Ans:

Disrespect towards the court would necessarily undermine the confidence the people in the honesty and integrity of the
members of the court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice by the court.

Courtesy-the showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior

toward others.
Propriety-the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.

FACTS:
Here, Atty. Rañeses asked for P10,000.00 from Bueno. This amount would allegedly be divided between him and Judge Nidea,
the judge hearing Civil Case against Bueno, so that they would not lose the case.

CASE:

SPOUSES JONATHAN and ESTER LOPEZ vs. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS

A.C. No. 7618 February 2, 2016
Facts:
• While living abroad, they secured the services of respondent as counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a
minor child, Ethan Benedict Victore.
• A few months later, they purposely came back to the Philippines for a two (2)-week stay to commence the filing of
the adoption case before the proper court.
• However, despite payment and submission of all the required documents to respondent, no petition was filed during
their stay.
 • Complainants, through Jonathan's employer, received respondent's letter, requesting that complainants be allowed
to come home to the Philippines to appear and testify in court for the adoption case she purportedly filed on behalf
of complainants before the RTC of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 30 (RTC).
• Thus, complainants returned to the Philippines, only to find out that: the alleged case filed by Atty. Limos, referred to a
petition for the declaration of the " presumptive death of another person filed by another lawyer; and (b)  respondent
had yet to file a petition for adoption on their behalf.
• Utterly dismayed, complainants withdrew all their documents from respondent's custody and hired another lawyer
to handle the filing of the adoption case.
• And demanded the return of the amount of P75,000.00 given as legal fees. 
• However, respondent refused to return such money, retorting that as a standard operating procedure, she does not
return "acceptance fees.“
• In view of the foregoing, complainants filed the instant administrative case against respondent before this Court.
• Despite numerous directives to file a comment, respondent failed to do so. The administrative case was then referred to
the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation, wherein respondent similarly disregarded the IBP's directives to
participate in the Mandatory Conference and to submit her position paper despite due notice.
ISSUE:
whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
RULING: YES
• 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.
xxxx
• To aggravate further respondent's administrative liability, the Court notes that it repeatedly required her to comment on
complainants' petition, but respondent ignored such commands. Similarly, when the instant case was referred to the IBP
for investigation, report, and recommendation, respondent again disregarded the directives of the Investigating
Commissioner to attend the mandatory conference and to submit a position paper. Such audacity on the part of
respondent - which caused undue delay in the resolution of the instant administrative case - contravenes Canon 11 and
Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR.
• CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
xxxx
• Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
• Undoubtedly, "The Court's patience has been tested to the limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyer's
impudence and disrespectful' bent. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect,
courtesy, and such other becoming conduct essential in the promotion of orderly, impartial, and speedy
justice." What respondent has done was the exact opposite, and hence, she must be disciplined accordingly.

CASE 2: this was also in relation to Rule 11.04

KENNETH R. MARIANO vs. ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI
A.C. No. 11978 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2769], EN BANC, September 25, 2018
FACTS:
Kenneth R. Mariano approached and engaged the services of Atty. Laki for the filing of a
petition for annulment of the latter’s marriage. Atty. Laki then asked from Mariano a total of
Php 160,000.00, representing a package deal for the former’s professional fee, docket fee and
expenses for the preparation and filing of the petition, subject to an advance payment of Php
50,000.00.
Mariano expressed his concern over the said amount but was persuaded by Atty. Laki’s
assurances, specifically how the latter assured him that he could secure a favorable decision
even without Mariano's personal appearance since he will file the petition for annulment before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac which is presided by a "friendly judge" and is known
to be receptive to annulment cases. Believing in Atty. Laki's assurances, Mariano initially paid Atty.
Laki the amount of Php 50,000.00.
Upon Atty. Laki's relentless follow-ups to pay the remaining balance, Mariano made the succeeding
payments in the amounts of P40,000.00 and P60,000.00, respectively. Almost a year thereafter,
Mariano followed up with Atty. Laki the status of the petition. He then discovered that the
petition has yet to be filed. Atty. Laki told him that the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Tarlac
where he allegedly filed the petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus, he decided
to withdraw the case since he did not expect the new presiding judge to be "friendly."
After several failed attempts to contact and meet Atty. Laki, Mariano then decided to demand for the
return of the money he gave. Despite Mariano's demand to Atty. Laki to return his money, his
demands were left unheeded.
Atty. Laki promised Mariano that he would return the money in installments within two weeks
because he still has to raise it, but Atty. Laki failed to make good of his promise. Later,
Mariano's succeeding phone calls were rejected. Mariano also alleged that Atty. Laki's office in
Guagua, Pampanga, was always closed. Aggrieved, Mariano filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Laki. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Laki be disbarred.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laki should be disbarred (YES)
RULING:
It must be emphasized anew that the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose,
he must immediately return it to the client. Atty. Laki's failure to render an accounting, and to return the money if the intended purpose thereof
did not materialize, constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.

 Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, while Rule 11.04 states that a
lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality
to the case.
 Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano that he can secure a favorable decision without
the latter's personal appearance because the petition will be filed in the RTC of Tarlac, which is
allegedly presided by a "friendly" judge receptive to annulment cases give the implication that a
favorable decision can be obtained merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not
necessarily on the merits.
 Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast doubts on the integrity of the courts in the eyes of
the public. By making false representation to his client, Atty. Laki not only betrayed his client's
trust but he also undermined the trust and faith of the public in the legal profession.

Generally, the proper attire would be the contemporary business suit. It should be a Barong
Tagalog or a coat and tie for men, and an appropriate business attire for women.
RULE 11.03
CASE 1.

Case 2: RULE 11.03

In Re: Vicente Almacen 31 SCRA 562
Facts:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but
Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to
indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the
Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for
reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly
denied his appeal in a minute resolution. This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as
unconstitutional.
He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that
it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to
pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of
the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay
P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
hypocrisy.”
He also stated “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but
also deaf and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually
surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not
to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be
taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is
“the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.

He replied with an answer that was undignified, cynical embellished with sarcasm and innuendo, saying things like:

“We condemn the SIN not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS not the ACTOR. We attack the decision of this Court,
not the members. xx x We were provoked.”

“Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY and
FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason, NEVER.”

Atty. Almacen also quoted the bible as opening statement; “But why doust thou see the speck in thy brother’s eye, and
yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? x x x Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thy own eye, and
then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the speck from thy brother’s eys.” Basically, Atty. Alamacen felt extremely bitter
at his motion being denied and the reason for such denial being delivered only through a minute resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full
opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper
role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond
the particular facts and
parties involved.” It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound
judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the
Court of Appeals’ opinion.
On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that
such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of
the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts
of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and
the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal
condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. In the case at bar,
Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for reconsideration
which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be
entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was
suspended indefinitely.

CASE 3:
JOY A. GIMENO vs. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015

FACTS:
Joy Gimeno (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Atty. Paul Zaide (Respondent) charging the latter with usurpation of a
notary public’s office, falsification, use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language, and violation of lawyer-client trust. It
was submitted that complainant was respondent’s former client. Complainant engaged the services of the Zaragoza-
Makabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ) in an annulment of title case that involved her husband and her parents-in-law.
Despite the previous lawyer-client relationship, respondent still appeared against her in the complaint for estafa and violation of
RA 3019 filed against the complainant with the Ombudsman. Complainant posited that by appearing against a former client,
Atty. Zaide violated the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients’ interests. Furthermore, complainant also
alleges that the respondent called her a “notorious extortionist” in the same administrative complaint filed against her.
According to Gimeno, these statements constitute intemperate, offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is proscribed
from using in his dealings.
In his defense, respondent denied that he used any intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in his pleadings. The IBP found
the respondent administratively liable for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using
abusive and insulting language in his pleadings. Atty. Zaide was suspended for 1 year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent may be held administratively liable for the use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language
against the complainant.

RULING:
Lawyers are prohibited to use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a lawyer’s professional dealings, whether with
the courts, his clients, or any other person. The prohibition stems from the following canons and rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
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.

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 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Based on the record, it is clear that the respondent, in the reply that he drafted, called complainant a “notorious extortionist”.
This is a clear violation of the Canons mentioned above and a confirmation of the respondent’s lack of restraint in the use and
choice of his words. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the
use of offensive and abusive language. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified.

