This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. (Rule 701, CPR)
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, CPR)
A. Requisite for admission to the Bar
3. A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar 6. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney-at-law by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or for gross misconduct in such office, gross immoral B. Condition for maintenance of membership in the Bar conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the 4. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. (Rule 1.01, Rule of Professional Responsibility [CPR]) oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience or any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an 5. A lawyer shall not engage in attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
1. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines, and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have been filed or pending in any court in the Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education or other, or other relevant attribute. (Rule 7.02, CPR)
2. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making false statement or
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, now should
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers constitutes malpractice. (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
character. (Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, “Apostacy in the Legal Profession”, 64 SCRA 784.
PETER DONTON vs. ATTY. E. TANSINGCO
By his own admission, respondent 9. Good moral character is more than admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for reconsideration,  respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier.
C. Definitions of good moral character.
just the absence of bad moral character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant
7. Good moral character includes at least common honesty (In E Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399, Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859)
thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. (Cordon vs. Balicanta, 490 SCRA 299)
B. Good moral character and the 8. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of truthspeaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility – all of which, throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral A.C. 6057, June 27, 2006 CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and the legal processes.. duties of a lawyer
Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant’s name. But respondent provided “some safeguards” by preparing several documents, including the Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in
honesty and integrity of their profession. January 25. equally important. advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence. he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. 2006 DAYAN STA. A. lawyers must at all times conduct themselves. but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. INC. confidence in the fidelity.NAPOLEON ESPIRITU requires that he shall be of good moral character.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually.C. No. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. 5542.complainant’s name. 6792. morally. immoral or deceitful conduct. the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. Law is a noble profession. academically. Thus.In effect. ATTY. ANA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession. and.C. respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents. for which he may be suspended. ATTY. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed. The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. and distinguishes it from any other calling. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office. dishonest. all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public Rule 1. No. To this end. July 20. especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large. 2006 ROBERTO SORIANO vs. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system. vs. The nature of the office of a lawyer A. .
C. the practice is proscribed by The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. No.P. we explained the nature of violation of B. who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness. In People v. . The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. but also an injury to the public. DANTE A. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment . PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION vs. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. . The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation. By his conduct. CARANDANG the law. we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged. still respondent is liable. more so in a lawyer. 22 as follows: The gravamen of the offense punished by B.MANUEL DIZON trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exact revenge” putting them in circulation. his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest. January 30. As it were. Tuanda. multiplied a thousand fold. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder. the making of worthless checks and A. can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce. ATTY. 5700. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant. but the obstinacy of one Clearly. injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society . respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions. which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual. Blg. Clearly. even if the check was drawn by Bingo Royale. 2006.P. . he acted like a god on the road.
Respondents’ acts did not amount to mere simple and excusable negligence. June 15. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties. 5907.C. 2001 but a The document clearly appears to have been ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from the AntiDummy charge against her in 2002.C. ATTYS. CALUBAQUIB & BALIGA the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2006. ATTY. 2006 VICTOR LINGAN vs. No. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. A. ATTY.01 of Canon 1 of A. respondents should have been acutely aware of their responsibilities. he led us to believe that Basilia personally appeared before him and attested to the truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who signed the document. BERNABE on notarized documents. A.] VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. July 21. By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the instrument. 6963. February 9. SERGIO E. 5377.01. Having failed to perform their sworn duty. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his function as a notary public and to Respondent's act of notarizing the Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence of one the affiants is in violation of Rule 1. Respondent's conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on comply with the mandates of the law.and the public interest. ELSA MONDEJAR vs.C. VIVIAN RUBIA . 2006 Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. respondents were squarely in violation of Rule 1. The document was allegedly Being not only lawyers but also notarized on January 9. the due execution of a document that our courts and the public accord public officers.
sexual However. decency and morality : A. justice. measured against the definition. 2006 ST. 6010. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law. ATTY. No. he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. consider respondent’s act as grossly immoral. Undoubtedly. how could an error have been committed regarding the other year 2001 original entries in the notarial register. His act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place. he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. when the purported new document was to retain the original January 9.C. This finds support in the following recommendation and relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the . ROLANDO DELA CRUZ observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors. we are not prepared to A. DIOSDADO RONGCAL While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior. 6313. In particular. September 7. VITUG vs. If that were so. respondent’s act constitutes immoral conduct. 2006 CATHERINE JOIE P. 2001 date as it would merely input additional conditions thereto? The above-quoted discussion by the Investigating IBP Commissioner of why he discredited respondent’s explanation behind the conflicting dates appearing in the document is thus well-taken. ATTY. No. August 28. LOUIS UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY & STAFF vs. it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.new revised/amended document was made in 2002 bearing the original date of execution/acknowledgment. But is it so gross as to warrant his disbarment? Indeed. is contrary to honesty.C.
