LEGAL ETHICS Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1 CASE No.

139 CPR - Canon 22: WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES FOR GOOD CAUSE Rule 22.01 Good Causes for Withdrawal of Services A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases: a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and g) Other similar cases. [A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001] Formerly A.C. CBD Case No. 00-690 In Re: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES PONENTE: PUNO, J.: NATURE: Arose from the continued failure of Atty. Briones to submit necessary appellant brief to the Second Division of SC FACTS: Atty. Briones is the counsel of the accused-appellant Restituto Cabacan in the case: People of the Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan Atty. Briones was given notice through mail to file appellants brief but failed in different occasions: st o 1 : He was given 30 days to file the brief but failed (August 6, 1998). nd o 2 : Submit brief within 10 days and show cause order why Atty. Briones should not be disciplined by the Court failed (April 28, 1999). The Court referred the matter of the repeated failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the IBP for evaluation, report and recommendation (August 9, 1999). IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzales-De Los Reyes informed Atty. Briones of the Court's referral of the matter to the IBP and required him to file his Comment

within 5 days from receipt of the letter again, he did not file any Comment (October 7, 1999). COMMISSIONER DE LOS REYES FINDINGS: o People vs. Cabacan has remained pending in view of the negligence of Atty. Briones to file the required appellant's brief. o It is evident that he violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. o She recommends that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law profession for a period of six (6) months. IBP: Adopted and Approved the Report and Recommendation. May 26, 2000, Atty. Briones filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. He contended: o He filed a Comment on the administrative case but the same was not considered by the investigating commissioner. Neither did the IBP conduct a formal investigation. IBP: Motion is DENIED. On October 5, 2000, Atty. Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation praying that his Comment submitted to the IBP on October 13, 2000 be considered by the Court. o He failed to file an appellants brief in the said case because he never received a copy of the resolution requiring him to file said brief. o If ever a copy was received by his secretary, the latter was not able to give it to him because he had already ceased practicing law failing health.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Briones properly withdrew his services as counsel. HELD: NO. He is still the counsel of record. RATIO DECIDENDI: The cessation of his law practice is not an excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he still could not ignore the directives coming from the Court. It does not appear from the records of the said case that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has withdrawn his appearance in the case, the Court would still consider him as counsel for the accused-appellant and he is expected to comply with all its orders and directives. RULING: Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months

LEGAL ETHICS Adopted from Mr. John Paul Beltrans Digest by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1 CASE No. 140 CPR - Canon 22: WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES FOR GOOD CAUSE Rule 22.01 Good Causes for Withdrawal of Services A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases: a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and g) Other similar cases. [A.C. No. 5303 June 15, 2006] HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA RESORTS CORPORATION/Attorney-inFact of LUMOT A. JALANDONI, complainant, vs. ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, respondent. PONENTE: CORONA, J.: NATURE: Disbarment against respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa FACTS: Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is a practicing lawyer and a member of the IBP. Lumot A. Jalandoni who is the Chairman/President of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) and owns the biggest shares of stocks in the corporation, was sued which involved the possession of land where Alhambra hotel, the only property owned by PRC, is situated. The latter engaged the legal services of Atty. Villarosa. o Atty. Villarosa, as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship, represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. o Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to Atty. Villarosa.

o Later on, Atty. Villarosa, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel, one day before its scheduled hearing. A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdrawas Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity. o The grounds alleged by Atty. Villarosa for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is a retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena. This is an estafa case filed by the representatives of PRC itself against spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena It is worthy to note that from the outset, respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena. o Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by respondent. o To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into the cases involved. Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality was committed by respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Villarosa properly withdrew his services as counsel. HELD: NO. RATIO DECIDENDI: In his comment, respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from the case with the knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of court. The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows: o The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client, by the lawyer or by the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer. The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer. Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted. Canon 22 of the CPR reads: o A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.

 An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court may treat the application as a "mere scrap of paper ." Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place. A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court. The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel. Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformity to respondents desire to withdraw as counsel. Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. RULING: Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.

