Part IV.

Duty of the Lawyer to the Society

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.
Rule 7.01 - 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.

Rule 7.02 - 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.
A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975
IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO, former Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court,
respondent. A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975 IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E.
GALANG, 1971 Bar Examinee, respondent.
A.M. No. 1164 August 29, 1975
IN RE: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN, ATTY. MANUEL
TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO and ATTY. GUILLERMO PABLO, JR., Members, 1971
Bar Examining Committee, respondent.

Facts:
Administrative proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo — for disbarment; Ramon E. Galang,
alias Roman E. Galang — for disbarment; Hon. Bernardo Pardo, Hon. Ramon Pamatian, Atty.
Manuel C. Tomacruz; Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel Manalo and Atty. Guillermo Pablo,
Jr. — for disciplinary action — for their acts and omissions during the 1971 Bar Examinations.
Victorio Lanuevo, Bar Confidant of the 1971 Bar Examinations, Admitted having brought the five
examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for reevalution or
re-checking. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook
delivered by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the
examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.
Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the exam
results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in Political Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law,
Criminal Law & Remedial Law).

Issues:
1. Whether or not Victorio Lanuevo should be disbarred
2. Whether or not Ramon Galang should be disbarred
3. Whether or not the examiners be given disciplinary action
Ruling:
1. Yes. Lanuevo systematically and cleverly initiated and prepared the stage leading to the
reevalation and/or recorrection of the answers of respondent Galang by deceiving separately
and individually the respondents-examiners to make the desired revision without prior authority
from the Supreme Court after the corrected notebooks had been submitted to the Court through
the respondent Bar Confidant, who is simply the custodian thereof for and in behalf of the Court.
The Office of the Bar Confidant, it must be stressed, has absolutely nothing to do in the
reevaluation or reconsideration of the grades of examinees who fail to make the passing mark
before or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the Examiners. After the corrected
notebooks are submitted to him by the Examiners, his only function is to tally the individual
grades of every examinee in all subjects taken and thereafter compute the general average. In
trying to do justice to Galang, as claimed by respondent Lanuevo, grave injustice was inflicted
on the other examinees of the 1971 Bar examinations, especially the more than ninety
candidates who were more deservinh of reconsideration. Furthermore, the unexplained failure
of respondent Lanuevo to apprise the Court or the Committee or even the Bar Chairman of the
fact of re-evaluation before or after the said re-evaluation and increase of grades, precludes, as
the same is inconsistent with, any pretension of good faith. Thus he shall be disbarred.

2. Yes. The name of respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, should likewise be
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This is a necessary consequence of the un-authorized
reevaluation of his answers in five (5) major subjects — Civil Law, Political and International
Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Mercantile Law. Furthermore, respondent Galang
continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his pending criminal case of slight
physical injuries; such is a violation of the rule that every applicant is duty bound to lay before
the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable
the Court to fully ascertain or determine applicant's moral character.

3. No. All respondents Bar examiners candidly admitted having made the re-evaluation and/or
re-correction of the papers in question upon the misrepresentation of respondent Bar Confidant
Lanuevo. All, however, professed good faith; and that they re-evaluated or increased the grades
of the notebooks without knowing the identity of the examinee who owned the said notebooks;
and that they did the same without any consideration or expectation of any. These the records
clearly demonstrate that indeed the respondents-examiners made the re-evaluation or
recorrecion in good faith and without any consideration whatsoever. Considering however the
vital public interest involved in the matter of admission of members to the Bar, the respondents
bar examiners, under the circumstances, should have exercised greater care and caution and
should have been more inquisitive before acceding to the request of respondent Bar Confidant
Lanuevo.
 Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in 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.
Joselano Guevarra Vs Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
FACTS: Joselano Guevarra filed a complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala a.k.a.
Noli Eala (respondent) for “grossly immoral conduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath.” The
complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant’s) then- fiancée Irene
Moje introduced respondent Nolu Eala to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann
Tantaco with whom he had three children. After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that
Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which
real “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually
went home vey late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not
go home from work. Complainant also had seen Irene and respondent together in two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the
conjugal house. The complainant later found out in the master’s bedroom, a folded card bearing
the wods “I love you” on its face, dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. It was
also revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002, naming respondent in the Certificate of Live
Birth as the girl’s father. In the respondent’s answer to complainant’s allegations, he specifically
denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, that their relationship was low
profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families. He also said that
his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to
grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent be disbarred from the practice of law
HELD: Yes, the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law as it involves the
relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his spouse even though
the affair was carried out discreetly. While it was been held in disbarment cases that the mere
fact of sexual relations between two consenting adults is not sufficient an administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of
fidelity. Respondent also violated the lawyer’s oath he took before practicing law, Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prescribes a lawyer from engaging in
“unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” And Rule .03 of Canon 7 of the same code
which prescribes a lawyer from engaging in any “conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law.”

