0

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Legal Ethics; Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

Question: AAA filed a formal complaint against Atty. Bee for not complying
with the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for
the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III) Compliance Periods. Yet, Atty. Bee
signed the pleadings and motions in several cases on which he indicated the
following information after his signature and other personal details.
Furthermore, Atty. Bee argues that he could not be declared a delinquent
member as the sixty (60)-day period for compliance did not commence to run.
There was no showing that he was ever issued and that he had actually
received a Non-Compliance Notice as required by the MCLE Implementing
Rules. Is Atty. Bee liable for an offense, if any?

Answer: Yes, Atty. Bee should be held liable for knowingly and willfully
misrepresenting in the pleadings he had signed and submitted to the courts that he
was exempted from MCLE II and III.

He violated his sworn oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood" as well as the following
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

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.

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.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

When Atty. Bee indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and motions he
filed, although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which was also
disrespectful of the courts. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect and can result in the
expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and
 2

actually violated his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence. (Turla v.
Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 9

Question: Petelo secured a certified true copy of TCT No. 455711 from the
Register of Deeds of Makati City. To his surprise, he learned that an entry of
lis pendens pertaining to a civil case for declaration of nullity of real estate
mortgage was annotated at the back of the title. Upon investigation, Petelo
found out that the civil complaint was filed by Atty. Rivera purportedly on
Petelo’s behalf. Since he never engaged the services of Atty. Rivera, Petelo
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. For his part, Atty. Rivera narrated in his first
Comment that in May 2013 a person representing himself to be Hernando
Petelo sought to engage his legal services regarding the filing of the civil
suit. In his second Comment, Atty. Rivera denied any participation in the
preparation and filing of the complaint and even disowned the signatures
affixed therein labelling them as forgeries. Atty. Rivera further alleged that
the affixing of his “signatures” therein might have been orchestrated by the
staff of disbarred lawyer Bede Tabalingcos. Decide.

Answer: Atty. Rivera’s contentions are unmeritorious. What is apparent in his

narration is that he was indeed the one who filed the subject civil suit by allowing
somebody to use his signature and other details in the preparation of pleadings and
filing the same before the court. By doing so, Atty. Rivera not only willingly allowed a
non-lawyer to practice law; worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law
notwithstanding that the Court already stripped him of his license to practice law. It
bears to stress at this juncture that membership to the Bar has always been jealously
guarded such that only those who have successfully hurdled the stringent
examinations, possessed and maintained the required qualifications are allowed to
enjoy the privileges appurtenant to the title. Thus, it has been said that “the title of
‘attorney’ is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study
of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it
is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.” The practice of law
is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who meet the
twin standards of legal proficiency and morality. However, Atty. Rivera abused the
privilege that is only personal to him. Thus, by delegating someone else the work that
is reserved only for lawyers, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. (Petelo v. Rivera, A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019,
Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Lawyer’s Oath; Code of Professional Responsibility

Question: Risie filed a complaint against Atty. Rivera alleging that the latter
committed acts constitutive of a Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Rivera was then the Municipal
 3

Administrator of Binangonan, Rizal. It was alleged that Atty. Rivera had gone
to the sari-sari store of Risie and informed him that they need to secure a
business permit. A week later, or on March 17, 2010, Atty. Rivera returned
together with members of the Binangonan Police to implement a Closure
Order. The Closure Order was allegedly dated March 18, 2010 but the
enforcers changed the date and added the phrase “w/BILLIARD”. Afterwards,
Atty. Rivera ordered the seizure of billiard accessories to which Risie
protested since the Closure Order did not include the seizure of the said
items. Atty. Rivera allegedly threatened Risie with imprisonment instead of
just seizing the items.

Is Atty. Rivera guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

Answer: No. Atty. Rivera's acts could not be considered as violations of the Lawyer's
Oath and the CPR. Atty. Rivera was merely performing his official duties as Municipal
Administrator of the Municipality of Binangonan, particularly the implementation of the
Closure Order against the businesses operated by the Baygar family and matters
related thereto. As Municipal Administrator, one of his duties is to "assist in the
coordination of the work of all the officials of the local government unit, under the
supervision, direction, and control of the governor or mayor, and for this purpose, he
may convene the chiefs of offices and other officials of the local government unit." The
implementation of a closure order and the issuance of business permits may be
considered well within this function of a Municipal Administrator. (Baygar v. Rivera,
A.C. No. 8959, October 7, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Lawyer’s Oath; Code of Professional Responsibility

Question: Atty. Plata is the legal counsel of Eustaquio, the owner of a land in
Rizal. Pagdanganan, the complainant, is a member of SAMANAI. SAMANAI is
represented by their legal counsel Atty. Equila. SAMANAI entered into a
contract to sell with Eustaquio to buy the said land. When SAMANAI failed to
pay the remaining balance, Eustaquio filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against Pagdanganan and other members of SAMANAI.

The MTC ruled in favor of Eustquio, ordering SAMANAI, including

Pagdanganan, to vacate the property.

Various civil, criminal and administrative cases were also filed by Eustaquio,
through Atty. Plata, against Atty. Equila and Morales, such as Grave Threats,
Qualified Theft, Disbarment and Revocation of Notarial Commission, all of
which are still pending in their respective jurisdictions.

Is Atty. Plata guilty of misconduct?

Answer: Yes. Gross misconduct has been defined as any inexcusable, shameful or
flagrantly unlawful conduct on the part of the person involved in the administration of
 4

justice, conduct that is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of the cause. Such conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose, but does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intent.