Obviously. He did not inform A.000. Moreover. 6288. respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1. Worse. respondent committed deceit by making it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to collect the money judgment awarded to the former.490. When he failed in his undertaking.C. respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract with transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment." In fact. SARMIENTO there still remains an outstanding balance of P10. Records show and as found by Investigating Commissioner. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ATTY.01. 2006. March 31. It was only when complainant reported the retain or appropriate unilaterally his lawyer's lien by dividing the money into 60-40 ratio. therefore. AMADOR Z. after receiving from the NLRC cashier the check amounting to P99. 2006 MARILI C. et al. ALBERTI R. 54171 . Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of right from complainants. In the instant case. No. respondent has no right to Respondent failed to comply with the above provisions.00.C. as correctly found by IBP Commissioner Maala.Constitution and affirmed by our laws. June 16. No. he had no right to sell. vs. MALHABOUR vs. and. His acceptance of the . He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right. such conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.00 as partial payment of the "award. complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. ATTY. he retained the amount. HOMOBONO CHAVEZ the complainant that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot. A. RONQUILLO. It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership.000.00. matter to the NBI that respondent paid him P40.
No. participate in continuing legal education programs. arrests to be “in accordance with existing laws and rules. own initiative and as public interest may require”  and to make arrests. and as such have the following powers: (a) To make arrests. The invocation does not impress.bulk of the purchaser price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937. support efforts to achieve high standards in law Rule 1/02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Said section does not grant the NBI the power to make warrantless arrests. MARICHU LAMBINO peace officers. searches and In the main. August 9. RUDY ENRIQUEZ As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner. 2006 ATTY. ATTY. A. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.” Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of Investigation shall be schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in dessiminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.C. CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. despite knowing he was not entitled to it. ORLANDO V.00). 6352. February 27. Atty.400. Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility . made matters worse for him. Atty. ATTY. 2006 SPS. DIZON vs. The NBI Charter clearly qualifies the power to make the suspected students without a warrant. WILLIAMS vs.  A. upon its By persisting in his attempt to arrest x x x x (Emphasis supplied) seizures in accordance with existing laws and rules.C. No. 6968. Dizon invoked Section 1 (a) of Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter) which empowers the NBI “to undertake investigations of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines.
02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use is public position to promote or advance his private interests. breach of Rule 6. In this case. Respondent’s act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter’s pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1. No. a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or A. Indeed. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Thus.requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence. ATTY. in championing the interest of clients and defending cases. dishonest. GUTIERREZ . Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments. the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution. 6707. Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws. when the law is so elementary. the most basic law of the land. Moreover. As a retired judge. lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. or deceitful acts.01  of the Code of Professional CANON 6 – Thee canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasksResponsibility. nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.02  of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interest. said acts constitute a Rule 6. March 24. FRED L. and participate in continuing legal education programs. C. but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients. 2006 GISELLA HUYSSEN vs. which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful. respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.
he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. vs. SAGUCIO . March 31." Respondent's admission that he However. September 11. CARLOS B. 2006. dishonest. ATTY A. No. perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice. No. Even the receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's fee. 6705. as correctly pointed out by complainant. 2006 AQUILINO PIMENTEL.01 of Canon 1. Certainly. respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant while working as a government prosecutor.  Respondent’s conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers. a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility. respondent's violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1. 4517. which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. especially from one occupying a high public office." Thus. violations of RA 6713 — the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees — Nonetheless. which constitutes a violation of Rule 1. Otherwise said. immoral or deceitful conduct. respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713. JR..C. violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A.which may be affected by the functions of his office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government. no jurisdiction to investigate . Here.C.01. ATTY. the IBP has received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct. unless the acts involved also transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2006 EDGAR O. et al. and shall void harassing tactics against opposing counsel. the avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the government service: A final word.01. ATTY. intelligence and skill required of them. dishonest. they were found to have engaged in unlawful. Almadro has received a copy of the complaint. 2006 ATTY. PABLITO M. ET AL. Furthermore. May 2. 5246. respondents failed to live up to the high degree of excellence.C. by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. et al. vs. Mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the As lawyers in the government service. They also violated their oath as officers of the court to foist no falsehood on anyone. ATTY. No. A.C. The spectacle of members of the bar being engaged in bickering and recrimination is far from edifying. Rule 10. Personal colloquies between counsels which promote Said statement shows very clearly that Atty.VITALIANO FABROS. A lawyer shall not allow any falsehood. fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues. For how can he prepare a draft of his comment if it were not so? This should have alerted Atty. August 31. ALMADRO CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy. 6501. nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this Court. CASTILLO. . PEREA vs. Alambra to verify the A. fairness and good faith to the court. immoral and deceitful conduct. profession because public office is a public trust. As public officers.  As lawyers. RUBEN T. unseemly wrangling should thus be carefully avoided. nor consent to the doing of any in court. CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor. ASA. professionalism. LEON L.