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND

CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
ALCANTARA VS. PEFIANCO (A.C. NO. 5398 12/03/2002)
FACTS: This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member
of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault
complainant. The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public
Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon
Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice
in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached them. Complainant suggested Atty. Salvani to talk
with her when respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and
shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client. Atty Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not
refrain from his outburst. This caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent tried to
attack complainant and even shouted at him, "You’re stupid!" Complainant also submitted the
affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert
Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying
woman, whose husband had been murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her
defense. He also averred that it was Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 8 -
A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably,
fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all
times. In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused
the untoward incident. Though he thought that this is righteous, his public behaviorcan only
bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect for it. An injustice
cannot be righted by another injustice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the
amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be
sanctioned more severely.

Rule 8.02 - 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.
CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent.
Facts: Petitioner, Cerina Likong, filed an administrative case against respondent, Alexander
Lim, seeking for the latter’s disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct. Petitioner
obtained a loan of P92,000 from Geesnell Yap and executed a promissory note in favor of Yap
and a deed of assignment, assigning to the latter pension checks she receives from the US
Govt. Petitioner also executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand,
collect and receive pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above
documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent, Lim, Yap’s counsel. About 3
months after the execution of the SPA, petitioner informed the post office that she was revoking
the SPA. Yap then filed a complaint for injunction against petitioner. Respondent appeared as a
counsel for Yap, while Atty Roland Inting and Atty Enrico Aumentado appeared for the
petitioner. Petitioner and Yap filed a joint motion to allow Yap to withdraw the pension checks.
This motion does not bear the signatures of petitioner’s counsel but only the signatures of both
parties, assisted by respondent. Petitioner and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again
without the participation of the former’s counsel. The compromise agreement stated that
petitioner admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000 and that the amount would be paid in
monthly installments for 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum discounted every 6 months.
Petitioner filed the present disbarment case based on the following allegations: o In all the
motions, she was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and signature of any of her
lawyers; no copy was furnished to either one of them o She was advised by the respondent that
it was not necessary for her to consult with her lawyers o She had been prevented from
exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud o Respondent fraudulently and without authority
assumed to represent her and connived in her defeat Respondent answered stating that
petitioner’s counsels abandoned their client

Issue: WON Respondent Lim is guilty of misconduct under CPR

Held: YES.  It is worth noting that the terms of the compromise agreement are indeed grossly
loaded in favor of Yap.  There was no proof that respondent tried to inform the opposing
counsel of the compromise agreement, nor did he try to inform the court of the alleged
abandonment of petitioner by her counsel.  Respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage
of the situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement, which was
grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to petitioner. Suspended from the practice
of law for 1 year.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.
RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA vs. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY.
JANUS T. JARDER
A.C. No. 9604 March 20, 2013
Facts:
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order from the Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of
authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by
Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration.
The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of
the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty.
Bancolo of the case filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo
denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When
Rustia showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above
his name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign
an affidavit to attest to such fact.
The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of
the counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaint’s validity.
Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he falsified the signature of his
former lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit by Richard A.
Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted
Divinagracia’s case and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed
by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document
for insufficiency of evidence. The administrative case for dishonesty was also dismissed for lack
of substantial evidence.
Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty.
Bancolo’s law partner. The complainants alleged that they were subjected to a harassment
Complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo.
Complainants stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the Complaint was not the
only one that was forged. Complainants attached a Report by the PNP Crime Laboratory 6
which examined three other letter-complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other clients, allegedly
close friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the questioned signatures in the letter-
complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and
the same person. Thus, complainants maintained that not only were respondents engaging in
unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification of documents
used to harass and persecute innocent people.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is administratively liable

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of
the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a
violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A
LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of
law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be
limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right
conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court.
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of law
which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession.
The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was directly involved, had
knowledge of, or even participated in the wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or
tolerating his secretary to sign pleadings for him. Thus, the court finds Atty. Jarder is not
administratively liable.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law, except
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons
specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the
plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing agreement.
TAN TEK BENG VS. TIMOTEO A. DAVID
A.C. NO. 1261. December 29, 1983
Facts:
This case was instituted by Tan Tek Beng against David for allegedly not living up to their
agreement that lawyer David will give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or
commission agent but he he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.
The business relation between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. David clarified that the
partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek Beng as assistant manager and
lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier. When Jacinto became ill and the cost of office
maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest some money or
shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused.

