1

2015 GOLDEN BEACON

LEGAL ETHICS
By:
Dean MANUEL R. BUSTAMANTE
PRELIMINARIES
LEGAL ETHICS it
is
a
branch
of
moral
science
which
treats
of
the
duties which
attorney
owes
to
the
court , to his client,
to
his
colleagues
in
the
profession
and
to
the
public
as
embodied
in
the
Constitution,
Rules
of
Court,
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibilities,
Canons
of
Professional
Ethics ,
jurisprudence,
moral
laws
and
special
laws.

BAR
BAR
the

vs.

BENCH

refers
to
the
whole
body
of
attorneys
members
of
the
legal
profession.

BENCH

denotes

the

whole

body

PRACTICING

of

LAWYER

Trial
Lawyer A
lawyer
who
administrative
agencies
or
boards
work
either
for
the
prosecution
Practicing
Lawyer - one engaged
are practicing
lawyers
but
not

and

counselors ,

collectively,

judges

vs.

TRIAL

LAWYER

personally
handles
cases
in
court ,
which
means
engaging
in
actual
trial
or
for
the
defense
of
clients.
in
the practice
of law .
All
trial lawyers
all
practicing
lawyers
are
trial
lawyers.

OTHER TERMS TO REMEMBER

Counsel de officio - a
among
members
of
their
experience
and

counsel, appointed or
assigned
by
the
the
Bar
in
good
standing
who ,
by
ability,
may
adequately
defend
the

Attorney of
Record
or
Counsel
de
Parte - one
of
appearance
and
who
hence
is
formally
records
as
the
attorney
of
the
party.
Of
Counsel to
distinguish
attorneys
are referred
to
as

them
from
of counsel

court, from
reason
of
accused.

who
has
filed
a
mentioned
in

attorneys

of

record,

notice
court
associate

Amicus Curiae - a friend of the court, not

a
party
to
the
action ;
is
an
experienced
and
impartial
attorney
invited
by
the
court
to
appear
and
help in the disposition
of
the
issues
submitted to
it ,
it implies friendly
intervention
of
counsel
to
call
the
attention
of
the
court
to
some
matters
of
law
or
facts
which
might
otherwise
escape
its
notice
and
in
regard
to
which
it
might
go
wrong.

PRACTICE
Q:

What is

practice

of

OF

LAW

law?

A: Practice
of
Law
means any activity
the application of law,
legal procedure,

in or out
knowledge,

of
court
which requires
training and experience.

Generally, to practice law is

to
give
notice
or
render
any
kind
of
service,
which
device
or
service
requires
the
use
in
any
degree
of
legal
knowledge
or
skill. (Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210) .
The
practice
of
law is not limited
to
the
conduct
of cases in court .
It
includes legal
rights are secured,
although such matter
may
or
may
not
be
pending
in
a
court.
(Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378).

2
**** The
title
attorney
is
reserved
to
those
who,
having
obtained the
necessary
degree in
the
study
of
law
and
successfully
taken
the
Bar
Examinations,
having
been
admitted
to
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing,
and
it
is
they
only
who
are
authorized
to
practice
law
in
this
jurisdiction .
As
to
the
case
of
Alauya,
the
Supreme
Court
has
declared
that
persons
who
pass
the
Sharia
Bar
are
not
full-fledged
members
of
the
Philippine
Bar, hence
may
only
practice law
before
Sharia
courts.
While
one who has been admitted to the Sharia Bar , and one who has been
admitted to the
Philippine Bar, may both be considered counselors, in the
sense
that
they
give
counsel or
advice
in
professional capacity, only the
latter is an attorney. (Alawi vs. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628, February 24, 1997).

ECO vs. CHOA

B.M. 1217, January 18, 2005
FACTS: Complainants
are
students of the FEU Institute of Law
who learned
that
respondent
has
been
holding
himself
out
as
a
lawyer
for
many
years
without obtaining a license
from
the
Supreme
Court
to
practice
law .
Complainants
likewise
allege
that
respondent
has
been
advertising
the
name
of
his
supposed
law
firm, Choa Montilla Albeza & Associates Law
Offices,
with
himself
as
senior
partner.
Respondent
has
also
been
representing
himself
as
a
full-fledged lawyer
by
signing
official
documents
as
Atty. John L. Choa.
In his comment,
respondent
admitted
that
his
use
of
Atty.
although he is not a member of the bar , is done so
in
good
faith,
believing
that
the
title
is synonymous
with
the word
lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether
good
faith
is
a
defense
for
an
contumacious
use
by
the
respondent
of
the
title
having
actually
been
admitted
to
the
Philippine bar.

unauthorized
and
Atty.
without

HELD: NO.
Respondent,
although
a
law
graduate
of
the
FEU
Institute
of
Law, never took the bar.
He has no
right
to
use
the
title Atty.
which
others
have
earned
through
rigorous
and
serious
efforts .
Likewise,
he
has
no
right
to
represent
himself
as
a
law
practitioner
with
a
law
firm
under
his
name .
Respondents
defense
that
he
used
the
title
Atty. in good faith
does
not
exonerate
him
from
liability .
Respondent
should
know
that
a
mere
law
graduate
is
not
entitled
to
use
the
title Atty. and
practice
law
unless
and
until
he
passes
the bar and
meets the requirements of the Rules of Court.
Lastly,
his
voluntary
desistance
from
using
the
title
does
not
mitigate his liability
either.
False
claiming
to
be
an
attorney
and
acting
as
such
without
authority
constitutes
contempt
of
court.
Q:

Does

lawyer

have

the

right

to

represent

himself?

A: YES. A party
has
the right
to
represent
himself .
Even
if
the
is
suspended
or
disbarred,
he
can
appear
for
himself .
This
however, is
limited
to
criminal
cases
concerning
grave
or
less
offenses.

UNATHORIZED PRACTICE
ALVIN S. FELICIANO

OF

lawyer
right,
grave

LAW

vs. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA - LOZADA

A.C. No. 7593,

March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 245

FACTS:
On
December
13,
court
for
violating
Rules
suspended from the practice

2005 ,
Atty.
15.03
and
of law for

However,
on June
5,
to
defend
the
rights
of
dispute before the
RTC of

2007,
Atty. Lozada
her
husband
who
Valenzuela
City.

The complainant
who is
complaint
against
Atty.
Lozada
while still suspended from the

Lozada
was
found
15.04
of
CPR
a
period of two
was
is

guilty
by
and
she
(2) years.

the
was

forced by circumstance
embroiled
in
a
legal

the defendant in that

legal dispute filed a
in
appearing
as
counsel
for
her
husband
practice of
law for
two (2)
years.

Atty.
Lozada
claimed
that
she
believed
in
good
faith
that
her
appearance
as
wife
of
Edilberto
Lozada
is
not
within
the
prohibition
to
practice
law,
considering
that
she
is
defending
her
husband
and
not
a
client.
She insisted that
her
husband is a victim of injustice ,
and
his
reputation
and
honor
are
at
stake ,
thus,
she
has
no
choice
but
to
give him legal
assistance.

3
ISSUE:
Whether
Atty . Lozadas
appearing
as
within the prohibition of practice
of
law.
HELD: YES.
Practice
which
requires
the
and experience.

counsel

for

her

of
law
embraces
any
activity
in
application
of
law,
legal
procedure,

husband

is

or
out
of
court,
knowledge,
training

It
is
clear
that
when Atty.
Lozada
appeared
for
and
in
behalf
of
her
husband
and
actively
participated
in
the
proceedings
therein
within
the
two
(2)
year
suspension,
she,
therefore,
engaged
in
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law.
Atty.
Lozadas
very well that at
her two (2) years

defense
of
good
faith
the time she represented
suspension order.

fails
her

to
convince .
husband , she

She
knew
still serving

She
would
have deserved a harsher
penalty but the fact that it
is
part
of
the
Filipino
culture
that
amid
an
adversity ,
families
will
always
look
out
and
extend
a
helping
hand
to
a
family member , more
so, in
this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozadas actuation was
prompted by her affection to her husband
and that in essence , she was
not
representing
a
client
but
rather
a
spouse, The
SC
deems
it
proper
to mitigate the severeness of
her penalty.

SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW

INCLUDES SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE
VICTOR

C. LINGAN

vs.

ATTY. JIMMY P. BALIGA

A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 341

FACTS: On June 15, 2006, Atty. Baliga was
found guilty of
violating Rule
1.01,
Canon
1
of
the
CPR
for
allowing
his
secretary
to
notarize
documents
in
his
stead.
The
SC
suspended
him
for
one
year
and
revoked
his notarial commission.
The Commission
function as Regional

on Human Rights allowed

Director during the period

Atty. Baliga to
of suspension.

perform

his

Atty.
Baliga
argued
that
he
cannot
be
suspended
connected
with
his
function
as
Commission
on
Human
Director
as his
suspension from the practice of law did
suspension from the practice of
law.

for
acts
not
Rights
Regional
not include his

ISSUE:
Whether
his
suspension

of

Atty. Baligas suspension

from public office.

HELD: YES.
Practice of
requires
the
application
experience.

law
of

Work
is
government
considered practice of law.
The
Supreme
practice of
law.

the

practice

is
any
activity, in or out
of
law ,
legal
procedure,
knowledge,

that

Court

from

has

requires
the

the

use

exclusive

of

legal

jurisdiction

to

law

includes

court, which
training
and
knowledge
regulate

is
the

When the Supreme Court orders a

lawyer
suspended from practice of
law,
the
lawyer
must
desist
from
performing
all
functions
requiring
the
application
of
legal
knowledge
within
the
period
of
suspension .
This
includes
desisting
from
holding
a
position
in
government
requiring
the
authority
to practice of
law.
Q:

What

constitutes

Moral

Turpitude?

A: Moral
Turpitude
imports
an
act
of
baseness ,
vileness
or
depravity
in
the
duties
which
one
person
owes
to
another
or
to
society
in
general
which
is
contrary
to
the
usual
accepted
and
customary
rule
of
right
and duty which a person should follow.
Q: What

are

the

A: The
following
moral turpitude:

acts
acts

involving
have

been

moral

turpitude?

declared

by

the

court

as

involving

4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Abduction with Rape

Violation
of
BP 22
Bigamy
Murder
Falsification
of
public documents
Smuggling
Participation
in
fatal
hazing
of

CONVICTION

FOR
AND

fraternity

neophyte

HOMICIDE CONSTITUTES MORAL

A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

MELVIN G. GARCIA

TURPITUDE

vs. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREO

AC. Nos. 7973 & 10457, February 3, 2015, 749 SCRA 1

FACTS:
Amparado
and
his
companion,
Yapchangco,
passed
by Atty.
Sesbreos
house
when
the
latter ,
from the
former
went
out
of
his
house ,
aimed
firing at them.
According
to Yapchangco, they were about
from
the
gate
of
Atty. Sesbreo,
when
they
the
gate
and
when they
turned
around ,
they
rifle
at
them.
They
ran
away
but
Amparado
death.
him

The
RTC
of
to suffer
the

were
walking
and
just
without
any
provocation
his
rifle,
and
started

five meters ,
more
or
less,
heard
screeching
sound
of
saw
Sesbreos
aiming
his
was hit
which
led
to
his

Cebu
found
Sesbreo
guilty
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

of

murder

and

sentenced

On
appeal,
the
SC
downgraded
the
crime
to
homicide and
sentenced
Sesbreo
to
suffer
the
penalty
of
imprisonment
for
9
years
and
1
day
of
prision
mayor
as
minimum
to
16
years
and
4
months
of
reclusion
temporal
as
maximum.
Sesbreo was
acceptance of the
ISSUE:
Whether
turpitude
which

released from confinement on 27 July 2001

conditions of his parole on 10 July 2001.

