Duty of Upholding the

Integrity of the
Legal Profession:
Revisiting the Code of
Professional Responsibility

By Victoria V. Loanzon
I. The Legal Profession
Elements:
(1) organization,
(2) learning, and
(3) the spirit of public
service.
 The practice of law covers the
following activities -
(1) the preparation of pleadings, and
other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings,
(2) the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and
(3) the giving of all legal advice to clients.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., Cited in
Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113,
September 3, 1991]
Scope of the practice of law -
A lawyer who has been suspended from the
practice of law is barred from performing
“any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.” (Paguia v. Office of the President,
621 SCRA 600)
II. Admission to the Practice of Law
Admission Requirements:
1. Must be a Filipino citizen
2. At least 21 years old
3. Must be a resident of the Philippines
4. Must have obtained his law degree in a
local school
5. Possesses good moral character
II. Admission to the Practice of Law

Innovations in the Bar Examinations –

In November 2021, bar examinations will
be computer-based already. There will
be several testing sites nationwide.
Admission to the Practice of Law
Current Bar Subjects:
1st Sunday: Political Law and Labor and Social
Legislation
2nd Sunday: Civil Law and Taxation
3rd Sunday: Mercantile Law and Criminal
Law
4th Sunday: Remedial Law and Legal and
Judicial Ethics/Practical Exercises
In the future, there is also a proposal to reduce bar
subjects from 8 to 4 to include only the
following:
1. Political Law
2. Civil Law
3. Criminal Law
4. Remedial Law
with Legal and Judicial Ethics/Practical
Exercises embedded in all the four
recommended bar subjects
There appears to be a determined effort to instill
ethical conduct among the bar candidates.
 Admission to the Practice of Law
Cases:
1. In Re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914,
October 1, 1999: Vicente Ching was not
allowed to take his oath for failure to prove
that he was a Filipino citizen at the time he
took the bar examinations.
2. In Re: Oath taking of Argosino, B.M. 712,
July 13, 1995, En Banc Resolution dated
March 19, 1997: Argosino was allowed to
take his oath after proof that he has
reformed his ways and is worthy to become
a member of the legal profession.
 Admission to the Practice of Law
3. Martinez v. Diao, A.C. No. 244, March 29, 1963:
For failure to prove that he completed his pre bar
course, Diao was not allowed to take his oath.
4. Patrick Caronan v. Richard Caronan, A.C. No. 11316,
July 12, 2016: Richard Caronan’s name was stricken off
from the Roll of Attorneys for assuming complainant's
identity and falsely representing that the former has the
required educational qualifications to take the Bar
Examinations and be admitted to the practice of law. He
was also perpetually barred from being admitted to the
practice of law.
 III. Upholding the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession

A material misrepresentation or false

statement in connection with an application
for admission to the bar is subject to
disciplinary action even if one passes the bar
examinations.
It is essential that one maintains all the
qualifications required for admission to enjoy
the privilege of law practice.
 III. Upholding the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession
Cases:
1. In Re: Petition of Atty. Michael A. Medado to Sign
Roll of Attorneys, B.M. No.2540, September 24,
2013: Petitioner passed the bar in 1979 but failed
to sign the Roll of Attorneys after taking his oath.
After more than 30 years of practice, his attention
was called when he cannot indicate his Roll
Number in the MCLE program he attended. He
was allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys after
paying a fine of P32K and serving a one-year
suspension from the date he signed the Roll of
Attorneys.
2. Gacias v. Balauitan, 507 SCRA 8 (2006):
A lawyer may suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct even it pertains to his private
dealings. A lawyer’s demeanor or probity is not
limited to the performance of his duties as a
lawyer but extends to any misconduct not related
to the legal profession.
3. Arellano University v. Mijares III, 605 SCRA 93
(2009): A lawyer was disbarred for not having
able to account for “facilitation fees” which the
Supreme Court said is not a legitimate legal
expense.
4. Cham v. Paita-Moya, 556 SCRA 1 (2008): A
lawyer was sanctioned by the Supreme
Court for failure to settle just obligations.
Her act of leaving a leased apartment
without paying rent and utility bills
constitutes deceitful conduct.
 Upholding the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
The lawyer plays a number of roles insofar as
his clients are concerned:
1. As an advisor relative to the legal rights
and obligations of a client.
 Upholding the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession

2. As an advocate, he asserts his client’s

position under an adversarial system.
3. As a negotiator, he ensures that terms of
the transaction will be advantageous to his
client but within the limits with fair dealing
with others.
 Upholding the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession
A lawyer may suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct even it pertains to his private
dealings. A lawyer’s demeanor or probity is
not limited to the performance of his duties as
a lawyer but extends to any misconduct not
related to the legal profession.
Upholding the Integrity of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines

1. In re: 1989 IBP Elections, Bar Matter No.

491,October 6, 1989: The Supreme Court
nullified the results of the IBP elections in the
light that the elections were a result of the
electioneering activities and extravagant
spending on the part of the candidates.
2. Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006):
Acting as collegial body, the IBP Board of
Governors is ruled by the vote of majority.
Thus, if a member of the Board cannot
accept the voice of the majority, the logical
action is for him to resign from his post.
 3. In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in
the Election of the IBP, A.M. No. 09-5—SC, A.C.
No. 8292, December 14, 2010: The Court
emphasized here the rational why the
rotational rule of the election of the Board of
Governors must be respected. It said that the
rotation rule should be applied in harmony
with, and not in derogation of the will of the
qualified members of the IBP to choose their
respective representatives in the Board of
Governors.
IV. The Lawyer and the Rule of Law
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
Cases:
1. Soriano v. Dizon, 480 SCRA 1 (2006):
A lawyer was disbarred for his extreme
arrogance and feeling of self-importance. The
lawyer was convicted for shooting a taxi driver
(frustrated homicide) and he refused to pay his
civil liabilities.
2. Olbes v. Deciembre, 457 SCRA 341 (2003),
Manaois v. Deciembre, 562 SCRA 359 (2008) and
Mendoza v. Deciembre, 580 SCRA 26 (2009): A
lawyer was disbarred for being a “loan shark”.
He exacted excessive interest rates from lowly
government employees, filling up blank checks
issued by borrowers to secure their loans,
falsifying commercial documents and filing
unfounded suits
against the borrowers to harass them.
3. Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio, Jr. 593 SCRA
365 (2009): The Court increased the
recommended penalty of the IBP Board of
Governors because the conduct lawyer
tended to erode public confidence in the
legal profession. He was found to have
engaged in deceitful conduct for soliciting
advertisements from the Petitioner after a
settlement was reached between his client
and the food company.
4. San Jose Homeowners Association Inc., as
represented by Rebecca v. Labrador v. Atty. Roberto
B. Romanillos, A.C. No. 5580, June 15, 2005:
Respondent lawyer resigned as judge while
undergoing an administrative investigation by
OCA. The Supreme Court ordered the
forfeiture of all his benefits and the penalty
included non-reinstatement and/or
reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality of government.
He was eventually disbarred for his propensity
to disobey the law and other lawful orders.
5. Godofredo Eugalca v. Atty. Dinna M. Lao,
Clerk of Court, MTC, Makati City, A. M.
OCA IPI No. 05-2177-P. April 5, 2006: The
Court held that a lawyer has no authority to
confiscate the car plate of a vehicle in a
collision incident. The High Court said that
the lady lawyer should have known that as a
lawyer, she has other recourse to recover the
damage she sustained.
6. Isidra Barrientos v. Atty. Elerizza A .
Libiran-Meteoro, A.C. No. 6408, August 31,
2004: Respondent lawyer was charged for
deceit and non-payment of debts. The
Court ordered her to pay her outstanding
obligation to the complainant at 6% per
annum. She was also suspended from the
practice of law for six months.
7. Wen Ming Chen a.k.a. Domingo Tan v. Atty. F.D.
Nicolas B. Pichay, A.C. No. 7910, September 18,
2009, Ynares-Santiago, J.: Lawyer was charged
with (a) gross misconduct (b) gross
inexcusable ignorance of the law (c) securing
HDO without case being filed.
As counsel of American Security Systems
International (ASSI) represented Gucci and
L.V., lawyer was able applied for six (6)
warrants. During the raid, the NBI agents
were able to seize counterfeit Gucci and
L.V. bags.
The Supreme Court dismissed the
disbarment case upon good faith defense of
the lawyer despite the fact that the IBP
Commissioner recommended suspension for
four months and the IBP Board of Governors
increased it to one (1) year.
8. Lao v. Medel, Adm. Case No. 5916, July 1,
2003: For utter discourtesy to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Hearing Officer, the
Supreme Court suspended for one (1) year the
lawyer whose RCBC checks totaling P23,000.00
were all dishonored.
9. PAGCOR v. Carandang, A. C. No. 5700,
January 30, 2006: In contrast with the Lao v.
Medel decision, Carandang was only suspended
for six months for twenty-four bouncing checks
amounting to over P7M in favor of PAGCOR.
Carandang explained his shortcomings and
his willingness to settle his obligations with
PAGCOR.
10. Heenan v. Atty. Espejo, A.C. No. 10150, Dec.
3, 2013: Lawyer was ordered suspended for
two years and to pay her P275.000.00
outstanding obligation to complainant which
was an advance for her professional fees.
V. Making Known One’s Services and
Respect towards a Fellow Lawyer
CANON 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal
services available in an efficient and convenient
manner compatible with the independence,
integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
CANON 3 – A lawyers in making known his
legal services shall use only the true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of
facts.
Lawyer’s Duty to Comply with MCLE
Requirement
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reforms and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.
1. Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, Sept. 4, 2009:
The Court found a lawyer guilty of solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services
and suspended from practice for one year.
With the help of his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano
convinced three of Linsangan’s clients, who are all
overseas seafarers, to transfer legal representation.
Labiano’s calling card had the words “with financial
assistance” on the front, and “services offered:
consultation and assistance to overseas seamen
repatriated due to accident, injury sickness, death
and insurance benefit claims abroad” on the back.
2. In Re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37: The lawyer who
distributed cards where he mentioned that he can “as
notary execute a deed of sale for the purchase of land,
renew lost documents of animals, make final
requisites for homestead, execute any kind of
affidavit,” and “as lawyer, can help collect loans that
are long overdue, as well as [file or defend] a
complaint” was found to have solicited cases in
defiance of the law and the canons ethics. The
Supreme Court emphasized that a lawyer may not
seek to obtain employment by himself or through
others for to do so would be unprofessional.”
He was suspended from practice for one year.
3. Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553
June 17, 1993: The Supreme Court’s stringent
position against lawyer advertising was
extensively articulated in the landmark case of
The Legal Clinic, Inc.
In the said case, respondent, The Legal Clinic,
Inc. placed advertisements promoting their legal
services pertaining to marriages, annulments,
visas, etc.
In declaring the illegality of such
advertisements, the Court held that:
“The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his
of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. The proscription against advertising
of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate
that the practice of law is a profession.”
4. In re: SyCip, Salazar (GR No. X92-1, July
1979): The Supreme Court held that the law
firms of SyCip, Salazar, Feliciano,
Hernandez & Castillo and Ozaeta, Romulo, De
Leon, Mabanta & Reyes cannot continue
using the names of the deceased partners
“SYCIP” and “OZAETA” from their
respective firm names. However, as what Chief
Justice Fernando referred to as a “happy
compromise”, the Court mentioned that those
names may be included in the listing of
individuals who have been partners in their
firms indicating the years during which they
served as such.
5. Velasco v. Doroin, 560 SCRA 1 (2008):
Notices to counsels were unserved because
counsels’ current address cannot be
determined. The Court reminded the IBP
national office and all its chapters to
maintain an updated record of the office
and residence addresses of members.
Failure to serve notice can mean delay in
the administration of justice.
6. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao v. Atty. Virgil R.
Castro A.C. No. 6396. October 25, 2005:
An IBP Officer was fined for P10,000.00 by
the Supreme Court for use of invectives at a
Clerk of Court. Lawyer was following up a
case with the clerk of court of Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Bayambang, Nueva Vizcaya.
She was not able to accommodate the
request of the respondent lawyer and he
uttered the following to her: “Ukinnan, no
adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo ng
ibales kaniak ah!”
7. Santos, Jr., v. Llamas, Adm. Case No.
4749, January 20, 2000: A lawyer was
found guilty of misrepresentation for using
the same IBP O.R. number for three (3)
years. He was suspended for one year and
ordered to pay his IBP dues accordingly.
CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.
Cases:
1. Tapay et al v. Attys. Bancolo et al., A.C. No.
9604, March 20, 2013: Lawyer was
sanctioned by the Court for allowing his
Secretary to sign a pleading on his behalf.
2. Noe-Lacsama v. Busmente, A.C. No.7269,
Nov. 23, 2011: Lawyer was penalized by
the Supreme Court for allowing a paralegal
to appear on his behalf.
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast o
legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law schools as well
as in the practical training of law students
and assist in disseminating the law and
jurisprudence.
Cases:
1. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., requesting
exemption from payment of IBP dues, B.M. No.
1370. May 9, 2005: A lawyer who retired from
Civil Service Commission migrated to United
States of America (USA). He served the
government from 1962 until 1986 until his
retirement in 2003. He asked to be exempted
from payment of IBP dues. The Supreme Court
held that his request has no basis and asked him
to pay his dues during his period of absence.
 2. IN RE: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys
of Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September
24, 2013: After 32 years, the lawyer realized he
may signed the Roll of Attorneys after he took his
oath in 1979.
He was fined P32, 000.00 for 32 years of
unauthorized practice of law. He was suspended
for one year after signing the Roll of Attorneys
because he had become a full-fledged lawyer
under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
 Compliance with MCLE Requirements
It is important to note that included in the lawyer’s
obligation to comply with laws is his compliance with the
MCLE requirements.
In Bar Matter No. 1922 promulgated by the Court en banc
on June 3, 2009, all practicing lawyers are REQUIRED to
INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts of
quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of
their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemptions, as may be applicable.
A lawyer is given a period of 60 days to comply.
Otherwise, he will sanctioned but the case will not be
dismissed.
CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Duty of Respect
1. Linco v.Lacebral, A.C. No. 7269, October
17, 2011: The Court revoked the notarial
commission of the lawyer for having
notarized the Deed of donation executed
by the deceased husband of the
complainant lawyer a day after his death.
He was also suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one year.
Duty not to harass an opposing party
2. Ong v. Unto, A.C. No. 2417, February 6,
2002: The lawyer was found guilty of using
tactics meant to harass the complainant in a
suit for support. He was suspended for five
months.
 VI. Lawyers in Government Service
CANON 6 – These Canons shall apply to
lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their tasks.
1.Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayon A.M. P-08-
2578, July 31, 2009: Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Bozo,
Cebu was charged for soliciting and receiving the
amount of P2,500 representing commissioner’s and
stenographer’s fees and not issuing an official receipt
therefor.
He was found guilty of simple misconduct and
suspended him from service for one month and one
day without pay.