The following acts by Atty. Plata clearly constitute gross misconduct as contemplated
in the law:

(1) Atty. Plata's act of filing yet another case against Pagdanganan, after admitting that
there are various criminal and administrative cases still pending against him and the
other members of SAMANAI; and

(2) Atty. Plata's act of reserving in his Answer to the administrative case that he will
file, commence and/or institute another perjury case with damages against
Pagdanganan specifically.

Applying Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the abovementioned acts are
inexcusable, shameful and flagrantly unlawful, all of which were clearly motivated by
an intentional purpose to harass and intimidate Pagdanganan.

Specifically, the first and second acts of gross misconduct are in violation of Atty.
Plata's oath as a lawyer and his duties as an attorney under Section 20, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court.

The Attorney's Oath is clear that Atty. Plata must "not wittingly or willingly promote or
sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same."

Section 20 (c) and (g), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court also emphasize the relevant
duties of Atty. Plata applicable to this case, to wit:

SEC. 20.  Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be

just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

xxx xxx xxx

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or

proceedings, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(Pagdanganan v. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Unauthorized Practice of Law

Question: May a disbarred lawyer still be suspended and subsequently be

imposed with fines and penalties?
 5

Answer: Yes. A disbarred lawyer may still be fined and penalized. A review of recent
jurisprudence reveals that the Court has consistently impose an additional suspension
of six months on lawyers who continue to practice law despite their suspension.
However, considering that the Court had already imposed the ultimate penalty of
disbarment for his gross misconduct and willful disobedience of the lawful orders of
the court, the penalty of additional six months suspension from the practice of law can
no longer be imposed upon him. The reason is obvious: "once a lawyer is disbarred,
there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law."

But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the disbarred lawyer, it can
still give the corresponding penalty only for the sole purpose of recording it in his
personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into
consideration in the event that the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift
his disbarment.

In addition, the Court may also impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to have
committed an offense prior to his/her disbarment as the Court does not lose its
exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while
he/she was still a member of the Law Profession. In fact, by imposing a fine, the Court
is able "to assert its authority and competence to discipline all acts and actuations
committed by the members of the Legal Profession. (Valmonte v. Quesada Jr., A.C.
No. 12487, December 4, 2019, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 1

Question: Atty. AAA offered to sell to BBB, a foreigner, an 800 square-meter

property for the total amount of P2,500,000.00. BBB partially paid for the
subject property. While Atty. AAA gave BBB a receipt for the transaction, no
deed of absolute sale was executed. Instead, Atty. AAA promised BBB to draw
the deed of absolute sale along with the land titles after three months. Atty.
AAA further advised BBB to just possess the subject property and fence it.
BBB did not heed the advice, believing that he has no right to do so without
the titles and the deed of absolute sale. Atty. AAA even advised BBB that a
foreigner like him can own a lot in the Philippines after he pays its price in
full. Two years passed, Atty. AAA still could not deliver the deed of absolute
sale and the land titles, so BBB asked for the reimbursement of his down
payment plus interest. However, Atty. AAA refused to pay him. Hence, BBB
instituted a complaint against Atty. AAA.

The Court found that Atty. AAA was not the actual owner of the subject land,
and thus, he was suspended for 3 years from the practice of law. Was the
suspension proper?

Answer: Yes, the suspension is proper. In ignoring the constitutional prohibition

against alienation of private lands to foreigners and by continuously refusing to return
the money he received from BBB, Atty. AAA was deemed to have seriously impaired his
 6

status as a member of the Bar. Atty. AAA guilty of deceitful conduct proscribed by
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.102 of the CPR, to wit:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

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.

In the contract to sell, Atty. AAA expressly named himself as the seller and absolute
owner of the subject property. However, the records showed that it was in the name of
another person. He never denied the grave accusations of his non-ownership in the
complaint despite the opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine private lands is

too basic a rule for even non-attorneys to be unaware of. As a lawyer, Atty. AAA is
presumed to know this. Despite being equipped with such knowledge, Atty. AAA still
marketed the subject property for sale to BBB, a Swiss national. Atty. AAA’s dishonesty
is further shown when he advised BBB to just proceed with the fencing of the subject
property without any acceptable guarantee of Atty. AAA’s title thereto. Thus, Atty. AAA
is deemed to have acted in contravention of Canon 1, Rule 1.02 - CPR's proscription
against counseling activities aimed at defiance of the law. (Partsch v. Vitorillo, A.C.
No. 10897, January 4, 2022, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 1

Question: Roger Dap-og filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent

Atty. Mendez for allegedly mauling Roger and hurling invectives at him while
they were in a CENRO canteen. According to Atty. Mendez, Roger is without
principles or scruples and that he swindled Atty. Mendez’ client Rodolfo and
his family. The Medical Certificate revealed that Roger sustained several
physical injuries and such evidence clearly exhibit that physical blows were
indeed inflicted upon Roger's person. Should Atty. Mendez be held
administratively liable? Explain.

Answer: Yes. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office.
Relevantly, Rule 1.01, Canon 1, of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. The facts show that Atty. Mendez exhibited Gross Misconduct unbecoming of
an officer of the court. Atty. Mendez clearly did not meet the lofty standards reposed
on lawyers. There is no excuse for respondent's unlawful and dishonorable behavior.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent's allegations against Roger
 7

were true, that the latter swindled the former's clients, no person should take the law
into his own hands. In this regard, this Court must remind respondent that while he
can represent his clients with zeal, he must do so within the bounds of the law.
(Dap-og v. Atty. Mendez, A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canons 8 and 12 of CPR; Forum Shopping

Question: Atty. Go and Atty. Teruel are opposing counsels. Atty. Go filed a
complaint against Atty. Teruel for maliciously charging him with deliberate
misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. On the other hand, Fr. Reyes,
initiated a complaint against Atty. Go for professional misconduct. Atty. Go
alleges that Atty. Teruel's Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes' Complaint were
substantially the same except for the complainants, and both pleadings were
prepared by Atty. Teruel. Atty. Go further alleged that Atty. Teruel violated
Rules 12.02 and 12.04 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR for filing multiple
actions arising from the same cause, a violation of the rule against forum
shopping. Is Atty. Teruel guilty of forum shopping? Decide on this case.