Atty.
Sesbreos
conviction
warrants his
disbarment.

for

homicide

HELD: YES. Atty. Sesbreos

conviction for
homicide involves
Section 17, Rule 138 of the
Rules
of
Court
states that
the bar may be disbarred
or
suspended
as attorney by
conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude is
an
act
of
private
duties
which a man
owes
general, contrary to justice, honesty,
The
that
the
turpitude.

conviction
of
Sesbreo
circumstances
leading
to

following

constitutes

his
moral

moral turpitude.
a
member of
reason of
his

baseness , vileness,
or depravity in the
to his
fellow
men
or
to society in
modesty or good moral
character.
for
the

the
crime
death
of

of
the

homicide
have
victim
involved

found
moral

Atty.
have
place

Neither victim
Amparado nor Yapchangco was
shown to be
Sesbreo and
neither
the victim Amparado
or
Yapchangco
wronged
Atty.
Sesbreo.
They
simply
happened
to
be
at
and time the early morning June 3, 1993.

a foe of
shown
to
the
wrong

The
to

is

only

practice
of
law is not a
those possessing good moral

right but
character.

privilege .

A
violation
of
the
high
moral
standards
of
the
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a
the penalty of
disbarment.

NAZARIA

HERNANDEZ vs.

A.C. No. 1526,

January

31,

ATTY.

JOSE

It

granted

legal
profession
lawyer , including

C. GO

2005, 450 SCRA 1

FACTS: Petitioner sought the services of respondent to aid her in settling

her
accounts
with
various
creditors
to
prevent
her
property
from
being
foreclosed.
Respondent
persuaded
her
to
give
him
her
land
titles
and
to
execute
deeds
of
sale
in
his
favor
without
any
valuable
consideration
so
he
could
sell
the
lots
and
the
proceeds
pay
her
creditors.
Instead
of
selling
to
buyers
at
higher price , respondent
paid
petitioners
creditors
with
his
own
funds
and
registered
the
land
titles
in
his
name,
depriving
petitioner
of
her
real
properties worth millions.

5
ISSUE: Whether
immoral acts.

respondent

engage

in

deceitful,

dishonest,

unlawful

and

grossly

HELD: YES.
Obviously,
had he sold the lots to other buyers , complainant
could have earned
more.
Records
show
that
she
did
not
receive
any
amount
from
respondent.
Clearly,
respondent
did
not
adhere
faithfully
and
honestly in his duty as complainants counsel.
Respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly to his obligation and
duty
as
counsel
when
he
took
advantage
of
the
trust
and
confidence
reposed
in
him
by
petitioner.
Respondent
is
duty
bound
to
render
a
detailed
report
to
petitioner
on
how
much
he
sold
the
latters
lots
and
the
amounts
paid
to
her creditors.
His
acts
of
acquiring
for himself
petitioners
lots
entrusted
to him are ,
by any
standard,
acts
constituting
gross misconduct,
a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty,
willful in character, and
implies
a
wrongful
intent
and
not
mere
error
in
judgment.
Membership
in
the
legal
profession
is
a
privilege.
And
whenever
it
is
made
to
appear
that
an
attorney
is
no
longer
worthy
of
the
trust
and
confidence
of
his clients
and
the
public ,
it
becomes
not
only
the
right
but
also
the
duty
of
this
Court ,
which
made
him
one
of
its
officers
and
gave
him
the
privilege
of
ministering within
its
Bar ,
to
withdraw
the
privilege.
Respondent,
by
his
conduct,
blemished
not
only
his
integrity
as
a
member
of
the
Bar, but
also
the
legal profession.
He
is
hereby
DISBARRED.
Conviction

of

crime

involving

moral

turpitude

is

ground

for

disbarment

MICHAEL P. BARRIOS vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ

A.C. No. 4585, November 12,

2004, 442 SCRA 324

FACTS:
Respondent
Atty.
Martinez
offered
his
legal
services
to
the
victims
of
the
Doa
Paz
tragedy
for
free.
The
plaintiff
in
the
said
civil
case
was
issued
a
check
for
P90,000
by
Sulpicio
Lines
representing
compensation for the deaths of his wife and two daughters . Atty. Martinez
asked
plaintiff
to
endorse
said
check ,
which
was
then
deposited
in
the
account of Dr. Martinez, Atty. Martinezs wife.
When plaintiff asked
for
his
money,
he
was
only
able
to
recover
a
total
of
P30,000 .
Atty.
Martinez claimed
the remaining P60,000
as
his
attorneys
fees .
The
trial
court
held
that
it
was
absurd
and
totally
ridiculous
that
for
a
simple
legal
service,
respondent
would
collect
2/3
of
the
money
claim.
Respondent
Martinez was convicted
by
final
judgment
of
violation of BP
Blg. 22.
ISSUES: 1)

2)

Is violation of
What
is
the

BP 22
a crime involving
appropriate penalty?

moral

turpitude?

HELD: 1) YES. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to

justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals. Conviction
of
a
crime
involving
moral turpitude
might
not
relate
to
the exercise
of
the
profession of
a
lawyer;
however,
it
certainly
relates
to
and
affects
the
good
moral
character of a person convicted of such offense . The
act
of
a
person
in issuing
a
check
knowing
at
the
time
of
the
issuance
that
he
or
she
does
not
have
sufficient
funds
in ,
or
credit
with,
the
drawee
bank for the
check
in
full upon its presentment ,
is a
manifestation
of
moral
turpitude.
It
shows
a
lack
of
personal
honesty
and
good
moral
character as to render
her
unworthy
of
public
confidence.
2) In Co. vs. Bernardino and Lao vs. Medel, we
upheld
the
imposition
of
one
years suspension for non-payment of debt and issuance of worthless
checks,
or
a
suspension
of
six
months
upon
partial
payment of
the
obligation.
However,
in
these
cases,
for
various
reasons, none of the
issuances
resulted in a conviction
by the erring
lawyers
for
either
estafa
or BP 22. In
the
instant
case,
however,
herein
respondent
has
been
found
guilty
and
stands
convicted
by
final
judgment
of
a
crime
involving
moral
turpitude.
He
is
hereby
DISBARRED.

CONTEMPT

OF

COURT

EPIFANIA Q. BANTOLO vs. ATTY. EGMEDIO B. CASTILLON, JR.

A.C. No. 6589, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 443

FACTS: Castillon
is
the
lawyer
and
one
of
the
defendants
in
a
case
involving
a
parcel
of
land
in
Valderrama ,
Antique.
The
case
was
decided
in
favor
of
the
complainant
and
her
co-plaintiffs ,
with
the
decision
of
the
RTC having been affirmed
by
the CA
and
defendants
petition
for
certiorari
denied
by
the
Supreme Court.
Thereafter,
a
writ
of
execution
was issued, by virtue of which, defendants were ejected from the property.
However, respondent, with his co-defendants, subsequently entered the disputed
property and harvested palay thereon . Plaintiffs were prompted to move out
that
defendants
be
declared
in
contempt
of
court
because
of
their
open
defiance
and
willful
disobedience
to
the
lawful orders
of
the
court,
which
were
abetted by
the
acts
of
Atty.
Egmedio
Castillon, Jr.
who
is
an
officer of
the
court.
ISSUE:

Whether

or

not

Castillon

is

guilty

of

the

said

acts.

HELD: YES.
Castillon is guilty of indirect contempt for disobeying
the writ
of execution
and
for
attempting
to
mislead
the
Commission
into
believing
that the contempt charge
is still pending by submitting an Order of the
trial
court
which
pertains
to
a
second
contempt
charge .
Respondents
defiance
of
the
writ
of
execution
is
a
brazen
display
of
disrespect
of
the very system which he has sworn to support.
Lawyers
are
particularly
called
upon
to
obey
court
orders
and
processes,
and
this
deference
is
underscored
by
the
fact
that
willful
disregard
thereof
may
subject
the
lawyer
not
only
to
punishment
of
contempt
but
to
disciplinary
sanctions
as
well .
A
lawyer
is
first
and
foremost
an
officer
of
the
court.
Thus,
while
he
owes
his
entire
devotion to the interest and causes of his client , he
must
ensure
that
he
acts
within
the
bounds
of
reason
and
common
sense ,
always
aware
that
he
is
an
instrument
of
truth
and
justice.
More importantly,
as
an
officer
of
the
court
and
its
indispensable
partner
in
the
sacred
task
of
administering
justice,
graver
responsibility
is
imposed
upon
a
lawyer
than
any
other
to
uphold
the
integrity
of
the
courts
and
to
show
respect to
their processes.
**** Contempt of court
is a willful disregard
or disobedience to the courts
authority
and
dignity,
and
includes
the
means
of
delaying
proper
administration
of
justice.
Under
the
Rules
of
Court ,
contempt
is
classified
into
either
direct
or
indirect
contempt.
Direct
contempt
is
committed
in
the
presence
of
or
so
near
a
court
or
judge
as
to
obstruct
or
interrupt
the
proceedings
before
the
same .
Indirect
contempt
is
one
not
committed
in
the
presence
of
a
court .
It
is
an
act
done
at
a
distance
which
tends
to
belittle ,
degrade,
obstruct
or
embarrass the court and
justice .
Atty. Quevedos disobedience and desistance
to
lawful
writ
and
judgment
as
he
prevented
its
execution
constitutes
indirect
contempt
of
court. (Macario Y. Siy vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005, 468
SCRA 154).
Q: When
may
refusal
of
a
counsel
to
act
as
justified
on
grounds
aside
from
reasons
of
health,
or similar reasons of urgency?
A:

Other
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

justified

grounds

for

refusal

to

act

as

counsel
extensive

counsel

de

de oficio be
travel
abroad,
oficio

are:

Too many de oficio cases assigned to

the lawyer.
Conflict of interest.
Lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
Lawyer is prohibited from practicing law by reason of his public office which
prohibits appearances in court; and
Lawyer is preoccupied with too many cases which will spell prejudice to
the new clients.

Q: Should

lawyer

accept

losing

case?

A: It
depends.
If
it
is
a
criminal
case,
he
may
not
decline
to
represent
the
accused
solely
on
his
opinion
regarding
the
guilt
of
said
person (Rule 14.01, CPR). The
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
a
counsel
de
officio has
the duty to defend his client no matter how guilty he
perceives him to be. But if the case is a civil case , he should decline
to
accept
the
same.
In
a
civil
action,
the
rules
and
ethics
of
the
profession
enjoin
a
lawyer
from
taking
a
bad
case .
The
attorneys
signature
in
every
pleading
constitutes
a
certification
that
there
is
good
cause to support it
and that it is not interposed for delay . It is the
attorneys duty to counsel
or
maintain such
actions
or
proceedings only
as
appeared
to
him
to
be
just
and
such
defenses
only
as
he
believes
to
be
honestly
debatable
under
the law.