,,
2. Omar P. Ali v. Atty. Mosib A. Bubong, A.C.
No. 4018. March 8, 2005: Respondent
lawyer while serving as Register of Deeds
was found guilty of grave misconduct for
his imprudent issuance of a title of a
property in his jurisdiction and manipulation
of the Anti - Squatting Law.
The President of the Philippines ordered his
dismissal from government service.
The Supreme Court likewise ordered his
disbarment.
3. Lorenzana v. Fajardo, Adm. Case No. 5712,
June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 1 (2005). A lawyer
who drew his regular salary from the city of
Manila as a Legal Officer and from Q.C.
government as a member of the PLEB was
penalized with both reprimand and warning.
4. In Re: Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce, A.M.
Nos. P95-1144, P94-1080, and P95-
128,November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 465: A
Clerk of Court was dismissed from service
for grave misconduct, oppression and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service for intimidating CPC professors to
certify something “contrary to their
knowledge.”
5. Abella v. Cruzabra, 588 SCRA 248 (2008)
The Assistant Register of Deeds was
admonished by the Supreme Court for
notarizing documents which were subject
of review by their office. She also obtained
her notarial commission without securing
the approval of the Secretary of Justice.
6. People v. Hon. Castaneda et al, G.R. No.
208290, December 11, 2013: The Supreme
Court castigated the BOC counsel for RATS
(Run after the Smugglers Group) for failure to
produce the certified true copies of the
documents which would proved the
prosecution’s case. The counsel also filed the
Petition for Certiorari beyond the
reglamentary period. The Court said that it as
if by design that the government prosecution
set to lose the case.
 7. De Leon v. Pedrena, A.C. No. 9401, October 22,
2013: The PAO lawyer was given stern warning
for sexually harassing a client of the office.
8. Embido et al v. Pe, Jr.et al., A. M. No. 6732,
October 22, 2013: The Court disbarred the
Assistant Prosecutor of Antique for falsifying a
decision in a non-existent case (Declaration for
Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna when the
actual case decided by the trial court was for
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando
Austria). The falsified decision was introduced
in evidence in a foreign jurisdiction.
VII. Lawyer’s Fidelity to His Clients
Cannon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
Canon 16 - - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his profession.
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of law.
CANON 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation
is terminated.
1. Dumali- Ting v. Atty. Rolando Torres, A.C. No.
5161, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 108 (2004).
A lawyer suffered the supreme penalty of
disbarment for:
(i) presentation of false testimony;
(ii) participation in consent to, and failure to
advise against forgery of complainant’s
signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement; and
(iii) gross misrepresentation in court for the
purpose of profiting from such forgery.
2. Lizaso v. Amante, Adm. Case No. 2019,
June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA: The Supreme Court
found the lawyer guilty of misconduct for
not delivering the proceeds of investments
made by Lizaso despite repeated demands.
The lawyer was suspended indefinitely.

.
3. Overgaard v. Valdez, 567 SCRA 118 (2008)
and 582 SCRA 567 (2009): A lawyer was
ordered disbarred for gross misconduct. The
lawyer abandoned his law office without
notice to client and without any effort of
ensuring that all pending referrals will be
attended to during his absence.

