempt for the
respondent judge, thereby diminishing public confidence in the latter and
eventually in the judiciary or sowing mistrust in the administration of justice.

10) Lacurum vs. Jacoba

FACTS:
 An administrative complaint was filed by Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom against
respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba.
Complainant charged respondents with violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R.
Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico
Barrientos. The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion
but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The case was raffled to
Judge Lacurom. Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution reversing the earlier
judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion.
 Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The motion contained
words which are rude, inappropriate, disrespectful and humiliating. Atty. Olivia
Velasco-Jacoba signed the motion on behalf of the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law
Firm.
 Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain
why she should not be held in contempt of court for the contents of their motion
Velasco-Jacoba claimed that Judge Lacurom knows beforehand who actually
prepared the subject Motion; records will show that she did not actually or
actively participate in the case. Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any conscious or
 deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court or to
detract in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts of justice.
 Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt.
 Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration. She recounted that on her way out of
the house for an afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba stopped and asked her to
sign the motion because it was due that day. She signed the pleading handed to
her without reading it, in trusting blind faith on her husband.
 Judge Lacurom issued another order directing Ellis Jacoba to explain why he
should not be held in contempt. He denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July
2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacoba’s statements implicating him, Jacoba
invoked the marital privilege rule in evidence. Judge Lacurom later rendered a
decision finding Jacoba guilty of contempt of court.
 Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint against respondents before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. IBP Commissioner recommended the
suspension of respondents from the practice of law for six months. The IBP
Board of Governors reduced the length of suspension to three months. IBP
Board transmitted its recommendation to this Court.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the defendants are guilty for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility for asserting undignified language towards the courts?
RULING:
 The respondent violated Rules 11.03 and 11.04.
 Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him. Counsel who signs a pleading in
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein shall be
subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
 By signing the 30 July 2001 motion, Velasco-Jacoba in effect certified that she
had read it, she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for the purpose of
delaying the case. Her signature supplied the motion with legal effect and
elevated its status from a mere scrap of paper to that of a court document.
 By Velasco-Jacoba’s own admission that she signed the pleading prepared by
her husband, therefore, she violated Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation is an act
of falsehood before the courts, which in itself is a ground for subjecting her to
disciplinary action, independent of any other ground arising from the contents of
the 30 July 2001 motion.
 With regard to Ellis Jacoba, he asserted the inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacoba’s
statement pointing to him as the author of the motion. Jacoba impliedly admitted
authorship of the motion by stating that he "trained his guns and fired at the
errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and monumental.
 The court held that the marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be
waived by failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any
conduct that may be construed as implied consent. This waiver applies to Jacoba
who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 motion.
 No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded
the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his client’s cause. He used of the
following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism
in the judicial process.
 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
unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the
courts and trust in judicial administration.

11)Madrid vs. Dealca

FACTS
 Atty. Juan S.D ealca entered his appearance in criminal case then pending in
Branch 51 of the RTC in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L.
Madrid. Aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty.
Dealca also moved that the criminal case be re-raffled to another Branch of the
RTC considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge
and the undersigned," where" he does not appear before the incumbent
Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by the
undersigned."
 Judge Madrid denied denied the motion to re-raffle. Consequently, Judge Madrid
filed a letter complaint in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca’s
unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition
of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between
them. The IBP Commissioner found out that Atty. Dealco had been filing filing
several frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against judges and
personnel of the court
 Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative and criminal cases he
filed against judges and court personnel, including Judge Madrid. He argues that
as a vigilant lawyer, he was duty bound to bring and prosecute cases against
unscrupulous and corrupt judges and court personnel. Atty. Dealca also
maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in good grace inhibited himself" upon
his motion to inhibit in order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary."
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent is guilty of unethical practice in seeking the
inhibition of Judge Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795?
RULING:
 Yes.
 The Lawyer’s Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and
any violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment,
suspension, or other disciplinary action. The oath exhorts upon the members of
the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
 unlawful suit." These are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.
 Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

 Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
 In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial
institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.34
 The motion to inhibit filed by Atty. Dealca contained the following averment, to
wit:
Considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and
the undersigned, he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and
the latter does not also hear cases handled by the undersigned.
 Atty. Dealca’s averment that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by
him directly insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could
refuse to hear the cases in which hostility existed between the judges and the
litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should have been
assiduously substantiated by him because it put in bad light not only Judge
Madrid but all judges in general. Yet, he did not even include any particulars that
could have validated the averment. Nor did he attach any document to support it.
 The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year effective from
notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the
future will be dealt with more severely.