7
Q:
Atty.
who
is
compelled

A is
offered
professional
engagement
to
As
relative, compadre and former office
to refuse the engagement?
Why?

appear
before
Judge
B
colleague . Is A ethically

A: A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of the cause

and refrain from
any
impropriety
which
tends
to
influence, or
gives
the
appearance
of
influencing
the
court.
There
is
no
ethical
constraint
against
a
lawyer
appearing
before
a
judge
who
is
a
relative,
compadre
or
former
office
colleague as long as the lawyer avoids giving the impression that he can
influence
the
judge.
On
the
other
hand,
the
judge
is
required
by
the
Code of Judicial
Conduct not to take part in any proceeding
where his
impartiality may be reasonably questioned .
Among
the grounds for mandatory
disqualification
of
the
judge
is
if
any
of
the
lawyers
is
a
relative
by
consanguinity
or affinity within the fourth degree.

GARY P. ROSAURO vs. JUDGE ALFREDO KALLOS

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796, February 10, 2006,

482 SCRA 149

FACTS: Rosauro
orally
agreed
to
buy
the
unregistered
piece
of
land
in
Legaspi
City
of
respondent
Judge
Kallos
provided
that
the
respondent
would
take
care
of
its
registration
in
complainants
name,
at
no
additional
cost.
After
making
several
payments
to
the
respondent,
the
latter
obtained
a
loan
from
the
former ,
which was payable
in
2
months.
The
respondent
failed
to
pay
for
the
loan .
Moreover,
the
complainant
learned
that
a
receipt
and
the
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
which
the
respondent
gave
him ,
that
a
certain Esplana-Guerrero
owned
the
said
property
and
that
Guerrero
had
sought
the
reconstitution
of
her
alleged
title
to
the
same
in
the
RTC
of
Legaspi
City ,
but
her
petition
was
dismissed.
Respondent judge also failed to register
the
property
in complainants name.
As a result,
the
complainant
sought
to
rescind
the
contract
but
the
respondent
replied , using
his
salas
official stationary,
that
he
needs
more
time
as
Guerrero
was
still
raising
the
amount
to
refund
the
complainant.
ISSUE: Should
the
judge
be
held
Judicial
Conduct
and
impropriety?

liable

for

violating

the

Code

of

HELD: YES. Respondent judge violated Rule 5.02 of the

Code of Judicial
Conduct as he
took
part
in
a
commercial
transaction
falling
delineated
that
tend
to
interfere
with
the
proper
performance
of
judicial
activities,
and
increased
his
involvement
with
persons
likely
to
come
before
his
sala
regarding
the
said
property ,
thus,
increasing
the
chances
of
his
disqualification
from
future
litigation
concerning
the
same.
As
held
in
Berin vs. Judge,
the
respondent
judge
increased
the
possibility
of
his
disqualification
to
act
as
an
impartial
judge
in
the
event
that
a
dispute
involving
the
said
contract
of
sale
arises.
Also,
the
possibility
that
the
parties
to
the
sale
might
plead
before
his
court
is
not
remote
and
his
business
dealings
with
them
might
not
only
create
suspicion
as
to
his
fairness
but
also
to
his
ability
to
render
it
in
a
manner
that
is
free
from
any
suspicion
as
to
his
fairness
and
impartiality, and
also
as
to
the
judges
integrity.
Respondent
judge
also
violated
Rule
5.08
of
the
Code
when
he
served
as
Guerreros
attorney-in-fact .
As
such,
the
judge
was
within
the
purview
of
other
fiduciary
as
used
in
the
rule .
He
should
not serve as fiduciary of another, except
for
the estate,
trust,
or
person
of
a
member
of
the immediate
family ,
and
then
only
if such
service
will
not
interfere
with
the
proper
performance
of
judicial
duties.
Finally,
respondent
violated
Rule
2.03
by
using
the
official
stationery
for
his
correspondence
with
complainant
as
it
should
only
be
used
for
official
correspondence.
By
using
his
salas
stationery
other
than
for
official
purposes, respondent
judge
evidently
used
the
prestige
of
his
office
to
benefit
Guerrero
and
himself .
He
is
also
liable
for
impropriety
for
the
non-payment
of
the
loan.
Q: May

lawyer

withdraw

from

A: YES. The lawyer may

court, provided
that:

withdraw

1. There

failure

2.

Client

3. Client
Conduct
of

is

pursues

an

case?

from
to

illegal

case

pay
cause

legal
of

insists
pursuance
to
Professional
Responsibility;

4. Appointment
of
prejudicial
to
the

lawyers
client;

to

with

public

the

consent

of

the

fees;

conduct;
an

act

position

violative

except

of

when

the

it

is

Q:

What

is

A:
The
the
fee
reasonable

meant

Is

compensation

term
quantum
meruit
which
as
much
as
value
of
the
services

Brothers, 15 Phil.

Q:

by

as
the
he

based

on

quantum

meruit?

used
in
attorneys
fees
means
lawyer
deserves
considering
the
has
rendered . (Teerthdass vs. Pohoomul

607).

indefinite

suspension

of

lawyer

cruel

punishment?

A: NO.
Indefinite
suspension
gives
the
lawyer
the
key
to
the
restoration
of
his
right
by
giving
him
a
change
to
purge
himself
in
his
own
good
time
of
his
contempt
of
misconduct
by
acknowledging
his
misconduct,
exhibiting
appropriate
repentance,
and
demonstrating
his
willingness
and
capacity
to
live
up
to
the
exacting
standards
required
of
every
lawyer. (Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, February
1, 1989).

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA

A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA
FACTS:
Atty.
Sorreda,
who
identified
himself
as
a
member
of
the
Philippine
Bar,
wrote
a
letter
to
the
Chief
Justice ,
expressing
his
frustrations
over
the
unfavorable
outcome
of
the
manner
by
which
the
Court
resolved
the
cases
filed
by
him .
Atty.
Sorreda
wrote
several
letters
regarding
the
unfair
resolution
of
the
cases
filed
by
him.
They
were
addressed
to
the
Chief
Justice ,
copy
furnished
all
the
Associate
Justices
of
the
SC ,
the
Court
of
Appeals
and
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General ,
denouncing
the
Court .
The
letters
were
considered
as
degrading,
insulting
and
dishonoring
the
Supreme
Court
with
the
use
of
vile ,
offensive,
intemperate
and
contemptuous
derogatory
language
against
the
Court .
He
persistently
imputed
to
the
Court
and
its
Justices
offensive
and
uncalled
remarks
in
his
letters.
ISSUE:
court.

Whether

or

not

Atty.

Sorreda

is

guilty

of

contempt

of

HELD:
YES.
Atty.
Sorredas
conduct
violated
the
CPR ,
specifically
Canon
11,
which
states
that:
A
lawyer
shall
observe
and
maintain
the
respect
due
to
the
courts
and
to
judicial
officers
and
should
insist
on
similar
conduct
by
others .
While
a
lawyer
owes
absolute
fidelity
to
the
cause
of
his
client ,
full
devotion
to
his
clients
genuine
interest
and
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
defense
of
his
clients
rights,
as
well
as
the
exertion
of
his
utmost
learning
and
ability,
he
must
do
so
only
within
the
bounds
of
the
law.
A
lawyer
is
entitled
to
voice
his
criticism
within
the
context
of
the
constitutional
guarantee
of
freedom
of
speech
which
must
be
exercised
responsibly.
Unfounded
accusations
or
allegations
or
words
tending
to
embarrass
the
court
or
to
bring
it
into
disrepute
have
no
place
in
a
pleading. Their
employment
serves
no
useful
purpose .
On
the
contrary,
they
constitute
direct
contempt
of
court
or
contempt
in
facie
curiae
and
a
violation
of
the
lawyers
oath
and
a
transgression
of
the
CPR.
Atty.
Sorreda,
as
a
citizen
and
as
an
officer
of
the
court ,
is
entitled to
criticize the rulings of the Supreme Court .
But,
certainly,
this
does
not
give
him
unbridled
license
to
insult
and
malign
the
Court
and
bring
it
into
disrepute.
Thus, Atty. Sorreda
is
found
guilty
of
contempt
of
court
and
violation
of
the
CPR
amounting
to
gross
misconduct.
He
is
hereby
suspended
indefinitely.

ATTY. FIDELA Y. VARGAS

vs.

JUDGE

FATIMA

GONZALES ASDALA

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1436, September 30, 2004, 439 SCRA 579

Q:
In
an
affidavit-complaint,
the
complainant-lawyer
alleges
that
posting
of
the
Manila
Standard
news
items
at
the
door
respondent - judges courtroom,
which
constitutes
libel,
brought
dishonor
great
embarrassment
to
complainant.
Is
the
respondent
judge
guilty
serious
misconduct?

A: NO.
There
is
no
evidence
to
Defamation
and
there
is
no
evidence
a
misconduct
for
the
posting
of
the

support
the
charge
that
respondent
judge
newspaper
clipping
at

the
of
and
of

of
Oral
committed
the
door

9
of
the
courtroom.
There
is
no
evidence
that
she
posted
clipping
or
that
she
ordered
its
posting.
She
was
not
the
of
the
news
items
nor
is
there
a
showing
that
she
supplied
was
written
thereon.

JOVENCITO

R.

ZUO

vs.

JUDGE

ALEJANDRO

said
writer
what

CABEBE

444 SCRA 382, A.M. No. 03-1800-RTJ, November 26, 2004

Q: In
a
criminal
case,
a
judge
issued
motu
propio
an
order
granting
bail
to
the
accused
on
the
ground
that
the
accused
invoked
his
right
to
speedy
t rial
without objection on
the
part
of
the prosecution. Is
the
act of
the
respondent judge proper?
A: NO. Respondent judge granted bail to the accused without conducting a
hearing, in violation
of
Sections
8
and
18,
Rule
114
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure.
Clearly,
therefore,
respondent
judge
cannot
seek
refuge
on
the
alleged
absence
of
objection
on
the
part of
the
prosecution
to
the
grant
of
bail
to
the
accused .
The
Code
of
Judicial Conduct
enjoins
judges
to
be
conversant
with
the
law
and
the
Rules
and
maintain
professional
competence ;
and
by
the
very
nature
of
his
office,
should
be
circumspect
in
the
performance
of
his
office. He
must
render
justice
without
resorting
to
shortcuts
clearly
uncalled
for.
Obviously,
respondent
failed
to
live
up
to
these
standards.

FELIX E. EDQUIBAL vs.

A.C. No. 5687,

ATTY.

February

Q:
May
the
respondent
defense
that
he
did
not
the
appellate
court?

3,

lawyer
agree

ROBERTO
2005,

be
to

450

FERRER, JR.

