LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS – LEONEN CASES

The extent of the insidious machinations employed by respondents and their

counsels were highlighted when they assailed petitioners’ motion for execution for
purportedly being filed beyond the prescriptive period of 10 years, when they themselves
were part of the reason for the delay in execution. Counsels for respondents are reminded
that as officers of the law, they are mandated by Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility to “not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
court processes.” While counsels for respondents are expected to serve their clients to the
utmost of their ability, their duty to their clients does not include disrespecting the law
by scheming to impede the execution of a final and executory judgment. As members of
the Bar, counsels for respondents are enjoined to represent their clients “with zeal within
the bounds of the law.” Thus, counsels for respondents are given a stern warning to desist
from committing similar acts which undermine the law and its processes. Any similar
infractions in the future from counsels for respondents will be dealt with more severely
(Piedad vs. Bobilles, G.R. No. 208614, Nov. 27, 2017).

The rule is that negligence of a counsel binds the client except: when counsel
exhibits reckless or gross negligence that deprives the client of due process; when the
outright application of the rule results in the deprivation of liberty and property through
a technicality; or when it serves the interests of justice. Petitioner alleges that Atty. Musico
negligently failed to attend scheduled hearings before the trial court, conduct cross-
examination of the witnesses, and present evidence on his behalf. Records, however,
show that petitioner’s counsel was not prevented from objecting to the presentation of
the counterfeit credit card during trial, which he repeatedly did and even offered
continuing objection. Atty. Musico was also able to cross-examine Lim and Redentor
Quejada, the two witnesses petitioner claimed had inconsistent testimonies. Atty. Musico
even filed a Demurrer to Evidence after the prosecution made its formal offer (Cruz vs.
People, G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017).

The Code of Judicial Conduct instructs that judges “should avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” Judges must at all times conduct
themselves in a manner beyond reproach to ensure the public’s continued confidence in
the judiciary.

Judge Diasen’s act of attempting to sell rice to his employees and to employees of
other branches was highly improper. As a judge, he exercised moral ascendancy and
supervision over these employees. If the sale had pushed through, he would have
profited from his position. As the Office of the Court Administrator observed: Judge
Diasen cannot also deny that his position did not influence the “would-be buyers” to
actually partake in the sale of rice. If employees of the other court branches and offices of
the Makati City Hall could be persuaded to buy the subject rice because a judge asked
them to, what more with the employees of his own branch? For his improper acts, Judge

Page 1 of 7
Diasen is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge (Mendoza vs. Diasen, Jr., A.M. MTJ-
17-1900, Aug. 9, 2017).

This Court notes that accused was represented by the Public Attorney’s Office.
Notwithstanding their heavy case workload and the free legal assistance they provide to
indigents and low-income persons, however, counsels from the Public Attorney’s Office
are still obliged to pursue their cases with competence and diligence. This is consistent
with their commitment to public service. Rule 14.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay
his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations
with paying clients.”

Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states that “a lawyer

shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible
with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.” Counsels for
accused have shown inefficiency in the performance of their duties. Relying on their
representations in their pleadings, this Court was led to believe that the criminal action
against accused subsisted. Consequently, this Court issued a resolution even after
accused’s death. Had counsels for accused informed this Court earlier of the death of
their client, this Court would have been saved precious time, effort, and resources, which
could have been devoted to other pending cases that call for this Court’s resolution and
judgment. Likewise, the parties need not have filed the pleadings calling for the
resolution of accused’s Motion for Reconsideration. Given these circumstances, counsels
for accused are directed to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
them in light of their failure to inform this Court of accused’s death (Tuano vs. People, G.R.
No. 205871, Sept. 28, 2016).

It is evident from the records that respondent failed to deliver on the services that
he committed to complainant despite receiving the amount of P80,000.00 as acceptance
fee. Although respondent asserted that he did not actively solicit this amount from
complainant, it remains, as Commissioner Funa underscored, that respondent accepted
this amount as consideration for his services. Moreover, following complainant’s
engagement of his services, respondent failed to communicate with complainant or
update her on the progress of the services that he was supposed to render. Not only did
he fail in taking his own initiative to communicate; he also failed to respond to
complainant’s queries and requests for updates. Respondent’s failure to timely and
diligently deliver on his professional undertaking justifies the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines’ conclusion that he must restitute complainant the amount of P80,000.00
(Murray vs. Cervantes, A.C. No. 5408, Feb. 7, 2017).

Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final
order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases. Law is a

Page 2 of 7
profession and not a trade. Lawyers are held to high standards as officers of the court,
and subject to heightened regulation to ensure that the legal profession maintains its
integrity and esteem. As part of the legal profession, lawyers are generally prohibited
from advertising their talents, and are expected to rely on their good reputation to
maintain their practice (Roque, Jr. vs. Catapang, G.R. No. 214986, Feb. 15, 2017).

Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a

member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of her duties as a government official.
However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of her
oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility, then she may be subject to
disciplinary sanction by this Court.

Atty. Dela Cruz failed to observe Rule 18.03 of the Code of the Professional
Responsibility, which mandates that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” As a special
prosecutor in the Bureau of Immigration, she is the representative, not of any private
party, but of the State. Her task was to investigate and verify facts to determine whether
a ground for deportation exists, and if further administrative action — in the form of a
formal charge — should be taken against an alien. Had respondent carefully reviewed
the records of Fuji, she would have found out about the approval of Fuji’s application,
which would negate her finding of overstaying. Because of her negligence, Fuji was
deprived of his liberty for almost eight (8) months, until his release on March 23, 2016
(Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 11043, March 8, 2017).