12) Maglasang vs. Templado

 FACTS: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros
Occidental. His counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for certiorari through
registered mail. Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the court
dismissed the petition and a motion for reconsideration.
 Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he
accused the five justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law
or knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the
Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing the Filipino
people genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to
protect the judge who was impleaded in the petition and for money reasons.
 He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary men.
The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to
show cause why he should not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the
 complaint was constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the
erroneous and very strict practices of the justices concerned.
 He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act and that they
should just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and
improper conduct and ordered to pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to
suffer six months suspension.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Atty. Castellano’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his statements that went beyond
constructive criticism?

HELD:
 Yes. The respondent violated Canon 11 and rules 11.03 and 11.04
 The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the
bounds of constructive criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his
client. They cast aspersion on the Court’s integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of
all justiciable controversies before it.
 The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for
certiorari did not render his negligence excusable. It is clear that the case was
lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the
members of the Court, but his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.
 As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor
and integrity of the Court just to keep the confidence of his client.
 Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of
government – separation of power - has been lost. He should know that not even
the President of the Philippines can pass judgment on any of the Court’s acts.
 The respondent cited contempt of court, ordered to pay 1,000 pesos, 10 days of
imprisonment and finally suspended in the practice of law for 6 months.

13) Inre:Bagabuyo
FACTS:
 The case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in People v. Luis Bucalon
Plaza, heard before the sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, who
favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond.
 Instead of availing of judicial remedies, Bagabuyo caused the publication of an
article regarding the Order granting the bail in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily
entitled “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect
to bail out.”
 RTC then directed Bagabuyo and Mark Francisco, writer of the article, to explain
why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of
the article which degraded the court with its presiding judge with its lies and
 misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC held him in
contempt of court. Despite the citation of indirect contempt, Bagabuyo presented
himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS and again, attacked
the integrity of Judge Tan. In the radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge Tan a
liar, ignorant of the law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying
mahjong instead of studying the law. RTC required Bagabuyo to explain and
show cause why he should not be held in contempt and be suspended from the
practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bagabuyo
denied the charge that he sought to be interviewed. He said that he was
approached by someone who asked him to comment on the Order. He justified
his response to the interview as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of
freedom of speech and that it was made without malice. However, the RTC found
his denials lame, held him in contempt, and suspended him from the practice of
law for 1 year.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected to disciplinary action for violations
under CPR for resorting to improper authorities for redress of his grievances?
RULING:
 Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear,
prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes
upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a
judge to the proper authorities only.
 Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his
grievances against Judge Tan. He also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of
the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law,
that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the
law, and that he was a liar.
 It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As
an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court
to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the
courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which, without such
respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. The Court is not against
lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for
the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the
institution must always be maintained.
 The respondent is suspended to practice law for 1 year.
14) Garcia vs Cruz
FACTS:
 The petitioner, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, was deputized at the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City and assigned at the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 58, Makati City where respondent is assigned as presiding
judge.
 On April 11, 1995, upon hearing of Criminal Cases, petitioner and prosecutor
arrived late. Respondent judge then ordered petitioner to explain within 72 hours