SCRA

406

held
liable
represent
the

considering
complainant

his
in

A:
YES.
If it
is
true
that
respondent
never
agreed
to
handle
the
appeal
upon
receipt of said notice ,
respondent
should
have
immediately
manifested
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
that
he
is
not
handling
the
appeal
on
behalf
of
said
defendant-appellants .
Section
2,
Rule
44
of
the
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure clearly
states
that
the
counsel
and
guardian
ad
litem
of
the
parties
in
the
court
of
origin shall be
respectively considered
as
their
counsel
and
guardians
ad
litem
in
the
Court
of
Appeals.
By
failing
to
do
so,
the
Court
of
Appeals
had
every
reason
to
assume
that
he
was
likewise
representing
defendants-appellants
in
the
appeal.
Accordingly,
his failure to timely
file
the
required
appellants
brief
resulted
in
the
dismissal
of
the
appeal.

ATTY.

ANTONIO

D.

SELUDO

vs.

JUDGE

ANTONIO

J.

FINEZA

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 73

Q:
During
the
hearing,
respondent
judge
uttered
the
following
vitriolic
language
against
complainant: a) Putang
ina mo; b) If
respondent
knows
how
to
read
English ;
c)
Let
it
be
put
on
record ,
that
he
has
a
moronic
attitude; d)
If
Your
Honor
please,
I
dont
know
if
this
guy
is
really
stupid .
The
respondent
judge
explained
that
he
has
been
suffering
from
a
heart
ailment
and
diabetes
causing
him
considerable
anxiety
and
pain
and
that
this
must
be
the
reason
why
he
could
not
control
his
outburst.
Does
the
respondents
behavior
fall
short
of
the
standards
expected
of
a
magistrate
of
the
law?
A: YES.
That
respondent
was
suffering
from
heart
ailment
and
diabetes
is
not
an
excuse.
He
could
have
asked
the
assistance
of
a
lawyer
to
represent
him
in
prosecuting
the
case .
Besides
possessing
the
requisite
learning
in
the
law ,
a
magistrate
must
exhibit
that
hallmark
judicial
temperament
of
utmost
sobriety
and
selfrestraint
which
are
indispensable
qualities
of
every
judge . A
judge
should
be
the
last
person
to
be
person
as
petty ,
sharp-tongued
tyrant.
Sadly,
respondent
judge
failed
to
live
up
to
such
standards
of
judicial
conduct.

SALVADOR
A.C.

G.
No.

VILLANUEVA
5041,

vs.

November

23,

ATTY.
2004,

RAMON
443

SCRA

F.

ISHIWATA

401

Q:
In
the
course
of
the
proceedings
at
the
NLRC ,
the
parties
entered
into
a
compromise
agreement
whereby
for
a
consideration
of
P225,000, complainant
agreed
to
release
J. T.
Transport
from
all
its
obligations
to
him.
J. T. Transport
delivered
four
checks
to
respondent

10
as
full
payment
of
complainants
claims .
However,
respondent
gave
complainant
only
P45,000
as
first
installment, without
advising
him
that
the
settlement
award
had
been
paid
in
full .
Complainant
learned
about
it
and
demanded
the
balance
but
the
respondent
refused .
Is
the
act
of
the
respondent
improper?
A: YES.
Obviously,
respondents
failure
to
return
the
balance
to
complainant
upon
demand
gave
rise
to
the
presumption
that
he
misappropriated
it
in
violation
of
the
trust
reposed
on
him .
His act is
indicative
of
lack
of
integrity
and
propriety . He
was
clinging
to
something
not
his
and
which
he
had
no
right.
The
relationship
between
an
attorney
and
his
client
is
highly
fiduciary
in
nature.
Under
his
oath,
a
lawyer
pledges
himself
not
to
delay
any
man
for
money
and
he
is
bound
to
conduct
himself
with good fidelity
to
his
clients .
A
lawyer
should
thus
refrain
from
any
action
whereby
for
his
personal
benefit
or
gain,
he
abuses
or
takes
advantage
of
the
confidence
reposed
in
him
by
his
client. Accordingly, any
money
collected
for
the
client
or
other
trust
property
coming
into
the
lawyers
possession
should
promptly
be
reported
by
him.

VALERIANA DALISAY
A.C. No.

5655,

vs.

ATTY.

April

22,

MELANIO
2005,

456

MAURICIO,

JR.

SCRA 508

Q:
Dalisay
alleged
that
she
engaged
the
services
of
respondent
Batas
Mauricio
as
her
counsel.
Respondent
asked
her
to
pay
an
acceptance
and
filing
fees
in
the
total
amount
of
P56,000.00 .
Despite
her
payments,
respondent
never
rendered
any
legal
services
to
her.
As
a
result,
she
terminated
their
attorney-client
relationship
and
demanded
the
return
of
her
money
and
documents .
However,
he
refused
to
do
so.
Was
an
attorney-client
relationship
established?
A: YES.
When
respondent
accepted
P56,000.00
from
complainant,
it
was
understood
that
he
agreed
to
take
up
the
latters
case
and
that
an
attorney-client
relationship
between
them
as
established . From
then
on,
it
was
expected
of
him
to
serve
complainant
with
confidence
and
attend
to
her
case
with
fidelity,
care
and
devotion.
A
member
of
the
to
his
genuine
interest
defense
of
his
rights.
efforts
and
ability
to
loyalty
to
his
client
the entrusted
privilege
of
his
corresponding
duties
court,
to
the
bar
and

CARLOS
A.C.

B.
No.

legal
profession
owes
his
client
entire
devotion
and
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
An
attorney
is
expected
to
exert
his
best
protect
his
clients
case,
for
his
unwavering
likewise
serves
the
ends
of
justice .
Indeed,
every
lawyer
to
practice
law
caries
with
it
not
only
to
his
client,
but
also
to
the
to
the
public.

REYES vs.
5835,

April

ATTY.
15,

JEREMIAS

2005,

456

R.

SCRA

VITAN
87

Q: Reyes
hired
the
services
of
respondent
Atty.
Vitan
for
the
purpose
of
filing
appropriate
complaint .
He
alleged
that
respondent
after
receiving
the
amount
of
P17,000
did
not
take
any
action
on
his
case.
Did
Atty.
Vitan
violate
the
rules
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
when
he
received
payment
as
counsel
but
had
done
nothing
in
behalf
of
his
client?
A: YES. A
member
of
the
legal
profession
owes
his
client
entire
devotion
to
his
genuine
interest,
warm
zeal
in
the
maintenance
and
defense
of
his
rights .
An
attorney
is
expected
to
exert
his
best
efforts
and
ability
to
preserve
his
clients
cause ,
for
the
unwavering
loyalty
displayed
to
his
client
likewise
serves
the
ends
of
justice.
Verily,
the
entrusted
privilege
to
practice
law
carries
with
it
the
corresponding
duties,
not
only
to
the
client,
but
also
to
the
court,
to
the
bar
and
to
the
public.

PAGCOR vs. ATTY.

A.C.

No. 5700,

January

DANTE
30,

A.

2006,

CARANDANG
480

SCRA 512

FACTS: Bingo Royale Inc. (Bingo Royale) was represented by respondent Atty.
Carandang
as
its
president.
when
Pagcor
had
granted
an
Bingo
Royale
authority
to
operate
Bingo
Games .
In
the
course
of
its
operations,
Bingo
Royale
incurred
arrears
the
amount
of
P6,064,833.14
with Pagcor. As payment to the said obligation , Bingo
Royale
issued
to

11
Pagcor
twenty
respondent.

four

However,
as
month,
they
were
closed
account.
pay
the
amount

(24)

checks

in

the

of

P7.2M

signed

by

the

the
checks
were
deposited
after
the
end
of
each
all
dishonored
by
the
drawee
bank
by
reason
of
Despite
Pagcors
demand
letters ,
respondent
failed
to
of
the checks.

Respondent
averred
that
he
checks
because
they
were
drawn
doing
so
is
not
related
to
the
ISSUE:
checks

sum

Whether
respondent
in
violation
of
BP

is
not
liable
for
issuing
by
Bingo
Royale
and
his
office
of
a
lawyer.

is
guilty
22.

of

HELD: YES.
Misconduct
has
been
conduct
and gross has
been
held

serious

know
the

A
lawyer
may
be
disciplined
not
connection
with
his
profession
but
also
for
of
his
professional
capacity.

PETITION

TO

by

issuing

defined
as
wrong
or
improper
to
mean flagrant
and
shameful.

As a lawyer, respondent is deemed

to
22.
By
issuing
checks
in
violation
of
respondent
is
guilty
of
serious
misconduct.

Respondent
likewise violated
others, obey
the
laws
and
Responsibility.

misconduct

bouncing
act
of

the
Attorneys
Canon
1
of

the
law,
especially
BP
provision
of
this
law ,

only
for
malpractice
in
gross
misconduct
outside
Oath
the

RESUME PRACTICE

that
Code

he
of

will ,
among
Professional

OF LAW

B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 424

Q:
of

May
law

a Filipino
in
the

lawyer who became a

Philippines? What
are

Canadian citizen
resume
the
requirements?

his

practice

A: YES,
if
a
person
intends
to
practice
the
legal
Philippines
may
resume
his
practice
of
law
provided
Filipino
citizenship
pursuant
to
RA
9225.

profession
in
he
reacquires

He
must
conditions:

authority

on

his

IBP

annual

pledge

of

secure

1. updating
dues;
2. payment
3. retaking
Constitution.

from

and
of

the

payment

in

professional

of

lawyers

Violation

SC

the

full

of

the

the
his

following
membership

tax;
oath

and

Rule 1.01
of Lawyers

allegiance

to

the

Oath

MARY JANE VELASCO & ATTYS. CHARLIE DOROIN & HECTOR CENTENO
560

SCRA 1,

A.C. No.

5033,

July

28,

2008

FACTS: Mary Jane

was
appointed
by
the
RTC
as
administratrix
in
the
settlement
of
estate
of
her
late
father ,
Dr.
Eduardo
Doroin.
Atty.
Charlie
Doroin
fooled
Mary
Jane
by
deceitful
means
into
making
her
sign
an
Extra-Judicial Settlement
and
Deed
of
Partition
allotting
P1.2M
as
her
share;
giving
Josephine,
her
fathers
paramour,
P7.2M;
allotting
her
alleged
3
illegitimate
siblings
of
P1.2M
alleging
such
sharing
is
in
accordance
with
law.
No
share
was
assigned
to
her
mother
who
was
the
legal
wife
of
Dr.
Eduardo Doroin.

When
Mary
Jane
visited
the
lot
owned by her father
situated
at
Kingspoint
Subdivision
sometime
in
June
1996,
there
was
no
house
constructed
thereon,
but
when
she
visited
it
again
in
January
1999,
there
was
already
a
four-door
townhouse
constructed .
She
was
informed
by
the
caretaker
at
the
site
that
the
owner
is
one
Evangeline .
She
also
learned
later
that
the
said
property
was
one
of
the
properties

12
submitted
to
the
intestate
court
and
was
sold
by
Atty.
Doroin
to
Evangeline
by
forging
the
signature
of
her
father .
Atty.
Centeno,
being
a
Notary
Public,
knowing
well
that
Dr.
Eduardo
Doroin
was
already
dead
as
of
21
January 1996,
made
it
appear
in
the
said
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
that
Dr.
Doroin
appeared
before
him
on
17
January
1997.
ISSUE: Whether
the
falsification constitute
penalty of suspension
HELD:
Canon
A

YES. Attys.
1 of
the
lawyer

shall

acts
of
Attys.
Doroin
&
violation
of
lawyers oath
and
disbarment.