Answer: Yes. It is well-settled that "the essence of forum shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It
exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded
on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An
important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and
the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another."

Evidently, Atty. Teruel willfully committed forum shopping when he instituted two
actions grounded on the same cause, even if strictly speaking, he was not included as
a "complainant" in Fr. Reyes' Complaint. This is because he prepared and filed both
administrative actions with full knowledge that they have the same cause of action and
contained nearly exactly the same allegations. Simply put, the outcome in one case
would necessarily have an effect in the other since both cases share the same cause of
action and involve the same parties.

The Court notes that it is not strictly the actual docketing of the administrative
complaints but the mere act of filing multiple complaints with the same cause/s of
action, parties and relief/s which constitutes a violation of the rule against forum
shopping.

In fine, and considering Atty. Teruel's commission of forum shopping, there is

adequate basis to hold him liable for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.

Rule 12.02 of the CPR explicitly provides that "[a] lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause," while Rule 12.04 states that "[a] lawyer shall not unduly
 8

delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." It must
be emphasized that "lawyers should not trifle with judicial processes and resort to
forum shopping because they have the duty to assist the courts in the administration
of justice. Filing of multiple actions contravenes such duty because it does not only
clog the court dockets, but also takes the courts' time and resources from other cases."
(Go v. Teruel, A.C. No. 11119, November 4, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canons 11, 12, 17 and 18 of CPR

Question: AAA hired Atty. Y to be his counsel for a civil case pending before
the lower court. During the termination of the proceedings, the parties were
required to file for their memoranda. After several follow-ups, Atty. Y
informed AAA that the memorandum was already filed in court. However, AAA
was served a copy of a Notice giving them three days to comply with the Writ
of Execution in connection with the Civil Case. It was also AAA’s first time to
learn the rendition of judgment in the said case. With the foregoing, AAA filed
a complaint against Atty. Y for his failure to do the following: file any
pleading to contest the Motion for Execution; notify him of the scheduled
hearing on the Motion for Execution; and inform him about the trial court's
resolution granting the Motion for Execution. Will the complaint prosper?

Answer: Yes, the complaint will prosper. The Lawyer's Oath mandates every lawyer to
conduct himself/herself according to the best of his/her knowledge and discretion,
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his/her clients. As a member of the bar,
a lawyer must maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by refraining
from committing acts which might diminish in any degree the confidence of the public
in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. As counsel for AAA, Atty. Y
neglected to perform his duty to exert efforts to avail of every remedy and defense
authorized by the law in order to protect his client's cause. Also, Atty. Y’s failure to file
a memorandum was a breach of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) which requires lawyers to seasonably file pleadings and to offer an explanation
for failure to do so. Moreover, Atty. Y violated Rule 18.04 of the CPR which mandates
lawyers to keep the client informed of the status of a case. Therefore, Atty. Y’s
unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated the Lawyer's
Oath as well as the CPR. (Portuguese, Jr. v. Centro, A.C. No. 12875, January 26,
2021, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 15 of CPR

Question: What is the concept of Conflict of Interest as embodied in Rule

15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that
“A lawyer shall riot represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts”.

Answer: There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of

two or more opposing parties. In determining whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the
rules on conflict of interest under the CPR, it is essential to determine whether: (1) "a
 9

lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the
same time, to oppose that claim for the other client;" (2) "the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty;" and (3) "a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment." (Burgos v. Bereber, A.C. No. 12666, March 4,
2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 15 of CPR

Question: AA organized a lending company wherein Atty. BB volunteered to

handle the legal side of the business including its incorporation. For
additional funds, AA borrowed from CC, wherein Atty. BB prepared the
promissory note. Thereafter, Atty. BB left AA’s lending company and joined
CC’s lending company. Atty. BB also sent a demand letter to AA demanding
the payment of the additional funds borrowed from CC. Thus, AA filed a
complaint against Atty. BB for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. Is there a violation of
the CPR?

Answer: Yes. Canon 15 of the CPR requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his/her dealings and transactions with his/her clients. Corollary to this,
Rule 15.03 provides that lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The rule prohibiting representing conflicting interests was fashioned to prevent

situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly
adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may be
allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is
materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after
consultation. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of
the relationship, is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Here,
when Atty. BB sent a demand letter to AA on behalf of CC, he was representing
conflicting interests. (Villamor v. Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, December 9, 2020,
Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canons 15, 17 and 21 of CPR

Question: Atty. Aransazo agreed to represent Atty. Constantino in Civil Case

No. 03-105994. When does a lawyer and client relationship exist? If Atty.
Aransazo and Atty. Constantino were close, what is the gauge of
things covered by privileged communication?