Issue:
WON the agreement was valid?
Held:
The SC hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is
"the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Malpractice ordinarily refers to
any ,malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and
technical meaning to the term "malpractice". That meaning is in consonance with the
elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a business.
 Part V. Duties to the Courts
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. v. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL A.C. No. 7325,
January 21, 2015 VILLARAMA, JR., J.
FACTS: OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had two sons,
Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law was enacted, emancipation patents and
titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, who in turn
sold the parcels of land to complainant’s spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. The Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the
emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating that it was not covered by
the agrarian reform law. This decision was appealed to and affirmed by the DARAB Central
Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol, as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed
a motion for execution with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full
implementation of the decision. Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of
Execution and Demolition which he signed as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela.”
Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions
since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record. Villahermosa
posited that Efren could not have authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because
Efren had already been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty. Caracol’s real client
was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same parcel of land. Atty.
Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto authorized him to appear as “additional counsel”. He said
that he had consulted Atty. Aquino who advised him to go ahead with the filing. Moreover, he
stated that he was not aware that there was a waiver of rights executed in Ernesto Aguirre’s
favor. In its Report and Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and misconduct.

ISSUE: Is Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of oath under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?

RULING: YES. The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a presumption of a
lawyer’s appearance on behalf of his client, hence: SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. –
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears,
and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but
the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being
shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the
authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of
the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An
attorney willfully appearing in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the
court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his
official transactions. (Emphases supplied) Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no
power to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he appear in court without
being employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney appears on a client’s behalf without a
retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent nor the
adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance unless the purported client ratifies or
is estopped to deny his assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for contempt
as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transaction. Atty. Caracol knew that
Efren had already passed away at the time he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ
of Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should have
informed the Court of his client’s passing and presented authority that he was retained by the
client’s successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted. Atty. Caracol
was found guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Rule 10.02 - 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 law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
People v. Medenilla
[GR 131638-39, 26 March 2001]
Facts: On 16 April 1996, Loreto Medenilla y Doria was caught for illegal possession and
unlawfully selling 5.08g of shabu (Criminal Case 3618-D), was in unlawful possession of 4
transparent plastic bags of shabu weighing 200.45g (Criminal Case 3619-D) in Mandaluyong
City. Versions of facts leading to the arrest are conflicting; the prosecution alleging buy-bust
operations, while defense claims illegal arrest, search and seizure. Arraigned on 25 June 1996,
Medenilla pleaded not guilty. The judge therein, for the purpose of clarification, propounded a
question upon a witness during the trial. On 26 November 1997, the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig (Branch 262) found Medenilla, in Criminal Cases 3618-D and 3619-D, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972).

Issue: Whether judges are allowed to asked clarificatory questions.