.
4. Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320 (2006):
The Supreme Court reminded lawyers that
any suspicion of simultaneously handling
matters which are adverse to each other
should be avoided. The penalty of the
lawyer was mitigated by the fact that the
case of the other client was pro bono and it
was the law firm’s services that was
engaged.
5. Hadjula v. Medianda, 526 SCRA 241
(2007):
In this case, the Court reminded lawyers
that there is no need for a written contract
for a lawyer-client relationship to
commence. As soon as the lawyer renders
legal advice to a person, a lawyer-client
relationship begins. All disclosures made
during the consultation is considered
privileged in order to protect a client from
possible breach of confidence.
6. Palm v. Iledan, 602 SCRA 12 (2009) Carpio,
J.: The Court held that the lawyer is released
from the confidentiality rule where
documents filed on behalf of the documents
become part of public records. As a part of
public record, the amendments to the By
Laws of the company filed with the SEC
cannot be considered confidential.
7. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 524 SCRA 73 (2007): The Court
held that a lawyer cannot take shield from
his ignorance or inexperience to seek a new
trial of a case. The client was bound by the
lapses of its counsel and can only seek
administrative sanctions against him.
8. Grand Placement and General Services
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 189
(2006): Unless the trial court is formally
informed of the withdrawal of counsel in a
case, service of notice through registered mail
is deemed judicial notice to the counsel of
record. While the general rule is that notice to
counsel is notice to his client, the Court said
that when the client’s rights are substantially
prejudiced because of counsel’s dismissive
attitude, notice to such counsel is not notice to
the client.
9. Adecer v. Akut, 489 SCRA 1 (2006): The
lawyer was devastated by the loss of his
wife and was remised in his responsibilities
to his clients. The Supreme Court said that
no personal consideration should stand in
the way of performing a legal duty.
 10. Cordon v. Balicanta, Adm. Case No.
2797, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 299 (2002):
The Supreme Court disbarred Balicanta for
a deceitful scheme he used to convert for
his personal benefit properties left to him in
trust by the complainant and her daughter.
He set up a corporation to consolidate the
assets of the deceased spouse of
complainant where he served as both
President and Treasurer.
11. Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas,
A.C. 8010, June 16, 2009: The Supreme
Court found the lawyer guilty of violation
of Cannons 1, 7, 15, 16 and 17. He was
ordered disbarred. He was also directed to
restore the complainant the full amount of
P4.2M. The NBI was directed to locate him.
The lawyer took advantage of the ignorance
of an alien by making him believe that he
could own land in the Philippines. The land
sold to the foreigner is part of public
domain.
12. Eduardo L. Nuñez et al. v. Atty. Arturo B.
Astorga, A.C. No. 6131. February 28, 2005;
The lawyer was found guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer. He was fined
P2,000.00. The complainants filed criminal
actions against the lawyer for violating his
duties as administrator of the estate of their
parents. Upon learning this, he said to the
heirs “ipaposil ta ka.” The Supreme Court
said that use of foul language by a lawyer
cannot be condoned.
13. Dimagiba v. Montalvo, Jr., Adm. Case No.
1424, October 15,1991: The Supreme Court
admonished lawyers knowing that a client’s
cause is defenseless and failing to advise the
client to acquiesce and submit, rather than to
traverse the inconvertible. Thus, a lawyer
who assisted his clients in stretching for
almost half a century a litigation arising from
the probate of a will, by filing a total of eight
cases with various courts, was considered
guilty of malpractice and thereby, disbarred.
14. Pitcher v. Gagate, A.C. 9532, October 8,
2013: The lawyer was slapped with a 3 year
suspension and ordered to return the
P150K acceptance fee for negligence in
handling a case. Lawyer apparently gave
the wrong advice to the client which
aggravated the conflict with a business
partner of her late husband. She also found
herself facing criminal suits without her
counsel assisting her.
15. Reddi v. Sebrio, Jr., Adm. Case No. 7027,
January 30, 2009: The Supreme Court
disbarred Sebrio for deceiving an American
into giving him thousands of dollars to
purchase several real estate properties for
resale which turned out to fictitious.
Sebrio defrauded Reddi, a medical practitioner
in New York, in connection with the latter’s
philanthropic desire to generate funds to
establish a hospital in the country. Reddi
alleged she transmitted U.S.$3M to Sebrio but
he was only directed to return U.S.$500,000.00
because this was the only amount he
acknowledged.
16. David Williams v. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez, A.C. No.
8319 [FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 11-2887],
September 16, 2015: Spouses Williams filed a
Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment against Atty.
Enriquez for 1] violation of the rule on forum
shopping; and 2] purposely filing a groundless, false
and unlawful suit.
The Court said that as a retired judge, Atty. Enriquez
should know that a lawyer's primary duty is to assist
the courts in the administration of justice. For
violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six months.
17. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE UY, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR WILSON UY,
v. ATTY. PACIFICO M. MAGHARI III, A.C. NO. 10525,
September 01, 2015: The Court said that it is unsettling
that respondent engaged in the mockery and ridicule that
he did of the very same badges—his place in the Roll of
Attorneys, his membership in the Integrated Bar, his
recognition as a practicing professional, his continuing
training and competence—that are emblematic of his
being a lawyer.
The Court held that respondent clearly violated his
Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility through his unlawful,
dishonest, and deceitful conduct. He was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
VIII. The Lawyer and His Marital Vow
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
for legal processes.