Answer: It is settled that a "lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client
seeks the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern. The seeking may be for consultation on
transactions or other legal concerns, or for representation of the client in an actual
 10

case in the courts or other fora. From that moment on, the lawyer is bound to respect
the relationship and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client. "Thus, if an
individual consults a lawyer in respect to his business affairs or legal troubles of any
kind with a view towards obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the lawyer,
by virtue thereof, permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then a
lawyer-client relationship is established. Thus, the moment Atty. Constantino
approached Atty. Aransazo to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship
evolved between the two. Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding
the personal relationship between Atty. Constantino and Atty. Aransazo. At this point,
the relationship between them imposed upon Atty. Aransazo has certain restrictions
circumscribed by the profession. In this regard, Canon 17 of the CPR states that "a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him." Having ascertained the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between Atty. Constantino and Atty. Aransazo, it is beyond cavil that the
latter is enjoined to keep inviolate confidential and privileged information acquired or
revealed during legal consultations.

Notably, notwithstanding the fact that Atty. Aransazo may have initially dispensed legal
advice to Atty. Constantino as a personal favor, he was still duty-bound to preserve and
protect the personal, confidential and fiduciary relation established between
them. (Constantino v. Aransazo, Jr., A.C. No. 9701, February 10, 2021,
Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canons 15, 17 and 21 of CPR

Question: Atty. Aransazo agreed to represent Atty. Constantino in Civil Case

No.03-105994. When does a lawyer and client relationship exist? If Atty.
Aransazo and Atty. Constantino was close, what is the gauge of
things covered by privileged communication?

Answer: It is settled that a "lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client
seeks the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern. The seeking may be for consultation on
transactions or other legal concerns, or for representation of the client in an actual
case in the courts or other fora. From that moment on, the lawyer is bound to respect
the relationship and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client. "Thus, if an
individual consults a lawyer in respect to his business affairs or legal troubles of any
kind with a view towards obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the lawyer,
by virtue thereof, permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then a lawyer-client
relationship is established.

Thus, the moment Atty. Constantino approached Atty. Aransazo to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Likewise, a lawyer-client
relationship exists notwithstanding the personal relationship between Atty.
Constantino and Atty. Aransazo. At this point, the relationship between them imposed
upon Atty. Aransazo has certain restrictions circumscribed by the profession. In this
regard, Canon 17 of the CPR states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." Having
 11

ascertained the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Constantino and

Atty. Aransazo, it is beyond cavil that the latter is enjoined to keep inviolate
confidential and privileged information acquired or revealed during legal consultations.

Notably, notwithstanding the fact that Atty. Aransazo may have initially dispensed legal
advice to Atty. Constantino as a personal favor, he was still duty-bound to preserve and
protect the personal, confidential and fiduciary relation established between them
(Constantino v. Aransazo, Jr., A.C. No. 9701, February 10, 2021, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canons 16,17, 18 of CPR

Question: Mrs. Clara hired the services of Atty. Sargo to handle the annulment
of her marriage to her husband, Mr. Clara. Mrs. Clara paid initial payments
and further payments with receipt since Atty. Sargo assured that he would
soon file the petition for annulment of marriage. But after Atty. Sargo
received the payments given by Mrs. Clara, the former avoided her phone
calls and cancelled their appointments, Atty. Sargo even limited his
communication with AAA through text messages only. Despite several
demands of Mrs. Clara, Atty. Sargo did not file the petition.

This led Mrs. Clara to file before MeTC. The Court ruled in favor of her and
ordered Atty. Sargo to pay the complainant with interest. Mrs. Clara was
compelled to bring the matter before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The IBP ruled that Atty. Sargo be suspended from the practice of law for two
(2) years for the violation of Code of Professional Conduct. If you were the
Justice, would you sustain the ruling of IBP? Explain.

Answer: As a Justice of the Supreme Court, I will sustain the ruling of IBP. There is a
clear violation of professional misconduct of Atty. Sargo since he failed to render the
service as a lawyer to his client, Mrs. Clara. Atty. Sargo clearly violated Canons 16, 17
and 18 of the CPR. Once a lawyer agrees to represent a client, he/she is duty-bound to
exert his/her best effort and to serve the latter with utmost diligence and competence.
A lawyer owes fidelity to his/her client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed upon him/her. A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted
to him/her by his/her client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he/she must
be held administratively liable. (Francia v. Sagario, A.C. No. 10938, October 08,
2019, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Compromise agreements as a factor in determining lawful fees

for services rendered

Question: In 2007, Carmelo and his brothers engaged the services of Atty. Go
Minguez in order to prevent the Bank of Commerce (BOC) from taking
possession of their family homes in Marikina City, Antipolo City and Quezon
City with a total redemption price of P25 million. Atty. Minguez charged 1% of
the redemption fee, or P250,000 as his acceptance fee.
 12

In addition to that, they promised him a success fee corresponding to 20% of

the amount reduced from the original redemption price. Meanwhile, it came
to the knowledge of Atty Dominguez that the initial redemption price set by
the BOC was P100 million. He averred that he failed to charge the proper
acceptance fee due to the misrepresentation of Carmelo and his brothers as
to the redemption price of the properties.

The brothers once again sought Atty. Minguez’ services in a suit where the
previous lawyer secured victory for the Europeas but was terminated. Atty.
Minguez initiated execution proceedings. After such efforts, his services were
also terminated.

BoC filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim, which was opposed
by Carmelo and his spouse Lizzy through Atty. Minguez. BoC also manifested
that there might be a settlement between parties where no objections were
interposed. Atty. Minguez filed a Request for Admission for said allegations.
However, Atty. Minguez manifested a month later that he no longer
represents the spouses Europea.

He then filed a Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees and to Approve Charging

(Attorney's) Lien with Motion for Production of Compromise Agreement
(Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees) which was denied by the RTC stating that this
should be claimed in a separate civil esse.