CASE 4.(to input)

IN RE: PONCIANO B. JACINTO
Facts:
The Court has injitiated this action motu proprio because of the improvident language and conduct of Atty. Jacinto, counsel
in the Palmario v. SSS case.
Palmario v SSS case was about the question of Palmario where she was considered resigned from her last day of actual service
by the CSC. She was considered resigned after she failed to report to SSS after being absent for one year. There were several
motions for reconsideration filed to the SC but the SC dismissed the same because it just alleged facts without legal basis.
Atty. Jacinto included in his Special and Very Urgent Manifestation to the SC insults and threats in the most boorish and insolent
manner. He was warned it of “a looming danger ahead” if his motions are not granted ; averred that denial of his petition will
make the Court as superfluous “as a hole in the head;” broadly hinted that he will then give the media news “of the most
nauseating kind” involving the Court and made other irresponsible charges and insinuations that besmiorch the higher tribunal
and undermine popular faith in its integrity.
Held:
The Court suspended Atty. Jacinto. The above statements are clearly contemptuous. Every lawyer is expected to maintain the
proper decorum in his dealings with the courts of justice and is never justified in using scurrilous and threatening language in
pleading his client’s cause. While criticism of jusidical conduct is not forbidden and zeal in advocacy is in fact encouraged, the
lawyer must always act within the limits of propriety and good taste and with deference for the judges before whom he pleads

RULE 11.04

CASE 1. (to input)

BALAOING V. CALDERON
Atty. Eduardo Balaoing filed several administrative complaints against different judges of Olongapo and Zambales.
Judge Dojillo – this complaint was dimissed for lack of merit. But Balaoing was required to show cause why he should
not be disciplinary dealt with for having suppressed certain material facts and for having engaged in forum shopping.
Explanation was declared unsatisfactory and he was severely censured and warned
Judge Maliwanag – grave misconduct for alleged failure and refusal to issue the writ of execution pending appeal
prayed for by complainant. The court was disturbed by Balaoing’s unrestrained use of unsavory, defamatory
language. The latter accused judge of wearing his brief (short) while in chamber during office hours, it is undignified,
especially so when his body has traces of fungus, which may have been afflicted during his 26 years as Assistant City
Fiscal of Olongapo, a dirt city. This complaint dismissed, suspended for 1 year and P1000
Judge Calderon – misconduct, abuse of authority, malicious delay in administration of justice. He allegedly does not
follow the Circular, merely treats it as directory. He automatically grants postponements and deferments, drinks
(whisky like water) and fraternizes with lawyers close to Mayor Gordon, refused to declare defendants in default
despite repeated non-appeareances, and he sanctions the setup of having his legal researcher work under the
supervision of an OIC who, according to complainant, is grossly inefficient and a notorious swindler with no
background in law.
OIC Leonor Maniago – Balaoing alleges that when he came out of the courtroom, he was castigated by the former for
allegedly calling her notorious, swindler, insane, etc....
Judge Calderon filed his comment – He said the complaint was precipitated by events in Balaoing vs. Gavilan, an
action for foreclosure. Balaoing in that case was the highest bidder in a public auction. A certificate of Sale was
issued. Judge quashed a writ of possession because redemption period had not expired. This allegedly infuriated
Balaoing. Hence he filed several suits, one after the other – motion for inhibition alleging the judge’s “mental
dishonesty” and “grossness of ignorance of the law”, petition for certiorari and prohibition, a civil case for damages, a
petition to cite judge in contempt. When redemption period expired, judge issued a writ of possession but Balaoing
did not take possession showing disinterest.
As shown above, Balaoing has a penchant for filing charges against judges in whose salas he has pending cases,
whenever the latter render decisions or issue orders adverse to him and/or his clients. He filed baseless and frivolous
complaints with no other purpose than to harass and exact vengeance. Balaoing’s actions run counter to the Canons.
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 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts
Rule 11.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
the case.
Balaoing was disbarred.

Ans:
When it is the judge who misbehaved during a court proceeding, the affected lawyer may demand that the incident be made
of record. This act of he lawyer is not contemptuous. While lawyers are prohibited to attribute motives to a judge not
supported by the record, lawyers must however be courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustice of courts and
judges.