why she arrived late to court.
 Thereafter, petitioner filed her explanation and further averred that she has never
been late in court and that she has never been fined nor ordered to explain for
tardiness in any hearing. On April 12, 1996, respondent judge issued an order
citing the petitioner in contempt of court and directed her to pay within 72 hours a
penalty in the amount of P100.00. This sanction was grounded on her
inappropriate dealings with the court personnel and the judge. Petitioner then
filed for reconsideration but was later denied by the respondent judge.
 ISSUE/S:
WON petitioner was correctly cited in contempt by respondent judge?
HELD:
 No.
RATIO:
 The court held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.
However, this power is not limitless. It must be used with caution restraint,
judiciousness, deliberation and due regard to the provisions of the law and the
constitutional rights of the individual.
 The respondent judge merely ordered the petitioner to explain her failure to come
to court wherein such did not yet amount to a show-cause order/citation directing
an explanation why she should not be held for contempt of court.
 Respondent judge failed to observe the rule of conduct in the exercise of the
power to punish the petitioner for contempt of court. In finding the petitioner guilty
of the aforementioned acts and imposing upon her the penalty of a fine without
granting her an opportunity to answer the imputed falsehood and improprieties
and an opportunity to be heard, the respondent Judge disregarded the
requirements of due process in contempt proceedings and, therefore, acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
 The challenged orders of the respondents were set aside.
15) Agustin vs. Empleo
FACTS:
 The complainant was a defendant of the respondent in a civil case of forcible
entry. In order of the court for the parties under the said case to submit
compromise agreement, the respondent had failed to perform the submission.
Hence, this administrative complaint against the respondent for violation of the
CPR.
 However, the respondent contended that it was the complainant’s fault for not
reminding him of the details of the compromise agreement and such is only a
reaction for his withdrawal as counsel for the complainant in another case.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent be subjected for disciplinary action for not
exerting every effort to assist in the speedy administration of justice for his failure
to submit the compromise agreement?
RULING:
 Yes. The respondent violated Canon 12 of CPR.
 The respondent being fully aware that there is a pending court order for the
submission of a compromise agreement, should have taken pains to remind the
complainant about it. He also violated his lawyer’s oath for his inaction.
 The respondent was reprimanded.
16)Poblete and Cruz vs. CA
17) Millare vs. Montero
FACTS:
 Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered
respondent’s client to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case.
Respondent as counsel, appealed the decision. CA dismissed Co's appeal from
the decision of the RTC for failure to comply with the proper procedures.
Respondent thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the
execution of the judgment rendered by the MTC adverse to his client.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for
filing dilatory motions?
RULING:
 Atty. Eustaquio Montero is suspended for (1) year.
Rule 12.02. — A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.
Rule 12.04. — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.
 Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required
to represent his client "within the bounds of the law." The Code enjoins a lawyer
to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
(Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
 It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the
filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole
purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment.
 Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution
of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping. Forum
shopping exists when, by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant
ventures to another for a more favorable resolution of his case.
 The respondent is suspended for 1 year.
18)Pelaez vs. Roberto
FACTS:
19)Mariveles vs. Mallari
FACTS:
 Mariveles (petitioner) engaged the services of Atty. Mallari (respondent) to
handle his defense in the RTC where he was charged for violating B.P. Blg. 22.
After an adverse decision was rendered therein, Mariveles instructed Atty. Mallari
to appeal said the decision to the CA, which the latter did.
 However, in the CA, despite numerous extensions of time, totaling 245 days,
Atty. Mallari failed to file the appellant‘s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the
appeal. Mariveles discovered his lawyer‘s desertion only when he was
subpoenaed by the trial court to appear before it for the execution of the decision
which had become final.
 Through new counsel, Mariveles filed a petition to reinstate his appeal, cancel
the entry of judgment and accept his brief, but it was denied. He sought relief in
the SC which granted his petition, ruling that: ―the failure of petitioner‘s former
counsel to file the brief xxx amounted to deliberate abandonment of his client‘s
interest‖ which justified the reinstatement of Mariveles‘appeal through a new
counsel.
ISSUE/S:
 WON what Atty. Mallari is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
on rue 12.03 for failure to file the appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals?
HELD:
 Yes. He is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client and is
hereby DISBARRED.
RATIO: Atty. Mallari demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of
responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard to his
duties as a lawyer.
 A lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that
practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his
client and thus disgrace the law profession