LEGAL ETHICS Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1 CASE No. 151 NCJC - Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. Section 1 Without Fear or Factor Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice. [G.R. No. 12 August 8, 1901] In the matter of the proceedings against MARCELINO AGUAS for contempt of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA PONENTE: SMITH, J.: NATURE: Criminal case where a witness for the defendant was seized by the judge and the attorney was held in contempt FACTS: August 29, 1900, during the progress of a trial then being held before CFI at Bacolor, Pampanga, the court had occasion to caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the judge who was at the time examining him. o Instead of looking at the judge (based from how I understand it), he was looking at the attorney whos questioning him. Judge, thereupon, arose from his seat and approaching the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and using the expression, Lingon ang mucha (Look at me). According to: o Attorney of the defendant: shook him o Judge: only turned him about. The said seizing was placed on record as insisted by the attorney of the defendant. Two days after, Atty. Marcelino Aguas, was held in contempt and was suspended for 20 days for wanting in respect to the court by making use of improper phrases, and by interrupting opposing counsel in their examination of witnesses. Atty. Aguas appealed but was denied by the lower court. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aguas should be held in contempt of court. Whether or not the Judge of CFI Bacolors action wrong. HELD: NO. There was no evidence to support it. YES. RATIO DECIDENDI: On Issue No. 1 The witnesses say and the judge finds that his attitude was menacing (bastante amenazadora) in the moment of making his protest, but beyond that there is nothing in the record which even tends to show that he was disrespectful to the court or unmindful of its dignity. In our opinion both testimony and finding state a mere conclusion which, in the absence of the facts from which it was deduced, is wholly valueless to support a judgment of contempt. The statement that the attorneys attitude was menacing tended no more to competently establish the alleged offense of contempt than if the witnesses had testified and the court had found that his conduct was contemptuous or lacking in respect. The specific act from which it was inferred that his attitude was menacing should have been testified to by the witnesses and found by the court, and failing that, the record does not show concrete facts sufficient to justify the conclusion that he was disrespectful to the court or offensive to its dignity. On Issue No. 2 In our opinion the action of the judge in seizing the witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the appellant had the right to protest and to demand were respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the court. RULING: Ruling of the CFI is REVERSED, costs de oficio. NOTE: I guess the part to which our topic in this case applies is to the first issue, that a judge should work without prejudicing others.

LEGAL ETHICS Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1 CASE No. 151 NCJC - Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. Section 2 Enhances Confidence of the Public Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.. [A.M. No. RTJ-96-1363. October 12, 1998] TOMAS CABULISAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, respondent. PONENTE: BELLOSILLO, J.: NATURE: Administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan filed by Tomas Cabulisan FACTS: Cabulisan alleged that the following were committed by Judge Pagaliluan: o Peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C. Dumayas, a public health nurse of the Sanchez Mira School of Arts and Trade, and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding, was then taking a bath; o Having a mistress; and o Allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him Complaint was referred to NBI which procured statements from Dumayas, alleged victim of the peeping incident, and Gemma C. Cabading, Court Interpreter, RTC-Br. 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan. SWORN STATEMENT BEFORE THE NBI OF DUMAYAS: o Morning of February 1995 (specific day was not mentioned) while she was taking a bath in the bathroom she noticed someone enter the adjacent comfort room. After she finished and was about to take her towel, she saw the face of Judge Pagalilauan over the concrete dividing wall with his eyes looking at her naked body so she hurriedly wrapped herself with her towel and went out of the bathroom immediately. o A week after, a similar incident happened again. GEMMA C. CABADINGS SWORN STATEMENT:

