LEGAL

ETHICS
CASES
Reported by: Irene Villamor
 CARONAN v. CARONAN
FACTS Patrick A. Caronan filed a complaint-affidavit before the Commission on Bar
Disciple of the IBP against respondent "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," whose real name
: is allegedly Richard A. Caronan, for purportedly assuming complainant's identity
and falsely representing that the former has the required educational qualifications
to take the Bar Examinations and be admitted to the practice of law. Patrick and
Richard Caronan are siblings. The former was able to obtain a bachelor’s degree
while the latter did not. Subsequently, complainant was informed by their mother
that respondent passed the Bar Examinations and that he used complainant's
name and college records to enroll at a law school.

Complainant brushed these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse

consequences to him. Several years later, complainant was informed that the NBI
was requesting his presence in relation to an investigation involving respondent
who, at that point, was using the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan.” He later learned
that the reason for the invitation was because of respondent's involvement in a
case for qualified theft and estafa. Further, he learned that respondent was arrested
for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
 CARONAN v. CARONAN cont..
FACTS Respondent denied all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as a
defense. He maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it

: had already been resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of
Governors dismissed the administrative case. The IBP found the respondent guilty
of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic
records, and recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, and that
respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a
member of the Bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it is proper to:
(a) Strike the name "Patrick A. Caronan" off the Roll of
Attorneys; and
(b) Bar the name "Richard A. Caronan" from being
admitted to the Bar.
RULING:
Yes. The SC agreed with the IBP’s conclusion.

To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely
used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the
Bar. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar
Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to
the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed a pre-law course. The Court does not discount the possibility that
respondent may later on complete his college education and earn a law degree
under his real name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name,
identity, and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The
practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be
granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of
good moral character.
RULING: cont…
Good moral character is essential in those who would be lawyers. This is
imperative in the nature of the office of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists
between him and his client, as well as between him and the court. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.
 DOCTRINE
Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar

Sec. 6, Rule 138 ROC. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he
has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study
of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of
the following subject as major or field of concentration: political science,
logic, english, Spanish, history, and economics.
 SORIANO v. DIZON
FACTS Roberto Soriano filed a Complaint-Affidavit for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel
Dizon, with the Commission on Bar Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of
: the Philippines (IBP). Complainant alleges that the conviction of respondent
for a crime of frustrated homicide, which involves moral turpitude, together
with the circumstances surrounding the conviction, violates Canon 1 of Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and constitutes sufficient
ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.

The issue started when the complainant, taxi driver, Roberto Soriano,
overtook the car that was driven by Atty. Dizon. The latter being drunk tailed
the car driven by Soriano. They both stopped in the Carino street and Atty.
Dizon berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To stop him, the taxi
driver forced open the door to which Dizon fell. Taking pity to the elderly
looking Dizon, Soriano tried to help him out but got into an physical
altercation which resulted to Dizon firing a gun towards Soriano when the
latter was about to give him his eyeglasses back. The incident was
witnessed by Antonio Billanes whose testimony corroborated that of the taxi
driver.
ISSUE:
Whether or not:
(a) Atty. Dizon’s crime of frustrated homicide involves
moral turpitude, and;
(b) His guilt warrants disbarment.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of
frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude.

The court defined moral turpitude as “everything which is done contrary

to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude
was shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason. His act
definitely did not constitute self-defense. It was he who was the aggressor
because he first tried to punch Soriano. The latter was merely defending himself
when he counterpunched Dizon. Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with
treachery when he shot Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend
himself. Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up, when
he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the
handle of his gun in handkerchief in order not to leave fingerprints on the gun
used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a simple traffic incident indicated his skewed
morals.
RULING: cont…
The Supreme Court held that Dizon violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent
clearly showed his unfitness to continue as a member of the bar. Membership in
the legal profession is a privilege demanding a high degree of good moral
character, which is not only a condition precedent to admission, but also a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when
any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting
out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every
lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.
 DOCTRINE
Rehabilitation from criminal conduct and good moral character

Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a

crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold
the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good
moral character. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may
relate, not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly to
their good moral character. Where their misconduct outside of their
professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their
office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their license
and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing them
from that office. We also adopt the IBP's finding that respondent
displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is an essential
qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.
 DOCTRINE
Definition of Moral Turpitude

Moral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done contrary

to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty,
or good morals."
 MIRANDA v. CARPIO
FACTS Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel land. In 1994,
complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC) Case No. M-226 for the

: registration of the aforesaid property. During the course of the proceedings, he

engaged the services of respondent and both agreed
that complainant was to pay respondent PhP20,000.00 as acceptance fee and
PhP2,000.00 as appearance fee. During the last hearing of the case, respondent
demanded the additional amount of PhP10,000.00 for the preparation of the
memorandum, plus 20% of the total area of the subject property as additional fees of
his services. However, complainant did not accede to respondent’s demand for it was
contrary to their agreement.

On January 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered in LRC Case No. M-226, granting the
petition for registration, which Decision was final and executory. On April 3, 2000,
complainant went to the Register of Deeds to get the owner’s duplicate of the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT). He was surprised to discover that the same had already
been claimed by and released to respondent on March 29, 2000. Respondent insisted
that complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the property
equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for which, respondent would deliver the
owner's duplicate of the OCT. Furthermore, respondent relied on his alleged retaining
lien over the owner's duplicate of OCT.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s claim for his unpaid
professional fees would legally give him the right
to retain the property of his client until he receives what
is allegedly due him.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that an attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized
if the presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship;
(2) lawful possession of the client’s funds, documents and papers; and (3)
unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees. Further, the attorney's retaining lien is a
general lien for the balance of the account between the attorney and his client,
and applies to the documents and funds of the client which may come into the
attorney's possession in the course of his employment. Thus, respondent's
unjustified act of holding on to complainant's title with the obvious aim of forcing
complainant to agree to the amount of attorney's fees sought is an alarming
abuse by respondent of the exercise of an attorney's retaining lien, which by no
means is an absolute right, and cannot at all justify inordinate delay in the
delivery of money and property to his client when due or upon demand.
RULING:
Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that "a
lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees." It is highly improper for a
lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never
mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services. At the
outset, respondent should have informed the complainant of all the fees or
possible fees that he would charge before handling the case and not towards the
near conclusion of the case. This is essential in order for the complainant to
determine if he has the financial capacity to pay respondent before engaging his
services. Hence, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 6 months and was ordered to return the OCT of the complainant
immediately.
 DOCTRINE
Lawyers Oath

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand.1âwphi1 However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply
so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same
extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for
in the Rules of Court.