Centeno
for
forgery
and justifies imposition

&
of

Charlie
Doroin
&
Hector
Centeno
violated
Rule
1.01 ,
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
which
states
that:
not

engage

in

unlawful,

dishonest,

In
the
case
at
bar ,
complainant
claims
forged
the
deed
of
sale
and
forced
her
extra-judicial
settlement
by
explaining
to
her
accordance
with
law.
The
complained
blatant
violation
of
basic
tenets
of
lawyer
shall
engage

immoral

or

deceitful.

that
respondent
lawyers
to
sign
the
deed
of
that
it
was
in

actuations
of
the
respondent
lawyers
constitute
the
lawyers
oath
to
uphold
the
law
and
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
that
in
dishonest
conduct.

a
the
no

Lawyers
must
conduct
themselves
beyond
reproach
at
all
times ,
whether
they
are
dealing
with
their
clients
or
the
public
at
large
and
a
violation
of
the
high
moral
standards
of
the
legal
profession
justifies
the
imposition
of
the
appropriate
penalty,
including
suspension
and
disbarment.

A LAWYER

MUST ACT WITH HONESTY

AND INTEGRITY

CONDONING LAWYERS MALPRACTICE

IS NOT ALLOWED
SPOUSES ROGELIO & AIDA AMATORIO vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO D. YAP
A.C. 5914,

March 11,

2015, 752 SCRA 230

FACTS: Atty.
Yap sued the spouses
Amatorio
to
collect the
amount
of
P94,173.44.
The
answer
filed
by
Atty.
Paras
was,
however,
stricken off
the
record
for
the
reason that
he
was
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law at
the time
of
its
filing.
Unable
to
decided to seek

find
a
lawyer
an out of - court

to
replace
settlement.

Atty.

Paras ,

the

Amatorios

On
May
23,
2001,
Aida
Amatorio
went
to
Atty.
Yaps
law
office .
She appealed
for
his reconsideration and asked that they
be
allowed to
pay
their obligations by way
of
installment .
The
parties
agreed on the
terms
of
payment
and
on
the
same
day,
Aida
tendered
the
first
payment of P20,000 which
was
duly received
and
acknowledged
by
Atty.
Yap in
the
written letterhead of
Yap Law
Office.
When
Aida
asked
Atty.
Yap
if
they
should still
attend the
pretrial conference
scheduled on May
28, 2001,
Atty.
Yap assured her
that
they
need
not
attend
anymore
as
he
will
be
moving
for
the
dismissal
of
the
case .
Relying
on
Atty.
Yaps
assurance ,
spouses
Amatario
did not
attend the
scheduled
hearing.
Subsequently,
Spouses
Amatorio
were
surprised
to
receive
copies
of
the
decision
of
the
trial
court
filed
by
Atty.
Yap ,
declaring
them
in
default
for
non-appearance
during
the
pre-trial
conference
and
ordering
them
to
pay
the
amount
of
their
indebtedness
with
damages .
The
decision,
however,
did
not
mention
the
out of - court
settlement
between
the
parties.

Nonetheless,
the
spouses
continued
tendering
installment
Atty.
Yaps
upon
the
latters
assurance
that
he
will
decision
of
the
trial
court.
filed
the

Again,
the
a
motion
trial
court

spouses
were
surprised
for the
issuance of
a
issued that
writ.

to
writ

payments
disregard

learn,
however,
that
of
execution and , in

to
the
Yap
fact,

13

IBP

The
spouses
where
Atty.

The
suspended
that
(3)

filed
Paras

a
disbarment
case
against
served
as their
counsel.

IBP
commissioner
from the
practice

of

Upon
review
by
the
IBP
Atty.
Yap
be
suspended
months.

recommends
law
for
Board
of
from
the

Atty.

Yap

that
Atty.
Yap
six (6)
months.

with

the

should

be

Governors ,
it
was
approved
practice
of
law
for
three

On
August
9,
2007,
the
spouses
terminated
the
services
of
Atty.
Paras
for
reason
that
they
can
no
longer
afford
the
services
of
a
private lawyer.
Suspiciously,
Affidavit
forgiving

on
the
same
and exonerating

day,
Atty.

the
Yap

spouses
for
his

executed
a
malpractice.

Judicial

ISSUE: Whether the statements of the

spouses Amatorio , especially
contesting
the
truthfulness
of
the
allegations
against
Atty.
Yap
in
their
own
complaint
for
disbarment
necessarily
results to
Atty. Yaps
absolution.
HELD:
NO.
The
Court
cannot
just
aside
against
Atty.
Yap
merely
because
the
spouses
forgive
him
or
settle
matters
amicably
after
evaluated
and
reviewed by
the
IBP.
The
ipso
facto
with,
it
withdraw
presented
evidence,
thereof.

the
finding
of
culpability
Amatorio have
decided
to
the
case
was
completely

spouses forgiveness
or even withdrawal from the
case does not
obliterate
the
misconduct
committed
by
Atty.
Yap.
To
begin
is
already
too
late
in
the
day
for
the
spouses
to
the
disbarment
case
considering
that
they
had
already
and
supported
their
claims
with
convincing
and
credible
and
the
IBP
has
promulgated
a
resolution
on
the
basis

It
bears
stressing
burdened
with
conditions.
only learned
in law, but

that
membership
It
is
bestowed
also
known
to

in
the
bar
is
a
privilege
upon individuals
who are
not
possess
good
moral
character.

Lawyers
should
act
and
comport
themselves
integrity
in
a
manner
beyond
reproach , in order
to
faith in
the
legal
profession.
of
he

Because of
the misconduct
his
oath
to
keep sacred
must
be
disciplined.

of
Atty.
Yap ,
it
is
the
integrity of the

with
honesty
promote
the

and
public

deemed
a
violation
profession for which

It
is
clearly
established
that
Atty.
Yap
received
P20,000
as
initial
payment
for
their
out of - court
settlement .
He
told
the
Spouses not
to
attend
the
pre-trial
and
he
did
not
inform
the
court
of
the
settlement.
The
trial
court
granted
the
motion
for
execution
of
the
decision
filed
by
Atty.
Yap,
thus,
violating
the
standards
of
honesty
provided
for
in
the
Code
of
Professional Responsibility.

JOSELANO GUEVARRA vs. ATTY. JOSE Noli EMMANUEL EALA

529 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 7136,

August

1,

2007

The
case
at
bar
involves
a
relationship
between
a
married
lawyer
and a married
woman
who
is
not
his
wife.
It
is
immaterial
whether
the
affair
was
carried
out
discreetly .
Thus,
it
is
considered
grossly
immoral
conduct
which
is
a
ground
for
disbarment
under
Section
27, Rule
138
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Court.

REGIDOR R. TOLEDO vs. ATTY. JERRY RADAM TOLEDO

544 SCRA 26, A.M. No. P-07-2403, February 6, 2008
With
has
held
of
must
must
be

respect,
however,
to
the
allegation
of
immorality ,
that
to
justify
suspension
or
disbarment,
the
act
not
only
be
immoral
but
grossly
immoral
and
established
by
clear
and
convincing
proof.

this
Court
complained
the
same

ROSA YAP PARAS vs. ATTY. JUSTO PARAS

529 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007
FACTS: Rosa
filed
on
the
ground
decision
upholding

a
complaint
for
of
psychological
the
validity
of

annulment
of
marriage
incapacity .
The
RTC
marriage.

against
Justo
rendered
a

14
In
the
meantime,
Rosa
filed
a
disbarment
case
against
Justo
premised
on
the
same
charges
alleged
in
her
complaint
for
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage.
The
Court
suspended
Justo
from
the
practice
of
law
after
finding
him
guilty
of
falsifying
Rosas
signature
in
bank documents,
immorality
and
abandonment
of
his
family.
ISSUE:
Whether
conclusive in the

the
factual
findings
case
of
annulment

in
of

the
marriage.

disbarment

case

are

HELD: NO. Jurisprudence

abounds
that
administrative
cases
against
lawyers
belong
to
a
class
of
their
own .
They
are
distinct
from
and
may
proceed
independently
of
civil
and
criminal
cases .
The
basic
premise
is
that
criminal
and
civil
cases
are
altogether
different
from
administrative matters,
such
that
the
disposition
in
the
first
two
will
not
inevitably
govern
the
third
and
vice versa.
Accordingly,
ones
unfitness
as
a
lawyer
does
not
automatically
mean
ones
unfitness
as
a
husband
or
vice
versa.
This
is
why
the
disposition
in
a
disbarment
case
cannot
be
conclusive
on
an
action
for
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage.
While
Rosas
charges
sufficiently
proved
Justos
unfitness
as
a
lawyer,
however,
they
may
not
establish
that
he
is
psychologically
incapacitated
to
perform
his
duties
as
a
husband .
In
the
disbarment
case,
the
real
question
for
determination
is
whether
or
not
the
attorney
is
still
fit
person
to
be
allowed
the
privilege
as
such.

CANON 7

TAN TIONG BIO vs. ATTY. RENATO L. GONZALES

530 SCRA 748, A.C. No. 6634, August 23, 2007
For
all
legal
intents
through
the
years
notarial
authorized
has
indulged
in

and
purposes ,
Atty.
acts
in
Pasig City
deliberate
falsehood.

Gonzales,
where
he

by
is

performing
not
so

NICOLAS TAN vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.

531 SCRA 645, A.C. No. 6483, August 31, 2007
Respondent
Balon
is
liable
for
indirect
contempt
because
notwithstanding
his
disbarment
on
October
28,
2003,
he
continued
to
represent
himself
as
a
lawyer,
not
only
before
the
IBP
but
also
before
the
Supreme
Court.

DIANA RAMOS vs. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG

530 SCRA 759,

A.C. No. 6788,

August

23,

2007

Lawyers
in
government
service
cannot
handle
private
cases
for
they
are
expected
to
devote
themselves
full-time
to
the
work
of
their
respective
offices.
As
a
PAO
lawyer,
respondent
should
not
have
accepted
attorneys
fees
from
the
complainant
as
this
was
inconsistent
with
the
offices
mission.
Respondent
violated
against
accepting
legal
fees
other
than
his
salary.

Rule 20.04

CONTROVERSY WITH CLIENTS

COMPENSATION

INVOLVING

VINSON PINEDA vs. ATTY. CLODUALDO DE JESUS et. al.

499 SCRA 608,

G.R. No. 155224, August 23, 2006

FACTS: Respondents were

the counsels of
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage
filed
and
his
wife
agreed
to
a
settlement
their
minor
child
and
the
separation
trial
court
granted.

Vinson Pineda in an action for

against
him
by
his
wife .
He
regarding
visitation
rights
over
of
their
properties
which
the

Throughout
the
proceedings,
respondent
counsels
were
well-compensated.
They, including
their
relatives
and
friends,
even
availed
of
free
products
and
treatments
from
Dr.
Vinsons
dermatology
clinic.
This
notwithstanding, they
billed
Dr.
Vinson
additional
legal
fees
amounting
to
P16.5M
which
the
latter ,
however,
refused
to
pay. Instead,
Dr. Vinson
issued
them several checks totaling P1.12M
as full payment for settlement.