1. Tucay v. Tucay, Adm. Case No. 1474, January

28, 2000: A lawyer who abandons his spouse
to cohabit with another woman, with whom
he had child was disbarred by the High Court
for failing to maintain the highest degree of
morality expected and required of a member
of the Bar. He contracted a 2nd marriage while
30-year marriage was still subsisting.
VIII. The Lawyer and His Marital Vow
2. Toledo v. Toledo, Adm. Case No. 1392, April
2, 1984: A lawyer who abandoned his wife
and resumed carnal relations with a former
paramour, also a married woman, was
disbarred. The Supreme Court said that
such conduct is willful, flagrant or
shameless and shows moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.
3. Alejandro v. Alejandro, Adm. Case No. 4256
February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 527 (2009): The
Supreme Court ordered Atty. Warfredo
Tomas Alejandro disbarred for gross
immorality for maintaining illicit relations
with a female lawyer and with whom he
sired a child. Atty. Alejandro even fled the
country to escape the consequences of his
misconduct. His wife opposed his
application to become judge.
4. Vitug v. Rongcal, Adm. Case No. 7136,
August 1, 2007: The Supreme Court said
that even not all forms of extra marital
relations are punishable under penal law,
sexual relation outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it
manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution.
 5. Figueroa v. Barromeo, Jr., (SBC Case No.
519, July 1997 citing rulings in Arciga v.
Maniwag, Adm. Case No. 1608, August 14,
1981, Rodaga v. Tejano, Adm. Case No. 1377,
July 31, 1981 and Reyes v. Wong, Adm. Case
No. 547, January 29, 1975): The Supreme
Court said that where there is no impediment
in the parties involved, the relationship can be
condoned. In some cases, however, the
Supreme Court has held that mere intimacy
between a woman and a man, both of whom
possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily
carried on and devoid of any deceit on the
part of the former, is neither so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary action against him, even if as a
result of such relationship, a child was born
out of wedlock.
7. Joselano Guevarra v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel
Eala, Adm. Case No. 7136, August 1, 2007:
The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala for maintaining sexual
congress with a woman not his wife. The
spouse of his paramour filed the complaint.
8. Paras v. Paras, Adm. Case No. 5333 October
18, 2000: A less severe penalty was, however,
imposed by the High Court in the case of
Atty. Paras who maintained illicit relations
with a woman not his wife and had a child
with her. He even abandoned his family but
was suspended only for one year.
9. Cordova v. Cordova, Adm. Case No. 3249,
November 29, 1989: The Supreme Court said
that it was willing to lift the indefinite
suspension of Cordova if he submits
satisfactory proof that he continues to provide
for the support of his legitimate family and
that he has given up the immoral courses of
conduct that he has clung to.
10. Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, September
22, 2004: The Supreme Court disbarred a
lawyer for his infidelity and immorality for
maintaining relationships with two other
women other than his wife.
11. Tiong v. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428, December 12,
2011: The lawyer was suspended from the
practice of law for having an illicit relationship
with the client’s wife. The lawyer violated the
trust and confidence reposed in him under a
Special Power of Attorney
 12. Ecarela v. Pangalanan, A.C. No. 10676,
September 08, 2015: Lawyer Roy Ecraela filed
the a disbarment case against Pangalangan for
“illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of
authority as an educator, and other unscrupulous
practices which caused undue embarrassment to
the legal profession.”
Pangalangan was found guilty of gross immorality
and violation of Article XV Section 2 of the
Constitution, He also violated regulations
pertaining to his professional responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath. He was ordered disbarred.
13. Nelson P. Valdez v. Atty. Antolin Allyson Dabon, Jr.,
A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015: Complainant
Nelson charged respondent Atty. Dabon, a Division
Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals (CA), with
gross immorality for allegedly carrying on an
adulterous relationship with his wife, Sonia Romero
Valdez. He charged Dabon for sexual assaults
committed on his wife and maintained the illicit
relationship through threat and intimidation.
Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman other
than his wife showed his utmost moral depravity and
low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
profession. The Court ordered Dabon disbarred.
IX. Fiduciary Duty of Lawyers
Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.
1. Catherine and Henry Yu v. Palaña, Adm. Case No.
7747, July 14, 2008, Per Curiam: The Supreme
Court disbarred Palaña. The Court found him guilty
of resorting to a fraudulent scheme of soliciting on
behalf of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corp.
for an investment of P100,000. From such investment,
one has a guaranteed interest but despite all the
assurances, respondent failed to meet the obligations to
its investors. The basis of the action as a criminal case
for syndicated estafa and violation of B.P. No. 22.
2. Baylona et al v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes, A.C. No.
4808, November 22, 2011: Atty. Purita Reyes
was penalized with suspension from the practice of
law. She was found guilty of appropriating for
herself the just compensation for an expropriated
Property of the complainants which was used by
the government for expansion of the airport in
Butuan City.
3. Freeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, A.C. No. 6246,
November 15, 2011: The Supreme Court disbarred
Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes for appropriating for herself the
proceeds of the insurance policy and retirement benefits of
the deceased husband of the complainant.
4. Almendarez Jr. v. Langit, 496 SCRA 402
(2006): The Court said the act of the lawyer of
receiving monthly rentals on behalf of his client
without accounting for and returning such funds
cannot be condoned. Lawyer cannot appropriate
such monies as his professional fees without the
consent of his client. The lawyer was suspended
from the practice of law for this infraction.
5. Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006)
Lawyer faced disciplinary proceedings before the
State Bar of California. He was accused of using
for his personal benefit proceeds of insurance
claims of his clients. The Court that such
proceeding can be the basis for a disbarment
proceedings in the Philippines.
6. Soloman Jr. v. Frial, 565 SCRA 9 (2008)
The lawyer was found guilty of infidelity when he
allowed the use of one of the attached vehicles and
another vehicle was totally destroyed without
informing the client and the sheriff of the status of
both vehicles.
7. Arroyo-Posidio v. Vitan, 520 SCRA 1 (2007): The Court
penalized the lawyer for not turning over promptly the
monies entrusted to him by the client for the purpose of
filing a suit, file an appeal from an adverse judgment, and
consummate a sale.
8. Daniel Mortera, Teresita Mortera, Ferdinand Mortera and Leo
Mortera v. Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan, A.C. No. 4562, June
15, 2005: Respondent lawyer under a secret agreement was
able to deposit P150,000.00 out of the money judgment
which complainants obtained in a civil suit. By concealing
the client’s money and interposing the defense that such
amount represented his professional fees, the Supreme
Court suspended him from practice for a period of two
years and ordered him to restore complainants the amount
of P150,000 representing the money judgment in favor of
his client.
9. Nazaria S. Hernandez (Deceased), substituted by
Luciano S. Hernandez, Jr. v. Atty. Jose C. Go, A.C.
No. 1526. January 31, 2005: Respondent lawyer
was found guilty of gross misconduct and
ordered disbarred. Based on the complainant,
respondent lawyer took advantage of his client
by successfully transferring under his name
certain properties owned by the spouses
Hernandez.
11. Licuran v. Melo, Adm. Case No. 2361, February
9, 1989: The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Melo
for failing to inform his client that he had collected
money from the client’s debtor despite repeated
inquiries by the client.
12. Modesto Cumana v. Atty. Rex C. Rimorin, A.C.
5315, September 23, 2000: The Supreme Court
suspended respondent Rimorin for one (1) year
for failure to account for money received from
and in behalf of his client despite demands for an
accounting.
13. Businos v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349, December
22, 1997: The Supreme Court disbarred erring
lawyer for his failure to promptly turnover
money collected in pursuance of a judgment in
favor of his client. Belated payment of the
misappropriated fund does not relieve the
lawyer of his judiciary duty.
14. Paulina T. Yu v. Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz, A.C. No.
10912, January 19, 2016: Respondent borrowed pieces
of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same
with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. He appropriated
the proceeds of the pledge for his personal use. Despite
repeated demands, respondent never gave back to
complainant the pieces of jewelry he borrowed nor
made any attempt to redeem them.
Complainant terminated the services of respondent and
demanded the return of her jewelries and the
acceptance fees in the 3 cases he was handling for her.
The Court ordered his suspension for three years.
X. The Lawyer as an Officer of the Court