Almadro Atty. By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits. offensive and . In the action to quiet title. 2006 RENATO MALIGAYA vs. REVILLA. he owes candor. vs. ATTY. however. September 13. ANTONIO DORONILA justice.C.” of which Canon 10 ANASTACIO E. ATTY. and Rule 10. he conveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were adverse Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of possessors claiming bona fide ownership.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. NO. Atty. Not only that. JR. he was able to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the execution of the provincial A. Consequently. 6198. CANON 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision. Doronila breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. nor consent to the doing of any in court. Their being classmates in the law school is not a reason to be less cautious in his dealings with the Court. 7056. His act infringed on every lawyer’s duty to “never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. he represented courts and to judicial officers and should insist in similar conduct by others. respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients’ lost cause. In the disturbance compensation case.” his clients as tenants and acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the subject land.01 are but restatements.veracity of the claim of Atty. September 15. and as such. A. INC. No. Alambra should not have relied on the statement given by Atty. 2006 PLUS BUILDERS.C. Rule 11. He is an officer of the court. fairness and good faith to the court. he violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood. Almadro. adjudicator’s Decision.
R. Javier was done for the sole purpose of making sure that Jimmy T. No. . that the fishy and suspicious actuations of Atty. ABROGAR. HON. On its face. Go. petitioner's nemesis against whom he initiated several cases. Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer. March 10. befitting the dignity of the legal profession. consider the following: “. language may be forceful and emphatic.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. No. it should always be dignified and respectful.. Rule 11. ZEUS C. However. and Looyuko's counsel Atty. the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. March 28. et. Atty. Go will lose his case. With due respect. The petitioner alleges that: “Now it can be told. JIMMY T. both as an officer of the court and as a citizen. to our mind. The case. 5921. Though a lawyer’s Before closing. Jimmy T. even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s Resolution. the Court has a few observations regarding the conduct of petitioner and his counsel in this G. Javier are in cahoots with one another in their common objective to pin down Mr. Benedicto Valerio. 145213. al. 2006. Branch 150 Zeuz Abrogar and Petitioner's negligent counsel Atty.C. GO vs. JACOBA use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration. to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.menacing language or behavior before The courts. the Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Our apprehension is not without basis. ATTYS. Alberto Looyuko. Flaminiano. it can even be said that the respondent IBank and its counsel A. 2006 JUDGE UBALDINO LACUROM vs.
6986. LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. A Petitioner thereafter goes on to state the basis for his accusations against everyone connected to the case: 1) Looyuko had withdrawn his appeal.C.Professional Responsibility. Gregorio D. Be it remembered. Under Canon 11 of the Code of and Atty. 2006 JULIUS AGUSTIN v. a lawyer cannot enter into a compromise agreement without his client’s consent. Jr. 5) Judge Abrogar was once an assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal Atty. 2) Atty. CANON 12. and. Atty. 4) Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite petitioner for contempt that was filed by the Bank. Here. Caneda. fully aware that . Flaminiano. however. Petitioner Jimmy T. who is an officer of the court. ATTY. Caneda. ENRIQUE EMPLEO True. should have known better than to permit the irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Go The Court is also dismayed that such baseless attacks were assisted by counsel. In particular. Javier neglected his case and continued to represent Looyuko in other cases. he shall not attribute to a judge motive not supported by the records or by evidence. March 6. that a lawyer is also an officer of the court with the correlative duty to see to it that cases are disposed in the soonest possible time. Jr. 3) Atty. A lawyer should submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Flaminiano conformed to the writ of execution. are STRICTLY WARNED not to make disrespectful statements against a Judge without basis in the records or the evidence. A. Allowing such statements to be made is against a lawyer's oath of office and goes xxxxx against the Code of Professional Responsibility. respondent.
