REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND

PRACTICAL EXERCISES
O M N I B U S N O T E S
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

2023
 DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER: The Omnibus Notes represent the collective

efforts of the selfless and heroic Student Volunteers of the
Arellano Law Bar Operations Commission. Its primary purpose
is to create a material that will help the barristers prepare for
the bar exams as well as provide the underbar students with
another collateral to supplement learning in their respective
classes.

While these materials were discerningly prepared with utmost

diligence under the guidance and supervision of our notable
professors, it does not claim any authoritative value nor do
these materials claim an impeccable content.

Should the reader find any error in our entries, please feel free
to reach out to our bar operations secretariat at
auslbarops2023@gmail.com so we can earnestly issue an
erratum at the soonest possible time.

“To all men and women who will walk this path, we humbly
offer this noble endeavor for you. May this be a lighting guide
through the steep and uncertain road until such time you
become the very light in another’s life, liberty and property— the
lawyer ablaze with grit and hope to guide lost causes toward
the right path.”
 PHILIPPINE COPYRIGHT

This material is an intellectual property of the Arellano Law Bar

Operations Commission 2023. Any unauthorized reprint or use
of this material is prohibited. No part of this material may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including but not limited to
photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system without the express written consent of both
Arellano Law Bar Operations Commission 2023 and the
Arellano University School of Law.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2023

To God be the Glory!

 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

ATTY. DOMINGO M. NAVARRO

Dean, AUSL

ATTY. ERIK LAZO

Assistant Dean, AUSL

CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

ATTY. RODERICK M. VILLOSTAS

Director

ATTY. RICKSON M. BUENVIAJE

ATTY. LESTER NAZARENE V. OPLE
ATTY. ANTONY J. PARREÑO
Research Fellows

BRANDO F. DE TORRES
MARICAR S. ASUNCION
Research Staff
 BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

TRISHA ALEXIS R. MAINGAT

Chairperson

HAZEL ELIZA L. MENDOZA IRISH ANA A. SALINAS

Vice Chairperson for Academics Vice Chairperson for Administration

MA. PATRICIA NICOLE G. REYES

Secretary

GRACE PEREZ - SONIDO

Treasurer

LANIE GRACE S. LIM

Auditor

JED NICU DANIELLE V. MADRIAGA

Operations Head

JAMAELA CHERINA MARIE A. CALINISAN

Public Relations Officer

MA. DHELLTRIA G. GARNER

Volunteer Core Head

ARTHUR JAY DELA CRUZ

Ways and Means Officer
 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

NIKKA MAE B. MORALES

Commissioner

KRISTY ANNE CHUA

Deputy Commissioner

SUBJECT HEADS

MIKE JAY J. BAÑU

Subject Head, Practical Exercises (Civil Law and Criminal Law); Deputy Subject Head, Legal
Ethics, Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers (Rule 139; Rule 139-B)

CAMILLE B. ASI
Subject Head, Legal Ethics, Suspension, Disbarment and
Discipline of Lawyers (Rule 139; Rule 139-B)

MEMBERS

MICAH ELLA M. AGNO

CAMILLE M. DASALLA
ROANNA PAMELA M. DOMINGO
IANA DEIRDRE C. DULDULAO
JOHN ANGELO M. GABRILLO
PAULEEN JOYCE L. GENERAL
CHRISTINE ANN A. GENEROSO
SHAYNE V. LUNA
JOHN IAN V. NACINO
MARY ANN THERESE P. NOVALES
GEMY HALE A. PROVIDO
DANIELLE DENISE M. ROBLES
PATRICIA ALEN C. YUMA
 PART TWO: LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

I. LEGAL ETHICS
A. Practice of Law
• Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019 .....................1
• Cruz v. Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March 8, 2022 (Practice of Law as a
Privilege, Not a Right)........................................................................1
• AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty. Caronan, A.C.
No. 12418, March 10, 2020 ................................................................2
• Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020
(Continuing Requirements for Membership in the Bar) .........................2
• Turla v. Atty. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019 (Continuing
Requirements for Membership in the Bar) ...........................................3
• Cruz v. Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March 8, 2022 (Continuing
Requirements for Membership in the Bar) ...........................................4
• Inter-Island Information Systems v. CA, G.R. No. 187323, June 23, 2021
• Pagdanganan v. Atty. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26, 2020 ..........5
• Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020 (The
Lawyer’s Oath) ..................................................................................5
• Partsch v. Atty. Vitorillo, A.C. No. 10897, Jan. 05, 2022 .......................6
• Turla v. Atty. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019 (The Lawyer’s Oath)
........................................................................................................6

B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Responsibility
• Roger B. Dap-Og v. Atty. Luel C. Mendez, A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020
........................................................................................................7
• Kiener v. Atty. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020 .................7
• Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019 (To the Legal
Profession) .......................................................................................8
• Andaya v. Atty. Tumanda, A.C. No. 12209, February 18, 2020 .............8
• Go v. Teruel, A.C. No. 11119, November 4, 2020 ................................8
• Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019 (To the Courts)
........................................................................................................9
• Cruz v. Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March 8, 2022 .........................9
• Villanueva vs. Atty Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161, June 08, 2020 ...............10
• Francia v. Sagario, A.C. No. 10938, October 8, 2019 ...........................10
• Parungao v. Lacuanan, A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020 ......................11
• Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, July 8, 2020 ..................................11
• Constantino v. Aransazo Jr., A.C. No. 9701, Feb. 10, 2021 ...................11
• Burgos v. Atty. Bereber, A.C. No. 12666, March 04, 2020 ....................13
• Home Guaranty Corporation v. Atty. Tagayuna, A.C. No. 13131, February
23, 2022 (To the Clients) ...................................................................13
• Adelita S. Villamor v. Atty. Elly Galland Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, December
09, 2020 ...........................................................................................14
• Portuguese Jr. v. Atty. Centro, A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021 ........14
• Home Guaranty Corporation v. Atty. Tagayuna, A.C. No. 13131, February
23, 2022 (To the Clients) ...................................................................15

C. Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

 ▪ Spouses Nocuenca v. Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020 ...........16
▪ Villamor v. Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, February 15, 2022 ......................16
▪ Tablizo v. Attys. Golangco, et. al., A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020 (Nature
and Characteristics of Disciplinary Actions) ..........................................16
▪ Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, July 8, 2020 ...................................17
▪ Villanueva vs. Atty Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161, June 08, 2020 ...............17
▪ Fe Eufemia E. Valmonte v. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, A.C. No. 12487. December
4, 2019 (Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary Actions) ..................18
▪ Tablizo v. Attys. Golangco, et. al., A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020
(Grounds) ..........................................................................................18
▪ Pagdanganan v. Atty. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26, 2020 ..........19
▪ Sanny Gerodias v. Atty. Tomas Riveral, A.C. No. 12719, February 17, 2021
.........................................................................................................19
▪ Andaya v. Atty. Tumanda, A.C. No. 12209, February 18, 2020 ..............20
▪ Baygar v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 8959, October 07, 2020 ......................20
▪ AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty. Patrick Caronan,
A.C. No. 12418, March 10, 2020 (Grounds) .........................................21
▪ Fe Eufemia E. Valmonte v. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, A.C. No. 12487. December
4, 2019 (Grounds) .............................................................................21
▪ AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty. Patrick Caronan,
A.C. No. 12418, March 10, 2020 (Proceedings) ....................................21
▪ Elanga v. Pasok, A.C. No. 12030, September 29, 2020 .........................22

D. Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)

• Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino v. Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa (En
Banc), A.C. No. 8522, October 6, 2020 ...............................................22
• Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020 (Term
of Office of a Notary Public) ...............................................................23
• Elanga v. Pasok, A.C. No. 12030,September 29, 2020 .........................23
• Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020 (Powers
and Limitations) ................................................................................24
• Ick and Edosada v. Atty. Amazona, A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020 24
• Venson Ang v. Atty. Salvador B. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11,
2019.................................................................................................24
• John Paul Kiener v. Atty. Ricardo R. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18,
2020 (Competent Evidence of Identity)...............................................24
• John Paul Kiener v. Atty. Ricardo R. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18,
2020 (Sanctions) ...............................................................................25

II. JUDICIAL ETHICS

A. Sources
• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Alauya, A.M. No. SCC-15-21-P,
December 9, 2022 .............................................................................26
• Re: Incident Report of the Security Division and alleged various infractions
committed by Mr. Cloyd D. Garra, Judicial Staff Employee II, Mediation,
Planning and Research Division, Philippine Mediation Center Office,
Philippine judicial Academy, A.M. No. 2019-14-SC, February 10, 2020 ..26
B. Qualities
• Re: Investigation Report on the alleged extortion activities of Presiding
Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City,
Agusan Del Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486, September 3, 2019 .............27
• Maulana v. Noel, AM No. RTJ-21-006, March 15, 2021 .........................27
C. Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary
• Re: Investigation Report on the alleged extortion activities of Presiding
Judge Godofredo B. Abdul, Jr., Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City,
Agusan Del Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486, September 8, 2020 .............27
1. Atty. Rio filed a civil complaint on behalf of
Rupert and Feliz without the knowledge and
authorization of the latter. When Rupert
learned of such, he filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Rio. Atty. Rio admitted
that he learned about the civil case thru a
disbarred lawyer, Benedict, with whom he had
previous collaborations; that his details were
still being used by Benedict’s office because
before, he allowed them to sign for him on
“minor” pleadings. Atty. Rio likewise admitted
that said office had been using his
signature/details without his authority. Can
Atty. Rio be held administratively liable for
allowing other persons to use his signature in
filing the civil complaint?
Yes. Atty. Rio can be held administratively
liable. Atty. Rio’s act of allowing persons other
than himself to use his signature in signing
papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-
lawyers to practice law. The practice of law is a
privilege burdened with conditions and is
reserved only for those who meet the twin
standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is
so delicately imbued with public interest that it
is both a power and a duty of the Supreme
Court to control and regulate it in order to
protect and promote the public welfare.
However, Atty. Rio abused the privilege that is
only personal to him when he allowed another
who has no license to practice law, to sign
pleadings and to file a suit before the court
using his signature and "details." By allowing a
non-lawyer to sign and submit pleadings before
the court, Atty. Rio made a mockery of the law
practice which is deeply imbued with public
interest; he totally ignored the fact that his act
of filing a suit will have a corresponding impact
and effect on the society, particularly on the life
and property rights of the person or persons he
wittingly involved in the litigation, in this case,
Rupert and Feliz (Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No.
10408, October 16, 2019, J. Hernando)).
2. Mark and Henry are compulsory heirs of
spouses Mike and Hannah Lee who acquired
several properties in Tarlac named under them.
Four years after Hannah’s passing, Mike
married Atty. Suzy. When Mike died, their
properties remained undivided and no
extrajudicial partition was executed by the
heirs. However, Mark and Henry discovered
that the properties were subjects of an
expropriation case, which Atty. Suzy knew and
represented herself and her children as the
alleged sole heirs. Mark and Henry claimed that
they never assigned the property to Atty. Suzy,
but she asserted that she owned the properties
as her share in the inheritance based on a letter
from Mike to the heirs and that she had been
paying the real property taxes from the time her
possession thereof commenced. She also
claimed that the properties were already under
her administration during the expropriation
proceedings and even while Mike was still alive.
The letter was a proposal to partition the
properties. Did Atty. Suzy fail to maintain the
good moral character required in the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Yes. Atty. Suzy failed to maintain good moral
character. The canons emphasize the high
standard of honesty and fairness expected of a
lawyer not only in the practice of the legal
profession but in his personal dealings as well.
A lawyer must conduct himself with great
propriety, and his behavior should be beyond
reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as
officers of the courts and keepers of the public's
faith, they are burdened with the highest
degree of social responsibility and are thus
mandated to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor. Likewise, the
oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon
them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be
disciplined for any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private capacity, if such
conduct renders them unfit to continue to be
officers of the court. All practicing lawyers are
reminded that their membership in the bar is a
privilege given only to those who possess the
high ethical standards expected of a lawyer.
Anyone who falls short of the said standards
can be stripped off of the privilege.
Furthermore, to use one's knowledge of law for
self-serving intentions to the prejudice and
disadvantage of the other parties will never be
tolerated. The legal profession is more than a
title, glory, or prestige one ought to achieve. It
carries a corresponding obligation to the courts,
to the people, and to the society for proper
dispensation and administration of justice.
1
Trust and confidence reposed by the public in
the integrity of the legal profession and court
processes must be preserved at all times.
Here, Atty. Suzy resorted to committing
misconduct in protecting their interests and in
using her legal knowledge in order to take
advantage of Mark and Henry. There is no
quibble that she should thus be held
administratively accountable. Hence, the Court
will never turn a blind eye on any erring lawyers
who are nothing but rusts, corroding the sturdy
iron pillars of justice our vanguards have
tirelessly and relentlessly protected (Cruz v.
Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March 8, 2022,
J. Hernando).
3. Atty. Patrick Starr offered to sell to Edward
Balboa a parcel of land located in Tagbilaran
and claimed that he was a representative of
Mariel Argon. Relying on the representations of
Starr, Balboa agreed that the final purchase
price of the property shall be PHP15.65 million.
Starr and Balboa set a meeting for the signing
of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the payment
of the initial 50% of the purchase price. Star
promised to deliver the title under Balboa’s
name by the first week of June 2012, however,
in July 2012, Starr could no longer be reached.
Balboa filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) a Verified Complaint against Starr
accusing him of gross misconduct. Atty. Starr
argued that the claim for gross misconduct will
not stand as he already exhibited good moral
character when he was admitted to the bar. Is
good moral character a continuing requirement
to the practice of law?
Yes. Good moral character is a requirement
which is not dispensed with upon admission to
membership of the bar. The practice of law is
not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State
only on those who possess and continue to
possess, the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain
one's good standing in the profession. It is a
continuing requirement to the practice of law
and therefore does not preclude a subsequent
judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any
question concerning one's mental or moral
fitness before he became a lawyer. This is
because his admission to practice merely
creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all
the qualifications to become a lawyer. The rule
is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains
to his private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. (AA Total Learning
Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty.
Caronan, A.C. No. 12418, March 10, 2020, J.
Hernando).
4. Atty. Rivero prepared the Answer for
Palanan, Borja, Barrameda, and Ureta in a civil
case filed against the latter. Atty. Rivero
likewise notarized the Verification, despite the
fact that only Palanan and Borja personally
appeared before him at the time he notarized
the Verification. A criminal complaint for
Falsification of Public Documents and Use of
Falsified Documents was filed by Atty. Lucky as
counsel for Lupo, Rosie, and Sarah, the
complainants in the civil case. Atty. Rivero
admitted that his notarial commission has
already expired in 2014. Hence, he pleaded
before the City Prosecutor to spare him from
the criminal complaint and just file the proper
administrative complaint against him before the
IBP. The City Prosecutor found probable cause
to indict Atty. Rivero and his co-respondents.
Thereafter, Atty. Lucky filed a Petition for
disbarment against Atty. Rivero for Malpractice,
Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public
Document. It was found that Atty. Rivero was
not in fact commissioned as a notary public in
2014, when the civil case was filed, in
Tuguegarao City as evidenced by the
Certification from the Office of the Clerk of
Court. Atty. Rivero failed to file his Answer. He
likewise did not appear during the scheduled
mandatory conference. Further, Atty. Rivero
also failed to submit his Position Paper as
directed by the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended the penalty of Atty. Rivero’s
suspension from the practice of law for a period
of three years and perpetual disqualification
from being commissioned as notary public. May
Atty. Rivero be held administratively liable for
committing the acts complained of?
2