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and

good faith to the court.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and the judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.
CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
CANON 14 - A lawyer shall not refuse his services
to the needy.
1. Antero J. Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, A.C.
No. 7399, August 25, 2009: The utterances made in
public by Senator Santiago’s speech on the senate floor
precipitated the administrative complaint against her:
“xxx I am not angry. I am irate I am foaming in the mouth. I
am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to
be living in my middle years in a country of this nature. I am
nauseated I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio
Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court. I am no
longer interested in the position (of Chief Justice) if I was to
be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another
environment not in the Supreme Court of idiots…”
The Supreme Court exonerated the Senator due to
parliamentary immunity.
2. Epifania Q. Bantolo v. Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon,
Jr., Adm. Case No. 6589. December 19, 2005: For
failure to follow legal order of the court in a
civil case, respondent lawyer was found guilty of
misconduct and suspended from practice for one
month. Despite the fact that respondent lost a
case involving a lot dispute in Antique,
respondent with his co-defendants defied the
order of the court and entered the premises
and harvested whatever was planted on the
property.
3. Baltazar v. Banez, A.C. No. 9091, December 13,
2013: The lawyer was admonished by the Court
for advancing the costs of expenses in litigation
without providing for any condition for
reimbursement of the same.
4. Mattus v. Villaseca, A.C. No. 7922, October 1,
2013: The lawyer was suspended for a 5-year
period for gross and inexcusable negligence with
resulted to the conviction of the spouses Mattus
for estafa through falsification of document.
5. Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido v. Atty. James Benedict C.
Florido, A.C. No. 5624. January 20, 2004: The Supreme
Court reduced the penalty of six-year suspension of
respondent lawyer to two years for enforcing a
spurious Court of Appeals Resolution to obtain
custody of his minor children. By resorting to such
strategy, the lawyer was guilty of fabrication. The
lawyer was also found guilty of using offensive
language in describing his wife and her relatives in
his pleadings their annulment case and petition for
habeas corpus.
 6. Edison G. Cheng v. Atty. Alexander M.
Agravante, A.C. No. 6183. March 23, 2004: For
his negligence in handling the appeal of the
labor case of his client, respondent lawyer
was suspended for one year and fined
P10,000.00. The Supreme Court reminded
the erring lawyer to perform his duties and
responsibilities faithfully as well as to
protect the rights and interest of his clients.
7. Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad
Celestino, v. Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier, Adm. Case No.
5910. September 21, 2005: For using foul language in
his pleadings, respondent lawyer was suspended
from the practice of law for one year. The court
cautioned lawyers to be more circumspect in the
language used in pleadings. A lawyer must accord
due respect to a fellow lawyer.
Examples of word employed by respondent lawyer:
“Respondent is a member of the Philippine Bar. But
what law books is he reading?”
“Frankly, the undersigned thinks that even a dim-
witted first-year law student would not oblige with
such a very serious charge.”
8. Dagala v. Quesada et al, A.C. No. 5044,
December 2, 2013: The lawyer was penalized
by the Court for lack of diligence and care in
managing his client’s case. His failure to
attend hearings manifests his lack of zeal.
Quesada was suspended for one year while
his partner, Adquilen suffered no penalty
because he died during the pendency of the
case.
9. Merdegia v. Hon. Veloso et al, Re: Resolution
dated October 8, 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-205 –
C.A. –J against Homobono Adaza: The Court
reminded lawyers that if a matter pending
before a court is subject to review by other
legal reliefs, an administrative case against a
member of the judiciary is not a proper
recourse.
 10. Aida Poblete and Hon. Reuben P. De La Cruz
v. Court of Appeals and William Lu, G.R. No.
128859. June 23, 2005: For impeding the
administration of justice, respondent lawyer
was found guilty of indirect contempt.
Respondent lawyer failed to inform the court
that accused was already acquitted since 1999
but it was only in 2004 that the court learned
of the acquittal.
11. John Siy Lim v. Atty. Carmelito A. Montano,
A.C. No. 5653, February 27, 2006: For filing
another case involving the same subject
matter which was already a subject of a final
decision, the Supreme Court suspended
erring counsel for a period of six months.
By resorting to filing another suit to give a
semblance that case is meritorious, the
Supreme Court said that the lawyer is
guilty of obstructing the administration of
justice.
12. Godofredo C. Pineda v. Atty. Teddy C.
Macapagal, A.C. No. 6026, November 29, 2005:
For failure to inform his clients of the status
of the cases he is handling, the Supreme
Court suspended the respondent lawyer for a
period of one year. The High Court also
noted the observation of complainant that out
of the total fifteen (15) scheduled hearings,
counsel attended only four hearings.
13. Perea v. Almadro, A.C. No. 5246, March 20, 2003: In
his Memorandum on Appeal with the National Labor
Relations Commission, a lawyer certified to a false date
of receipt of the decision sought to be appealed to make
it appear that it was seasonably filed. The Supreme
Court found the lawyer guilty of violating Canon 10
and Rule 10.01 of the Code, for having committed a
falsehood and misleading the NLRC by his artifice,
and Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, for having been
negligent in the handling of his client’s case. In
suspending the lawyer for one year the imposing a fine
of P10,000.00, the Court stated: “it cannot be stressed
enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of
the court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the
court.”
14. Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 144412, November 18, 2003,
416 SCRA 65 (2003): The counsel was
sanctioned by the Supreme Court for referring to
Dosch as part of his pleading and copying the
same form an abstract of SCRA and making it
appear as having been written by the court.
15. Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 71177,
February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 421 [1988] and GR.
No. 71177, October 28, 1988, 166 SCRA 728: The
lawyer was cautioned to be more careful in citing
cases in her pleading with warning that any similar
act committed in the future will be dealt with
severely. The Supreme Court reviewed the cases
the counsel cited and did not find any of the facts
and ruling that she quoted. It said that such act
would mislead the Court.
16. People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505, December
11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146: The Court said that a
lawyer should disciplined for citing a non-existent
POEA rule with the obvious intention of delaying
the proceedings if not outrightly evading financial
responsibility under the law. By doing so, counsel
committed flagrant dishonesty and was meted the
penalty of suspension for six (6) months.
17. Joseph C. Chua v. Atty. Arturo M. De Castro,
A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015:
The Court held that Atty. De Castro violated
his oath of office in his handling of the
collection case against his client. Chua was able
to show that, through Atty. De Castro's
atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed
the disposition of the case, causing injury and
prejudice to complainant’s company.
The Court SUSPENDED respondent from the
practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
MONTHS.
CANON 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon
the merits of his cause refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence or
gives the appearance of influencing court.
1. Director of Lands v. Adorable, 77 Phil. 468
(1946): The counsel of the claimants, acting under
the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and
nobility as becoming of a deserving member of the
bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant and
appellant’s ignorance of what really happened in
the Court of Appeals, informed the Supreme Court
that the case had been decided in favor of said
claimants by the appellate.
The Court said that counsel’s act is an example
worth emulating by all members of the bar.
2. Lantoria v. Bunyi, A.M. Case No. 1789, June 8,
1992: The Supreme Court held that it is an insult
to the judge and the act of drafting a decision of
his behalf diminishes the trust of the public in the
judiciary.
3. Cruz v. Salva, 105 Phil 115 (1959): The
Supreme Court cautioned a public prosecutor
from attracting media attention to a case which
involved a Cabinet Secretary of President
Magsaysay as a primary suspect. The Court
reminded lawyers that every case must rise and fall
on the merits.
4. In Re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, February 18,
1970: The Supreme Court held that while lawyers
are free to criticize decision by the Court, it is not
without limit. It reminded lawyers to use respectful
language.
5. Letter dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel
Sorreda, 464 SCRA 32 (2005) and 501 SCRA 369
(2006): The Court reminded lawyers that any effort
to demean, ridicule, degrade the image of the S.C.
and its magistrates shall be dealt with accordingly.