This was also dismissed by Atty. Minguez’ appeal, stating that the trial court
cannot adjudicate money claims, and that the claim for attorney's fees may be
held in abeyance until the main case has become final.

May a compromise agreement be used as a factor in determining the counsel's

lawful fees for the legal services he rendered?

Answer: Yes. Indeed, the compromise agreement and those factors enumerated under
Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)S may serve as basis for the
award of attorney's fees. Granting that a compromise agreement had been reached by
the parties, the same may be used to determine the counsel's lawful fees provided it is
produced and admitted before the trial court for proper scrutiny and consideration.

Thus, when a compromise agreement is entered into by the parties and as a

consequence of which, the suit did not result in a court's judgment on money claims,
said compromise agreement may serve as a basis in the award for attorney's fees.
Furthermore, quantum meruit, which means as much as he deserves, is likewise a basis
especially when the attorney-client relationship was severed prior to the finality of the
case.

Since Atty. Minguez rendered his legal services in the petition for cancellation of
adverse claim for the spouses Europea, he is then entitled to his attorney's fees. This
case shall be remanded to the trial court as it is in the best position to determine the
 13

correct amount of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit leveraged on the
factors under Rule 20.01 of CPK, as well as the Compromise Agreement which then
would have been presented before it for its consideration. (Dominguez v. Bank of
Commerce, G.R. No. 225207, September 29, 2021, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 21; Conflicting Interests

Question: Atty. LLL had an intermittent and limited engagement with spouses
AAA and BBB. These specifically involved facilitating the purchase of a lot of
the spouses and verifying the legal implications thereof. Thereafter, the
spouses encountered serious problems and BBB filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage and criminal complaint for concubinage
against AAA where Atty. LLL is her counsel. Is Atty. LLL guilty of representing
conflicting interests?

Answer: No, Atty. LLL is not guilty of representing conflicting interests. For there to be
conflicting interests when a former client is involved, the following circumstances must
concur: (a) the lawyer is called upon in his present engagement to make use against a
former client confidential information which was acquired through their connection or
previous employment, and (b) the present engagement involves transactions that
occurred during the lawyer's employment with the former client and matters that the
lawyer previously handled for the said client. It is settled that the mere relation of
attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. Proof must be
presented that the client intended the communication to be confidential. (Parungao v.
Lacuanan, A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 21; Conflicting Interests

Question: In a criminal case involving deficiency of tax payments, the

Prosecutor failed to file on time the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the
criminal case was dismissed. On appeal, the Solicitor-General averred that the
failure of the Prosecutor should not be imputed against the State as it
concerns the exercise of its inherent power to tax. Is the Solicitor-General
correct?

Answer: No. Well-settled is the rule that the negligence and mistakes of a counsel is
binding to a client. It is expected that a counsel has the implied authority to do all acts
necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit on behalf of
his/her client. Thus, any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is
regarded as the act or omission of the client. (People v. Mallari and Wei-Neng, G.R.
No. 197164, December 4, 2019, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Canon 21; Conflicting Interests

Question: A, the owner of a parcel of land appointed B as administrator. When

A died, it was inherited by B and his siblings. They never divided or assigned
their rights to any of the co-owners. Hence, they are surprised to learn that
 14

A’s title to the property was already cancelled by virtue of an Extrajudicial

Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights which was notarized
by lawyer C before whom B and his siblings purportedly personally appeared
and subscribed therein. Aside from the Extrajudicial Settlement, other
documents such as a Deed of Absolute Sale and Acknowledgement Receipt
were likewise found to be notarized by C. B filed a complaint. Investigating
Commissioner’s report found C’s signatures appear to be falsified but despite
the alleged forgery, his notarial seal was used in the documents. Is C liable
for breach of notarial law and for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Answer: Yes. The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with
substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document
resulting in the document's admissibility in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is therefore entitled to full faith and credit on its face
and by law. It is the duty of notaries public to observe utmost care in complying with
the formalities intended to protect the integrity of the notarized document and the act
or acts it embodies.

C is not exculpated from administrative liability even if the signatures were falsified.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the official
seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to
him or the person duly authorized by him which failed to do so. C failed to discharge
with fidelity the sacred duties of his office which are dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. Hence, C is liable. (Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No.
12408, December 11, 2019, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Disbarment Proceedings; Nature

Question: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. B for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility after an alleged altercation with the
complainants over a disputed property. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
– Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) dismissed the complaint stating that
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of
administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. Was the IBP-BOG correct in
saying that the quantum of proof in disbarment cases is preponderance of
evidence?

Answer: No. While the Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP-BOG to
dismiss the disbarment complaint, it bears stressing that the quantum of proof in
administrative cases is substantial evidence and not preponderance of evidence. The
evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of
evidence — is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential
considerations attending this type of cases. As case law elucidates, disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal,
they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
 15

Court into the conduct of one of its officers.” (Spouses Nocuenca v. Bensi, A.C. No.
12609, February 10, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Disbarment Proceedings; Grounds

Question: A disbarment case was filed by Gerodias against Riveral as the

President and General Manager of OPASCOR; Pulvera-Page, as the Corporate
Secretary of OPASCOR and one of the lawyers in the firm of Riveral, Pulvera &
Associates; and Supatan, as: a lawyer in Riveral, Pulvera & Associates who
received Gerodias' Position Paper during the proceedings of the labor case.
Gerodias averred that Riveral, Pulvera-Page and Supatan violated Canon 1,
Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
when they, together, with Jessielou Cadungog (Cadungog), the Labor Union
President of OPASCOR, connived and conspired to dismiss him from his
employment: Specifically, Gerodias accused Cadungog, as appointed director
of OPASCOR and as Labor Union President, to have represented conflicting
interests which resulted in him failing to represent Gerodias' interest during
his disciplinary investigation. Gerodias also questioned the two confusing
and conflicting Secretary's Certificates filed by OPASCOR in the labor and
criminal cases which were signed and executed at the same time by two
different persons, namely, by Pulvera-Page and Mary Lou Z. Geyrosaga
(Geyrosaga), respectively. Both secretary's certificates indicated that
Pulvera-Page and Geyrosaga were corporate secretaries of OPASCOR. Rule on
the complaint.