Yes. Atty. Rivero may be held administratively
liable for committing the acts complained of.
Good moral character is a continuing condition
to preserve membership in the Bar in good
standing. Here, Atty. Rivero's misdeed further
lessens the confidence and trust reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the legal profession. He is expected to possess
the high standards of morality to remain a
member of the bar. (Atty. Manzano v. Atty.
Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020, J.
Hernando).
5. Rindo discovered that Atty. Eyon had not
attended the required Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the
Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III)
Compliance Periods as confirmed by the
Certification issued by the MCLE Office. Yet,
Atty. Eyon signed pleadings and motions in
several cases on which he indicated "MCLE
Exemption II & III”. It turned out that the
receipt Atty. Eyon pertained to was not for his
MCLE exemption, but for his payment of the
MCLE non-compliance fee. The IBP
Investigating Commissioner held that Atty.
Eyon breached his oath to do no falsehood by
stating that he was exempted from complying
with the MCLE requirements when what he
really paid for was the non-compliance fee and
not any exemption fee. Is the IBP correct in
holding Atty. Eyon liable for its failure to comply
with the MCLE requirements?
Yes. The directive to comply with the MCLE
requirements is essential for the legal
profession, as enshrined in BM No. 850. The
purpose is "to ensure that throughout the IBP
members' career, they keep abreast with law
and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law." When Atty. Eyon indicated that
he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and
motions he filed, although in fact he was not,
he engaged in dishonest conduct which was
also disrespectful of the courts. He did not stay
true to the cause of his clients and actually
violated his duty to serve his clients with
competence and diligence.
A non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-
compliance fee of PhP1,000.00 and still comply
with the MCLE requirements within a sixty (60)-
day period, otherwise, he/she will be listed as a
delinquent IBP member after investigation by
the IBP-CBD and recommendation by the MCLE
Committee. The non-compliance fee is a mere
penalty imposed on the lawyer who fails to
comply with the MCLE requirements within the
compliance period and is in no way a grant of
exemption from compliance to the lawyer who
thus paid (Turla v. Atty. Caringal, A.C. No.
11641, March 12, 2019, J. Hernando).
6. Miguel and Hendrick are compulsory heirs of
spouses Miko and Hailey who acquired several
properties in Paranaque. After Hailey’s passing,
Miko married Atty. Lexi. When Miko died, their
properties remained undivided and no
extrajudicial partition was executed by the
heirs. However, Miguel and Hendrick
discovered that the properties thereafter
became subjects of an expropriation case,
which Atty. Lexi knew and represented herself
and her children as the alleged sole heirs.
Miguel and Hendrick claimed that they never
assigned the property to Atty. Lexi, but she
asserted that she owned the properties as her
share in the inheritance based on a letter from
Miko to the heirs. She also claimed that she had
been paying the real property taxes from the
time her possession commenced. Miguel and
Hendrick filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Lexi and argued that the latter failed to uphold
a good moral conduct which is expected of her
as a lawyer. Is the possession of good moral
character a continuing requirement to the
practice of law?
Yes. The qualification of good moral character
is a requirement which is not dispensed with
upon admission to membership of the bar. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain
one's good standing in the profession. It is a
continuing requirement to the practice of law
and therefore does not preclude a subsequent
judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any
question concerning one's mental or moral
fitness before he became a lawyer. This is
3
because his admission to practice merely
creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all
the qualifications to become a lawyer. The rule
is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains
to his private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Possession of good
moral character is not only a prerequisite to
admission to the bar but also a continuing
requirement to the practice of law. (Cruz v.
Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March 8, 2022,
J. Hernando).
7. AAA and BBB are compulsory heirs of
spouses Lest and Kat Rina who acquired several
properties in Tarlac named under them. Four
years after Kat’s passing, Lest married Atty.
Kris. When Lest died, their properties remained
undivided and no extrajudicial partition was
executed by the heirs. However, AAA and BBB
discovered that the properties were subjects of
an expropriation case entitled “Republic of the
Philippines represented by the Toll Regulatory
Board v. Sps. Kim, et al.", which Atty. Kris knew
and represented herself and her children as the
alleged sole heirs. Meanwhile, Atty. Grace, a
relative of Atty. Kris and a Deputy Executive
Director of the Legal Affairs Bureau in the
House of Representatives, acted as counsel of
their parents in the proceedings without their
authority. They claimed that it was highly
impossible for Atty. Grace to represent the
spouses Rina since they had long passed away.
AAA and BBB claimed that they never assigned
the property to Atty. Kris, but she asserted that
she owned the properties as her share in the
inheritance based on a letter from Lest to the
heirs and that she had been paying the real
property taxes from the time her possession
thereof commenced. She also claimed that the
properties were already under her
administration during the expropriation
proceedings and even while Lest was still alive.
The letter was a proposal to partition the
properties. Should Atty. Grace, being the
Deputy Executive Director of the Legal Affairs
Bureau in the House of Representatives, be
held administratively liable?
Yes. Atty. Grace is guilty of engaging in the
practice of law without the written authority
from the House of Representatives (HoR).
Canon 6 of the CPR explicitly states that the
Code applies to lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their duties. Rule 6.02
further directs them to not use their public
positions to promote or advance their private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with
their public duties. To be allowed to engage in
private practice, a government-employed
lawyer must first secure a written permission to
appear as counsel in a case.
In this case, Atty. Grace did not present any
certification or written approval from the
Secretary General of the HoR allowing her to
engage in private practice during those years.
What she merely attached were Memoranda
issued by the Secretary General allowing her to
engage in a limited practice of law subject to
conditions. Thus, the Court could only surmise
that Atty. Grace did not have the requisite
authority to engage in a limited practice of law
during the periods she filed the pleadings on
behalf of Atty. Suzy. Undoubtedly, Atty. Grace
engaged in an unauthorized practice of law in
violation not only of the CPR but pertinent laws.
(Cruz v. Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C. No. 7121, March
8, 2022, J. Hernando).
8. Atty. E is Mr. I’s counsel in an illegal dismissal
case filed against ABC Corporation. In the
course of the proceedings, the Court required
Mr. I to show cause why he should not be held
in contempt for failure to file a comment on the
petition, and to comply with the directive to file
a comment. Mr. I failed to comply with the
show cause resolution. The Court declared Mr.
I guilty of contempt of court and ordered his
arrest. However, he was not found in his stated
address. The Court resolved to require the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines to submit the
current and complete address of Atty. E, Mr. I’s
counsel of record. The IBP informed the Court
of Atty. E’s complete and current address.
However, despite resending the notices and
resolutions to Atty. E’s address, the latter failed
to comply. Atty. P of EP Law Offices reasoned
that Atty. E is presently the undersecretary of
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and
that position forced him to go on leave from the
law offices. Should Atty. E be held liable for not
complying with the Court’s directives?
4

Yes. Although Atty. E’s appointment as
undersecretary of DAR during the pendency of
the case and his inability to continue private law
practice because of conflict of interest is
recognized, this does not excuse him from
complying with his responsibility to update the
Court and the IBP of his current and complete
address and to his clients. His failure to
withdraw as counsel of record of Mr. I or even
the proper turn-over of the same to his partner
Atty. P undoubtedly shows negligence on his
part (Inter-Island Information Systems v. CA,
G.R. No. 187323, June 23, 2021, J. Hernando).
9. Atty. Plato, representing Juan, filed various
civil, criminal and administrative cases against
Atty. Aguila and Odette Montoya, such as Grave
Threats, Qualified Theft, Disbarment and
Revocation of Notarial Commission, all of which
are still pending in their respective jurisdictions.
Atty. Plato also filed a case for Perjury with
Damages, praying for Php 20,000,000.00 as
damages, against Atty. Aguila, Odette, Igor,
Leticia, Frances, Bailey, Rafael, and Franco.
Thereafter, Franco filed a Complaint against
Atty. Plato with the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP alleging that he was not a
signatory to the Sinumpaang Salaysay subject
of the Perjury with Damages case, hence, his
inclusion as defendant in the case was “not
candid nor fair.” He also alleged that the
staggering amount of damages being prayed
for was “a mockery of the legal system.” On the
other hand, Atty. Plato justified his legal
position and emphasized his intent to file,
commence and/or institute another perjury
case with damages, et. al. against Franco. May
Atty. Plato be held liable for violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath?
Yes. Atty. Plato is liable for violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath. The Lawyer’s Oath is clear that
Atty. Plato must not “wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same.” Atty. Plato's filing of several cases
against the adverse parties and their counsel
lays bare his intent to repress the opposing
counsel from exerting utmost effort in
protecting his clients' interests. The filing of
several groundless suits and the reservation of
filing another perjury suit in the future despite
the pendency of another perjury case reveal
Atty. Plato's gross indiscretion as a colleague in
the legal profession, in blatant violation of his
oath and duties as a lawyer (Pagdanganan v.
Atty. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26, 2020,
J. Hernando).
10. Atty. Karl prepared the Answer for Yas and
JayR in a civil case filed against the latter. Atty.
Karl likewise notarized the Verification, even
when only Jayr personally appeared before him
at the time he notarized the Verification. A
criminal complaint for Falsification of Public
Documents and Use of Falsified Documents was
filed by Atty. Monene as counsel for Nancy and
Regie, the complainants in the civil case. Atty.
Karl admitted that his notarial commission has
already expired in 2014. Soon, the City
Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Atty.
Karl and his co-respondents. Thereafter, Atty.
Monene filed a Petition for disbarment against
Atty. Karl for Malpractice, Dishonesty, and
Falsification of Public Document. It was found
that Atty. Karl was not in fact commissioned as
a notary public in 2014, when the civil case was
filed, in Tuguegarao City as evidenced by the
Certification from the Office of the Clerk of
Court. Atty. Karl failed to file his Answer and to
appear during the scheduled mandatory
conference. Further, Atty. Karl also failed to
submit his Position Paper as directed by the
IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline. May Atty.
Karl be held administratively liable for
committing the acts complained of?
Yes. Atty. Karl may be held administratively
liable for committing the acts complained of.
His act of making it appear that he was a duly
commissioned notary public is in blatant
disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the
laws, i.e. the Notarial Law, and to do no
falsehood. Moreover, Atty. Karl’s conduct
during the course of the administrative
proceedings manifests a blatant disregard to his
oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein." He failed to comply with the directives
of the Investigating Commissioner to submit his
Answer and Position Paper without justifiable
reason. He ignored the scheduled mandatory
conferences despite receipt of notices. These
5
acts depict his deliberate defiance to the lawful
orders of the IBP, of which he is a member.
More importantly, as an officer of the Court,
Atty. Karl ought to have known that the orders
of the IBP must be complied with promptly and
completely since it is designated by the Court
to investigate complaints against erring lawyers
like him (Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No.
12173, November 03, 2020, J. Hernando).
11. In March 2012, Koro, a Swiss national,
desired to purchase a piece of beachfront real
property located in Morong, Bataan. Atty.
Barretto claimed ownership over 800 square
meters of the said property and offered to sell
it to Koro. The latter then tendered a check as
partial payment, while Atty. Barretto gave him
a receipt for the transaction. However, no deed
of absolute sale was executed. Instead, Atty.
Barretto promised Koro to draw the deed of
absolute sale along with the land titles after
three months. After eight months, Atty.
Barretto informed Koro that he is no longer
selling the subject property. As an alternative,
Atty. Barretto proposed for sale another lot
located in the highlands. Koro rejected the offer
and demanded instead the reimbursement of
his down payment plus interests. Atty Barretto
refused, saying he needed to dispose of the
land first and promising anew to prepare a deed
of rescission of contract to sell. Are the
actuations and misrepresentations of Atty.
Barretto considered deceitful conduct?
Yes. Atty. Barretto’s actuations and
misrepresentations are considered deceitful
conduct. One's admission to the Bar is by no
means a license to gloss over the loopholes in
legislation, to hijack the legal processes, or to
manipulate the technical decisions of those
unlearned in law. Among the sworn obligations
of attorneys upon taking the Lawyer's Oath is
to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of
the land at all times, never to waver even if
vices of luxury, convenience, and worldly
excesses tempt them so. Further, a person
possessing only expectancies of ownership over
a piece of property cannot and should not
legally hold oneself out as the absolute owner
thereof. This carries heftier relevance if such a
person is one well-versed in law.
In the contract to sell that Atty. Barretto himself
submitted before the Court, Atty. Barretto
expressly named himself as the seller and
absolute owner of the subject property. The
verity of such contractual status rests upon a
single fact – that Atty. Barretto held absolute
ownership over the entire 800-square-meter
subject property at the time he offered it for
sale to Koro. The facts at hand reveal that he
did not. In taking the Lawyer's Oath, Atty.
Barretto swore "to do no falsehood, nor consent
to its commission." and above circumstances
show that he broke this honored pledge. What
Atty. Barretto had at best an inchoate right,
anchored on mere hope that the subject
property shall someday be transferred to his
name. Further, he openly blamed the trial
court's supposed delay in resolving the pending
ownership dispute over the main lot and its
eventual dismissal of the case that prejudiced
his expectancy. In doing so, Atty. Barretto
demeaned the integrity of legal processes and
tarnished the image of impartiality of the courts
that he had professionally vowed to espouse,
per Canon. Atty. Barretto is thus guilty of
deceitful conduct proscribed by Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the CPR. 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR.
(Partsch v. Atty. Vitorillo, A.C. No. 10897, Jan.
05, 2022, J. Hernando).
12. Atty. Garry had not attended the required
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third
(MCLE III) Compliance Periods yet signed
pleadings and motions in several cases on
which he indicated "MCLE Exemption II & III”.
Later, the Investigating Commissioner held that
Atty. Garry breached his oath to do no
falsehood by stating that he was exempted
from complying with the MCLE requirements
when what he really paid for was the non-
compliance fee and not any exemption fee. Did
Atty. Garry violate his sworn oath as a lawyer?
Yes. Atty. Garry violated his sworn oath as a
lawyer to "do no falsehood" as well as Canon 1,
10, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. When Atty. Garry indicated that
he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and
motions he filed, although in fact he was not,
he engaged in dishonest conduct which was
also disrespectful of the courts. He undoubtedly
6
placed his clients at risk, given that pleadings
with such false information produce no legal
effect and can result in the expunction of the
same. He did not stay true to the cause of his
clients and actually violated his duty to serve
his clients with competence and diligence.
(Turla v. Atty. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March
12, 2019, J. Hernando).
13. During the proceeding, Umay shook hands
with the opposing counsel, Atty. Nashook.
However, he was surprised when Atty. Nashook
suddenly called him a demon. He then
demanded an explanation from Atty. Nashook.
Instead of answering, Atty. Nashook, who was
sitting then, stood up from where he was
seated and tried to grab Umay from across the
table. Umay managed to move back but Atty.
Nashook still managed to scratch his neck. Atty.
Nashook then slapped Umay's left cheek. Umay
tried to move away but several others pursued
him and managed to land some punches on
him. Umay's companion, Jackie eventually
succeeded in disengaging Umay from Atty.
Nashook but not before the latter hit Umay's
right shoulder. During the commotion, the
group of Atty. Nashook was hurling invectives
and accusations at Umay. Umay suffered
bruises for several days and his right shoulder
was fractured. He also felt humiliated and
psychologically tormented after the incident. He
averred that he is now constantly in fear and
anxious for his personal safety due to the death
threats hurled at him by Atty. Nashook’s group.
Consequently, Umay filed a complaint against
Atty. Nashook with the IBP for not abiding with
the CPR. Did Atty. Nashook violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility?
Yes. Atty. Nashook clearly did not meet the lofty
standards reposed on lawyers. The Supreme
Court held that there is no excuse for such
unlawful and dishonorable behavior and that it
cannot countenance the “pugilistic behavior
and brand of vigilante justice," as it is this
Court's duty to uphold the rule of law and not
the rule of men. While Atty. Nashook can
represent his clients with zeal, he must do so
within the bounds of the law. Atty. Nashook,
being a lawyer and an officer of the court,
should know this basic principle and should
have acted accordingly as stated in Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides: “A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.”
(Roger B. Dap-Og v. Atty. Luel C. Mendez, A.C.
No. 12017, October 14, 2020, J. Hernando).
14. Ms. Lady Nagmamadali sought the service
of Atty. Groovy McGyver to perform a jurat on
a document. Sometime later, the same
document became crucial in a criminal
proceeding against Mr. Techy Technicality. Mr.
Techy Technicality argued that since the
signature on the document was printed or
scanned (digitally) it was defective on the
grounds that it goes against the Rules on
Notarial Practice which required the physical
presence of the signatory in the performance of
the notarial act. Atty. Groovy McGyver,
however, contended that he did not violate the
Rules on Notarial Practice since Ms. Lady
Nagmamadali did sign the document in his
presence but followed common practice to sign
one document and reproduce it to the desired
number of copies before notarization. Did Atty.
Groovy McGyver violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Yes, Atty. Groovy McGyver failed to adhere to
Canon 1 of the CPR, which requires every
lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for the
law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
and deceitful conduct. Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless routinary act, but one
invested with substantive public interest.
Notarization converts a private document into a
public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. It is for this reason that a notary
public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his notarial
duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the
integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined. (Kiener v. Atty. Amores, A.C. No.
9417, November 18, 2020, J. Hernando).
7
15. Atty. Leo filed a civil complaint on behalf of
Irish and Ana without the knowledge and
authorization of the latter. When Irish learned
of such, she filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Leo. Atty. Leo admitted that he
learned about the civil case thru a disbarred
lawyer, Benedict, with whom he had previous
collaborations; that his details were still being
used by Benedict’s office because before, he
allowed them to sign for him on “minor”
pleadings. Atty. Leo likewise admitted that said
office had been using his signature/details
without his authority. Can Atty. Leo be held
administratively liable for delegating to another
person the work of lawyers?
Yes. Atty. Leo can be held administratively
liable. The preparation and signing of a
pleading constitute legal work involving
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for
the members of the legal profession. Counsel
may delegate the signing of a pleading to
another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one
who is not. Thus, there is no question that by
delegating to someone else the work that is
reserved only for lawyers, Atty. Leo violated
Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit: A lawyer
shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only
be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing (Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No.
10408, October 16, 2019, J. Hernando).
16. Atty. Renejay borrowed money from Boss
Tryke and issued a post-dated check in order to
convince the latter. However, the check was
dishonored because the account was closed.
Atty. Renejay then offered as a payment his
Mercedes Benz and executed a deed of sale.
But Atty. Renejay failed to give the original
Certificate of Registration of the car and turn
over the physical possession of the car. When
Boss Tryke instituted criminal and
administrative proceedings against Atty.
Renejay, the latter failed to file an answer and
attend the mandatory conference before the
IBP. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found
Atty. Renejay guilty of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended
that the same be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year. Did Atty.
Renejay act in utmost bad faith when he sold
to another person the car he previously sold to
Boss Tryke as full payment for the loan
obligation? Is it a violation of CPR?
Yes. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the CPR state a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct and 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. Lawyers,
as guardians of the law, are mandated to obey
and respect the laws of the land and to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
They should at all times, whether in their public
or private life, "conduct themselves in a manner
that reflects the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility." Thus, they should
not engage in any unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Here, aside from issuing a worthless check,
Atty. Renejay has acted in utmost bad faith
when he sold to another person the car he
previously sold to Boss Tryke as full payment
for the loan obligation. Such act is a clear
violation of the CPR as it exhibited a deceitful
conduct that shows his lack of honesty and
good moral character. The IBP should suspend
Atty. Renejay from the practice of the law for 3
years. (Andaya v. Atty. Tumanda, A.C. No.
12209, February 18, 2020, J. Hernando).
17. Atty. Stop filed a Complaint for Falsification
and Perjury, and for violation of Canons 8, 10,
and 11 of the CPR against Atty. Tooreal before
the IBP. Atty. Stop claimed that Atty. Tooreal
maliciously charged him with deliberate
misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Apparently, Atty. Tooreal alleged that Atty.
Stop's associate in the law office
misrepresented the date of receipt of the Notice
of Appealed Case in a Civil Case to supposedly
mislead the RTC that the law office timely filed
its Memorandum of Appeal. Atty. Tooreal filed
a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint
which charged Atty. Stop with violations of
Section 20(b) and (f), Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, and of Canon 11 as well as Rules 11.03
8
and 11.04 of the CPR. In response, Atty. Stop
filed a Sur-Rejoinder and Motion for Severance.
Significantly, a day before Atty. Tooreal filed his
Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint,
Atty. Tooreal's client, Chaknu, initiated a
Complaint for grave professional misconduct
against Atty. Stop. Did Atty. Tooreal willfully
committed forum shopping when he instituted
two actions grounded on the same cause, even
if strictly speaking, he was not included as a
"complainant" in Chaknu's Complaint? Is the act
of forum shopping in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Yes. Atty. Tooreal willfully committed forum
shopping when he instituted two actions
grounded on the same cause, even if strictly
speaking, he was not included as a
"complainant" in Chaknu's Complaint. This is
because he prepared and filed both
administrative actions with full knowledge that
they have the same cause of action and
contained nearly exactly the same allegations.
Simply put, the outcome in one case would
necessarily have an effect in the other since
both cases share the same cause of action and
involve the same parties.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another. This act is in violation of
Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides that "a lawyer
shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause," while Rule 12.04 states that "a
lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede
the execution of a judgment or misuse Court
processes”. Thus, Atty. Tooreal's commission of
forum shopping is an adequate basis to hold
him liable for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and
the CPR. (Go v. Teruel, A.C. No. 11119,
November 4, 2020, J. Hernando).
18. Atty. Rio filed a civil complaint on behalf of
Rupert and Feliz without the knowledge and
authorization of the latter. When Rupert got
wind of such, he filed a Manifestation with the
RTC stating that neither he nor Feliz authorized
Atty. Rio to file the aforementioned case. Atty.
Rio did not attend the hearing of Rupert’s
Manifestation. Hence, Rupert filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rio. Atty.
Rio submitted several Comments on the
Complaint in which he presented a different
version each time he submitted a Comment.
The RTC eventually dismissed the Complaint, it
being deemed not filed by the proper party in
interest. May Atty. Rio be held administratively
liable for the filing of the civil complaint before
the RTC despite the absence of Rupert and
Feliz’ authorization?
Yes. Atty. Rio may be held administratively
liable. As it turned out, the RTC eventually
dismissed the complaint after it was established
thru the Manifestation filed by Rupert that it
was not filed by the real party-in-interest or by
the duly authorized representative. Thus, Atty.
Rio violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10, when he
committed a falsehood, or consented to the
doing of any in court. He not only misled the
RTC but likewise wasted its precious time and
resources (Petelo v. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No.
10408, October 16, 2019, J. Hernando).
19. Spouses Migs and Lex owned several
properties. When Lex died, Migs married Atty.
Trix. Later, Migs died and the properties
remained undivided and no extrajudicial
partition was executed by the heirs. Later,
Andrei and Drea, children of Migs and Lex,
discovered that the properties were subjects of
an expropriation case, which Atty. Trix is aware
of. Atty. Trix represented her family as the
alleged sole heirs which Andrei and Drea
allegedly are not aware of. Atty. Trix asserted
that the properties are her share in the
inheritance from her late husband, Migs, as
stated in a letter written by Migs. Atty. Trix also
claimed that the properties were already under
her administration even while Migs was still
alive. Are the acts of Atty. Trix disrespectful to
the courts and legal profession given the
representation and statements she made?
Yes. Atty. Trix utterly disregarded and
disrespected the courts and legal profession.
Her acts do not only speak of grave misconduct,
but are also tantamount to deception,
falsehood, and misuse of court processes. It is
therefore clear that she transgressed Canons 1,
9
7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01,
10.02, and 10.03 of the CPR. The letter was a
mere proposal to partition the properties, there
was no final agreement on the respective
shares. Atty. Trix ought to know that a mere
letter indicating the prospective shares of the
heirs is not equivalent to a legal partition or
settlement of the estate. She intentionally and
deliberately made untruthful statements to
make it appear she already owned the
properties through inheritance. Hence, there is
a clear violation of the CPR for a conduct that
is tantamount to deception and falsehood
before the court. (Cruz v. Atty. Brul-Cruz, A.C.
No. 7121, March 8, 2022, J. Hernando).
20. Selena Goma, in her personal capacity, filed
a complaint for annulment of foreclosure
proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer
certificate of title against Gogolife. Despite the
foregoing, Atty. Hailey Bailey, as counsel of
Selena, filed multiple actions in different courts
which constituted unlawful conduct as an
officer of the court. Atty. Bailey filed a
complaint before the RTC for reconveyance and
annulment of title which failed to state that his
client had already commenced an action for the
same subject property between the same
parties and the same issues. Further, his client
filed, through his assistance, another false
certification for Petition for Contempt before
another branch of the RTC. Hence, Gogolife,
represented by Justin Beb, filed a Complaint for
Disbarment against Atty. Bailey. Did Atty. Bailey
commit any violation under the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
Yes. Atty. Bailey violated Canon 1 of the CPR
which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. Here, Atty. Bailey committed forum
shopping. 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. In
engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Bailey
violated Canon 1 of the CPR which directs
lawyers to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal
processes. He also disregarded his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice, and the prohibition against unduly
delaying a case by misusing court processes
(Villanueva vs. Atty Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161,
June 08, 2020, J. Hernando).
21. Atty. Siargao was contracted to handle the
annulment of Edith’s marriage to her husband,
Frankie. Atty. Siargao agreed to represent her
for a total fee of Php 70,000. She previously
paid Atty. Siargao Php 50,000. During a
subsequent meeting, Edith paid another PhP
7,000.00 to Atty. Siargao who did not issue any
receipt this time reasoning that the amount
would be used as filing fees and representation
expenses for the sheriff. After receipt of a total
sum of PhP 57,000.00 from the complainant,
Atty. Siargao avoided her phone calls and
canceled their appointments. Atty. Siargao
limited his communication with her through text
messages only. Despite several demands from
her, Atty. Siargao did not file the petition. Does
the conversion of the money received by the
Counsel from Edith without filing the petition for
annulment of marriage, let alone further the
cause of his client and represent her in court,
constitute a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Yes. Atty. Siargao is guilty of professional
misconduct for violating Canons 16, 17, and 18
of the CPR when he converted the money
received by him from Edith without filing the
petition for annulment of marriage, let alone
further the cause of his client and represent her
in court. Once a lawyer agrees to represent a
client, he/she is duty-bound to exert his/her
best effort and to serve the latter with utmost
diligence and competence. A lawyer owes
fidelity to his/her client's cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed upon him/her. A lawyer's neglect of a
legal matter entrusted to him/her by his/her
client constitutes inexcusable negligence for
which he/she must be held administratively
liable. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
The Counsel breached his duties to his client
when he failed to exercise due diligence in
handling the annulment case of complainant .
Also, the law also dictates that a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client
10
when due or upon demand. Hence, Atty.
Siargao also violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01
and 16.03, and Canon 17 when he failed to
return the amount upon Edith's demand
(Francia v. Sagario, A.C. No. 10938, October 8,
2019, J. Hernando).
22. Carlos filed a disbarment complaint against
Atty. Pavia for representing conflicting
interests. He was introduced by his wife, Leona,
to Atty. Pavia. In several transactions which
involved either Carlos alone or both spouses,
Atty. Pavia served as Carlos’ counsel. According
to Carlos, a friendship had also developed
between him and Atty. Pavia, as he had
confided on details regarding his personal life
and marriage. Thereafter, Carlos was suddenly
served with a subpoena from the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City requiring him to
attend the preliminary investigation hearings of
the Criminal Complaint for Concubinage,
Physical Injury, and Threat, in relation to R.A.
No. 9262 that was filed against him by Leona.
He also received Summons with the attached
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
filed by Leona, through her counsel, Atty. Pavia.
However, Atty. Pavia denied that Carlos
confided to him about his personal life. He
likewise contended that there was no standing
attorney-client relationship between him and
Carlos, since he only rendered intermittent
professional services to the spouses, which all
related to Carlos’ businesses. Did Atty. Pavia
violate the lawyer’s duty to protect the
confidences of his client?
No. Canon 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall
preserve the confidences and secrets of his
client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated. It is settled that the mere relation
of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. Proof must be
presented that the client intended the
communication to be confidential. Here, Carlos
failed to establish that Atty. Pavia has
confidential information which the latter
acquired through their previous employment
which can be used against him in the pending
civil and criminal proceedings instituted by
Leona. Carlos made bare allegations that were
unsubstantiated by any piece of evidence and
disputed by Atty. Pavia (Parungao v. Lacuanan,
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020, J. Hernando).
23. Atty. Pogi was the lawyer for the accused
in a kidnapping case and Attys. Gwapo and
Mabait were the private prosecutors in the
same case. As the kidnapping case was
dismissed, Atty. Pogi charged Attys. Gwapo and
Mabait with pursuing a dismissed case, and for
filing a disbarment complaint against him
grounded on suspicion. Atty. Pogi also
impleaded Attys. Matalino and Masipag, the
attorneys representing Atty. Gwapo in the
latter’s disbarment cases, as respondents in the
complaint, since they allegedly conspired with
Attys. Gwapo and Mabait in filing a disbarment
case against him. Did Attys. Matalino and
Masipag violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility in representing Atty. Gwapo in
the latter’s disbarment cases?
No. Atty. Matalino and Atty. Masipag did not
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility
as they were merely protecting Atty. Gwapo’s
interests. The Court has ruled that a lawyer
owes entire devotion to the interest of his
client, warmth and zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his rights and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability, to the end that
nothing can be taken or withheld from his client
except in accordance with the law. He should
present every remedy or defense authorized by
the law in support of his client’s cause,
regardless of his own personal views. In the full
discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer
should not be afraid of the possibility that he
may displease the judge or the general public.
(Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, July 8,
2020, J. Hernando).
24. Sometime in March 2003, Atty. Lustres
engaged the services of Atty. Presswoman as
counsel in a civil case for the Annulment of
Extrajudicial Proceedings. The case involved a
house and lot registered in the name of Liza
Hope Soberana (Soberana) who previously
obtained a loan from Eduardo Manzanas
(Manzanas). As security for the loan, Soberana
executed a Real Estate Mortgage over the
property and a Promissory Note and
Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney in favor
11
of Manzanas. As Soberana failed to pay the
amount of the loan on maturity date, Manzanas
executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Atty.
Lustres and Atty. Presswoman, ceding all his
rights and interests under the Real Estate
Mortgage, Promissory Note and Irrevocable
Special Power of Attorney. When Soberana
failed to redeem the property despite oral and
written demand, Attys. Lustres and
Presswoman filed the above-mentioned
Extrajudicial Foreclosure Proceedings. The
counsel of Soberana then manifested before
the RTC that Atty. Presswoman executed a
sworn statement disclosing matters confided
during the course of lawyer-client relationship.
a) Was there an existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between Atty. Lustres and
Atty. Presswoman?
b) Did Atty. Presswoman violate the rule on
privileged communication between
attorney and client when he executed the
subject sworn statement?
c) Did Atty. Presswoman represent conflicting
interests in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
a) Yes. It is settled that a lawyer-client
relationship begins from the moment a client
seeks the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern.
The seeking may be for consultation on
transactions or other legal concerns, or for
representation of the client in an actual case in
the courts or other fora. From that moment on,
the lawyer is bound to respect the relationship
and to maintain the trust and confidence of his
client. As it were, Atty. Lustres went to the
office of Atty. Presswoman, who, incidentally, is
also considered a friend, to disclose sensitive
information and documents for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice. Thus, the moment Atty.
Lustres approached Atty. Presswoman to seek
legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client
relationship evolved between the two. Likewise,
a lawyer-client relationship exists
notwithstanding the personal relationship
between Atty. Lustres and Atty. Presswoman.
At this point, the relationship between them
imposed upon Atty. Presswoman has certain
restrictions circumscribed by the profession.
Notwithstanding the fact that Atty. Presswoman
may have initially dispensed legal advice to
Atty. Lustres as a personal favor, he was still
duty-bound to preserve and protect the
personal, confidential and fiduciary relation
established between them.
b) Yes. Atty. Presswoman violated the rule on
privileged communication. Under Section 20(e),
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it provides that
it is the duty of the attorney to maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection
with his client's business except from him or
with his knowledge and approval. The purpose
of the rule of confidentiality is to protect the
client from possible breach of confidence as a
result of a consultation with a lawyer and
preserve the confidential and trust relation
which exists between attorney and client. Atty.
Presswoman indeed breached his duty of
preserving the confidence of a client when the
contents of his sworn statement contained
information revealed to him in confidence by
the complainant during a lawyer--client
relationship. By executing the sworn statement
alone, he breached his obligation to maintain
the confidence reposed on him and to preserve
the secrets of the complainant.
c) Yes. Atty. Presswoman represented
conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the CPR which provides that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. There
is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two opposing parties,
like when the lawyer performs an act that will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represented him, or when the lawyer
uses any knowledge he previously acquired
from his first client against the latter. The
prohibition against conflict of interest is
founded on principles of public policy and good
taste, inasmuch as the lawyer-client
relationship is based on trust and confidence. A
lawyer has a duty to preserve his client's
confidence in him, even if their relationship
ends. The purpose is to assure freedom of
communication between the lawyer and the
client in order to enable the former to properly
represent and serve the latter's interests. To
use against the latter any information the
12
former gains during the relationship is
deplorable and unethical. As counsel for Atty.
Lustres in the Civil Case, Atty. Presswoman
advocated the validity and due execution of the
Deed of Assignment upon which Atty. Lustres'
interest over the real estate mortgage is based.
On the other hand, the sworn statement of
Atty. Presswoman refuted Atty. Lustres' claim
that the Deed of Assignment was executed with
a valid consideration, which necessarily
jeopardized and prejudiced the latter's interest,
clearly shows he violated the rule against
conflict of interest (Constantino v. Aransazo Jr.,
A.C. No. 9701, Feb. 10, 2021, J. Hernando).
25. James Kim alleged that he is a member-
consumer of Koomy, which provides electric
services to the Province of Laguna. Having been
elected as director by member-consumers of
District III, James Kim insisted that Atty. Justin
Lee failed to advance their interests, and as
such, had no regard for professionalism, ethics,
integrity, and "delicadeza" when he
represented the accused members of the Board
of Directors and management staff in the
proceedings before the National Electrification
Administration (NEA). On his part, Atty. Justin
Lee admitted that the accused members of the
Board of Directors consulted with him and
sought his legal services in connection with the
administrative complaint filed by James Kim
with the NEA. Atty. Justin Lee then drafted,
prepared, and signed their answer to the NEA
complaint, and appeared as
counsel/collaborating counsel for them in the
same case during the preliminary conferences
before the NEA. Atty. Justin Lee argued that
there existed no lawyer-client relationship
between him and James Kim, considering that
James Kim, at no instance in the past, obtained
his legal advice or sought consultation on any
legal matter arising from the pending NEA
complaint and/or the NEA Comprehensive
Operations Audit. Atty. Justin Lee explained
that, as Koomy director, he is mandated to
represent not only the member-consumers of
District III, but also the entire membership of
Koomy. Did Atty. Justin Lee violate the rules on
Conflict of Interest as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
No. In determining whether a lawyer is guilty of
violating the rules on conflict of interest under
the CPR, it is essential to determine whether:
(1) a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue
or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same
time, to oppose that claim for the other client;
(2) the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty;and (3)
a lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment. Here,
Atty. Justin Lee assumed the dual role of a
director and lawyer of Koomy. There is an
absence of an attorney-client relationship
between Atty. Justin Lee and James Kim which
is an essential element of Justin Lee's defense
to the charge of conflict of interest. Hence,
there are no conflicting interests (Burgos v.
Atty. Bereber, A.C. No. 12666, March 04, 2020,
J. Hernando).
26. Essentials Inc. filed a complaint for
disbarment of Atty. Dean before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that Atty.
Dean is in violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Essentials Inc.
claimed that Atty. Dean refused to return the
copies of transfer certificates of title and other
various documents. Atty. Dean contended that
the majority of those titles were already
returned to Essentials Inc. The IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Dean
should be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of six months. Can Atty. Dean claim
that he is merely exercising his right to withhold
on the ground of exercising retaining lien for
unpaid fees, without the consent of Essentials
Inc.? Decide.
No. Essentials Inc.’s consent should be
obtained first for the application of its property
to the unpaid fees. A lawyer cannot unilaterally
appropriate his client’s property. The lien
covers documents such as titles and other
pertinent papers. In this relation, the Court has
long held that a lawyer is not entitled to
unilaterally appropriate his client's money, as
well as properties and documents, for himself
13
by the mere fact that he is owed legal fees. It
is essential that the client consent to the
application of his property or funds to the legal
fees, in which case the lawyer may deduct what
is due him and return the excess to the
client.Absent the client's consent, the lawyer
must return the funds to the client, without
prejudice to the filing of a case to recover the
unpaid fees. Here, there is no proof that
Essentials Inc. gave consent to Atty. Dean’s
withholding of the titles to satisfy the unpaid
legal fees. Therefore, Atty. Dean act is in
violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Home Guaranty
Corporation v. Atty. Tagayuna, Atty. Gangan,
Atty. Panopio, and Atty. De Pano, Jr., A.C. No.
13131, February 23, 2022, J. Hernando).
27. Atty. Richboi convinced Mapaniwala to form
a lending company. Atty. Richboi said he would
be the one to register and take care of the initial
documents needed to run the company. In
order to run the company however, the pair
needed additional funds and resorted to obtain
a loan from Mr. Yayamanin Aquo, which Atty.
Richboi received and delivered to Mapaniwala.
Later on, Atty. Richboi asked Mapaniwala to
issue a post-dated check to pay off the loan.
For reasons unknown, Atty. Richboi left the
company and joined Yayamin Aquo’s own
company doing the same type of business. To
make matters worse, Atty. Richboi served
Mapaniwala a demand letter on behalf of Mr.
Yayamin Aquo for the full payment of the loan,
plus interest. Furious, Mapaniwala filed a case
against Atty. Richboi with IBP for representing
conflicting interests. Atty. Richboi retorted that
his scope of work was merely incorporating the
business of Mapaniwala. Further, he argued
that he had no share in the company of Mr.
Yayamin Aquo but was only acting as a
consultant. Did Atty. Richboi violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he decided to
join Mr. Yayamin Aquo’s company as a
consultant?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that there is
conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. 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. To determine whether a
conflict of interests exists, it is necessary to first
ascertain whether a lawyer-client relationship
existed between Atty. Richboi and Mapaniwala
on one hand, and Mr. Yayamanin Aquo on the
other. In this case, there can be no denying that
a lawyer-client relationship existed between
both groups even without any express or
written agreement or arrangement as to
attorney's fees. Atty. Richboi’s argument that
his participation was limited only to the
incorporation of the lending company, is
misplaced. It must be stressed that in the
course of the incorporation, he directly dealt
with Mapaniwala as owner of the company;
conversely, Mapaniwala definitely made
consultations with him on legal matters
pertaining to the incorporation and operation of
the lending business. In turn, Atty. Richboi
learned of confidential information from
Mapaniwala. In fine, a lawyer-client relationship
existed between them. Further, Atty. Richboi
expressly admitted that Mr. Yayamin Aquo was
also his client. Thus, his action is a direct
violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which states that
“A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.” (Adelita S. Villamor v. Atty. Elly Galland
Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, December 09, 2020,
J. Hernando).
28. Dario is involved in a complaint for
injunction and damages wherein he was
represented by Atty. Bruno. Atty. Bruno
informed Dario that he filed a memorandum in
response to the case before the RTC of Imus,
however, Dario was shocked when a copy of a
14
notice to comply with the writ of execution was
served upon him, discovering for the first time
that a judgment has already been rendered.
Dario claims that Atty. Bruno did not inform him
that he received a copy of the decision and
failed to act upon and inform him of the status
of the case. Atty. Bruno told Dario that there
was nothing more that he could do about the
case. Is Atty. Bruno grossly negligent of his
duty as counsel?
Yes. Atty. Bruno was grossly negligent of his
duty as counsel and was manifestly
disinterested in his client's cause. A lawyer is
duty-bound to serve his client with
competence, and to attend to his client's cause
with diligence, care and devotion. This is
because a lawyer owes fidelity to his client's
cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed on him. Unfortunately,
Atty. Bruno did not even bother to inform Dario
about the developments in the civil case or his
incapacity to continue as counsel. Atty. Bruno's
unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of
his client's cause violated the Lawyer's Oath as
well as the CPR. He casually set aside a legal
matter that was entrusted to him and which
deserved his full attention and diligence. Thus,
Atty. Bruno committed transgressions not only
against his client but the IBP and the Court as
well. (Portuguese Jr. v. Atty. Centro, A.C. No.
12875, January 26, 2021, J. Hernando).
29. Atty. Dean & Atty. Rommel are partners at
the Cruz, De Guzman & Santos Law Offices
(“Law Firm”). Essentials Inc. engaged with Sky
Collection Agency (“SCA”), which was
represented by Atty. Rommel jointly with the
Law Firm. In August 2008, Essentials Inc. and
SCA jointly with the Law Firm entered into a
Collection Retainership Agreement. According
to Essentials Inc., the agreement was renewed
annually until they mutually decided to end it in
July 2012. In February 2014, Atty. Dean, an
officer at Dream Construction and Development
Corp. (“DCDC”), filed a case against Essentials
Inc. before the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission. Essentials Inc. claimed
that Atty. Dean violated the conflict of interest
rule as provided in Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. However, the
Collection Retainership Agreement was never
extended until 2012 and Atty. Dean did not
serve as a counsel when the arbitration case
was filed. Is Atty. Dean in violation of Canon
15?
No. Atty. Dean did not violate Canon 15.
There are three (3) tests to determine whether
or not a lawyer violated the conflict of interest
rule:
1. “If the lawyer represents both opposing
parties in an issue or claim” – In this
scenario, Atty. Dean did not represent
conflicting interests. The Law Firm did not
represent DCDC as a counsel in the
arbitration case. Also, the Law Firm and
SCA were engaged by Essentials Inc. for
collection purposes only, and not for
arbitration cases and that the Law Firm is
no longer the counsel of Essentials Inc. at
the time of the filing of the arbitration case.
2. “If the acceptance of a new relation or
engagement will prevent the lawyer from
faithfully performing his duties to a client”
– This is not relevant in this case as there
is no evidence showing that DCDC is a new
client of the Law Firm.
3. “If the lawyer, in a new relation, would be
called upon to use against a former client
any confidential information he has
acquired through their connection or
previous employment” – In this case, the
Law Firm was only engaged for collection
purposes. There is no new relation as DCDC
is not a client of the Law Firm. Essentials
Inc. merely made allegations that Atty.
Dean represented DCDC while being
engaged as its counsel.
Here, Atty. Dean is no longer a counsel when
the arbitration case is filed. The Collection
Retainership Agreement expired in July 2012,
and was never renewed, while the arbitration
case was filed in February 2014. Considering
the foregoing, Atty. Dean did not represent
both opposing parties in an issue or claim,
particularly the arbitration case.
15

Thus, Atty. Dean did not violate the conflict of
interest rule (Home Guaranty Corporation v.
Atty. Tagayuna, A.C. No. 13131, February 23,
2022, J. Hernando).
30. Spouses Delos Reyes filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Mario. They alleged in their
complaint that he violated the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Does Atty. Mario enjoy the presumption of
innocence in the disbarment case?
Yes. Considering the gravity of the
consequences of disbarment or suspension of a
lawyer, the Court has consistently ruled that a
lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to satisfactorily prove the
allegations in his/her complaint through
substantial evidence. (Spouses Nocuenca v.
Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020, J.
Hernando).
31. Atty. Fidel was suspended from the practice
of law for two years for representing conflicting
interests. Thereafter, he filed a Motion to
Reduce Penalty. He moved for the reduction of
his penalty, either to a stern warning or a two-
month suspension. In his Motion, he admitted
to his faults and stated that he may have been
incapable to spot the beginnings of attorney-
client relationships and conflicting interests.
Atty. Fidel further showed his remorse in his
words and actions. May Atty. Fidel’s penalty be
fully reduced as he desires?
No. Atty. Fidel’s penalty may be reduced but not
to the full extent that he desires. Lawyers can
never effectively claim legal ignorance. The
violation of one’s oath as a lawyer is a
permanent dent on one’s record. Here, Atty.
Fidel’s misdeeds have put the image of the Bar
and its members in some degree of
embarrassment. He may have been forgiven by
his complainant, but the disrepute to the legal
profession that he had caused cannot simply be
repaired by a mere warning or serving a short-
lived suspension from law practice (Villamor v.
Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, February 15, 2022, J.
Hernando).
32. Complainant Manny filed an administrative
case for Grave Misconduct against Attys.
Bundang, Salas, Golamco, and Abad, officers of
the Office of the Ombudsman, for their
recommendation of the dismissal of Manny’s
Complaint-Affidavits and the denial of the
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration against
Zara and Albert, the former and incumbent
Mayors, respectively, of the Municipality of
Virac, Catanduanes. The resolutions issued by
respondents readily shows that they sufficiently
presented the factual and legal bases for the
dismissal of Manny’s charges against Zara and
Albert. On the other hand, Manny alleged that
the respondents maliciously failed to
follow/observe the standards of personal
conduct provided under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A.
6770 in the discharge and execution of their
official duties for failing and/or refusing to
investigate in the real sense of the word, the
charges against Zara and Albert. May the
complaint for Gross Misconduct be dismissed on
the basis that the respondents enjoy the
presumption of innocence in disbarment cases?
Yes. The complaint for Gross Misconduct may
be dismissed. It is settled that in disbarment
and suspension proceedings against lawyers in
this jurisdiction, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant. Thus, the Supreme Court has
held that "in consideration of the gravity of the
consequences of the disbarment or suspension
of a member of the bar, we have consistently
held that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant to satisfactorily prove the
allegations in his complaint through substantial
evidence." A complainant's failure to dispense
the same standard of proof requires no other
conclusion than that which stays the hand of
the Court from meting out a disbarment or
suspension order. In the case at bar, there is
an absolute dearth of evidence of the
respondents' alleged Gross Misconduct. Other
than his bare allegations, the complainant was
unable to present proof to substantiate his
grave charges against respondents. In contrast,
respondents enjoy, absent any evidence to the
contrary, the presumption that they had
16
regularly performed their official duties (Tablizo
v. Attys. Golangco, et. al., A.C. No. 10636,
October 12, 2020, J. Hernando).
33. Complainant Manny filed an administrative
case for Grave Misconduct against Attys.
Bundang, Salas, Golamco, and Abad, officers of
the Office of the Ombudsman, for their
recommendation of the dismissal of Manny’s
Complaint-Affidavits and the denial of the
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration against
Zara and Albert, the former and incumbent
Mayors, respectively, of the Municipality of
Virac, Catanduanes. The resolutions issued by
respondents readily show that they sufficiently
presented the factual and legal bases for the
dismissal of Manny’s charges against Zara and
Albert. On the other hand, Manny alleged that
the respondents maliciously failed to
follow/observe the standards of personal
conduct provided under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A.
6770 in the discharge and execution of their
official duties for failing and/or refusing to
investigate in the real sense of the word, the
charges against Zara and Albert. Was Manny’s
immediate filing of an administrative case
against the respondents the proper remedy?
No. The filing of the administrative case against
the respondents was not the proper remedy.
The declaration of the Court in administrative
matters involving judges may be applied by
analogy herein which states that "An
administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available,
such as a motion for reconsideration, an
appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the
assailed order or decision is tainted with bad
faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty." Thus, if the
complainant really believed that respondents
committed reversible errors in judgment or
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
Consolidated Resolution and Consolidated
Resolution - MR, the remedy would have been
to seek judicial review of the same, and not
through a disciplinary case against the
respondents. (Tablizo v. Attys. Golangco, et.
al., A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020, J.
Hernando).
34. Atty. Pogi was the lawyer for the accused
in a kidnapping case and Atty. Gwapo and Atty.
Mabait were the private prosecutors in the
same case. As the kidnapping case was
dismissed, Atty. Pogi charged Attys. Gwapo and
Mabait with pursuing a dismissed case, and for
filing a disbarment complaint against him
grounded on suspicion. Atty. Pogi also
impleaded Attys. Matalino and Masipag, the
attorneys representing Atty. Gwapo in the
latter’s disbarment cases, as respondents in the
complaint, since they allegedly conspired with
Attys. Gwapo and Mabait in filing a disbarment
case against him. Should the disbarment
complaint prosper?
No. The Court has enunciated that as a rule, it
exercises the power to disbar with caution.
Being the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction, it is imposed only for the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and a member of the bar. Here, Atty. Pogi failed
to present substantial evidence to show that
herein respondents violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Perito v. Baterina,
A.C. No. 12631, July 8, 2020, J. Hernando).
35. Selena Goma, in her personal capacity, filed
a complaint for annulment of foreclosure
proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer
certificate of title against Gogolife. Despite the
foregoing, Atty. Hailey Bailey, as counsel of
Selena, filed multiple actions in different courts
which constituted unlawful conduct as an
officer of the court. Atty. Bailey filed a
complaint before the RTC for reconveyance and
annulment of title which failed to state that his
client had already commenced an action for the
same subject property between the same
parties and the same issues. Further, his client
filed, through his assistance, another false
certification for Petition for Contempt before
another branch of the RTC. Hence, Gogolife,
represented by Justin Beb, filed a Complaint for
Disbarment against Atty. Bailey. Does Justin
Beb have the authority to file the disbarment
case?
Yes. Justin Beb, as a complainant in a
disbarment case who is not a direct party to the
case, is a witness who brought the matter to
17
the attention of the Court. The Court may
conduct its own investigation into charges
against members of the bar, irrespective of the
form of initiatory complaints brought before it.
There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The
real question for determination in these
proceedings is whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of
a member of the bar. In fact, the person who
called the attention of the court to a lawyer's
misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally
has no interest in the outcome. The right to
institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the
person complaining suffered injury from the
alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings
are matters of public interest and the only basis
for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof
of the charges (Villanueva vs. Atty Alentajan,
A.C. No. 12161, June 08, 2020, J. Hernando).
36. Mrs. Paylan Ngcase filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Medyo Pasaway for
violation of the Supreme Court’s directive
suspending him from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year. Atty. Medyo Pasaway
entered his appearance in the said case as
private prosecutor on behalf of the common-
law wife. She complained that Atty. Medyo
Pasaway entered his appearance and filed
pleadings in court while he was suspended from
the practice of law. The IBP recommended that
Atty. Medyo Pasaway be meted the penalty of
suspension for another year from the practice
of law for his unauthorized practice of law. Is it
proper for the Court to impose the disbarment
penalty upon the disbarred lawyer? If not, then
what may the Court consider for the acts he
committed?
No. Considering that Atty. Pasaway has already
been disbarred, this penalty of disbarment can
no longer be imposed but nevertheless should
be considered in the event that he should apply
for the lifting of his disbarment. It can still give
the corresponding penalty only for the sole
purpose of recording it in his personal file with
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which
should be taken into consideration in the event
that the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a
petition to lift his disbarment. In addition, the
Court may also impose a fine upon a disbarred
lawyer found to have committed an offense
prior to his/her disbarment as the Court does
not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over other
offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while
he/she was still a member of the Law
Profession. By imposing a fine, the Court is able
to assert its authority and competence to
discipline all acts and actuations committed by
the members of the Legal Profession.
(Valmonte v. Atty. Quesada, A.C. No. 12487.
December 4, 2019, J. Hernando).
37. Complainant Manny filed an administrative
case for Grave Misconduct against Attys.
Bundang, Salas, Golamco, and Abad, officers of
the Office of the Ombudsman, for their
recommendation of the dismissal of Manny’s
Complaint-Affidavits and the denial of the
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration against
Zara and Albert, the former and incumbent
Mayors, respectively, of the Municipality of
Virac, Catanduanes. The resolutions issued by
respondents readily shows that they sufficiently
presented the factual and legal bases for the
dismissal of Manny’s charges against Zara and
Albert. On the other hand, Manny alleged that
the respondents maliciously failed to
follow/observe the standards of personal
conduct provided under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A.
6770 in the discharge and execution of their
official duties for failing and/or refusing to
investigate in the real sense of the word, the
charges against Zara and Albert. May Attys.
Bundang, Salas, Golamco, and Abad be held
liable for Gross Misconduct?
No. Attys. Bundang, Salas, Golamco, and Abad
may not be held liable for Gross Misconduct.
Gross misconduct is punishable by either
disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law, as provided under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. It has been defined as "any
inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful
conduct on the part of a person concerned with
the administration of justice; i.e., conduct
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. The motive
behind this conduct is generally a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose." Here, respondent lawyers enjoy,
absent any evidence to the contrary, the
18
presumption that they had regularly performed
their official duties as officers of the Office of
the Ombudsman, when they resolved the OMB
Cases. Furthermore, the Consolidated
Resolution and Consolidated Resolution - MR
issued by respondents readily shows that they
sufficiently presented the factual and legal
bases for the dismissal of complainant’s
charges against Zara and Albert. Therefore, it
cannot be argued that the subject Resolutions
were completely arbitrary, capricious, or
groundless (Tablizo v. Attys. Golangco, et. al.,
A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020, J.
Hernando).
38. Atty. Plato, representing Juan, filed various
civil, criminal and administrative cases against
Atty. Aguila and Odette Montoya, such as Grave
Threats, Qualified Theft, Disbarment and
Revocation of Notarial Commission, all of which
are still pending in their respective jurisdictions.
Atty. Plato also filed a case for Perjury with
Damages, praying for Php. 20,000,000.00 as
damages, against Atty. Aguila, Odette, Igor,
Leticia, Frances, Bailey, Rafael, and Franco.
Thereafter, Franco filed a Complaint against
Atty. Plato with the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP alleging that he was not a
signatory to the Sinumpaang Salaysay subject
of the Perjury with Damages case, hence, his
inclusion as defendant in the case was “not
candid nor fair.” He also alleged that the
staggering amount of damages being prayed
for was “a mockery of the legal system.” On the
other hand, Atty. Plato justified his legal
position and emphasized his intent to file,
commence and/or institute another perjury
case with damages, et. al. against Franco. Is
Atty. Plato guilty of misconduct?
Yes. Atty. Plato is guilty of misconduct. Gross
misconduct has been defined as any
inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly unlawful
conduct on the part of the person involved in
the administration of justice, conduct that is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. Such conduct
is generally motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose, but does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.
Applying Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, Atty. Plato’s acts are inexcusable,
shameful and flagrantly unlawful, all of which
were clearly motivated by an intentional
purpose to harass and intimidate Franco.
(Pagdanganan v. Atty. Plata, A.C. No. 12701,
February 26, 2020, J. Hernando).
39. Tom was offered voluntary resignation with
separation pay due to several violations, but he
opted for an early retirement which was
approved by Atty. Lito, the company’s president
and general manager. However, Tom filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and a disbarment
case against Atty. Lito, Atty. Raul as the
corporate secretary, and one of the lawyers in
the firm of Lito, Raul, & Associates averring that
they connived and conspired with the
company’s labor union president to dismiss
him. Tom questioned the two conflicting
secretary’s certificates filed by the company as
these were signed and executed at the same
time by two different persons, and that Raul’s
representation of the company is evidence of
conspiracy. Will the case prosper?
No. The complaint will not prosper since it is a
baseless disbarment case filed for the flimsiest
of reasons. It is settled that the rule for a
charge to justify a disciplinary action against a
lawyer, the complainant must present
convincing proof to substantiate the charge.
Otherwise, the lawyer is presumed innocent. In
this case, the acts and/or participation of Lito,
Raul, and the labor union president did not act
in bad faith in approving the early retirement of
Tom instead of criminally charging him and
terminating his employment under which he
would have received a considerably lesser
separation pay than the retirement package. As
President and General Manager, he approved
Tom's request to avail of the early retirement
program even when he was short of two years
in service as per the company policy. Here,
there is no violation of the CPR or the Lawyer's
Oath in Lito's benevolent act of accommodating
Tom's request. No evidence was presented to
show that Lito acted with bad faith, malice, or
ill will. Hence, the presumption of good faith in
his favor stands (Gerodias v. Atty. Riveral, A.C.
No. 12719, February 17, 2021, J. Hernando).
19
40. Atty. Renejay borrowed money from Boss
Tryke and issued a post-dated check in order to
convince the latter. However, the check was
dishonored because the account was closed.
Atty. Renejay then offered as a payment his
Mercedes Benz and executed a deed of sale.
But Atty. Renejay failed to give the original
Certificate of Registration of the car and turn
over the physical possession of the car. When
Boss Tryke instituted criminal and
administrative proceedings against Atty.
Renejay, the latter failed to file an answer and
attend the mandatory conference before the
IBP. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found
Atty. Renejay guilty of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended
that the same be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year. The IBP
Board of Governors adopted the findings of the
investigating commissioner but modified the
recommended penalty to suspension from the
practice of the law to three years. Should the
IBP suspend Atty. Renejay from the practice of
the law to three (3) years?
Yes. The IBP should suspend Atty. Renejay
from the practice of the law for 3 years. Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states that
a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. Here, Atty.
Renejay's deliberate failure to settle his
obligation despite repeated demands is in itself
a gross misconduct for which he may be
sanctioned with one-year suspension from the
practice of law. In addition, Atty. Renejay even
refused to answer the accusations against him
and to appear in the mandatory conferences
despite due notice, thereby causing undue
delay in the resolution of the case. All these
circumstances taken together justify the
imposition upon Atty. Renejay of a three-year
suspension from the practice of law. (Andaya
v. Atty. Tumanda, A.C. No. 12209, February 18,
2020, J. Hernando).
41. Atty. Vee was the Municipal Administrator
of Antipolo. Atty. Vee, together with the officers
of the Business Permit and Licensing Office,
health office, and members of Binangonan
Police went to Wais’ sari-sari store to implement
a Closure Order due to latter’s failure to secure
a business permit for his billiard table and sari-
sari store. Thereafter, Atty. Vee ordered the
seizure of billiard accessories. Yue and his
father then secured the necessary business
permits for the sari-sari store, videoke machine,
and billiard table. Yue then asked the Municipal
Treasurer where to claim the previously seized
items. Atty. Vee did not release the seized items
and instead asked her to pay additional fines
for their release. This prompted Yue and his
father to file a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Vee. The IBP Investigating Commissioner
noted that the closure order did not authorize
seizure of the items and recommended that
Atty. Vee be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of 6 months. May Atty. Vee be
suspended from the practice of law for a period
of 6 months?
No, Atty. Vee may not be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of 6 months since a
judicious review of the allegations of Yue failed
to show that Atty. Vee committed acts
constitutive of a Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
and the CPR. One of the duties of a Municipal
Administrator is to "assist in the coordination of
the work of all the officials of the local
government unit, under the supervision,
direction, and control of the governor or mayor,
and for this purpose, he may convene the chiefs
of offices and other officials of the local
government unit." Atty. Vee was merely
performing his official duties as Municipal
Administrator of the Municipality of
Binangonan, particularly the implementation of
the Closure Order against the businesses
operated by the Wais family and matters
related thereto. (Baygar v. Atty. Rivera, A.C.
No. 8959, October 07, 2020, J. Hernando).
20
42. Atty. Patrick Starr offered to sell to Edward
Balboa a parcel of land located in Tagbilaran
and claimed that he was a representative of
Mariel Argon. Relying on the representations of
Starr, Balboa agreed that the final purchase
price of the property shall be PHP15.65 million.
Starr and Balboa set a meeting for the signing
of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the payment
of the initial 50% of the purchase price. Star
promised to deliver the title under Balboa’s by
the first week of June 2012, however, in July
2012, Starr could no longer be reached. Balboa
filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) a Verified Complaint against Starr
accusing him of gross misconduct. Balboa
alleged that the actuations of Starr constituted
grave transgressions of the solemn oath of a
lawyer and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility warranting his permanent
disbarment. Investigating Commissioner
recommended the dismissal of the Verified
Complaint for being moot and academic in light
of the court’s pronouncement in "Atty. Patrick
Starr" was ordered disbarred and stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys because of “falsely
assuming the name, identity, and academic
records of Patrick Starr to obtain a law degree
and take the Bar Examinations.” May Mr. Starr
who used the identity of his brother, Atty.
Patrick Starr, be disbarred?
No, Mr. Starr cannot be disbarred and his name
cannot be stricken off the Rolls of Attorneys
since Starr is not and was never a member of
the bar. In the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member
of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
officer of the Court with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and
the proper and honest administration of justice
by purging the profession of members who by
their misconduct have proven themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of
an attorney. Hence, the penalty of disbarment
is not available to Starr (AA Total Learning
Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Atty.
Caronan, A.C. No. 12418, March 10, 2020, J.
Hernando).
43. Mrs. Paylan Ngcase filed a complaint
against Atty. Medyo Pasaway for appearing in a
criminal proceeding as private prosecutor on
behalf of her common-law husband. She
complained that Atty. Medyo Pasaway entered
his appearance and filed pleadings in court
while he was suspended from the practice of
law. The IBP Recommended that Atty. Medyo
Pasaway be meted the penalty of suspension
for another year from the practice of law for his
unauthorized practice of law. Upon review, it
was found that Atty. Medyo Pasaway had
already been given the penalty of disbarment in
a prior proceeding. Is Atty. Pasaway’s
unauthorized practice of law considered a
willful disobedience to lawful order of the court
which is a ground for disbarment or
suspension?
Yes. Atty. Pasaway’s unauthorized practice of
law is considered a willful disobedience to
lawful order of the court, which under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a ground
for disbarment or suspension. Atty. Medyo
Pasaway’s acts of signing and filing of pleadings
for his client months after the promulgation of
the Resolution suspending him from the
practice of law are clear proofs that he
practiced law during the period of his
suspension. The Court finds Atty. Pasaway
guilty of unauthorized practice of law. And
although he has already been disbarred, the
Court, nevertheless, deems it proper to give the
corresponding penalty of six months
suspension from the practice of law for the sole
purpose of recording it in his personal file in the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The Court,
likewise, considers it necessary to impose upon
Atty. Pasaway a penalty of fine. (Valmonte v.
Atty. Jose C. Quesada, A.C. No. 12487.
December 4, 2019, J. Hernando).
44. Atty. Diane offered to sell to Gelo a parcel
of land located in Tagbilaran and claimed that
she was a representative of Xander. Relying on
the representations of Diane, Gelo agreed to
meet for the signing of the Deed of Absolute
Sale and the payment of the initial 50% of the
purchase price. Diane promised to deliver the
title but failed to do so. Later on, Gelo learned
that Diane assumed the identity of her sister,
Atty. Diana and used her school credentials to
21
obtain a law degree. Gelo filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) a Verified
Complaint against Diane accusing her of gross
misconduct. Gelo also prayed that Diane be
perpetually disbarred from the practice of law
and her name permanently stricken off the Roll
of Attorneys. Is there still a need to resolve and
determine whether Atty. Diane is guilty of the
violations imputed against him?
No. Disciplinary proceedings conducted by the
IBP are reserved only for those belonging in the
legal profession. Further, administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own,
distinct from and may proceed independently of
civil and criminal cases. There is no prejudicial
question nor proscription that will prevent it
from proceeding. Double jeopardy or In Pari
Delicto are also not available as defenses as to
bar the disciplinary proceedings against an
erring lawyer. It should be noted that it can be
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or
the IBP and even without a complaint and can
proceed regardless of lack of interest of the
complainants, if the facts proven so warrant.
Here, respondent is not and was never a
member of the bar. Hence, the penalty of
disbarment is not available to him (AA Total
Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v.
Atty. Caronan, A.C. No. 12418, March 10, 2020,
J. Hernando).
45. Atty. Pasko is the legal counsel of the
plaintiff in a civil case against Des and Milo for
partition, recovery of ownership and
possession, accounting and share, attorney’s
fees and damages pending before the RTC. Des
is the eldest sister of the plaintiffs and Milo is
her son. Des and Milo provided a lot of
allegations against Atty. Pasko. In his Answer,
Atty. Pasko denied falsifying the signature of
Des in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. He
claimed that his clients and Des met with him
personally because they have settled their
differences. During the meeting, they executed
the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition in
anticipation of the urgent sale of the subject lot.
He countered that they refused to deliver the
copy of the title of the lot and to receive the
reimbursement from the plaintiffs. In addition,
he admitted that he prepared and notarized the
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, and that Des
signed the said document personally before
him. Likewise, he averred that he received the
amount of P23,782.00 from his clients as
reimbursement for his transportation expenses.
Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by
Des and Milo against Atty. Pasko before the
IBP-CBD. Des and Milo proved with substantial
evidence that Atty. Pasko committed several
infractions pertaining to his participation in
relevant documents concerning the opposing
parties not only as a retained counsel but also
as a notary public, and which involved
monetary considerations which he improperly
received. Is substantial evidence sufficient to
hold Atty. Pasko liable?
Yes. The quantum of proof necessary for a
finding of guilt in a disbarment case is
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. The
complainant has the burden of proving his
allegations against respondents. Here, Des and
Milo consistently asserted that Des' signature in
the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was forged.
To prove this claim, the signatures of Des in
relevant documents were professionally
examined. The substantial evidence suffices to
hold Atty. Pasko liable. (Elanga v. Pasok, A.C.
No. 12030, September 29, 2020, J. Hernando).
46. Atty. S notarized spurious documents
despite the death and/or non-personal
appearance of the affiants–complainants’
parents. The IBP suspended Atty. S from the
practice of law for 1 year and his notarial
commission was immediately revoked, he was
disqualified from being commissioned as Notary
Public for 2 years. The Court adopted the IBP’s
findings. Meanwhile, complainant Mr. E
informed the Court that despite the suspension
of Atty. S from the practice of law, the
revocation of his notarial practice and
disqualification from being commissioned as
notary public, he has continuously engaged in
the practice of law and has remained to be a
duly commissioned notary public. Is Atty. S
administratively liable for engaging in the
practice of law during his suspension, and for
notarizing documents despite the revocation of
22
his notarial commission, and for being
commissioned as notary public notwithstanding
his disqualification?
Yes. A lawyer who has been suspended from
the practice of law by the Court must refrain
from performing all functions which would
require the application of his legal knowledge
within the period of suspension. Notarizing
documents constitutes a practice of law. In fact,
one of the requirements to be a duly
commissioned notarized public, under Section
1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, is that one must be a member of the
Philippine Bar in good standing. A lawyer,
during the period of his/her suspension, is
barred from engaging in notarial practice as
he/she is deemed not a member of the
Philippine Bar in good standing, which is one of
the essential requisites to be eligible as a notary
public.
Atty. S, having been engaged in the practice of
law amid his suspension, is thus liable.
(Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino v.
Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa (En Banc), A.C. No.
8522, October 6, 2020, J. Hernando).
47. Atty. Rivero notarized documents of his
clients in a civil case. Later, the counsel for the
complainants in the civil case filed a criminal
complaint for Falsification of Public Documents
and Use of Falsified Documents against Atty.
Rivero. The latter admitted that his notarial
commission has already expired in 2014 but he
was not in fact commissioned as a notary public
in 2014. Eventually, the IBP Board of Governors
recommended the penalty of Atty. Rivero’s
suspension from the practice of law for a period
of 3 years and perpetual disqualification from
being commissioned as notary public. Is the IBP
Recommendation proper?
Yes. The IBP Recommendation is proper.
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice is clear. Only a person who is
commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of 2 years commencing the first day of
January of the year in which the commissioning
is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary
public has resigned under these Rules and the
Rules of Court. Hence, a violation thereof
should therefore not be dealt with lightly to
preserve the integrity of notarization. In the
case at bench, it was sufficiently proven that
Atty. Rivero was not commissioned as a notary
public at the time he notarized the Answer that
was filed by the defendants in the civil case.
The Certification issued by the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan duly showed that Atty. Rivero was not
commissioned as a notary public for and in the
Province of Cagayan in 2014. Thus, Atty. Rivero
is indubitably liable for gross violation of the
notarial rules which should not be dealt with
lightly by the Court (Atty. Manzano v. Atty.
Rivera, A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020, J.
Hernando).
48. Atty. Pistachio is the legal counsel of the
plaintiffs in the civil case against the Els for
Partition, Recovery of Ownership and
Possession, Accounting and Share, Attorney's
Fees and Damages pending before RTC. The
clients of Atty. Pistachio alleged that the Els
failed to deliver a copy of the Original Certificate
of Title which is in their possession after
Ovaltine redeemed the lot from the DBP. Later,
the Els alleged that Atty. Pistachio notarized the
document for the real estate mortgage, which
also indicated the amount of proceeds
therefrom that Atty. Pistachio received, without
the knowledge and consent of the Els. Is the
act of notarizing the document evidencing the
Real Estate Mortgage and receiving a part of
the proceeds thereof as expressly stated in the
Agreement violative of Rules of Notarial
Practice?
Yes. Regardless of who actually received the
money, it was improper for Atty. Pistachio to be
among the recipients of the proceeds of the
mortgage. To stress, Atty. Pistachio notarized
the document evidencing the Real Estate
Mortgage and received part of the proceeds
thereof as expressly stated in the Agreement.
Rule 4, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial
Practice specifically states that a notary public
is disqualified from performing a notarial act if
he will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
23
commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, property, or other consideration,
except as provided by these Rules and by law.
Atty. Pistachio was disqualified from notarizing
the Real Estate Mortgage document since he
will directly or indirectly gain from the
mortgage's proceeds, as he in fact did
thereafter (Elanga v. Pasok, A.C. No.
12030,September 29, 2020, J. Hernando).
49. Kiko went to the office of Atty. Dean and
asked him to notarize a letter indicating the
registration of North Caloocan Mansions
Homeowners Association, Inc. Atty. Dean asked
Kiko if the contents of the letter were true. Kiko
responded in the affirmative. Amanda
complained to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) that Atty. Dean notarized a
false document. After thorough investigation,
the IBP recommended the dismissal of the case
due to lack of merit. Is the IBP
Recommendation proper?
Yes. The recommendation of the IBP is proper.
The mere act of notarizing the letter is not in
itself a violation of the Notarial Rules. In
addition, the truth or falsity of the allegations in
the letter is the sole responsibility of the one
who asked to notarize, in this case it would be
Kiko, and should not extend to the notary
public, Atty. Dean. Therefore, the complaint of
Amanda should be dismissed (Ick and Edosada
v. Atty. Amazona, A.C. No. 12375, February 26,
2020, J. Hernando).
50. Carmen owned a piece of land and
nominated her son, Carlo as the property
administrator. Following her passing, Carlo and
his siblings inherited the land and were granted
ownership thereof. However, Carlo and his
siblings were shocked when Carmen’s title to
the land was revoked as a result of an
Extrajudicial Settlement notarized by Atty. Diaz,
purportedly Carlo and his siblings personally
appeared and subscribed therein. It was also
discovered that Atty. Diaz notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale and an Acknowledgement
Receipt. Atty. Diaz denied that he notarized the
documents, claiming that his signatures were
forged. However, the documents also bear his
notarial seal. Is Atty. Diaz administratively liable
for violating his responsibilities and duties as a
public notary?
Yes. Atty. Diaz is not exculpated from
administrative liability for his negligence as a
notary public and as a lawyer. The 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice states that, when not in
use, the official seal of the notary public must
be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible
only to him or the person duly authorized by
him. The Extrajudicial Settlement bore Atty.
Diaz’s notarial seal. While he claimed that his
signatures were forged, he failed to properly
secure and keep his notarial seal in a safe place
inaccessible to other persons so as to ensure
that nobody can use the same without his
authority. It is the duty of notaries public to
observe utmost care in complying with the
formalities intended to protect the integrity of
the notarized document and the act or acts it
embodies. The negligence of Atty. Diaz likewise
extended to his reportorial duties as Notary
Public. Although he appeared not to have
notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale and the
Acknowledgement Receipt yet he entered the
same in his Notarial Registry Book. Had Atty.
Diaz been meticulous and cautious in the
performance of his duties as Notary Public, he
would have noticed from the start that he did
not notarize the subject instruments and
exclude the same from his Notarial Registry
Book. He failed to discharge with fidelity the
sacred duties of his office which are dictated by
public policy and impressed with public interest.
His negligence did not only cause damage to
those directly affected by the notarized
documents but also undermined the integrity of
a notary public and degraded the function of
notarization. Thus, Atty. Diaz violated the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Ang v. Atty. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No.
12408, December 11, 2019, J. Hernando).
51. Sean Paul alleged that Atty. Groovy
McGyver committed an act that is in violation of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice ad Canons
1, 10, and 19 of the CPR. Sean Paul was
accused in a criminal case for Estafa before the
MTC. Atty. McGyver was the private prosecutor
on behalf of the Corporation and was also a
commissioned notary public at that time.
Magdalena, the Corporate Secretary, executed
a Secretary’s Certificate to authorize the
24
Chairman to file a criminal case on behalf of the
Corporation against Sean Paul. Atty. McGyver
notarized the document to which Sean Paul
claims that the Secretary’s Certificate was
defective and improperly notarized. He alleges
that Atty. McGyver as notary public failed to
indicate the serial number of his notarial
commission in the notarial certificate, and that
Magdalena's signature appears to have been
printed or scanned (digital copy) into the
document. He asserts that because of the use
of a printed signature, Magdalena could not
have been physically present before Atty.
McGyver when the document was signed and
notarized. Sean Paul claims that this act
constitutes a violation of the requirement of
physical presence of the signatory in the
performance of a notarial act as provided in
Rule IV, Section 2 of the Rules on Notarial
Practice. Atty. McGyver, however, contended
that he did not violate the Rules on Notarial
Practice since Magdalena did sign the document
in his presence but followed common practice
to sign one document and reproduce it to the
desired number of copies before notarization.
Is the printed or scanned (digitally) copy of the
sufficient as evidence of identity?
No. Since it was not an actual handwritten
signature of Magdalena, the defense of Atty.
McGyver that Magdalena physically signed one
copy which was subsequently reproduced and
notarized is not convincing. Atty. McGyver
failed to prove that Magdalena was indeed
physically in his presence upon the signing and
notarization of the document.
Under Rule II, Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial
Practice, appearance in person of the signatory,
among others, is required. Further, Rule IV,
Section 2, paragraph 1 prohibits the notary
public from performing a notarial act if the
signatory is not in his/her presence at the time
of the notarization.. Therefore, if the signatory
was present, the notary public should ask them
to affix their signature to every copy of the
document. This provision bolsters the
requirement of physical appearance.
If indeed Magdalena had personally appeared
before Atty. McGyver, he should have asked
Magdalena to affix her signature in each and
every copy of the document. (Kiener v. Atty.
Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020, J.
Hernando).
52. Niks, a Corporate Secretary, executed a
Secretary’s Certificate to authorize the
Chairman to file a criminal case on behalf of the
Corporation against Marcks for Estafa. Atty. Eli
notarized the Secretary’s Certificate to which
Marcks claims to be defective and improperly
notarized. He alleges that Atty. Eli as notary
public failed to indicate the serial number of his
notarial commission in the notarial certificate,
and that Nik's signature appears to have been
printed or scanned (digital copy) into the
document. Atty. Eli argued that Niks signed one
document in her presence and reproduced it to
the desired number of copies before
notarization. Should Atty. Eli be held liable for
any violation on the Rules of Notarial Practice?
Yes. Atty. Eli should be held administratively
liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice
when she notarized a document without the
presence of the signatory and failed to indicate
his commission number in the notarial
certificate. A notary public should not notarize
a document unless the person who signed the
same is the very same person who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to
the contents and the truth of what is stated
therein. Without the appearance of the person
who actually executed the document in
question, the notary public would be unable to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
document is the party's free act or deed.
As to the penalty, recent jurisprudence provides
that a notary public who fails to discharge his
duties or fails to comply with the Rules on
Notarial Practice may be penalized with
revocation of his current notarial commission
and disqualification from reappointment as
Notary Public. Thus, Atty. Eli’s current notarial
commission, if there is any, should be revoked.
Further, he should be disqualified from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of
two years. Clearly, the CPR and Rules on
Notarial Practice was violated by Atty. McGyver.
(Kiener v. Atty. Amores, A.C. No. 9417,
November 18, 2020, J. Hernando).
25
53. Amita who is a clerk of court at the Regional
Trial Court in Quezon City brought home office
records, financial and case records from their
office and kept them in her residence, without
the consent of Judge Cruz. Is Amita in violation
of the Rules of Court?
Yes. Amita is in violation of Section 12 & 14,
Rule 136 of the Rules of Court and Article 226
of the Revised Penal Code. Under the provisions
mentioned, “no record shall be taken from the
clerk's office without an order of the court
except as otherwise provided by these rules.”
Furthermore, the functions of the clerks of
court are imbued with public interest that any
act which would compromise, or tend to
compromise, that degree of diligence and
competence expected of them in the exercise
of their functions would destroy public
accountability and effectively weaken the faith
of the people in the justice system. Here, Amita
was charged with the proper safekeeping and
management of all court records under her
custody. Thus, she is guilty of Gross Neglect of
Duty, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. (Office
of the Court Administrator vs. Alauya, A.M. No.
SCC-15-21-P, December 9, 2020, J. Hernando).
54. Mr. Rotsen, a Judicial Staff Employee II,
and Staff Driver at the Philippine Judicial
Academy Training Center, was investigated for
alleged violation of the House Rules concerning
reception of visitors after he was seen in the
CCTV headed to Room 110 with Ms. Farma. Ms.
Farma was a participant in the seminar being
held in the Training Center and is the solo
occupant of Room 110. Visitors of guests,
according to the Rule shall be received only in
the lounge located at the Front Office and
allowed to stay until 10:00pm. Mr. Rotsen
admitted to the incident but justified that Ms.
Farma is his common-law wife, and that they
have two kids together, and being her husband,
he used the occasion to check up on Ms. Farma.
However, it was discovered in Mr. Rotsen’s
records that he is legally married to one Ms.
Hansel. From 2006-2012, the same information
of his marriage to Ms. Hansel was declared in
his Pag-Ibig Fund Form and SALN Form,
however, this information was omitted in Mr.
Rotsen’s 2007-2011 SALNs, including his SALN
beginning 2013. Mr. Rotsen alleged that they
have separated and have not cohabited with
each other since 2003 as Ms. Hansel allegedly
abandoned him for another man. He did not
seek to obtain a decree of annulment of his
marriage as he opted to devote his small
income for payment of living expenses, etc. Is
there any liability on the part of Mr. Rotsen?
Yes. Mr. Rotsen is deemed liable for Violation of
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations under
Section 46(F)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACCS) and is also guilty of Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct as defined under Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC)
No. 15, Series of 2010.
The Court has held in a number of cases that a
man having an illicit relationship with a woman
not his wife is within the purview of "disgraceful
and immoral conduct" under Civil Service Laws.
The Court has stressed adherence to the
principle that public office is a public trust. The
good of the service and the degree of morality
which every official and employee in the public
service must observe, if respect and confidence
are to be maintained by the Government in the
enforcement of the law, demand that no
untoward conduct on his part, affecting
morality, integrity and efficiency while holding
office should be left without proper and
commensurate sanction, all attendant
circumstances taken into account.
Here, Mr. Rotsen admitted that he has
cohabited and continues to cohabit with a
woman who is not his wife, with whom he begot
two children. In addition, there is a deliberate
omission of this fact in his SALNs for several
years constitutes Dishonesty. The lack of
honesty is evident when, on several occasions,
he deliberately placed "N/A" in his SALNs from
2007 to 2011, including his SALNs beginning
2013, despite knowledge that he is still legally
married to Hansel. The fact that Mr. Rotsen
omitted such information in his SALNs on
different and various occasions is a clear
manifestation of his propensity to lie and to
distort the truth just to suit his personal interest
and purpose. (Re: Incident Report of the
Security Division and alleged various infractions
committed by Mr. Cloyd D. Garra, Judicial Staff
Employee II, Mediation, Planning and Research
26
Division, Philippine Mediation Center Office,
Philippine judicial Academy, A.M. No. 2019-14-
SC, February 10, 2020, J. Hernando).
55. The Office of the Court Administrator
received a letter sent by the Director of the
Prison Ministry of the Diocese of Butuan,
denouncing the extortionate activities
committed by Judge Pera against the detainees
of the Provincial Jail of Agusan. Allegedly, Judge
Pera had demanded money ranging from Php
200,000.00 to Php 300,000.00 in exchange for
the detainees’ release from jail or the dismissal
of the criminal cases. Mr. Aku and Mr. Sado–
accused whose cases were then pending in
Judge Pera’s sala–separately said that Judge
Pera went to the provincial jail and talked to
them. Did Judge Pera’s actuations amount to
gross misconduct constituting violations of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippines Judiciary?
Yes. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that
the conduct of a judge must be free of every
whiff of impropriety not only in regard to his
discharge of judicial duties, but also to his
behavior outside his office and even as a private
individual. Judges should be extra prudent in
associating with litigants and counsel who have
matters pending before them in order to avoid
even the mere perception of possible bias or
partiality. They should be scrupulously careful
with respect to pending or prospective
litigations before them to avoid anything that
may tend to awaken the suspicion that their
personal, social or sundry relations could
influence their objectivity, for not only must
they possess proficiency in law but they must
also act and behave in such manner that would
assure litigants and their counsel, with great
comfort, of the judges' competence, integrity
and independence.
By simply meeting and talking with Mr. Aku and
Mr. Sado, Judge Pera already transgressed
ethical norms and compromised his integrity
and impartiality as the trial judge. His
actuations flagrantly violated the norms and
canons of The New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary (Re: Investigation
Report on the alleged extortion activities of
Presiding Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., Branch
4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan Del
Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486, September 3,
2019, J. Hernando).
56. Judge Beeda issued an order authorizing
himself (Respondent Judge), the court
personnel, and the government prosecutor to
personally verify the authenticity of the firearm
licenses at the expense of the complainant. Did
Judge Beeda commit a breach of norms and
standards of the court, and gross ignorance of
the rules?
Yes. The Court emphasized that a Judge is at
all times duty bound to render just, correct and
impartial decisions in a manner free of any
suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and
integrity. Here, Judge Beeda issued the order
when it is not a duty of a Judge to personally
verify the authenticity of the Certification of the
Firearms and Explosive Office, or the firearm
licenses. (Maulana v. Noel, AM No. RTJ-21-006,
March 15, 2021, J. Hernando).
57. A complaint was filed against Judge A, then
Presiding Judge of Branch 4, Regional Trial
Court of Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte,
alleging that he extorted large amounts of
money ranging from P200,000.00 to
P300,000.00 from the detainees of the
Provincial Jail of Agusan in exchange for their
release from prison or the dismissal of their
criminal cases. The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) conducted an investigation
after it received a letter from Rev. Father S
exposing Judge A's alleged illegal activities.
During its investigation, the OCA confirmed that
Judge A indeed engaged in extortion activities,
a grave misconduct constituting a violation of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, and
recommended that Judge A be fined the
amount of P500,000.00 to be deducted from his
retirement gratuity. However, while the
administrative case was pending review by the
Supreme Court, Judge A met an untimely
death. Should his death result in the dismissal
of the administrative complaint? Are the heirs
of Judge A still qualified to receive death
benefits due to heirs of a deceased judge?
27
Yes. In criminal cases, the death of an accused
after conviction but during the pendency of
his/her appeal shall result in the dismissal of the
criminal case. This dismissal is triggered by the
presumption of innocence accorded every
accused as well as by his/her right to due
process under the Constitution. As the said
principles are instrumental to criminal as well as
to civil cases, these should likewise be applied
to administrative proceedings such as the one
at bench. Since death of an accused
extinguishes personal criminal liability as well as
pecuniary penalties arising from the felony
when the death occurs before final judgment in
criminal cases, the standard for an
administrative case should be similar or less
punitive. Equally important is the Court's belief
in equitable and humanitarian considerations,
especially when the case involves an inevitable
occurrence like death.

Thus, Judge A’s heirs should be granted the

death benefits and survivorship pension
benefits due to his death while in actual service
since no definite ruling was rendered and no
corresponding penalty was imposed upon him
prior to his demise. Judge A’s mistakes should
not unduly punish his heirs, especially if they
had no part in or knowledge about the alleged
extortions. Judge A's liability should be
considered personal and extinguished upon his
death. Similarly, it should not extend beyond
his death, and its effects should not be suffered
by his heirs, for to do so would indirectly impose
a harsh penalty upon innocent individuals. The
non-dismissal of Judge A's administrative case
and forfeiture of all of his death and
survivorship benefits would just unnecessarily
add to the grief of his bereaved family (Re:
Investigation Report on the alleged extortion
activities of Presiding Judge Godofredo B.
Abdul, Jr., Branch 4, Regional Trial Court,
Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-
17-2486, September 8, 2020, J. Hernando).

28