“frustrated” the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. Hence. et al. NO. . any discretions in executing a final decision. Respondents have no discretion on this matter. four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims. The acts of respondent cannot be regarded as acceptable discretionary performance of their functions as labor arbiter and commissioner of the NLRC. much less any authority to change the order of Rule 12. The Decision in G. No. vs. ATTY. ET AL. denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations therefor. The implementation of the final and executory decision is mandatory. for they do not have A. A.C. 126561 is final and executory and may no longer be amended. so that he. BARTOLABAC.A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case. as complainant’s counsel.. GEOBEL A. spawned the administrative complaint at bar.C. It is incumbent upon respondents to order the execution of the judgment and implement the same to the letter. 5649. respectively. Both respondents labor arbiter and commissioner do not have any latitude to depart from the Court’s ruling. can make the necessary legal action in order for the case not to be unduly delayed and appear not to be indefinitely pending in the docket of the court concerned. JOSE A.there is a pending court order for the submission of a compromise agreement. 2006 RENERIO SAMBAJON. No. QUIJANO vs.04 . 2006 DANDY V. SUING Herein complainants. this Court.R. acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil. January 27. September 26. impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. should have taken pains to remind complainant about it and ascertain the true intent of the latter regarding the same. 7062. alleging that respondent.
Respondent Marcelino Cabucana (of the same law office) entered his appearance for the sheriff and his wife in he said cases. MARCELINO CABUCANA Respondent claimed that his appearance for the sheriff and his wife was in good faith and pro bono. . Rule 15. DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA Law Office. DANILO DELA TORRE A. fairness and loyalty in all his delings with his client. 6836. at the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo. CABUCANA. ATTY. a writ of execution was Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15. A. 2006 NESTOR PEREZ v. Edmar Cabucna of the CABUCANA. 2006 LETICIA GONZALES vs. he was representing the family of the murder victim. No.CANON 15 . As found by the IBP. The representation of opposing clients in unrelated cases constitutes conflict of interests or. No. March 30. Clearly. After a decision was rendered in favor of the complainant. 6160. January 23. two of the accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios. Gonzales. Canon 15 of the Code of and there is no conflict of interest involved because it was his brother Edmar who handled the civil case for ms. Complainant filed an administrative charge against him. invites suspicion of double-dealing. This led to he filing by the complainant of civil and criminal case Professional responsibility.A lawyer shall observe candor. at the very least. his representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. issued but Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco failed to fully implement the same. against the sheriff and his wife.C. ATTY.03.C. Complaint was plaintiff in a case for sum of money handled by Atty.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
June 15. It did not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their counsel and instead. 5303.What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent. which cancellation was needed for complainant to purchase the Dizon property. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. respondent . No. he even assisted them in executing the extrajudicial confession. Respondent was representing complainant against Lizares where respondent was duty bound to defend complainant’s title over the Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family members] was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still required. SANCHEZ pendens involving Dizon’s property. in the absence of the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts. constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. properties against the claims of Lizares. ATTY. LIM vs. when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon’s behalf against complainant. 6125. At the same time. PAZ vs. In filing the second DARAB case pn Dizon’s behalf. 2006 A. While it is not clear from the records that the Lizares cases included Dizon’s property. September 19. both complainant and Dizon were respondent’s clients at thqat time.C. No. The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests. 2006 HUMBERTO C.C. SIMON D. ATTY. NICANOR VILLAROSA By respondent’s own admission. it is undisputed that respondent acted as complainant’s counsel in the Lizares case. should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. who presumably knows the intricacies of the law. respondent was also representing Dizon before the DARAB for cancellation of lis A. PEPITO A.
No. de Vera. 2006 DAVID ALMENDAREZ. CANON 16 – A lawyer shal hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. 2006 LETICIA ADRIMISIN vs. which complainant had purchased from Dizon. malpractice. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. without accounting for and returning such sum to the rightful owner. 7057. July 25. 2591. DE VERA confidence. July 25.LEONARD S. by A lawyer’s failure to return upon A.C. .C. ATTY. depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit. He caused dishonor. No.was duty-bound to assail the complainant’s title over Dizon’s property. vs. ATTY. September 8. For. ATTY. 6697. not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. 2006 ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs. the act of Atty. Respondent was clearly in a conflict of interest situation. gross misconduct and unethical behavior. ROLANDO JAVIER violation of his oath when he received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended for his client. Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. No. Respondent committed flagrant In the instant case. It is clear that Atty. LANGIT A. it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and A. JR. de Vera in holding on to his client’s money without the latter’s acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.C. MINERVO L. belongs.