Answer: I will dismiss the complaint. Settled is the rule that for a charge to justify a
disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to
substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the lawyer is presumed innocent. In this case, the
IBP properly found that Riveral, as the President and General Manager of OPASCOR, did
not act in bad faith in approving the early retirement of Gerodias instead of criminally
charging him and terminating his employment under which he would have received a
considerably lesser separation pay than the retirement package. As President and
General Manager, he approved Gerodias' request to avail of the early retirement
program even when he was short of two years in service as per the company policy. We
find no violation of the CPR or the Lawyer's Oath in Riveral's benevolent act of
accommodating Gerodias' request. No evidence was presented to show that Riveral
acted with bad faith, malice, or ill will. Hence, the presumption of good faith in his
favor stands.

As to the two questioned Secretary's Certificates signed and executed by Pulvera-Page

as the Corporate Secretary and Geyrosaga as the Recording Secretary, We agree with
the IBP that the act is sanctioned under Article IV, Section 1, 2nd paragraph of the
Amended By-Laws of OPASCAR. The corporation's power to sue and be sued in any
court is lodged with the BOD which may duly authorize an individual through its
corporate by-laws or by a specific act to sign documents in behalf of the corporation.
Hence, there is nothing erroneous nor illegal in Pulvera-Page's signing and executing a
 16

Secretary's Certificate as OPASCOR's Corporate Secretary as she is duly authorized to

do so by virtue of the Amended By-Laws and the Director's Certificate dated July 3,
2017. The fact that Geyrosaga is also duly authorized to sign and execute a Secretary's
Certificate by virtue of the said Director's Certificate does not connote; connivance nor
conspiracy between the two to terminate Gerodias' employment. In addition, OPASCOR
BOD's act of authorizing two persons to execute Secretary's Certificate is not
prohibited and well within the ambit of the law. (Gerodias v. Riveral, et al., A.C. No.
12719, February 17, 2021, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Disbarment Proceedings; Grounds

Question: Atty. Lisa was the lawyer for Roseanne Park, the accused in a
kidnapping case. Meanwhile, Attys. Jennie and Jisoo were the private
prosecutors. During the reinvestigation of the kidnapping case, the charge
against the accused was dismissed. Later on, Attys. Jennie and Jisoo learned
that Park had filed a disbarment case against them before the Court.
Suspecting that Atty. Lisa was behind the filing of said complaint, they filed a
countersuit for disbarment against the former. Both disbarment cases were
dismissed.

Nonetheless, Atty. Lisa charged Attys. Jennie and Jisoo with filing a baseless
disbarment complaint against her, grounded on suspicion. She seeks their
disbarment and cites their acts as violative of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
Should Atty. Lisa’s petition prosper?

Answer: No. As a rule, the Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution.
Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the Bar. The instant
petition is simply evidence of the parties’ frustration against each other and of their
refusal to resolve their issues as lawyers in a more dignified and less adversarial
manner. They should be reminded to act and be guided by the Lawyer's Oath and the
CPR, and to faithfully conduct themselves in a manner expected from members of the
Bar. (Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, July 8, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Disbarment Proceedings; Burden of Proof

Question: Complaints were filed against Santos V. Zafe and Jose U. Alberto II
for violation of Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 6713. Tablizo later filed a
complaint against Atty. Golangco, Atty. Agbada, Atty. Bunagan, and Atty.
Salazar, officials of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, averring
that they "maliciously failed to follow/observe the standards of personal
conduct provided under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 6770 in the discharge and
execution of their official duties for failing and/or refusing to investigate in
the real sense of the word, the charges against Alberto and Zafe." The
Investigating Commissioner concluded that it is not sufficiently shown that
Atty. Golangco, Atty. Agbada, Atty. Bunagan, and Atty. Salazar has violated
 17

any of their professional duties as a lawyer and recommended that the

complaint be dismissed. Is the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner correct?

Answer: Yes. It is settled that in disbarment and suspension proceedings against

lawyers in this jurisdiction, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. A
complainant's failure to dispense the same standard of proof requires no other
conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment
or suspension order. In the case at bar, there is an absolute dearth of evidence of the
respondents' alleged Gross Misconduct. Other than his bare allegations, complainant
was unable to present proof to substantiate his grave charges against respondents.
(Tablizo v. Golangco et al., A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Disbarment Proceedings; Conflict of interest; Improper lien

Question: Complainant HGC, a GOCC, filed a complaint for disbarment against

respondents Atty. Tagayuna, Atty. Panopio, and Atty De Pano (respondents)
for violation of Rules 15.01, 15.03, and 15.08 of Canon 15, and Rules 16.01
and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

HGC alleged that respondents violated the conflict of interest rules in Canon
15 and for failure and refusal to account for the funds and properties of their
client HGC when due or upon demand under Canon 16. Respondents are
partners of a Law Firm.