Held: A single noted instance of questioning cannot justify a claim that the trial judge was
biased. The Court have exhaustively examined the transcript of stenographic notes and
determined that the trial judge was more than equitable in presiding over the hearings of this
case. Moreover, a judge is not prohibited from propounding clarificatory questions on a witness
if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and just determination of the case. “The trial judge
must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be
essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. It cannot be taken against
him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to
destroy the theory of one party.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Facts: Surfield Development Corporation (SDC), represented by Denis B. Habawel and Alexis
F. Medina, elevated a Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of their petition for refund for the excess
of realty taxes paid to a City Government, to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The case was
assigned to the CTA’s First Division (FD). CTA’s FD, however, denied the petition for lack of
jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Undeterred, Habawel and Medina
sought reconsideration in behalf of SDC, insisting that the CTA had jurisdiction pursuant to
Republic Act No. 9282; and arguing that the CTA FD manifested its “lack of understanding or
respect” for the doctrine of stare decisis in not applying the ruling in Ty v. Trampe, to the effect
that there was no need to file an appeal before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160.
Unfortunately, the CTA FD denied SDC’s motion for reconsideration. In addition, it took note of
the language Habawel and Medina employed in their motion, and thus required them to explain
within five days from receipt why they should not be liable for indirect contempt or be made
subject to disciplinary action, thusly: However, this Court finds the statements of petitioner’s
counsel that “it is gross ignorance of the law for the Honorable Court to have held that it has no
jurisdiction over this instant petition; the grossness of this Honorable Court’s ignorance of the
law is matched only by the unequivocal expression of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction over
the instant case” and “this Court lacked the understanding and respect for the doctrine of “stare
decisis” as derogatory, offensive and disrespectful.
Habawel and Medina submitted a compliance, in which they appeared to apologize but
nonetheless justified their language as, among others, “necessary to bluntly call the Honorable
Court’s attention to the grievousness of the error by calling a spade by spade.” The CTA FD
found the apology wanting in sincerity and humility, observing that they chose words that were
“so strong, which brings disrepute the Court’s honor and integrity” for brazenly pointing to “the
Court’s alleged ignorance and grave abuse of discretion,” and thus found them guilty of direct
contempt of court for failing to uphold their duty of preserving the integrity and respect due to
the courts.
Issue: Whether or not the language employed by Habawel and Medina in their motion and
compliance were contumacious?

Held: Yes. The test for criticizing a judge’s decision is whether or not the criticism is bona fide or
done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. By the statements
employed, Habawel and Medina clearly and definitely overstepped the bounds of propriety as
attorneys, and disregarded their sworn duty to respect the courts. An imputation in a pleading of
gross ignorance against a court or its judge, especially in the absence of any evidence, is a
serious allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of court. It is settled that derogatory,
offensive or malicious statements contained in pleadings or written submissions presented to
the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending are treated as direct contempt
because they are equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. No attorney, no matter his great fame or high
prestige, should ever brand a court or judge as grossly ignorant of the law, especially if there
was no sincere or legitimate reason for doing so.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have
no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on
the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence.
He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.
TEJANO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA
A.C. No. 8235, January 27,2015
FACTS: Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Court
Administrator of the Supreme Court against his counsel, Atty. Baterina “miserably failed to
advance [his]cause”, and Judge Dominador Arquelada of acting in conspiracy to take
possession of his property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s court. The
Court required Atty. Baterinato file a Comment on the complaint to which he explained that he
had been recuperating from a kidney transplant when he received a copy of the complaint. The
Court, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation “not satisfactory” and admonished him “to be more
heedful of the Court’s directives” and referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation, which found sufficient ground for disciplinary action against Atty. Baterina.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baterina liable for gross negligence in his duty as counsel to his
client
RULING: The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification as to the
penalty. The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE ANDDILIGENCE.
RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s
request for information. When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a
commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s services
are engaged, “he is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s
cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
on him.” A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case “impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.” Atty. Baterina’s duty to his
clients did not automatically cease with his suspension. At the very least, such suspension gave
him a concomitant responsibility to inform his clients that he would be unable to attend to their
case and advise them to retain another counsel. A lawyer – even one suspended from
practicing the profession – owes it to his client to not “sit idly by and leave the rights of his client
in a state of uncertainty.” 27 The client “should never be left groping in the dark” and instead
must be “adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.” 28 Atty. Baterina
practically abandoned this duty when he allowed the proceedings to run its course without any
effort to safeguard his clients’ welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required pleadings
on his clients’ behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility 29 and renders him subject to disciplinary action.30 The penalties for a lawyer’s
failure to file the required brief or pleading range from warning, reprimand, fine, suspension, or
in grave cases, disbarment. 31 Further, Atty. Baterina’s reckless disregard for orders and
directives of the courts is unbecoming of a member of the Bar. His conduct has shown that he
has little respect for rules, court processes, and even for the Court’s disciplinary authority. Not
only did he fail to follow the trial court’s orders in his clients’ case, he even disregarded court
orders in his own disciplinary proceedings. Considering Atty. Baterina’s medical condition at that
time, a simple explanation to the Court would have sufficed. Instead, however, he simply let the
orders go unheeded, neglecting his duty to the Court. Lawyers, as this Court has previously
emphasized, “are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected
to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.” 32
As such, Atty. Baterina should “know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an
order which should be complied with promptly and completely.”33 Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is
found GUILTY of gross negligence. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5)
years. He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

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.
 Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under examination.

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.