2
XI. The Lawyer as a Notary Public
The Court has in a number of cases reminded
lawyers to take seriously their responsibilities
under the Notarial Rules of 2004.
1. Lingan v. Calubaquibad and Baliga, A.C. No.
5377, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 526 (2006): The
Court ordered the revocation of notarial
commission of the lawyer and disqualification for
application commission for two years. During the
hearing, discrepancies were duly established in
the entries in his notarial register.
2. St. Louis University Laboratory High School
Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No.
6010, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 614 2006:
The Court suspended a lawyer from the
practice of law and revoked his privilege
to renew his notarial commission.
Dela Cruz was found to notarize
documents despite the fact that he had an
expired commission for 10 years,
3. Judge Lily Lydia Laquindanan v. Atty. Nestor O.
Quintana, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009: Judge
Laquindanan filed and administrative action against
Atty. Quintana for the following acts: (1) he
notarized documents outside the area of his
commission as notary public; (2) he performed
notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let
his wife notarized documents in his absence; and (4)
he notarized a document where one of the signatories
therein was already dead at that time. The Court
revoked and disqualified him from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two
(2) years and suspended for six (6) months.
4. Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garin v.
Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. A.C. No. 7056,
February 11, 2009: The Court out of
compassion reduced the penalty of erring
lawyer from two years to six months to
allow him to be commissioned as Notary
Public and to resume his practice.
5. Marissa L. Macarilay v. Felix B. Seriña, A.C. No.
6591. May 4, 2006: Respondent lawyer agreed to
represent complainant in an action to transfer
title to a property she bought.
Despite the lapse of time, respondent lawyer
failed to perform the acts agreed upon by the
parties. The Supreme Court ordered him to
restore complainant the amount of P40,000.00
after deducting the amount of P8,000.00
representing his notarial fee and suspended him
from practice for six months.
6. Espinosa v. Omana, A.C. 9081, October 12,
2011:
A lawyer was suspended for dissolving a
marriage through a notarial act. The Court said
that she should have known that only courts
have the power to annul a marriage.
7. Angeles et al. v. Ibanez, A.C. No. 7860, January
15, 2009: Lawyer’s own secretary testified that
the lawyer signed the “Deed of Extra judicial
Partition with Sale” without the presence of her
siblings.
The Court reminded lawyers as notaries public
to require the personal appearance of affiants in
every notarial deed.
8. Gregory Fabay v. Atty. Rex A. Resuena, A.C.
No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974],
January 26, 2016: Fabay alleged that Atty.
Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial
Law by notarizing a special power of attorney
notwithstanding the fact that two of the principals
therein, Amador Perez and Valentino Perez, were
already dead long before the execution of the
Special Power of Attorney.
The Court disbarred him for malpractice as a
notary public, and of violating the lawyer's oath as
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
9. ANTERO M. SISON, JR. v. ATTY. MANUEL N.
CAMACHO, A.C. No. 10910 [Formerly CBD Case No.
12-3594], January 19, 2016: Atty. Camacho entered into
a compromise agreement without the conformity of his
client. Moreover, he deliberately failed to account for the
money he received from his client, which was supposed
to be paid as additional docket fees. He even had the gall
to impute that the money was illicitly given to an officer
of the court.
The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Camacho for
palpable indiscretions as these constitute a blatant and
deliberate desecration of the fiduciary duty that a lawyer
owes to his client.
10. Elena Biete Leones vdA. De Miller v. Atty.
Rolando B. Miranda, A.C. No. 8507, November
10, 2015: The Court noted the respondent's failure
to carefully double-check the draft of the original
SPA submitted to him by his secretary which led
him to notarize a document which did not reflect
the true intent of his client. The Court said that his
attempt to escape administrative sanctions by
pinning the blame on his secretary cannot be
condoned. He was suspended for one year, his
notarial commission was revoked and he was not
allowed to renew it for a period of two years.
11. Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome v. Atty.
Christopher Basilio, A.C. No. 10783, October
14, 2015: Bartolome alleged that Basilio, a
notary public in Tarlac City, notarized a
document entitled "Joint Affidavit of Non-
Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings“
purportedly subscribed and sworn to before him
by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim on
January 15, 2006, despite the fact that Tañedo
had already passed away as early as December 1,
2003.
The Court found respondent GUILTY of
violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for
one (1) year; REVOKED his incumbent
commission as a notary public, if any; and
PROHIBITED him from being commissioned as
a notary public for two (2) years, effective
immediately.
12. Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani v. Atty.
Renato G. Gasmen, A.C. No. 7073, September
01, 2015: Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen
notarized documents which authorized NGC
through Maravillas to complete the loan
application with AMWSLAI and thereafter,
receive its proceeds. Atty. Gasmen claimed that
before the SPA and loan application were
notarized, the proceeds were already released to
NGC by AMWSLAI, thus, dispensing with the
need for notarization.
of said documents was merely done on a
ministerial basis, with proper safeguards, and that
it cannot be expected of him to require the
personal appearance of every loan applicant
considering the hundreds of loan applications
brought to him for signing.
The Court SUSPENDED Gasmen from the
practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKED his
incumbent commission as a notary public; and
PROHIBITED him from being commissioned as a
notary public for two (2) years.
XII. Violating Client’s Trust