HGC had a large volume of past due receivables. This necessitated the
procurement of an external collection agency and thus engaged ESP which was
represented by Atty. Panopio jointly with the Law Firm. In 2003, HGC and ESP
jointly with the Law Firm entered into a Collection Retainership Agreement,
where HGC endorsed accounts for judicial and extrajudicial collection.
Consequently, HGC provided ESP and the Law Firm the necessary documents
for collection and litigation purposes. HGC claimed that the Collection
Retainership Agreement was renewed annually for several years, until HGC
and ESP terminated their contract on October 23, 2013.

HGC claimed that respondents refused to return the documents endorsed to

the Law Firm in view of the termination of the Collection Retainership
Agreement. HGC sent several demand letters in 2014 and 2015.

As to conflict of interest, HGC claimed that Atty. Tagayuna was also the
president of BSCDC. HGC averred that in 2012, BSCDC through Atty. Tagayuna
initiated an arbitration case against it before the CIAC while the Collection
Retainership Agreement with ESP was still subsisting.

For their defense, respondents Atty. Tagayuna and Atty. Panopio claimed that
the Collection Retainership Agreement was never extended until 2013; the
contract expired on December 31, 2011 and was no longer renewed. Atty.
 18

Tagayuna admitted that he was an officer of BSCDC but not its counsel when
the arbitration case was filed. Respondents added that HGC still owed ESP and
the Law Firm the sum of P846,212.39, for which the Law Firm exercised its
retaining lien against the remaining records in custody. Should respondents
be disbarred?

Answer: No. The Court partially adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP
BOG. The administrative complaint against respondents Atty. Gangan and Atty. De
Pano is dismissed. However, the administrative complaint against respondents Atty.
Tagayuna and Atty. Panopio is partly meritorious; the Court thus imposes the penalty
of reprimand.

In determining whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on conflict of interest

under the CPR, it is essential to determine whether: (1) "a lawyer is duty-bound to fight
for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim
for the other client;" (2) "the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty;" and (3)
"a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment."

The Court finds that respondents did not violate the conflict-of-interest rule under the
three tests.

Under the first test, the Law Firm did not represent BSCDC as counsel in the arbitration
case. The arbitration complaint was signed by Atty. Ruben L. Almadro (Atty. Almadro)
as BSCDC's counsel. Atty. Almadro is not part or related to the Law Firm. On the other
hand, Atty. Tagayuna merely signed as president to verify the complaint.

For the second test, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of a new relation or
engagement will prevent the lawyer from faithfully performing his duties to a client.
The second test is not relevant to the instant case.

For the third test, the Court stated that "for there to be conflicting interests when a
former client is involved, the following circumstances must concur: (a) the lawyer is
called upon in his present engagement to make use against a former client confidential
information[,] which was acquired through their connection or previous employment[;]
and (b) the present engagement involves transactions that occurred during the lawyer's
employment with the former client and matters that the lawyer previously handled for
the said client." Related to this, proof must be adduced to show that the former client
intended the information to be confidential; mere relation between attorney and client
does not create a presumption of confidentiality.

Indeed, the professional relationship between the Law Firm and HGC expired on
December 31, 2011. However, there is no proof that the Law Firm, in a new matter,
used against HGC confidential information acquired from their previous relation. HGC
merely made allegations that respondents represented BSCDC while being engaged as
 19

its counsel. To reiterate, the subject of arbitration are matters not handled by the Law
Firm; the Law Firm was engaged for collection purposes only—this is clear in the
Collection Retainership Agreement as adduced in evidence. In any event, there is no
new relation to speak of as BSCDC is not a client of the Law Firm.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds and affirms that respondents did not violate
the conflict-of-interest rule.

On the charge of unlawful withholding of documents, HGC claims that respondents

failed and refused to return documents when due and upon demand. The Court finds
the charge to be partly meritorious. Records show that respondents are no longer in
possession of the documents that HGC claims to be unlawfully withheld. As found by
the IBP, the titles were already returned by the Law Firm to HGC as evidenced by
turnover letters as attached to respondents' position paper.

True, the documents have already been returned to HGC as based on the evidence
adduced, save for those unaccounted ones. The Court, however, takes note that as of
the date of filing of the complaint in 2015, respondents have yet to return the
documents. In other words, respondents are still in possession of some of these
documents at the time of filing of the complaint. A careful examination of records
show that they were returning documents to HGC up until 2018. They even admitted
this in their position paper.

Respondents then claim that they were merely exercising their right to withhold to
exercise retaining lien for unpaid fees. The Court, however, finds that the requisites to
exercise lien were not met. As discussed, it is essential that the client consent to the
application of its property to the unpaid fees because a lawyer cannot unilaterally
appropriate his client's property. Here, there is no proof that HGC consented to the
respondents' withholding of the titles to satisfy the unpaid legal fees. Thus, the Court
finds that respondents improperly exercised its right to retain HGC's documents as
lien. (Home Guaranty Corporation v. Tagayuna, A.C. No. 13131, February 23,
2022, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Qualifications of a Notary Public

Question: Does notarizing documents constitute practice of law?

Answer: Yes. Case law provides that the practice of law includes any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training,
and experience. It comprises the performance of acts which are characteristic of the
legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree
of legal knowledge or skill. Guided by the foregoing on what constitutes a practice of
law, it is beyond cavil that notarizing documents constitutes a practice of law. In fact,
one of the requirements to be a duly commissioned notary public is that he/she must
be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. To be eligible for commissioning
as notary public, the petitioner:
 20

(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;

(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;

(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a
regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be
issued;

(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the
Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines; and

(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral
turpitude. (Cansino v. Sederiosa, A.C. No. 8522, October 6, 2010, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; Notarizing False Documents

Question: AAA, BBB, and CCC filed a complaint against Atty. DDD for
notarizing a letter signed by EEE. Complainants were homeowners of FFF
Subdivision, and they claim that the letter is a false document and was
notarized by Atty. DDD. Subject letter was used to facilitate the registration
of FFF Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. and they claim that said
letter contains false information. Did Atty. DDD violates the Notarial Rules for
notarizing a false document, and should therefore be disbarred?