15
Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial
for
payment
of
lawyers
fees
for
P50M ,
representing
value
of
the
properties
granted
to
petitioner
in
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage.
ISSUE:

Whether

respondent

counsels

are

entitled

to

court
10%
the

additional

motion
of
the
case
for

legal

fees.

HELD: NO. Respondents

claim
for
additional
legal
fees
was
not
justified .
They
could
not
charge
petitioner
a
fee
based
on
percentage ,
absent
an
express
agreement
to
that
effect .
The
payments
to
them
in
cash, checks,
free
products
and
services
from
petitioners
business --all
of which were not
denied by respondents -- more than sufficed
for
the
work
they
did .
The
full
payment
for
settlement
should
have
discharged
petitioners
obligation
to
them.
The
practice
of
law
is
a
decent
profession
and
not
a
moneymaking trade. Compensation
should
be
but
a
mere
incident .
As
lawyers,
respondents
should
be
reminded
that
they
are
members
of
an
honorable
profession,
the
primary
vision
of
which
is
justice .
It
is
respondents
despicable
behavior
which
gives
lawyering
a
bad name in
the
mind
of
some
people .
The
vernacular
has
a
word
for
it ,
nagsasamantala.

NOTABLE

CASES

ON

LEGAL

ETHICS

Rule
3.04
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
mandates
that
a
judge
should
be
courteous and
civil ,
for it is unbecoming of a judge
to
utter
intemperate
language
during
the
hearing
of
a
case .
A
judge
must
address
the
merits
of
the
case
and
not
on
the
person
of
the
counsel. (Atty. Melvin Mane vs. Judge
Arnaldo Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119,
June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 555).
Judges
are
prohibited
from
engaging
in
the
private
practice
of
law
while
holding
judicial
office.
Those
who
have
been
merely
suspended
and
not
dismissed
from
the
service
are
still
bound
under
the
prohibition. (Atty. Florencio Binalay vs. Judge Elias Lelina, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-092132, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 547).
Fighting
between
court
employees
during
office
hours
is
disgraceful
behavior
reflecting
adversely
on
the
good
image
of
the
judiciary . It
displays
a
cavalier
attitude
towards
the
seriousness
and
dignity
with
which
court
business
should
be
treated .
Shouting
at
one
another
in
the
workplace
and
during
office
hours
is
arrant
discourtesy
and
disrespect
not
only
towards
co-workers ,
but
to
the
court
as
well
the
behavior
of
the
parties
was
totally
unbecoming
members
of the
judicial
service. (Judge Rizalina Umali vs. Judge Paulita Villarante, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124,
August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 240)
A
lawyer
who
contracted
a
second
marriage
while
the
first
marriage
is still
subsisting
is
liable
for
violation
of
Rule 1.01
of the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
(CPR).
Immoral
conduct
which
is
proscribed
under
Rule
1.01
of
the
CPR
as
opposed
to
grossly
immoral
conduct,
connotes
conduct
that
shows indifference
to
the
moral
norms
of
society
and
the
opinion
of
good
and
respectable
members
of
the community .
Gross
immoral
conduct
on
the
other
hand
must
be
so
corrupt
and
false
as
to
constitute
act
or
so
unprincipled
as
to
be
reprehensible
to
a
high
degree . (Juan Dulalia vs. Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Jr.,
A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007, 522 SCRA 244).

CANON 1 - DUTY TO

UPHOLD

LIGAYA MANIAGO vs.

THE

CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS

ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS

A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 142

FACTS: Atty. De Dios was
meted
by the SC the penalty of six months
suspension. She
served the suspension immediately upon the receipt of the Courts
resolution. At
the end
of
six month period , she formally informed the Court
that
she was resuming
her
practice of
law
which she actually did.

ISSUE: Whether
the
lifting
of
the
expiration of
the period.

the

suspension

order

was

automatic

after

HELD: NO. The

lifting
of
a
lawyers
suspension
is
not
automatic
at
the
end
of
the
period
stated
in
the
Court
decision . An
order from
the Court
lifting
the suspension
at the
end
of
the period
is
necessary
in order
for
him
to
resume
the
practice
of
her
profession . Thus, a
suspended
lawyer
must
first
present
proofs
of
his
compliance by
submitting
from
the
IBP
and
from
the
Executive
Judge
that
she
has

16
indeed
desisted
suspension.

from

the

practice

IMMORAL

of

law

during

the

period

of

CONDUCT

MAELOTISEA GARRIDO vs. ATTYS. ANGEL

& ROMANA P. VALENCIA

E.

GARRIDO

A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 508

FACTS: Atty.
Garrido
contracted
his
second
marriage
notwithstanding the subsistence
of
his
first
marriage
with
union
bore
six
(6)
children.
Upon
the
death
of
Constancia, he married Atty. Valencia in Hongkong.

with
Maelotisea
Constancia . Their
his
first
wife,

ISSUE:
Whether
immorality
that

committed

both
would

Attys.
warrant

Garrido
&
Valencia
their
disbarment.

gross

HELD: YES.
Immoral
conduct
involves
acts
that
are
willful ,
flagrant
or
shameless,
and
that
show
a
moral
indifference
to
the
opinion
of
the
upright and respectable members
of the
community . They
failed
to adhere
to highest standards of morality when Atty. Garrido engaged
in
an
extramarital
affairs
with Atty. Valencia
while his two marriages
were
in place
and
without
taking
into
consideration
the
moral
and
emotional
implication
of
his
action on the two women he took
as wives
and
on his six
(6) children by his second marriage.

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. vs. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA

A.C. No. 2474,

September 15, 2004, 438 SCRA 306

Atty.
Palma secretly
contracted
a
second
marriage
with
the
daughter
of
his client
in
Hongkong.
The
Court
found
that
Atty. Palma
exhibited
a
deplorable
lack of
degree
of
morality
required
of
members
of
the
Bar. In particular, he
made
a
mockery
of
marriage,
a
sacred
institution
that
demands
respect and dignity . The Court
also
declared
his
act
of
contracting
a
second
marriage
contrary to
honesty,
justice,
decency
and
immorality.

FLORENCE MACARRUBO

vs.

ATTY. EDMUNDO MACARRUBO

A.C. No. 6148, February 27,

2004,

424 SCRA 42

Atty.
Macarrubo
entered
into
multiple marriages
and
subsequently
used
legal
remedies to
sever
them.
The
Court
ruled
Atty. Macarrubos
pattern
of
misconduct
undermined
the
institution
of
marriage
and
family
institutions that
this
society
looks up
for
the
rearing
of
our
children
and for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of
our
communities
and
for
the
strengthening
of
our
nation as
a
whole .
In this light, Atty. Macarrubo was disbarred.

LILIAN

VILLASANTA vs.
G.R. No. L-9513,

ATTY.

April

HILARION M. PERALTA

30, 1957,

101 Phil. 313

Atty.
Peralta
married
Lilian
while
his
marriage
with
his
first
wife
was
subsisting.
The
Court
ruled
that
the
act
of
Atty.
Peralta
of
contracting
a
second marriage
was
contrary
to
honesty ,
justice,
decency
and
morality.
The
lack of good
moral
character
required
by
the
Rules
of
Court
disqualified
Atty.
Peralta from
admission
to
the
Bar.

ELPIDIO

P.

TIONG

A.C. No. 4428,

vs.

ATTY.

December

GEORGE M. FLORENDO

12, 2010,

662

SCRA

FACTS:
Atty.
George
served
as
legal
counsel
and
Elpidios business.
He
had
illicit
affair
with his
clients
both
admitted
their
relationship.
Seeking
forgiveness,
Atty.
clients
wife,
executed
an
affidavit
attesting
their
illicit
seeking their respective spouses forgiveness.

ISSUE:

Whether

Atty.

HELD: YES.
Possession
for
admission
to
the
ones
good
standing
having
an
affair
with
laws
on
the
sanctity

George

is

liable

for

gross

immoral

1
administrator
wife
and
George and
relationship

of
later
his
and

conduct.

of
good
moral
character
is not only
a
condition
Bar
but
is
a
continuing
requirement to
maintain
in
the
legal
profession.
Atty.
Georges
act
of
his clients
wife
manifested his
disrespect
for
the
of
marriage
and his own
marital vow
of
fidelity.

TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA

17
A.C. No. 9000, October

5, 2011,

658

SCRA 327

FACTS: Atty.
Haide
obtained
a
loan
of
P350,000
from
Tomas
and
by
way
of
security,
she
offered
a
parcel
of
land
covered
by
a
TCT
registered
in
her
fathers
name .
She
executed
an
open
Deed
of
Absolute
Sale
over
the
said
parcel of
land in
favor of
Tan attaching
thereto the SPA
in
the
event
she
failed to pay the full
amount
of
loan
on
due
date .
Respondent
lawyer
defaulted
on
her
loan
obligation
and
failed
to pay the
same
despite
complainants
repeated demands . Left
with
no
recourse,
Tomas
went
to
the
Register
of
Deeds
to
register
the
sale,
only
to
find
out
that
Atty.
Haide
deceived
him
since
the
SPA did not give Atty. Haide the power to sell the property but only empowered
him to
mortgage
the
property solely
to
banks.
ISSUE:
Whether
profession.

Atty.

Haide

exhibited

conduct

unworthy

of

the

legal

HELD: YES. Atty. Haide

violated
Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1
of
the Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
Respondents
action
clearly
show
that
she
deceived
complainant
into
lending
money
to her
through
the
use
of
documents
and
false
representation
and
by
taking
advantage
of
her
education
and
complainants
ignorance
in
legal matters.

RODOLFO A.

ESPINOSA

vs.

ATTY. JULIETA

A. OMAA

A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 1

FACTS:
Atty.
Omaa
prepared
and
notarized
a
document
entitled
Kasunduan
Ng
Paghihiwalay
of
Espinosa
and
his
wife
Elena
and
that
they
could
legally
live
separately
and dissolved
their
marriage.
ISSUE: Whether
Atty. Omaas
warrant
disciplining
measures

act
of
preparing
against
her.

and

notarizing

HELD: YES. A
notary
public
should
not
facilitate
marriage and
family
by
encouraging
the
separation
extrajudicially
dissolving
the
conjugal
partnership.

void

document

the
disintegration
of
of
the
spouses
and

CANON 9
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

RULE 9.01
RODRIGO TAPAY vs. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO
A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013, 674 SCRA 1
FACTS:
A
complaint
for
usurpation
of
authority,
falsification
of
public
document
and
graft
and
corrupt
practices
was
filed
against
Tapay
before
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
by
a
certain
Divinagracia .
Atty.
Bancolo
denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had to meet him yet
in
person
and
his
signature
appearing
in
the
complaint
against
Tapay
was
signed by his secretary
in
his
law office.
ISSUE: Whether
Atty.
Code of Professional

Bancolo
violated
responsibility.

Canon

and

Rule

9.01

of

the

HELD: YES.
With
Atty.
Bancolos
admission
that
the
complaint
he
filed
against
Tapay
before
the Office of
the
Ombudsman was
signed in
his
name by
a
secretary
of
his
law office is clearly a
violation of Rule
9.01
of
the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides
in
Canon
9
that
A
Lawyer
Shall
Not,
Directly
or
Indirectly,
Assist
in
the
Unauthorized Practice
of
Law and Rule 9.01 which states
that
a lawyer
shall
not
delegate
to
any
unqualified
person
the
performance
of
any
task which by law
may be
performed
by
a
member
of the
Bar
in
good
standing.