20)Lirio vs Tugade
FACTS:
 This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant spouses Cayetano and
Lirio Rabanal against Atty. Faustino F. Tugade. It is alleged that respondent, as
counsel for complainant Cayetano Rabanal, did not file the appellant’s brief in the
Court of Appeals despite having been granted by the appellate court an
extension of time to file the same, as a result of which the appeal filed by
Cayetano was dismissed and the decision of the then Circuit Criminal Court of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan became final and executory.
 Respondent claims however that he was not the counsel of complainant
Cayetano Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the
Court of Appeals and he could not be held responsible for the dismissal of
complainant’s appeal for failure of counsel to file the appellant’s brief.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the lawyer should be disciplined for failure to file the appellant’s
brief in the Court of Appeals?
RULING:
 Yes. The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was
a professional relationship which merits attorney’s fees for professional services
rendered. A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an
attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession. In this case, complainant sought and
received legal advice from respondent Tugade, who admitted that he agreed to
sign the appellant’s brief to be filed and that he received P600.00 from
complainant spouses. It is therefore clear that a lawyer-client relationship existed
between the two. He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides:
 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.
21)Santiago vs. Rafanan
FACTS:
 This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago against Atty.
Edison Rafanan.
 Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and
offered it as evidence (Rafanan stood as counsel and as witness of his client)
and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago, waited for him together with his “men” and
disarmed Santiago and uttered insulting words at him.
 ATTY. RAFANAN’S CONTENTIONS:
 As to his alleged failure to comply with Sec.3 Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure: as counsel to the affiants, he had the option not comply or not with
the certification.
 As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of CPR: lawyers could testify on behalf
of their clients “on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is
essential to the ends of justice.”
 Santiago charged Rafanan’s clients with attempted murder. Rafanan said that
since his clients were in his house during the alleged crime, that’s why he said
his testimony is very essential.
 He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to harass Rafanan
since he is the counsel of the parties who filed cases against him before the
ombudsman (Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Ramos and BJMP).
ISSUE:
 Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as witness in favor of
his clients?

RULING:
 Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client.
 A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases
pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client
relationship.
 Reason: The difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their
relationship to their clients as witnesses from that as an advocate (Note: A
witness must only say what happened. Only the truth. As compared with the task
of a lawyer who will use all the available remedies and actions in his arsenal for
his client to win the case.)
 It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness
from the zeal of an advocate.
 The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as witnesses, unless
they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active
management of the case.
 In the case at bar: Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because:
It’s a duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by
law for the benefit of the client. (Remember, there is a criminal
Atty. Rafanan is GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the CPR.
He is fined P3,000.00 with a warning that similar infractions will be dealt more
severely.

22)Jimenez vs. Verano

FACTS:
 Brodett and Tecson (“Alabang Boys”) were accused in cases filed by the PDEA
for illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs, but the charges against them were
dropped for lack of probable cause. Because of the failure of the prosecutor to
ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the case, several media
outlets reported on incidents of bribery and “cover up” allegedly prevalent on
investigations of drug trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal
Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings and it was revealed during one
of the hearings that respondent Verano Jr. prepared the release order of his
three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ and the stationery of then Sec. Raul
Gonzales.
 Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime
and Corruption (VACC) sent a letter of complaint to CJ Puno. They stated that
respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, hence he committed a
highly irregular and unethical act. They argue further that he had no authority to
use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member
of the bar.
 Atty. Lozano also filed a case and anchored his Complaint on respondent’s
alleged violation of Canon 1 of the CPR. Atty. Lozano contended that respondent
showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and
sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though he was not a government
prosecutor. Lozano, however, withdrew his Complaint on the ground that a
similar action had been filed by Dante Jimenez.
 Respondent reasoned that the Joint Inquest Resolution dropped his clients from
the charges against them, and the said resolution also ordered the immediate
release of “Alabang Boys”. He admits that he was over-zealous, yet if approved
by the Sec. of DOJ, then it may be expedited, and since it was not signed then
the draft release order remained “a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all”.
 The Investigating Commissioner noted that both complaints were
unsubstantiated, while the letter-complaint of Jimenez and Vizconde had not
been verified, hence, no evidence to was adduced to prove the charges.
However, by respondent’s very own admission, the Commissioner found that he
indeed acted highly irregular, hence, guilty of violating Canon 13 of CPR and
recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same or any similar
action.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Verano violated the CPR for drafting the released order of his
clients having no authority to do so?
RULING:
 Yes. He violated Rule 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the CPR. 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.
 During the mandatory hearing conducted by the CBD, respondent stated that the
PDEA refused to release his clients unless it received a direct order from the
DOJ Secretary. This refusal purportedly impelled him to make more serious
action by personally approaching the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the
case was still pending before the latter, and used his influence, stating that he
belong to a political family, as his father is a Congressman and the Secretary
was a former one, so they are not complete stranger to each other.
 The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special
treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the
behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is
duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to
influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s faith in the judicial
process is diluted.
 The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of
justice. To that end, their client’s success is wholly subordinate. Zeal and
persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the bounds of
the law. (Suspended for 6 months, and warned for a more severe penalty if
repeated).