Answer: No. The complained act of Atty. DDD does not constitute any violation of the
Rules of Court, the Notarial Rules, nor the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. DDD merely performed his duty when he attested to the fact that the signatory to
the letter personally appeared and signed the said letter before him. The truth or
falsity of the contents of the letter is the responsibility of the affiant EEE and not of
Atty. DDD, especially since no substantial evidence was presented to prove that he
knowingly notarized a false document. Therefore, the disbarment case should be
dismissed. (Ick v. Amazona, A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; Notarizing False Documents

Question: A petition for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty.

Rivera. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Rivera notarized the
Verification without a valid notarial commission. Is Atty. Rivera
administratively liable?

Answer: Yes. Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear. Only a person
who is commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made,
unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the
 21

Rules of Court. Hence, a violation thereof should therefore not be dealt with lightly to
preserve the integrity of notarization.

Atty. Rivera's act of making it appear that he was a duly commissioned notary public is
in blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, i.e., the Notarial Law, and to
do no falsehood. It likewise constitutes a transgression of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which states that: "A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Not only did Atty. Rivera violate
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1; he also transgressed Canon 7 of the CPR, which mandates that
every lawyer shall "uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,"
and Rule 7.03 which provides: "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." (Manzano v.
Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020, Hernando J.)

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; Notarizing False Documents

Question: Atty Smores was the private prosecutor on behalf of Beach

Corporation. He was also a commissioned notary public at that time. Seulgi
Medalla, the Corporate Secretary of the Corporation, executed a Secretary’s
Certificate, authorizing Wendy Son, to file a criminal case on behalf of the
Corporation against Juan Pablo. Atty. Smores was the one who notarized the
Secretary’s Certificate. John Paul claims that the Secretary’s Certificate was
defective and improperly notarized. He alleges that Atty. Smores failed to
indicate the serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial
certificate, and that Irene's signature appears to have been printed or
digitally scanned into the document. He asserts that because of a printed
signature, Seulgi could not have been physically present before Atty. Smores
when the document was signed and notarized violating the Rules on Notarial
Practice. Should Atty. Smores be held liable for violating the Rules on Notarial
Practice?

Answer: Yes, Atty. Smores should be held administratively liable. Rules on Notarial
Practice requires that the signatory physically appears before the notary public and
signs the document in his presence. The Rules also require the serial number of his
notarial commission in the concluding part of the notarial certificate of the Secretary’s
Certificate. (Kiener v. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Legal Ethics; Notary Public; Notarizing False Documents

Question: AAA was the client of Atty. BBB in a case for partition of lot 123
belonging to AAA.

AAA later filed a disbarment case against Atty. BBB when the latter forged the
signature of the former in order to mortgage the subject lot in favor of CCC. It
was found out the Atty. BBB also notarized the document evidencing the
mortgage and received a portion of the proceeds of the mortgage.
 22

The OBC recommended the suspension of Atty. BBB from the practice of law
for three (3) years for violating several provisions of the CPR and the
Lawyer's Oath, and the revocation of his incumbent commission as a notary
public. Was the penalty proper?

Answer: Yes. Atty. BBB, in notarizing the document evidencing the mortgage and by
received part of the proceeds thereof, violated Rule 4, Section 3(b) of the 2004 Rules of
Notarial Practice which states:

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act

if he: xxx (b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage,
right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these
Rules and by law; x x x.

Here, Atty. BBB was disqualified from notarizing the Real Estate Mortgage document
since he will directly or indirectly gain from the mortgage's proceeds, as he in fact did
thereafter. And by forging the signature of his client, Atty. BBB violated Rules 1.01, and
1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR, as follows:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

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

Considering the totality of the circumstances, Atty. BB should be suspended from the
practice of law and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. (Elanga
v. Pasok, A.C. No. 12030, September 29, 2020, Hernando, J.)

Judicial Ethics; Sanctions Imposed on Erring Members of the Judiciary

Question: Audit shows that the Clerk of Court (COC) failed to submit monthly
financial reports. COC argued that non-filing was attributable to the low
caseload of the court to which he later submitted the required financial
reports in the period covered by the audit. Is the COC’s contention tenable?

Answer: No. It is well-settled that Clerks of Court are tasked with the collections of
court funds. As they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody, they are duty
bound to immediately deposit with authorized government depositories their
collections on various funds. Such functions are highlighted by OCA Circular Nos.
50-95 and 113-2004 and Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 which mandate Clerks of
Court to timely deposit judiciary collections as well as to submit monthly financial
reports on the same. These circulars are mandatory in nature and are designed to
promote full accountability for funds received by the courts. Notably, any failure or
 23

even delay in the remittance of collection has been perceived as a serious breach of
duty to the public. These acts deprive the courts of the opportunity to use the fund as
well as the interest thereon which may have been earned if the amounts were timely
and/or properly remitted or deposited to authorized government depositories.

Clearly in this case, COC failed to perform with utmost diligence his financial and
administrative responsibilities. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Alauya, A.M.
No. SCC-15-21-P, December 9, 2020, Hernando, J.)