The
lawyers
duty
to prevent
or
at
the very
least
not
to assist
in the unauthorized
practice
of
law
is
founded
on
public
interest
and
policy. Public
policy
requires
that
the
practice
of
law
be
limited
to
those
individual
found
only
qualified
in
education
and
character .
The
permissive
right
conferred
in
the
law
is
an
individual
and
limited
privilege
subject
to
withdrawal
if
he
fails
to
maintain
proper
standards
of
moral
and
professional
conduct.
The
purpose
is
to
protect
the
public,
the
court,
the
client
and
the
bar
from
the
incompetence
or
dishonesty
of those
unlicensed
to
practice
of
law
and
not
subject to
the
disciplinary
control
of
the
Court.

18
Undoubtedly,
Responsibility
by
pleading.

Atty.
allowing

Bancolo
violated
the
a
non-lawyer
to
affix

Code
his

of
Professional
signature
to
a

RULE 9.02
MIGUEL VILLATUYA

vs. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS

A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012, 676 SCRA 37

FACTS: Miguel was
employed
by Atty. Bede as
a
financial consultant
to
assist
in
the
technical
and
financial
matter
in
the
numerous
petitions
for
corporate
rehabilitation
where
they
had
a
verbal
agreement
that
Miguel be entitled to P50,000 for
every Stay
Order
and 10 (10%)
percent
of
the
fees. After Atty.
Bede
was able to rake in millions
of
pesos
from
the
corporate
rehabilitation
cases
they
were
working
together ,
Atty.
Bede
denied
said
agreement
and
proffered
documents
showing
the
salary
of
Miguel had been
paid
as
his
employee.
ISSUE: Whether
the
sharing
Professional
Responsibility.

of

legal

fees

is

violative

of

the

Code

of

HELD:
YES.
The
agreement
is
violative
of
Rule
9.02
of
the
Code
of
Professional Responsibility.
A
lawyer
is
prohibited by the
Code to divide
or agree
to divide the
fees
for legal services
rendered
with
a
person
not
licensed
to
practice
law.
fees
void

An
agreement
between
collected
from
clients
and
that
the
lawyer

a
lawyer
and
a
layperson
to
share
the
secured
by
the
layperson
is
null
and
may
be
disciplined
for
unethical
conduct.

CANON 21
RULE 21.01
DR. TERESITA LEE vs.
A.C.

No.

9537,

ATTY.

June

10,

AMADOR

L. SIMANDO

2013, 698 SCRA 20

FACTS: Atty.
Simando
was
the
retained
counsel
of
Dr.
Lee . One
day,
Atty.
Simando
went
to
see
Dr.
Lee
and
asked
her
to
extend
a
loan
of
P1.4M
to
a
certain
Mejorado
who
was
then
awaiting
his
claim
for
informers
reward
from
the
Bureau
of
Customs .
Upon
persistence
of
Atty.
Simando
to
act
as
co-maker ,
Dr.
Lee
finally
gave
in
her
lawyers
demand.
When
the
said
obligation
became
due,
despite
Dr.
Lees
repeated
demands, Mejorado
failed
and referred
to
comply
with
his obligation . Dr.
Lee
instructed
Atty.
Simando
to
initiate
legal
actions
against
Mejorado
but
her
lawyer
ignored
and failed
to bring legal actions.
A
demand
letter
the co-maker
of the
co-maker
and
claimed
given
additional
loans

was
sent
to
Atty.
Simando
in
his
capacity
loans
of
Mejorado
but he denied his
liability
that
novation
had
occurred
because
Dr. Lee
to
Mejorado
without
his
knowledge.

as
as
had

Dr. Lee
accused
Atty. Simando of
violating
the
trust
and
confidence
which she gave
upon
him
as
a
lawyer
and even took advantage
of
their
professional
relationship
in
order
to
get
a
loan
for
his
client .
Worse, when the
said
obligation became due , Atty. Simando was
unwilling
to
help
her
to
favor
Mejorado .
She
lamented
that
Atty. Simando
even
divulged
confidential
information
he
had
acquired
while
he was still
her
lawyer
and even
used
it
against
her.
ISSUES:

(1)

Whether

Simando

is

guilty

(2)

Whether

Simando

is

guilty

of

of

representing

violating

conflicting

Rule

21.01

interest.

of

the

CPR.
HELD: (1)
YES.
His
representation
of
opposing
clients
in
both
cases
though
unrelated
obviously
constitutes
conflict
of
interest
or
at
least,
invites
suspicion
of
double
dealing .
Moreover,
with
the
subject
loan
agreement
entered
into
by
Dr.
Lee
and
Mejorado,
who
are
both
his
clients, readily
shows
an
apparent
conflict
of
interest ,
more
so
when
he
signed
as
co-maker.

19
(2) YES.
In
his
last-ditch
effort
to
impeach
the
credibility
of
Dr.
Lee,
Atty.
Simando
violated
Rule
21.01
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
when
he
divulged
informations
which
he
acquired
in
confidence
during
the
existence
of
their
lawyer-client
relationship.

PRACTICE OF LAW
PETITION TO SIGN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner,
B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013, 706 SCRA 264
FACTS:
In
1979,
Medado
graduated
from
the bar
examinations in the same year.

UP

College

of

Law

and

passed

In
1980,
he
took
the
Attorneys
Oath
at
the
PICC,
but
failed
to
sign
the
Roll
of
Attorneys
on
his
scheduled
date
as
he
misplaced
the
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys
given by the OBC when he went
to his province for a vacation.
Several
years
later,
when
he
was
already
involved
in
corporate
and
taxation work, he came across the aforementioned Notice and realized what
he
signed
at
the
entrance
of
PICC
was
just
an
attendance
record
and
not
the
Roll
of
Attorneys. Thus, he
was
operating
under
the
mistaken
belief
that
since
he
already
took
the
oath ,
the
signing
of
the
Roll
of
Attorneys was not as urgent, nor
as
crucial to his status as a lawyer.
In
2005,
when
he
attended
MCLE
seminars ,
he
was
required
to
provide
his
Roll
Number
in
order
for
his
MCLE
compliances
to
be
credited, but
was unable to do since he had not
yet signed the Roll
of Attorneys.
ISSUE:

Whether

Medado

commits

an

unauthorized

practice

of

law.

HELD: YES.
He
committed
unauthorized
practice
of
law .
Canon
9
of
Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) provides that
a
lawyer shall
directly or indirectly assist in
the
unauthorized practice of
law.
Medado
has
been
engaged
in
the
practice
of
period
spanning
more
than
30
years
without
having
of
Attorneys.

law
since
signed
in

the
not

1980 ,
a
the
Roll

As
Medado is not yet a full-fledged
lawyer , he cannot be suspended
from the practice
of
law ,
it
is
best
to impose upon him a penalty
akin
to
suspension
by
allowing
him
to
sign
in
the
Roll
of
Attorneys
one (1) year after the
receipt of
SC resolution.

SONIA C. DECENA vs. JUDGE NILO

A. MALANYAON

A. M. No. RTJ-10-2217, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 284

FACTS:
During
a
hearing
for
an
administrative
case
against
Dr.
Amelita ,
where
her
daughter,
Atty.
Ma.
Kristina,
a
new
practitioner,
acted
as
counsel,
her
husband,
Judge
Malanyaon
sat
beside
counsel,
prompting
her
to
rise
from
her
seat
and/or
ask
permission from
the
hearing
officer
to
speak,
and
make
manifestations
while
reading
or glancing at
the
paper given by Judge Malanyaon.
Counsel for
complainant
questioned
sitting with and
assisting his daughter
of
the Judiciary.
ISSUE:
of
a

Whether
judge.

Judge

Malanyaon

is

the
in

guilty

propriety
of
that hearing,
of

exhibiting

Judge
being

Malanyaons
a
member

conduct

unbecoming

HELD:
YES.
First,
by
occupying
a
seat
beside
his
daughter
that
reserved
for
lawyers
during
the
hearing,
Judge
Malanyaon
displayed
presumptuousness
and
perhaps
even
his
clear
intention
to
exert
influence
as
an
RTC
Judge
on
the
hearing
officer
in
order
for
latter
to favor his wifes
cause.

was
his
his
the

Second,
by
Judge
Malanyaons
admission
that
his
presence
in
hearing
was to
advise
daughter
on
what
to do
and
say during
hearing
to
the
point
of
coaching
her ,
and
claiming
that
it
was
filial
duty
towards
his
wife
and
daughter
that
brought
him
there.

the
the
his

20
But
the
situation of
Judge Malanyaon was
different ,
for
he was
a
judicial
officer
who came
under
the
structure
that
uniformity
applied
to
all
judges
of
all level
of
the
judicial
hierarchy,
forbidding
him
from
engaging
in
the
private
practice
of
law
during
his
incumbency ,
regardless
of
whether
the
beneficiary
was
his
wife
or
daughter
or
other
members of
his
own family.

UNLAWFUL,

DISHONEST

SIMULATING
LILIA

&

DECEITHFUL

CONDUCT

TRANSACTIONS - Rule 1.01 of CPR

TABANG

vs.

ATTY.

GLENN

C.

GACOTT

A.C. No. 6490, July 9, 2013, 700 SCRA 788

FACTS:
Lilia
purchased
seven
area
of
30
hectares
and
names of fictitious persons.

parcels
obtained

Later, when Lilia was offering

Gacott borrowed the seven (7) TCTs

of
the

agricultural
land
with
a
corresponding
TCT
under

the parcels to prospective

covering the
parcels.

total
the

buyers ,

Atty.

Atty.
Gacott
executed
several
documents
that
included
revocations
of
SPAs
and various affidavits of
recovery purportedly signed by the fictitious
owners.
Also
he
caused
the
publication
of
notices
where
he
represented
himself as the owner of the parcels and announced that these were for
sale.
Subsequently,
received
a
sum
sales.

Atty.
Gacott
succeeded
in
selling
of
money of more than P3M from

ISSUE: Whether
Atty.
Gacott
deceit
in violation of Rule
(CPR).
HELD:
YES.
in
violation
The
dishonest,

Atty.
Gacott
of
Rule 1.01

Rule
immoral

is
guilty
of
1.01
of the
is
of

guilty
the

the
the

seven
parcels .
He
proceeds
of
the

gross
misconduct,
dishonesty
and
Code of Professional Responsibility

of
misconduct ,
CPR.

provides
that
a
lawyer
or
deceitful conduct.

shall

dishonesty

not

engage

and
in

deceit
unlawful ,

While
it
may
be
true
that
Lilia
herself
engaged
in
illicit
activities ,
her
own complicity
does not negate
or even mitigate
the repugnancy of
Atty.
Gacotts
offense.
He
is
a
lawyer
who
is
held
to
the
highest
standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
Perverting what is expected of him , he deliberately and cunningly took
advantage
of
his
knowledge
and
skill
of
the
law
to
prejudice
and
torment
other
individuals. Not
only did
he
countenance
illicit
action ,
he
instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice, he orchestrated it.