Canon 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the

confidences and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is
terminated.
 1. Northwestern University, Inc., and Ben A.
Nicolas v. Atty. Macario D. Arquillo (A.C. No.
6632. August 2, 2005): For representing
conflicting interests, respondent lawyer was
suspended for one year. Respondent while
retained by Northwestern University and
acted as counsel of one of the complaining
2
staff of the university.
XII. Violating Client’s Trust and Engaging
in Conflict of Interest Issues
2. Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. v. Atty. Alias A.
Pontevedra, A.C. No. 5128. March 31, 2005:
Respondent lawyer was fined P10,000.00 for
using confidential information from a client in a
suit filed by another party which he latter on
represented.
The Supreme Court berated the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors
for reversing the findings of the investigating
commissioner without citing any reason for not
adopting the investigator’s recommendation.
 3. Felicitas S. Quiambao v. Atty. Nestor A. Bamba,
Adm. Case No. 6708 formerly CBD Case No.
01-874, August 25, 2005: The Supreme Court
suspended for a one-year period a lawyer for
representing conflicting interests. Erring
lawyer filed a case against complainant while
he was at that time representing her in
another case. Complainant was an officer of the
Company which engaged services of the
erring lawyer. During such engagement, he also
handled a personal case for the complainant.
4. Willem Rupers v. Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, A.C.
No. 5704, May 8, 2009: Complainant alleged that
respondent had: (1) prepared and notarized contracts
that are both invalid and illegal for being violative of
constitutional adverse restrictions; (2) served
conflicting interest since he performed legal services
for adverse parties; (3) refused to furnish copies of
contracts he notarized to the parties thereof; (4)
notarized documents without keeping copies thereof;
(5) failed to properly discharge his duty to his client
Karl Nova.
The Supreme Court suspended respondent for a
period of six months from practice of law.
5. Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. 8243, July
24, 2009: The Court disbarred a lawyer for
simultaneously serving as counsel of a
company and its creditors. She continued to
give legal advice to the complainant unknown
to him that she also represented the interest of
the creditors of his company.
6. Catalan v. Bernardo, 672 SCRA 8 (2012): A
public prosecutor was cautioned by the
Court that although he has severed his ties
from the Department of Justice, he could not
represent the accused whom he has actively
prosecuted while he was still a public
prosecutor.
8. Cojuangco v. Atty. Leo Palma, A.C. No.
2474, June 30, 2005: The Court disbarred
the lawyer for taking advantage of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. The lawyer
married the 22-year daughter of the client
while his services were retained by
complainant as his personal counsel.
XIII - Lawyer’s Professional Fees

Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair

and reasonable fees.
1. Pineda v. De Jesus, 499 SCRA 608 (2006):
Lawyers may institute independent action
against a client for unpaid fees but if it is
tantamount to unconscionable greed, the
Court may strike down the action.
XIII - Lawyer’s Professional Fees
2. Lijauco v. Terado, 500 SCRA 301 (2006): As
a general rule, lawyers may not share their
professional fees with non-lawyers.
3. Hsieh v. Quimpo, 511 SCRA 184 (2006): It is
not proper for counsel to appropriate for
himself as professional fees a personal
property of his client intended for a
specific purpose.
4. Ortiz v. San Miguel Corp., 560 SCRA 654
(2008): When the attorney’s fees pertain
to the clients as indemnity for damages,
the client has the right to waive it. The
Court said that as “a member of an
honorable profession, the primary vision of
which is justice. x x x Compensation should
be but a mere incident.”
5. Santos-Tan v. Robiso, 582 SCRA 556 (2009):
The Court held that as a general rule,
acceptance fee of a lawyer is non-refundable
but in this case, the lawyer was ordered to
restore complainant the amount of P85K out
of the P100K acceptance fee. The Court said
that he does not deserve the full fees because
he did not honor the terms of the
engagement.
6. Gubat v. NAPOCOR, 613 SCRA 742 (2010):
A client is not precluded from entering
into a compromise agreement but the
terms of the agreement “should not be
such that will amount to an entire
deprivation of his lawyer’s fees, especially
when the contract is on a contingent fee
basis.”
7. Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law
Offices, 501 SCRA 419 (2006): Unless a
case is handled on a pro bono basis,
lawyers are entitled to reasonable
professional fees. Lawyers are entitled to
the “protection of any judicial tribunal
against any attempt on the part of his
client to escape payment of his just
compensation.”
8. J-Phil Marine , Inc. v. NLRC, 561 SCRA 675
(2008): Clients may enter into compromise
agreement without aid of counsel but “if
such compromise is entered into with the
intent of defrauding the lawyer of the fees
justly due him, the compromise must be
subject to the said fees.”
When lawyers claim their right over
professional fees, they maintain the dignity
of the legal profession.
XIV. Termination of Lawyer-Client
Relationship
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.
1. Regalado v. Regalado, 483 SCRA 473 (2006):
The Court asked the lawyer to explain why
he should not be punished administratively
for filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari
and A Petition from Relief from Order of the
lower court without first entering his
appearance.
XIV. Termination of Lawyer-Client
Relationship
2. Anastacio-Briones v. Zapanta, 507 SCRA 1
(2006): The Court held that counsel’s
withdrawal from a pending case must first
be approved by the court.
 What constitutes lawyer’s duty to
client
The Code of Professional Responsibility
requires the lawyer to -
1. serve the needy
2. observe candor, fairness and loyalty to
clients
3. hold in trust all money and properties of
client
4. owe fidelity to cause of clients
4. owe fidelity to cause of clients
5. serve client with competence and
diligence
6. represent the client with zeal
7. charge only reasonable fees
8. preserve confidence of client and
9. serve only for good cause
Thank you and let us all enjoy the
assets of our profession

Let’s enjoy what is RIGHT in our life.