CASE 2.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043             September 5, 2007
JUAN DE LA CRUZ (CONCERNED CITIZEN OF LEGAZPI CITY), complainant, vs. JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 9, respondent.
This administrative case stems from an anonymous complaint by "Juan de la Cruz," a concerned citizen of Legazpi City,
against respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 9.
The letter-complaint read:
The Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court
and The Honorable Court Administrator
Supreme Court, Manila
Sir and Madam,
Kami po ay sumulat sa inyo dahil po sa reklamo sa masamang ugali at asal ni Judge Ruben Car[r]etas ng RTC,
Branch 9, Legazpi City.
Siya po ay isang mayabang na Judge at mahilig mang insulto sa pamamagitan ng side comments sa mga testigo,
abogado at fiscal, parang siya na lang ang may alam sa batas. Bilang Judge siya na po ang nagdirect, at cross-
examine sa mga testigo.
Dahil sa kanyang ginagawa napapahiya ang mga testigo, abogado at fiscal sa harap ng publiko. Nawawala din po
ang respeto ng publiko sa justice system.
Kami po ay umaasa at nanalangin sa madaliang aksyon ng inyong opisina para malutas ang problemang ito.
Salamat at mabuhay po kayong lahat.
Ang gumagalang,
(Sgd. Juan de la Cruz)
Concern[ed] citizen of Legazpi [City]
 respondent judge surmised that the complaint was initiated by a lawyer whose petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage was not granted. He denied the accusation and claimed that he had not insulted anyone.
 Respondent judge also stated that, while he may have used harsh word sometimes, they were made out of
exasperation and with the intention merely to right the wrong committed in his presence, not to insult anyone.
Nonetheless, he apologized to those who may have been offended by his remarks.
In connection with the complaint, Judge Romeo S. Dañas, executive judge of the RTC of Legazpi City,
conducted a discreet investigation. He interviewed lawyers who appeared in the sala of respondent judge.
He requested them to submit their respective written comments on the decorum of respondent judge when
holding trial. Among these comments were the following:
1. Atty. Mariano B. Baranda, Jr.
Respondent judge should avoid making embarrassing, insulting and abrasive remarks. He should also limit
himself to asking clarificatory questions.5
2. Atty. Expedito P. Nebres
If not in open court respondent judge is kind, courteous and respectful. However, in open court he is arrogant
and boastful. He has a bad habit in making embarrassing or insulting remarks when presiding over cases.
Most of the time, he was the one conducting direct and cross-examination of witnesses. He used to scold,
harass and embarrass witnesses, litigants, lawyers, prosecutors and PAO6 lawyers for just a slight mistake in
procedure.7
3. Atty. Alexis C. Albao
 In the course of presentation of evidence for his client, he was insulted and subjected to sarcastic remarks by
respondent judge, not once but for several occasions. This traumatized him and made him avoid reading the
transcript of stenographic notes of the said hearing until now. In one occasion, respondent judge proceeded
to cut short the proceedings. When he manifested that he would cross-examine the defendant, respondent
judge stood from his seat and in a sarcastic manner looked backward manifesting that he was not interested
or not listening to the cross-examination. Thus, he was discouraged from proceeding with his cross-
examination. Most of the time, respondent judge would unduly intervene in the presentation of evidence and
asked more questions than counsel. Respondent judge showed apathy to those who were subjected to his
insults. He insisted that others submit to his way of doing things. He showed inflexibility to minor mistakes.
4. Atty. Ricardo V. de Jesus
While he was in the process of conducting direct examination, respondent judge instructed him to ask
questions which respondent judge thought to be material. When he was through with his direct examination,
respondent judge asked him in open court how long he had been in private practice. He replied that he had
been practicing for only a period of one and a half (1½) years. Respondent judge then told him to prepare
supposed direct questions and expected answers. He felt embarrassed.
 Here, respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas was found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a
judge
 It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays lack of patience, prudence
and restraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must choose his words, written or
spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and just man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing
speech increases his persuasiveness.
 Equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice. A judge should always keep his
passion guarded. He can never allow it to run loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the level of a sharp-
tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words, snide remarks or sarcastic comments. As a result, he
degrades the judicial office and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
Against this backdrop, respondent judge indeed appears arrogant and boastful not only in
the eyes of the anonymous complainant but also to the lawyers who practice in his sala.
In fine, the over-all conduct of respondent judge has been unbecoming of a magistrate . It is classified as a light
charge36 for which a fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000 may be imposed.37
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,38 this administrative case against respondent judge shall also be considered as a
disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar.
 Violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics constitutes a breach of Canons
1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Certainly, a judge who falls short of the ethics of the judicial office
tends to diminish the people’s respect for the law and legal processes. He also fails to observe and maintain the
esteem due to the courts and to judicial officers.

CASE 2. (to input)

ANTONIO X. GENATO VS. ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI
A.C. No. 12486, October 15, 2019