MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY.

LYNDON TIMPUG
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

CANETE V. ATTY PUTI

Complainant: CARMELITA CANETE
Respondents: ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI
Ponente: J. CAGUIOA
Facts:
This is an administrative case filled by Carmelita Canete against Atty. Artemio Puti
The husband of Canete was the victim of a criminal case against the client of Atty. Puti
regarding the kidnapping with a double case of murder.
Canete filled the instant complaint against Atty Puti for
1. Appearing intoxicated in the hearings.
2. Provoking and insulting the public and private prosecutors.
3. by disrespecting the court.
In the first complaint, Atty. Puti denied such allegation that he is intoxicated when appearing in
court, the Court agrees with Atty. Puti in the reason of insufficient evidence despite the claim of
witnesses of Canete. NOT LIABLE IN THIS CASE.
He also claimed that it was Atty. Tan who provokes him and made threats against him.
And according to him he was just doing his duty to call out the judge as biased by being a
representative for his client. Abusing his discretion
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor
toward 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.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
Issues: WON ATTY. PUTI GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE CPR
Held:
IBP: The Investigating Commissioner recommended Atty. Puti liable for misconduct for
violation of Lawyer’s Oath and CPR and recommend to suspension for (2 YEARS) from practice
of law.
MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY. LYNDON TIMPUG
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The IBP adopted but modified the recommendation of IC Suspension of (6 months) from
practice of law.
SC: GUILTY of violating the Canons 8 and 11 and rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 of CPR,
REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING.
Thus, while Atty. Puti is guilty of using inappropriate language against the opposing
counsels and the judge, such transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit his
suspension since his misconduct is considered as simple rather than grave.

SORONGON, JR. V. ATTY. GARGANTOS, SR.

Complainant: PELAGIO VICENCIO SORONGON, JR.
Respondents: ATTY. RAMON Y. GARGANTOS, SR.
Ponente: J. CAGUIOA
Facts:
Atty. Ramon Gargantos Sr. was known to be 82 years old.
The complainant alleged that he gave respondent the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as full payment of the latter's legal services, which, is allegedly
agreed upon, would cover the acceptance fee, appearance fees, and other fees until the
resolution of the cases.
Mr. Sorongon Jr. also claimed the there is no receipt nor execution of MOA.
The respondent made Mr. Sorongon agree that he will provide them vehicle service
tickets meals and hotel accomodations when there is a hearing outside QC.
Atty. Gargantos, Sr. also demanded Mr. Sorongon Jr. “pocket money” in his travels with
his wife in exchange in appearing in court and quit being the complainant’s counsel.
However, the respondent allegedly asked him in a harsh voice, "O ano? Dala ma ba
yong hinihingi ko? Sinabi ka na s[a]yo kahap[o]n kung di mo dala di ako sisipot sa hearing mo
at layasan kita." When the complainant replied that he did not have the money, the respondent
allegedly shouted at him, "Babaliktarin kita. Sasabihin ko na di mo ako binabayaran at
ipakukulong kita. Di mo ako kilala. Umalis [kana] at baka ano pa ang mangyari s[a]yo.
Pagdating mo mamaya sa Sandiganbayan, sabihin at ikwento mo kung ano ang ginawa ko
s[a]yo, hindi na ako sisipot ngayong araw at magreresign na ako bilang abagado mo."

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES

OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

RULE 16.01. — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

ISSUE: WON
MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY. LYNDON TIMPUG
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

IBP:

Investigating Commissioner : Violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR

recommended suspension from the practice of law (1 YEAR) and that he should return all
documents and money,
The amount of 150,000 because the 50,000 is considered as attorneys fee
Withdrawal was without good cause.
Failed to return despite the demand the documents of complainant
IBP: Adopted but modified the recommendation by ordering of full return of the
200000 pesos to the complainant
SC: adopt but take consideration the Mitigating Factors
1. track record
2. age
Suspended for (6 months) and return of the 200000 and the documents.

CARLOS V. LOPEZ V. ATTY. MILAGROS ISABEL CRISTOBAL

Complainant: CARLOS V. LOPEZ
Respondents: ATTY. MILAGROS ISABEL CRISTOBAL
Ponente: J. CAGUIOA
Facts: