LEGAL AND

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Doctrines
 DOCTRINES IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

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.” [underscoring; ours] (Turla vs. Caringal, 896 SCRA 76, A.C.
No. 11641 March 12, 2019)

Failure to comply with MCLE requirements

A noncompliant lawyer must pay a noncompliance fee of P1,000.00 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. (Turla vs. Caringal, id.)

Non-compliance and Declaration as Delinquent Member

The noncompliance 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. It is worthy to note that Atty. Caringal could not be
declared a delinquent member as the sixty (60)-day period for compliance did not commence to
run. There was no showing that he was ever issued and that he had actually received a
Noncompliance Notice as required by the MCLE Implementing Rules. In addition, by March 11,
2011, he had already complied with the MCLE requirements for MCLE II and T periods. Despite
being confronted with such Certification by Turla, Atty. Caringal continued to sign and submit
pleadings and motions before various courts in several cases, indicating therein that he was
“exempt” from the MCLE requirements and referring to the Official Receipt for his payment of
the noncompliance fees. (Turla vs. Caringal, id.) [emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Penalties; Willful Statement of False MCLE Details

The Court had previously pronounced that “the appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer
depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.”
Considering Atty. Caringal’s willful statement of false MCLE details in his pleadings to the
prejudice of his clients, aggravate, by his lack of diligence in fully and promptly complying with
the MCLE requirements within the compliance period, and his seemingly defiant and
unremorseful attitude, the Court deems it apt to adopt the recommendations of both the IBP
Board of Governors and the OBC, and imposes upon Atty. Caringal the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for three years. (Turla vs. Caringal, id) [emphasis and underscoring; ours]
Duties of a Lawyer towards his/her Clients

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. X x x In this case, Atty. Sagario breached
his duties to his client when he failed to exercise due diligence in handling the annulment case of
complainant. In fact, to the detriment of complainant, he failed to render any legal service to her
despite receipt of fees in the total amount of PhP57,000.00. [underscoring; ours] (Francia vs.
Sagario, 922 SCRA 14, A.C. No. 10938 October 8, 2019)

Attorney-Client Relationship

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to
the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. When a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used
accordingly, the same must be immediately returned to the client. (Francia vs. Sagario, id)
[emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Fiduciary Relationship; Uberrimae Fidei

The highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty
to account for the money received from his/her client. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand
the money he/she received from his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has
appropriated the same for his/her own use. An attorney-client relationship requires utmost
good faith, loyalty and fidelity on the part of the lawyer. In this case, Atty. Sagario clearly fell
short of the demands required of him as a member of the Bar. (Francia vs. Sagario, id) [emphasis
and underscoring; ours]

Suspension from the Practice of Law due to Inexcusable Negligence

Atty. Sagario’s failure or refusal to answer the complaint against him and to appear at the
mandatory hearings before the MeTC and the IBP are manifestations of his stubborn, disobedient
and disrespectful attitude toward lawful orders of the court and illustrate his willful disregard
for his oath of office. Having established his administrative liability, the Court now determines
the proper penalty to be imposed upon Atty. Sagario. In similar cases where a lawyer neglects
his/her client’s case despite receipt of legal fees and fails to return the latter’s money despite
demand, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. (Francia vs.
Sagario, id) [underscoring; ours]

Practice of Law

Atty. Rivera’s act of allowing persons other than himself to use his signature in signing papers
and pleadings, in effect, allowed nonlawyers to practice law. Worse, he failed to display or even
manifest any zeal or eagerness to unearth the truth behind the events which led to his
involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil suit, much less to rectify the situation.
Although he claimed that the signatures were forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness
on his part to pursue any legal action against the alleged forgers. On the contrary, he openly
admitted his association with a disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter
to use his signature and “details” in the preparation of pleadings. By so doing, Atty. Rivera not
only willingly allowed a nonlawyer to practice law; worse, he allowed one to continue to practice
law notwithstanding that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law. Clearly,
the foregoing acts of Atty. Rivera constituted violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Rule 1.10, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10.
(Petelo vs. Rivera, id) [underscoring; ours]

Privilege to Practice Law; Personal

“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 this Court to control and regulate it in order
to protect and promote the public welfare.” X x x By allowing a nonlawyer to sign and submit
pleadings before the court, Atty. Rivera 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. (Petelo vs. Rivera, 924 SCRA 422, A.C. No.
10408 October 16, 2019) [emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Practice of Law; Not a Natural, Absolute or Constitutional Right

“The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone
who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.” X x x The
authority to allow somebody to practice law and to closely scrutinize the fitness and qualifications
of any law practitioner remains with this Court; and Atty. Rivera has no right whatsoever to
exercise the same. X x x. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal
standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and
partaking of the nature of a public trust.” (Petelo vs. Rivera, id) [emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Unauthorized Practice of Law

In March 2014, or three months after the promulgation of the Resolution suspending him from
the practice of law, respondent filed the following pleadings before the RTC of Bauang, La Union,
in Crim. Case No. 4573-BG: 1) Notice of Appearance with Motion on March 20, 2014; 2) Comment
on the Opposition on May 9, 2014; and 3) Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Private Prosecutor
on May 23, 2014. Respondent’s acts of signing and filing of pleadings for his client in Crim. Case
No. 4573-BG months after the promulgation of the Resolution are clear proofs that he practiced
law during the period of his suspension. And as aptly found by the IBP, respondent’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.
(Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr., 926 SCRA 681, A.C. No. 12487 December 4, 2019) [emphasis and
underscoring; ours]
Disbarment and Suspension

As to the penalty imposed, a review of recent jurisprudence reveals that the Court has
consistently imposed an additional suspension of six months on lawyers who continue to practice
law despite their suspension. However, considering that the Court had already imposed upon
respondent the ultimate penalty of disbarment for his gross misconduct and willful disobedience
of the lawful orders of the court in an earlier complaint for disbarment filed against him in Zarcilla
v. Quesada, Jr., 858 SCRA 293 (2018), the penalty of additional six months suspension from the
practice of law can no longer be imposed upon him. The reason is obvious: “once a lawyer is
disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law.”
(Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr., id) [underscoring; ours]

Fine after Disbarment

But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the disbarred lawyer, it can still give
the corresponding penalty only for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into consideration in the event that the
disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift his disbarment. In addition, the Court may
also impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to have committed an offense prior to his/her
disbarment as the Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses committed by
a disbarred lawyer while he/she was still a member of the Law Profession. In fact, by imposing
a fine, the Court is able “to assert its authority and competence to discipline all acts and
actuations committed by the members of the Legal Profession.” (Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr., id)
[emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Lawyers as Agents of their Clients

We stress the settled rule that the negligence and mistakes of a counsel are binding on the client.
This is so because a counsel, once retained, has the implied authority to do all acts necessary or,
at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his/her client,
petitioner in this case. As such, any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority
is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself/herself. (People vs.
Mallari, 926 SCRA 688, G.R. No. 197164 December 4, 2019) [underscoring; ours]

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; Duty to keep the Official/Notarial Seal Safe and Secured

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the official seal of the
notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him or the person duly
authorized by him. X x x Indubitably, respondent Atty. Belaro did not 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. Had he done so, his notarial seal would not have been affixed to
the Extrajudicial Settlement which converted the same from a private document into a public
document. Thus, respondent Atty. Belaro has been remiss in his duty to exercise utmost diligence
in the performance of his functions as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of law.
(Ang vs. Belaro, Jr. , 927 SCRA 637, A.C. No. 12408 December 11, 2019) [underscoring; ours]
Notarization; Public Interest

The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public interest.
It converts a private document into a public document resulting in the document’s admissibility
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is therefore entitled to
full faith and credit on its face and by law. It is the duty of notaries public to observe utmost care
in complying with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of the notarized document and
the act or acts it embodies. (Ang vs. Belaro, Jr. , id) [underscoring; ours]

Penalties on the Violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

On the aspect of the penalty to be imposed, the Court holds that respondent Atty. Belaro should
be meted the penalty of suspension and revocation of his notarial commission for having violated
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In line with current jurisprudence, and as recommended by
the IBP, his disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years is in order.
The revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is likewise called for. Furthermore,
for his negligence to secure and keep safe his notarial seal which facilitated the cancellation of the
title to the subject property and the subsequent transfer thereof, the Court finds that a suspension
from the practice of law for six months is warranted. (Ang vs. Belaro, Jr., id)

Duty of the Court to impose Penalty against Lawyers for Inactive Practice of Law

Assuming arguendo that respondent Atty. Belaro remains to be a Representative, he still cannot
escape liability on the ground that he is not in the active practice of law. To begin with, no law or
statute provides that the penalties against an erring lawyer cannot be imposed if said lawyer is
inactive in the practice of law by any reason such as election in public office. Despite his being
inactive in the practice of law, the fact remains that he is still a member of the legal profession.
Hence, the Court is not precluded from conducting disciplinary investigations against him or
imposing disciplinary sanctions if so warranted. It is in accordance with the Court’s power to call
upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court in order to
preserve the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice.
The Court may therefore strip off the profession of members or impose other forms of sanctions
upon them who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. (Ang vs. Belaro, Jr., id)
[underscoring; ours]

Presumption of Innocence of a Lawyer in an Administrative Case for Disbarment or Suspension

Every person has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Considering the
gravity of the consequences of the 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. Time and again, the Court has held that mere allegation is not evidence
and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be
given credence. (Nocuenca vs. Bensi, 931 SCRA 457, A.C. No. 12609 February 10, 2020) [emphasis
and underscoring; ours]
Administrative Cases against Lawyers; Quantum of Proof

The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence

— is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending
this type of cases. As case law elucidates, “disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers.”
(Nocuenca vs. Bensi, id) [emphasis and underscoring; ours]

Disbarment is a means to protect the public from a lawyer’s misconduct, and should not be used
as a means of threat against the profession

He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must
invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. While
lawyers are mandated to act with dignity and in a manner that inspires confidence to the legal
profession, their rights must still be protected just like every ordinary individual. The legal
profession and the threat of disbarment should not be used as a means to provoke lawyers who
are acting well within their rights. (Nocuenca vs. Bensi, id) [underscoring; ours]

Duty of Lawyers to Obey and Respect the Laws of the Land

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. (Andaya vs. Tumanda, 932 SCRA
417, A.C. No. 12209 February 18, 2020)

Gross Misconduct of Lawyers is a Ground for Disciplinary Action

In this case, respondent obtained a loan from complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 and in
exchange thereof issued a worthless check to complainant. This fact alone is a ground for
disciplinary action as it constitutes gross misconduct. It indicates his unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed upon him and his lack of personal honesty and good moral character
rendering him unworthy of public confidence. In Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, the Court explained
that a lawyer who issues a worthless check is in breach of his oath to obey the laws. (Andaya vs.
Tumanda, id) [underscoring; ours]

Disbarment or Suspension of Lawyers; Grounds

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 x x x. A penalty of one-year suspension from the
practice of law is usually imposed upon a lawyer who issues a worthless check. However,
considering the attendant circumstances in the instant case, the Court agrees with the IBP and the
OBC that the penalty imposed should be increased to three years. (Andaya vs. Tumanda, id)
[underscoring; ours]

Lawyer’s Oath

A lawyer’s act which constitutes gross misconduct and a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath is a clear
ground for suspension. “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. The Attorney’s Oath is clear that Atty.
Plata must “not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same.” (Pagdanganan vs. Plata, 933 SCRA 483, A.C. No. 12701 February
26, 2020) [underscoring; ours]

Filing of Groundless Suits

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. Plata’s gross indiscretion as a
colleague in the legal profession, in blatant violation of his oath and duties as a lawyer. Atty.
Plata’s harassing tactics of filing multiple groundless and baseless suits are contrary to the
following Rules and Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 8 – A lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against his opposing counsel. Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause. Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse a Court process. (Pagdanganan vs. Plata, id) [underscoring; ours]

Disbarment Proceedings; Quantum of Proof

Every person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Settled is the rule that in
disbarment proceedings, the complainant must satisfactorily establish the allegations of his or her
complaint through substantial evidence. Mere allegations without proof are disregarded
considering the gravity of the penalty prayed for. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation cannot be given credence. (Ick vs. Amazona, 933 SCRA 479, A.C. No. 12375 February 26,
2020) [underscoring; ours]

Conflict of Interest

Bearing in mind his roles as director and lawyer of CAPELCO, the issue for consideration of this
Court is whether Bereber is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he appeared as counsel for the
accused members and management staff of CAPELCO in a case filed against them by CAPELCO
member-consumers of District III. Rules on conflict of interest are embodied in Rule 15.03, Canon
15 of the CPR: which states, to wit: Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty
in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. x x x x Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. (Burgos vs. Bereber, 934 SCRA 284, A.C. No. 12666 March 4, 2020)

Conflict of Interest Rule; Elements

Simply put, 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.” (Burgos vs. Bereber, id)

A lawyer’s duty to protect the interest and confidence of his client, together with the corollary
obligation not to represent interest in conflict or inconsistent with the same, extends even beyond
the end of his professional engagement with said client

The client’s confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of
professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do
anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously
represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the
previous relation. In addition, “the protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease
with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives
the death of the client.” (Parungao vs. Lacuanan, 935 SCRA 248, A.C. No. 12071 March 11, 2020)

When is there Conflict of Interest

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment
that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to
oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information
acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is
enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients
and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect
the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. (Parungao vs. Lacuanan, 935
SCRA 248, A.C. No. 12071 March 11, 2020)

Confidential Information

Under Canon 21 of the CPR, “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. In the case at bar, Jonathan failed to establish that
Atty. Lacuanan has confidential information which the latter acquired through their connection
or previous employment and which can be used against him in the pending civil and criminal
proceedings instituted by Mary Grace. Jonathan generally avers that in the course of their
professional and personal relations, he had shared with Atty. Lacuanan confidential information
as regards his marital and family life as well as his businesses and properties. (Parungao vs.
Lacuanan, 935 SCRA 248, A.C. No. 12071 March 11, 2020)

Forum Shopping

“Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration
of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice
contravenes this obligation.” In fact, willful and deliberate forum shopping has been made
punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court in SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94
dated April 1, 1994. In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Alentajan 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. Alentajan , 936 SCRA 401, A.C. No. 12161 June 8, 2020)

Lawyer’s Duty to his/her Client should not be at the expense of truth and justice

Rule 10.3, Capon 10 of the CPR mandates lawyers to observe the rules of procedures and to not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his/her client, but
not at the expense of the truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple cases
constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct
and degrade the administration of justice. (Villanueva vs. Alentajan , 936 SCRA 401, A.C. No. 12161
June 8, 2020)

Disbarment Case; Role of the Complainant

We emphasize that the Court may conduct its own investigation into charges against members
of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. A complainant in a
disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the
attention of the Court. 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. The procedural
requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must
initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. 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.” (Villanueva vs. Alentajan , 936 SCRA 401, A.C. No. 12161 June 8, 2020)

Who may file for Disciplinary Proceedings against Lawyers

Whether Villanueva is with or without authority from COCOLIFE to initiate the disbarment case
is not material to the herein case. In Heck v. Judge Santos, 423 SCRA 329 (2004), the Court held
that “any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings.” 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. (Villanueva vs. Alentajan , 936
SCRA 401, A.C. No. 12161 June 8, 2020)
Disbarment Proceedings are matters of Public Interest

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. Alentajan , 936 SCRA 401, A.C. No. 12161
June 8, 2020)

Change of Address of Counsel; Duty of Counsel

It bears stressing that “in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of
address, the service of the order or resolution of a court upon the parties must be made at the last
address of their counsel of record.” Hence, in case there is a change in address, it is the duty of
the lawyer to promptly inform the court and the parties of such change to ensure that all official
and judicial communications sent by mail will reach him. (Henson vs. Commission on Audit, 942
SCRA 1, G.R. No. 230185 July 7, 2020)

Lawyer Duty to Uphold Client’s Best Interest

Attys. Tiblani and Pammit who were representing Atty. Baterina in the latter’s disbarment cases
were merely protecting Atty. Baterina’s interests. Indeed, “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.” To Our mind, the respondents’ acts did not
constitute as gross misconduct or a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath or the CPR. Additionally, the
respondents committed none of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court. (Perito vs. Baterina, 942 SCRA 312, A.C. No. 12631 July 8, 2020)

Court’s Power to Dibar

As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form
of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
a member of the bar. x x x” (Perito vs. Baterina, 942 SCRA 312, A.C. No. 12631 July 8, 2020)

Notarial Law; Affidavits; Jurat

Pryce’s Answer with Counterclaims, however, was notarized through a jurat. A jurat is that part
of an affidavit in which the notary certifies that before him or her, the document was subscribed
and sworn to by the executor. Rule II, Section 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice more particularly
defines it as follows: SECTION 6. Jurat.—“Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is
personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. (Pryce
Properties Corp. (now Pryce Corporation) vs. Nolasco, Jr., 946 SCRA 246, G.R. No. 203990 August 24,
2020)

-o0o-