As servants of the law, lawyers must be model citizens and set the example of
obedience to law. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility expresses the lawyer’s fundamental duty to “uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law.” Respondent’s display of
improper attitude and arrogance toward an elderly constitute conduct unbecoming of a
member of the legal profession and cannot be tolerated by this court. Respondent also
violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which enjoins lawyers to
uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times.

Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to employ respectful and restrained

language in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Although the remark was
allegedly made in response to undue provocation and pestering on the part of
complainant, respondent should have exercised restraint. Notwithstanding his personal
opinion on the merits of complainant’s claims (in light of the defective notarization in the
Memorandum of Agreement dated June 7, 2014), it was improper for respondent to state
that even if complainant brought 10 (or as many) lawyers as he wanted, he would not
prosper in his claims against the Mayon Council. Careless remarks such as this tend to
create and promote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people’s

Page 3 of 7
confidence in the legal profession, and erode public respect for it. “Things done cannot
be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back” (Canlapan vs. Balayo, A.C. No. 10605,
Feb. 17, 2016).

In an administrative case against a lawyer, the complainant has the burden of

proof to show by preponderance of evidence that the respondent lawyer was remiss of
his or her duties and has violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Chang vs. Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934, April 6, 2016).

A champertous (champertuous) contract is defined as a contract between a

stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party’s claim in
consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment; a
bargain by a stranger with a party to a suit, by which such third person undertakes to
carry on the litigation at his own cost and risk, in consideration of receiving, if successful,
a part of the proceeds or subject sought to be recovered. An Agreement whereby the
attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is
champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially where as in this case,
the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at its own expense in consideration of some
bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. The execution of these contracts violates the
fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanction.

Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from

“lending money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he or she has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he or she is handling for the client.” Bautista v.
Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151 (1990), has settled that “although a lawyer may, in good faith,
advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement.” Thus,
absent a reimbursement agreement, the champertous contract is void. Lawyers who
obtain an interest in the subject matter of litigation create a conflict-of-interest situation
with their clients and thereby directly violate the fiduciary duties they owe their clients
(Roxas vs. Republic Real Estate Corporation, G.R. No. 208205, June 1, 2016).

Lawyers are not entitled to unilaterally appropriate their clients’ money for
themselves by the mere fact that the clients owe them attorney’s fees.” They must give
prompt notice to their clients of any receipt of funds for or on behalf of their clients. Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for a lawyer’s duty to “account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.” Respondent Atty.
Galarrita refused to comply with these duties, warranting his suspension from the
practice of law (Luna vs. Galarrita, A.C. No. 10662, July 7, 2015).

Page 4 of 7
 Equally unconvincing and disappointing is the submission of petitioner’s counsel
that even if he received a copy of the motion for execution, “to require undersigned
counsel to verify the existence of the decision with the Regional Trial Court is to unfairly
burden the undersigned counsel and to unduly exonerate the clerk of court who was
remiss in his duty in sending a copy of the Decision to the undersigned counsel,” and
that the court in Danao is 30 kilometers away from his office in Mandaue. Counsels have
the duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence. The distance from counsel’s
office to the court should not be used as an excuse by counsel from keeping himself
updated with the status of the cases he is handling (Bracero vs. Arcelo, G.R. No. 212496,
March 28, 2015).

It has been said that “the practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who
meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any conduct that shows a
violation of the norms and values of the legal profession exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability.”

A lawyer’s duty under Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is clear:

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer
the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from the client,
thus . . . when a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose
(such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should
promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money
for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to
render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does
not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The lawyer’s failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and
in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client (San Pedro vs. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5440,
Dec. 10, 2014).

Parenthetically, it is this court that has the constitutionally mandated duty to

discipline lawyers. Under the current rules, the duty to assist fact finding can be
delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The findings of the Integrated Bar,
however, can only be recommendatory, consistent with the constitutional powers of this
court. Its recommended penalties are also, by its nature, recommendatory (Ramirez vs.
Buhayang-Margallo, A.C. No. 10537, Feb. 3, 2015).

The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes
in the application of procedural rules. The exception to the rule is “when the reckless or
gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law” (Ong Lay Hin
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191972, Jan. 26, 2015).

Page 5 of 7
 The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to “observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts[.]” Under Rule 138, Section 27, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court,
“wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court” constitutes a ground for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Cefra’s disobedience to this
court’s directive issued in 2001 was not explained even as he eventually filed his
Comment in 2008. Clearly, his disobedience was willful and inexcusable. Atty. Cefra
should be penalized for this infraction (Anudon vs. Cefra, A.C. No. 5482, Feb. 10, 2015).

The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-

client relationship. Lawyers must treat all information received from their clients with
utmost confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of the
facts of their case. In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, 405 SCRA 220 (2003), this court explained
what conflict of interest means: 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 interests 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 (Bernardino vs. Santos, A.C.
No. 10583, Feb. 18, 2015).

In issuing the worthless checks, Atty. De Vera did not only violate the law, but she
also broke her oath as a lawyer and transgressed the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera violated the
following provisions: Cannon [sic] 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 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. Rule 7.03 – 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.

Membership in the bar requires a high degree of fidelity to the laws whether in a
private or professional capacity. “Any transgression of this duty on his part would not

Page 6 of 7
only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public’s faith in the
Legal Profession as a whole.” A lawyer “may be removed or otherwise disciplined ‘not
only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, which showed him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer to him”’ (Enriquez vs. De
Vera, A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015).

Page 7 of 7