She had no knowledge that Judge Pagalilauan was maintaining aquerida. But she recalled that a certain Divina Calaycay frequented the sala of the Judge but explained that Divina was the widow of Judge Infante S. Calaycay, a friend of the judge and his predecessor in office. o Cabading denied having any knowledge of practicing lawyers preparing decisions for Pagalilauan. JUDGE PAGALILAUANS COMMENT: o With the peeping incident: Denied the charges But admitted that while presiding judge of the RTC of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, he boarded in the house of Isabelo P. Castillo, father of Marilyn C. Dumayas and his former sheriff. He explained that he was not accustomed to sitting on the toilet bowl in the comfort room, he would squat on the bowl with his feet and not his buttocks resting on it. He claimed that under that circumstance, he had to balance himself by placing one hand on the divider while mounting the bowl and dismounting from it. On the said incident, while using the toilet bowl, he had to hold the top of the divider with his left hand to balance himself. His left hand almost dislodged the clothes of Marilyn which were draped on the divider. He held on to them to prevent them from falling on the floor. o With the mistress issue: He insisted that he and Calaycay were merely friends, as he and her late husband were former classmates. There were even instances after the death of Judge Calaycay when she would visit him to ask help in connection with her husbands death benefits from the Employees Compensation Commission considering that he was formerly Executive Labor Arbiter of the NLRC before becoming a judge. o With the accusation of allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him: Baseless and merely fabricated. CA Findings and Recommendation: o Justice Alio-Hormachuelos recommended the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the identity of the complainant could not be verified.

SC referred back the case to Justice Alio-Hormachuelos for a more thorough investigation on the ground that the alleged non-existence of the complainant was insufficient basis for dismissal. Dumayas appeared in a formal investigation stating that: o Judge Pagalilauan was a boarder in her familys house where she was also staying in 1995. o Their house had only one bathroom which adjoined the comfort room. o The two rooms were separated by a concrete divider about 2-1/2 meters in height which did not go all the way to the ceiling. o This time however she claimed that she did not exactly see the Judge looking at her; that she only saw his forehead and that she simply suspected that he peeped at her. o She also declared that she did not remember if the peeping incident really happened twice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pagalilauan should be disciplined because of grave misconduct. HELD: YES. RATIO DECIDENDI: On the matter where the affidavit of Dumayas was given more credit As a rule, affidavits are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. However, in the instant administrative case, the sworn statement of Dumayas contains a detailed account of the two peeping incidents which is so persuasive as to convince us that it was what actually transpired, and not the version of respondent which is practically a mere denial. Marilyn apparently has forgotten what she had once narrated specially in this case where the testimony before the investigating justice was given more than 2 years after the incident. The fact that she has recounted the facts differently now may show a failure of memory, or could it be that she was swayed by the fact that her husband was a process server of respondents while her father was respondents former sheriff? Her sworn statement was replete with details which makes it more convincing and should be given more weight than her testimony simply denying that she saw respondent staring at her. Merely because she testified that what she had declared was false and that what she

now says is true is not sufficient ground for concluding that her previous statements were false. On the matter of the grave misconduct The judge clearly admits his presence in the adjoining toilet; his defense which consists mainly of the denial that he stared at Marilyn cannot prevail over the latter's positive assertion that she saw him looking at her naked body, specially in this case where she identified respondent in two separate peeping incidents as the culprit. We cannot accept his explanation that he had to hold the top of the divider with his hand to balance himself because he was not accustomed to sitting on the toilet bowl. It is a feeble excuse considering his stature and educational background. In this administrative case, we are principally concerned with the moral fiber of respondent. We have repeatedly held that while every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. On the issue of having a mistress and the allegation of allowing practicing lawyers to write decisions for him The judge is absolved. No evidence for the mistress issue. The writing of decision issue was denied by the Court interpreter. RULING: Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan, RTC-Br. 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, is fined P10,000.00 VITUG, J. dissenting: The affidavit, in my view, should not be given greater weight than that of her formal testimony. In the first place, the affidavit was not made part of the testimony either by reiteration or incorporation; neither had she been crossexamined thereon. The basic philosophy behind the requirement of due process, I submit, should not be held irrelevant to an administrative proceeding of this kind where at stake is ones moral integrity. Marilyns statement was, of course, a far cry from the affidavit she had previously executed where she there claimed to have seen respondent staring at her naked body. It would seem improbable for Dumayas to have merely forgotten what she once narrated, the matter was not a minor detail but, in fact, the very focus of her case against respondent.