ETHICS CASE DIGEST

CASE NO. 1 Young vs. Batuegas (403 SCRA 123) 2003

FACTS The Complainant - private prosecutor filed an Affidavit-Complaint by for disbarment

against Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa
for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer’s oath.

Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for Murder,
entitled People of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr., pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27. On December 13, 2000, respondents
Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion for
Bail, alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and
is under detention.

However, upon personal verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he surrendered
only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty.
Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI. The fact
remains that the allegation that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on December
13, 2000 was false. They craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had
voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and were under detention.

Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, Branch 27, calendared
the motion on December 15, 2000 lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant,
violation of the three-day notice rule, and the failure to attach the Certificate of
Detention. The instant case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, and recommended that Atty. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Atty. Miguelito
Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the practice of their profession as a lawyer for
six (6) months. The complaint against Atty. Franklin Q. Susa is dismissed for lack of
merit.
ISSUE W/N Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa
shall be disbarred for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating
the lawyer’s oath.
RULING The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood. A
lawyer must be a disciple of truth.

He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.
He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly
inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and
arriving at correct conclusion.

The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his
clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. To knowingly allege an
untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly
 condemn.

They violated their oath when they resorted to deception. Respondent clerk of court;
should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on the part
of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of procedure.

Respondent clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for including the
Motion in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by the
presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his administrative functions, although
not involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound
administration of justice.

Thus, he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on
the part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of procedure

Case No. 2 Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622

FACTS Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against
Tabalingcos, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
Tabalingcos to file a comment, which the Tabalingcos did.

The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation. In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the IBP, Villatuya and his counsel, and the Tabalingcos appeared and submitted issues
for resolution.

The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers. In the
position paper submitted by Villatuya on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by Tabalingcos as financial consultant to assist Tabalingcos in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases.

Villatuya claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to
₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in
addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay
Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and Tabalingcos being able
to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not
pay the amount due to him.
He also alleged that Tabalingcos engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up
two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of
gross immorality, Villatuya accused Tabalingcos of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, Tabalingcos denied charges against him and asserted that the Villatuya
was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms.

Tabalingcos alleged Villatuya was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job
and that there was no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment of fees
and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. Tabalingcos also denied
committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, Tabalingcos attached a
 Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations
of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, Tabalingcos
assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as
having no probative value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself.
ISSUE Whether or not Tabalingcos violated the rule against unlawful solicitation
Whether or not Tabalingcos is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING YES. Unlawful solicitation of clients. (RULE 2.03) In its Report, the IBP
established the truth of these allegations and ruled that Tabalingcos had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out
the specific provision that was breached.

Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the

Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful

occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or
is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as
a member of the bar.

This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to
the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer, or that can be used
as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that, if
handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by Villatuya that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was
indeed a vehicle used by Tabalingcos as a means toprocure professional
employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

YES. The SC held that his acts of committing bigamy twice constituted
grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Supreme Court adopted
the recommendation of the IBP to disbar the respondent and ordered that his
name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at
one time and a mere citizen at another. He is expected to be competent,
honorable, and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the
laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in
his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and
honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor
in other relations. Tabalingcos exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.

Case No. 3 Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299

FACTS An investigation was conducted against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo by Atty. Ismael G.
Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public
Information Office.
 Atty Khan then filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

Based on their investigation, Mrs. Simbillo, claimed that her husband was an
expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four
to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property or
custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other
half after a decision thereon has been rendered.

Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
Information Office revealed that various advertisements were published in a
different issue of the newspaper. Atty. Simbilo admitted the acts imputed to him,
but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts.
ISSUE Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING
Yes. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily
to solicit legal business. Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to
the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who
must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.

The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business: 1. A duty
of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may
attain the highest eminence without making much money; 2. A relation as an
“officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability; 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising
and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.

Such acts of respondents are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the

Court’s authority. What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in
advertising himself as a self-styled “Annulment of Marriage Specialist,” he
 wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary
climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients
that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the
filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do
so.

Case No. 4 Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672

FACTS Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a
complaint of disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services alleging that respondent, with
the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation to said respondent with the promise of financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims.

To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them
text messages. Complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano convinced him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and use respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of
P50,000.00.
ISSUE Whether or not Atty. Tolentino’s actions violate Rule 2.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING YES. The court adopted the findings of the IBP on unethical conduct of the
respondent whereby it found the respondent to have encroached on the
professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 2.03 of the CPR which
provides:
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be read in
connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:

Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.

This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of
legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and
champerty.
 Based on such, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is found to have violated Rules 1.03,
2.03, of the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.