23)Lantoria vs Bunyi
FACTS:
 An administrative complaint was filed by Lantoria against Bunyi, a member of the
Philippine Bar, on the ground that Bunyi committed acts of graft and corruption,
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of
the judge and bribery
 This is in relation to Bunyi’s handling of a civil case wherein Bunyi was counsel of
Mrs. Mascarinas. The latter was the owner of the farm and Lantoria is the
supervisor and manager of the said farm. The 3 civil cases presided by Judge
Galicia involved an ejectment suit of squatters in the said farm. The defendants
in the said cases were declared in default.
 Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi initially
enclosed a letter in an envelope addressed to Judge Galicia in a confidential and
private manner. Judge Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria informed Bunyi that
he is willing to let Bunyi write the decisions for th 3 civil cases. Lantoria informed
the same to Bunyi which later delivered the 3 decisions thru Lantoria.
 Three years later, Lantoria file the present case against Bunyi alleging that they
won the said cases because Bunyi wrote the decisions in those cases.
 Bunyi contends that Lantoria had knowledge of the request of Judge Galicia to
Bunyi as the said judge had two salas before him. Also, Bunyi contends that the
drafting of the decision was not an idea spawned by him. Furthermore, he
contends that his participation is merely on revision.
 The solicitor general investigated the matters and found that Bunyi prepared the
draft of the decisions and that he had previous communications with the judge
regarding drafting the same. Moreover, Bunyi admitted that he prepared the said
decisions and that the subject letters do exist.
 The Solicitor General found Bunyi guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional
conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court, to help promote
the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which
would influence judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. The
Solicitor General recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year.
 Lantoria did not attend hearing of the case and later filed his withdrawal of the
same. Bunyi gave an apology but he denied the allegations of offering a gift to
judge Galicia.
ISSUE:
WON Bunyi violated the code of professional responsibility for lawyers for extending
undue influence to the court in obtaining favorable decisions?
HELD:
YES.
 The determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed
notwithstanding withdrawal of complaint due to the Bunyi having admitted that
the letters in question truly exist, and that he even asked for an apology from the
Court, for whatever effects such letters had on his duty as a lawyer.
 Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
on attempts to exert personal influence on the court - A lawyer should not
communicate or argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending
cause and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain
from a judge special personal consideration or favor.
 In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to influence
the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule 13.01. 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.
 Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court
where he had pending civil case. Suspended for 1 year.

24)Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

 -Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the respondent
justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the
‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not
 make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political
activities.”
 Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that would
assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The subsequent decision
of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) is,
petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and due process.
 According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special Division
of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality against his client.
 Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly
employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted out, ‘Magmumukha
naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
characterized the motion as insignificant even before the prosecution could file its
comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in open court that to
grant Estrada’s motion would result in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by
the alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney
Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their disqualification.
 The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the TRUTH
of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:
‘a) going to EDSA 2;
‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as President on the
ground of ‘permanent disability’ even without proof of compliance with the
corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g., written declaration by either the
President or majority of his cabinet; and
‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground of
permanent disability.
 -In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he has demanded, in a clearly
disguised form of forum shopping, for several advisory opinions on matters
pending before the Sandiganbayan.
 Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the foregoing
orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lack
of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an
indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to the extraordinary relief of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
 In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney Alan
Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making, directly or
indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Atty. Paguia be subjected to disciplinary action for
disrespecting the court?
RULING:
 Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness,
soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for, if
well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.) However, Attorney
Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case within the
judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both
broadcast and print media.
 “Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the
bar from making such public statements on any pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have
stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to
the administration of justice.”
 It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its statutory
context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the defeat of a
particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of candidacy to a
public office in an election. The taking of an oath of office by any incoming
President of the Republic before the Chief Justice of the Philippines is a
traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate. The assailed presence of
other justices of the Court at such an event could be no different from their
appearance in such other official functions as attending the Annual State of the
Nation Address by the President of the Philippines before the Legislative
Department.
 The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance any
wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let
alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
 Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer
should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers
and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing
sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and
authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in
seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
 The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to
become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the
Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
 WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a
lawyer and an officer of the Court.