ATTY. and while respondent may have been constrained simply to enter into an agreement with the opposing counsel to submit the case for decision without memorandum. Specifically. required to keep their client informed of the status of the latter’s cases and to respond within a reasonable time to requests for information.” Additionally.  Before admission to the bar. respondent failed to inform the trial court of said agreement. ELIAS PONTEVEDRA subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves “with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients. they are not to “neglect a legal matter entrusted to [them]. they are mandated to serve their counsel liable for violating the canons of his profession. He should have filed a manifestation before the trial court informing it of the agreement instead of leaving the trial court waiting and wondering whether said memoranda will be filed at all. Responsibility provides that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and must therefore be always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. and [their] negligence in connection therewith shall render [them] liable. CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.C. Therefore.Respondent received the money in his capacity as counsel for the complainant. 4285. In this case.” Failure to comply with these abiding Canon 17 of the Code of Professional precepts of ethical conduct renders . they are CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. respondent held the money in trust for complainant. respondent failed to exercise that degree of diligence required of him in the performance of his duties. May 2. While it was impossible for him to prepare a memorandum without the transcripts of stenographic notes and his case folder. No. 2006 FLORENCIA SOMOSOT vs. lawyers A. clients with competence and diligence. Under Canon 18.
C.. respondent did not inform complainant that the case had been submitted for decision without memorandum despite complainant’s repeated requests for information regarding the status of her case.C.e. ATTY. ANTONIO SORIANO vs. A. 4676. No/ 4809. he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less. Canon 18. RENATO REYES lawyer’s oath.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. WILLIAM ADECER vs. complainant suffered actual loss. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many EMMANUEL AKUT Respondent is bound by the representations he made in his Memorandum in Support of the Petition for Probation. 2006 SPS. Worse. May 3. respondent Rule 18. Either of his two “explanations” is enough ground to render him liable for negligence under the Code of Professional Conduct. it also needlessly compounded the long delay in the resolution of the 23year-old case. that a timely petition for probation was not filed due to the fact that he was out of town and that complainants were laboring under the misapprehension that the civil liability must be paid in full before probation could be availed of. went out of town without contacting complainants to give them proper . Once he agrees to handle a case. Reyes’s negligence. First. despite his receipt of a copy of the Decision and the consequent running of the fifteen (15)-day period to file a petition for probation. by reason of Atty. May 4. then he is not true to his A. Rule 18. He should have given adequate attention. his clients will be prejudiced.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. i. In this case. 2006 SPS. care and time to his cases.. Otherwise. No. cases that he can efficiently handle.His omission not only gave complainant much anxiety. ATY.
As found by the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent’s admission that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does not release him from liability. except in certain cases. and that she releases her claims against it. and failing Respondent’s disregard for his client’s interests is evident in the establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the . A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. care and utmost devotion.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his client in the course of the representation. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client’s interests commences from his A. 2006 LUZVIMINDA LIJAUCO vs.C. still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. proves that he failed to give complainants timely legal advise iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property. that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank. ROGELIO TERRADO retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. August 31. CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. he should undertake the task with zeal. Furthermore. ATTY.legal advice. Acceptance of money from a client Rule 19. complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. his admission that complainants were  under the impression that they first had to pay off their civil liabilities prior to filing a petition for probation and  unaware that they had only fifteen (15) days from their counsel’s receipt of a copy of the decision to file their petition. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case. 6317. shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same. perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal.
DALISAY v. et al. CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. 2006 VALERIANA U. 7023. ATTY. 00-044. 2006 ROMEO G. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant.which he has to terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law.C.. MELANIO MAURICIO. As a lawyer. will it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. ROXAS. he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. No. refuses. However. No.C. then he should terminate his relationship with her. First. In doing so. AURELIO the confidences and secrets of the client. No. 5655. et al. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI. as correctly found by the investigating commissioner. and should always be subject to the supervision of a court. March 30. he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and complainant’s A. January 31. vs. the same should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. This highlights his motives rather A.C. A. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. If complainant than his cause of action. ………. JR. respondent is expected to know this Rule. CANON 21 – A lawyer shall preserve Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. as to its . 152072. companies for his own end. of inaction. respondent’s act of filing multiple suits on similar cases of action in different venues constitutes forum-shopping. ATTY.EDUARDO A. 2006 BUN SIONG YAO vs. January 23. Instead Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations.
At the very least. such that.C. right to their life and liberty. et al. should have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. March 14. PORTUGAL In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused. he should have informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal. JAIME J. vs. In not so doing. CANON 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.reasonableness. as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused. a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and reasonable fees. under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ……. 6155. he was negligent in handling the case of the accused. ATTY. A. respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused which stands to be lost but more importantly. he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices. their . No. GINA FRANCISCO. 2006 MA.