Case No. 5 In Re Lozano [54 Phil. 801. July 24, 1930]

FACTS Sometime ago, the complaint of an attorney against a Judge of First Instance was by
resolution of this court referred to the Attorney-General for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The Solicitor-General was designated to conduct the investigation of
the charges, and pursuant to said designation, proceeded to the municipality of Capiz,
Province of Capiz, to take the testimony of certain witnesses.

The investigation was conducted secretly, as is customary in cases of this character.

Notwithstanding, on April 29, 1930, El Pueblo, a newspaper published in Iloilo and edited
by Severino Lozano, printed an account of the investigation written by Anastacio
Quevedo, said to be an employee in the office of the Judge under investigation.

The article purports to give an account of the evidence of the different witnesses.
Regarding this account, the complainant attorney alleges that the facts therein contained
are “false, malicious, and untrue” and that “said report took sides with the respondent
judge . . . and expressed an opinion as to the merits of the same, with the object
undoubtedly, to influence the action of the investigator and the public in general and to
obstruct, embarrass or impede the course of the present investigation.” In the same
connection, the Attorney-General states that the newspaper report “does not contain a
fair and true account of the facts disclosed at the investigation, . . . creating a wrong
impression in the mind of the public and tending to influence improperly the action of
this court in the said pending matter.”

Under the circumstances, the observations of the Attorney-General must necessarily be

accepted as true.
ISSUE Whether or not Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo are guilty of Contempt of court.
RULING YES. Court ordered each to pay the court a nominal sum of twenty pesos (P20) within fifteen
(15) days

The rule is well established that the newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct,
embarass, or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding
constitute criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by the courts. The rule is
otherwise after the cause is ended. It is also regarded as an interference with the work of
the courts to publish any matters which their policy requires should be kept private, as
for example the secrets of the jury room, or proceedings in camera.

The liberty of the citizen must be preserved in all of its completeness. But license or abuse of
liberty of the press and of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true sense. As
important as is the maintenance of the Judiciary. Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if persons
are privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for good purposes, and if such persons are
to be permitted by subterranean means of diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings
 to the embarrassment of the parties and the courts.

Case No. 6 Buenavista Properties Inc. vs Atty. Deloria (A.C. No. 12160, August 14, 2018)

FACTS On May 7, 1992, BPI, a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws,
entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with La Savoie Development Corporation
(LSDC), represented by Atty. Deloria, for the development of a parcel of land into a mixed-
use commercial and residential subdivision and for the sale of the subdivided lots. BPI
alleged that the plans, applications, and other documents of LSDC relative thereto were
submitted to, processed, and evaluated by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) at the time when Atty. Deloria was one of its Commissioners.

LSDC then sold the subdivided lots, albeit at very low prices. Further, LSDC
misrepresented itself as the owner of the lots, prompting BPI to demand that LSDC
refrain from further selling them. However, LSDC disregarded BPI’s demands; hence, the
latter filed a complaint against the former for termination of contract, recovery of
property and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (civil case) before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City. With Atty. Deloria as counsel, LSDC filed an answer with
counterclaim and a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction[8] to direct BPI to execute the deeds of absolute sale and release the
corresponding titles to the lot buyers.
ISSUE Whether or not respondent lawyer is liable for violations of the Canons of Professional Responsibility
RULING Yes. Rules 15.01 and 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR state:

CANON 15 – x x x

Rule 15.01 – A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable
whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.

xxxx

Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.

In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the test to determine conflict of interest, to wit:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument
will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which
he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests
is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance thereof.
 “The rule against conflict of interest also ‘prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or on totally unrelated cases,’ since the representation of opposing clients, even in unrelated cases,
‘is tantamount to representing conflicting interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-
dealing which the Court cannot allow.”‘ Moreover, the requirement under Rule 15.03 is quite clear. A
lawyer must secure the written consent of all concerned parties after a full disclosure of the facts; failure
to do so would subject him to disciplinary action as he would be found guilty of representing conflicting
interests.

Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a
party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. There is
forum shopping when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in another. They are as follows:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions;

(b) identity of rights or causes of action; and

(c) identity of relief sought.

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.

xxxx

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

In this case, Corazon attested to the fact that Atty. Deloria failed to communicate with and inform her, as
his client, about her complaint against BPI before the HLURB. Likewise, Atty. Deloria failed to file the
required position paper and draft decision before the HLURB. As such, he neglected the legal matters
entrusted to him and failed to serve his client with competence and diligence, for which he must be
clearly held administratively liable.

Case No. 7

FACTS
ISSUE
RULING

Case No. 8

FACTS
 ISSUE
RULING

Case No. 9

FACTS
ISSUE
RULING