BAR

DISCIPLINE

ATTY. PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN

vs.
ATTY. PRIMA JESUSA B. QUINSAYAS, et.

al.

G.R. No. 194578, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 623

FACTS:
accused

Atty.
Fortun
is
the
counsel
in the Maguindanao Massacre.

for

the

Ampatuans ,

the

principal

Atty.
Quinsayas
filed
a
disbarment
complaint
against
Atty.
Fortun
misleading the prosecution and
trial court under the rules and muddled
issues
and
diverted
the
attention away from the
main
subject
matter
the case.

Atty. Fortun filed an indirect contempt against Atty. Quinsayas

media
group
for
active
dissemination
of
the
details
of
the
complaint against
him in violation of
Rule 139-B of the Rules
on confidential nature of disbarment proceedings.
The
media
group
denied
the
about
the
disbarment
complaint .
It
was
responsible
for
the
distribution
to the members of the media.

for
the
of

and the
disbarment
of Court

posting and
publication
of
the
articles
would
appear
that
only Atty. Quinsayas
of
copies of
the
disbarment
complaint

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Quinsayas is guilty of indirect

Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

contempt

in

violation

of

21

HELD: YES.
Atty. Quinsayas
is
bound by Section
Rules
of
Court
both
as
a
complainant
and
disbarment case against Atty. Fortun.

18,
as

Rule 139-B of
a
lawyer
in

As
a
lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas
with
the
confidential
nature
of
disbarment
proceedings .
However,
preserving
its
confidentiality,
she
disseminated
copies
of
the
complaint
against
Atty.
Fortun
to
members
of
the
media
constitutes contempt
of court.

the
the

is familiar
instead
of
disbarment
which act

RULE 6.06 CANON 6 OF CPR

Primary Duty of the Prosecutor
MARY ROSE A. BOTO

vs.

PROS. VINCENT L. VILLENA

A.C. No. 9684, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 1

FACTS:
Boto
had
filed
a
libel
was
dismissed
by
Prosecutor
investigation.

case
against
Tizon
but
the
Villena
without
conducting

However,
when
Tizon
filed
a
complaint
for
libel
Prosecutor Villena immediately acted and has
shown interest
to
the
issuance
of
the
warrant
of
arrest
on
the
same
was filed before the MeTC.

said
case
preliminary

against
from its
day
the

Boto ,
filing
case

Boto
posted
bail and
on
the scheduled
arraignment ,
she
filed
the
Motion to Quash the information on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as
the crime of libel falls
within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC , and
not with the MeTC.
trial
the

The
MeTC,
instead of dismissing the
prosecutor Villena to file his comment
arraignment.

and

Prosecutor
Villena
failed
to
extended to five (5)
months.

Finally, Prosecutor
that the court
had
warrant of
arrest.
ISSUE:

Whether

Villena
already

Prosecutor

file

case,
issued
an Order requiring
within ten
(10) days and reset

his

comment

within

opposed
the motion
to quash
determined probable cause when

Villena

is

guilty

HELD: YES.
When
the
motion
to
quash
jurisdiction, Prosecutor
Villena
should have
opposing
the
dismissal
of
the
case.

of

gross

was
filed
immediately

ten

(10)

days

and contended
it issued
the

ignorance

of

by
Boto for
acted on it

the

law.

lack
of
by not

Patently,
the responsive
pleading of Prosecutor Villena
demonstrates that
he did not know
the elementary rules on jurisdiction .
Fundamental is the
rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and it is no within the courts ,
let alone the parties themselves. As a responsible public servant, Rule 6.01
of
the
CPR
provides
that
the
prosecutors
primary
duty
is
not
simply
convict
but to see that
justice is done.

NON COMPLIANCE OF MCLE

JUDGE MARIBETH MANAHAN vs.

ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES

A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 297

FACTS: Atty.
case
before

and

During
was

Flores
was
the
sala
of

the
preliminary
given
time
to

Later,
Atty.
MCLE
compliance
prejudice
to
the
MCLE
compliance,
submit proof.

the
counsel
for
Judge
Manahan.

conference,
file
a

the

defendant

Atty.
Flores
entered
Pre-Trial
Brief.

in

his

civil

appearance

Flores
filed
his
Pre-Trial
Brief
but
without
proof
of
hence
it
was
expunged
from
the
records
without
filing
of
another
Pre-Trial
Brief
containing
the
required
however,
Atty.
Flores
asked
for
ten
(10)
days
to

The preliminary conference

given
several
occasions
to
compliance.

was set several times and Atty. Flores was

submit
the
brief
with the
proper
MCLE

22

On
the
final
instance,
instead
of
submitting
the
of
MCLE
compliance,
Atty.
Flores
filed
a
letter
stating
no
longer
representing
the
defendant.
Such
was
stated
deemed
as
intemperate
language.
ISSUE:

Whether

Atty.

Flores

is

guilty

of

disrespect

to

promised
that
he
in
what

court

proof
was
was

orders.

HELD: YES. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges
issue
them
should
be
respected ,
but
because
of
the
respect
consideration
that
should
be
extended
to
the
judicial
branch
of
Government.

who
and
the

Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial courts order to submit proof of
his
MCLE
compliance
notwithstanding
the
several
opportunities
given
him .
Furthermore, he used intemperate language in his pleadings and dealing with
the court.
As
language
menacing

an
officer
and
should
language or

SAMUEL

of

the
have
behavior

B. ARNADO

court ,
he
must
be
circumspect
in
abstained
from
scandalous ,
offensive
before
the
court.

vs.

ATTY.

A.C. No. 9834,

FACT:
Atty.
Adaza
filed
Second Compliance period

a
on

HOMOBONO

August

A.

his
or

ADAZA

26, 2015

request
for
the
grounds

exemption
for
the
First
of
expertise
of
law.

and

While
awaiting
for
his
request
of
for
exemption ,
he
used
to
indicate
in
his
pleadings
MCLE application for
exemption under
process
filed
in
2009,
2010,
2011
and
MCLE
Application
for
Exemption
for
Reconsideration in the
pleadings
filed
in 2012.
On
January
14,
request
for
exemption
and
convincing
proof
law.
ISSUE:
comply

2009,
the
MCLE
Governing
for
his
failure
to
submit
to establish his
expertise
in

Whether
Atty.
Adaza
is
administratively
with the
MCLE
requirements.

liable

HELD:
YES.
Atty. Adazas
failure
to comply
with
and
disregards
of
the
directives
of
MCLE office
as
a
delinquent
member
of
the
IBP.

Board
denied
his
sufficient ,
satisfactory
a
certain area
of
for

his

failure

to

the
MCLE requirements
warrant
his
declaration

While
the
MCLE Implementing
Regulations
state
that
the
MCLE
Committee
should
recommend
to
the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
the
listing
of
a
lawyer
as
a
delinquent
member ,
there
is
nothing
to
prevent
the
SC
from using
its administrative
power
and
supervision
to
discipline erring lawyers
and
from
directing the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
to
declare such lawyer as a delinquent member of
the IBP.
Having
declared
Atty.
Adaza
as
a
delinquent
member
of
the
IBP ,
he is suspended from the practice of law
for SIX MONTHS , or
until he
has
complied
with
the
MCLE
requirements
for
the
1 st
to
the
Fifth
periods
of
compliance.

IMPROPRIETY
POSTING

IMPROPER

ANTONIO M. LORENZANA

vs.

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200,

OF

PHOTOS

JUDGE
April 2,

JUDGE
IN

FRIENDSTER

MA. CECILIA

2014,

720

SCRA

I.

AUSTRIA

319

FACTS:
On
April
14,
2008,
a
complaint
was
filed
against
Judge
Austria
for
committing
an
act
of
impropriety
when
she
displayed
her
photographs
in a
social networking website
called
Friendster
and
posted
her
personal
details
as
a
RTC
Judge ,
allegedly
for
the
purpose
of
finding a compatible partner.
She
also
posed
with
her
upper
allegedly
suggesting
that
nothing
was
brassiere.

body
worn

barely
covered
by
a
shawl
underneath
except
probably a

23

ISSUE:
Whether the posting of Friendster
photos of
herself
wearing
off-shouldered
suggested dress
constitutes an act of impropriety.
HELD:
YES.
personification

Judge
Austria
is
guilty
of
law and justice.

Judges
are
accordingly comport

held
to
higher
themselves.

of

impropriety,

standards

of

as

she

conduct

is

and

an

visible

thus

must

The
very
nature
of
their
functions
requires
under
exacting
standards
of morality, decency and propriety;
both in the performance of their duties
and their daily personal lives, they should be beyond reproach.

PROHIBITION OF

JUDGES TO

CONRADO ABE LOPEZ

alleged

that

AS

FIDUCIARY

vs. JUDGE ROGELIO S. LUCMAYON

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837,

FACTS:
Conrado
Restituto.

SERVE

September 24, 2014,

he

inherited

736 SCRA 291

lot

from

his

adopted

father ,

Sometime
in
October
2004,
Conrado
and
Judge
Lucmayon
met
in
a
waiting shed and at
that
meeting, Judge Lucmayon allegedly
deceived him
into
signing
a
Special
Power
of
Attorney (SPA)
to
process
the
sale
of
Lot 1696 to the prospective buyer, Aboitiz Group of
Company.
Unknown to Conrado, the said SPA
contained at the bottom portion , a
so-called
Waiver
of
Rights
that
Judge
Lucmayon
had
deceptively
inserted
in order to strip him of his ownership of Lot 1696.
Atty.
that

After
signing
the
document
which
was
already
Mata
without
his
presence ,
Judge
Lucmayon
he no longer any right over the property.

In March
cultivating
the
signed.

2005,
land

Judge Lucmayons
because
of
the

father,
Waiver

notarized
allegedly

by a
certain
told
Conrado

Pedro, ordered
of
Rights
in

him
the

to cease
SPA
he

Conrado also asserted that Judge Lucmayon had caused Pedro and his
siblings to
execute
a
document
entitled Supplemental
Extrajudicial
Settlement
wherein his name and the name of his adopting
mother
were
excluded.
ISSUE:
Whether
fiduciary.

Judge

Lucmayon

is

administratively

liable

HELD: YES.
First, Judge Lucmayon violated Rule 5.06
general
rule,
a judge
is prohibited from serving as
trustee, guardian or other fiduciary.

for

serving

as

of the code . As a
executor, administrator,

The
intent
of
the
rule
is
to
limit
a
judges
involvement
in
the
affairs and interests of private individuals
to minimize the risk of conflict
with
his
judicial
duties
and
to
allow
him
to
devote
his
undivided
attention to
the
performance
of his official functions.
When
a
member
of
the
bench
serves
as
administrator of
the
properties
of private individuals,
he runs
the
risk of losing his neutrality
and impartiality, especially when the interests of
his principal conflicts
with
those of the litigant who comes before his court.

The
only exception to
this rule as set forth in Rule 5.06 is when
the
estate
or
trust
belongs
to, or
the
ward
is
a
member
of
his
immediate family, and only
if his service as executor , administrator, trustee,
guardian or fiduciary will
not
interfere with the proper performance of his
judicial duties.
and

The
Code
defines
relatives within the

immediate
family
second degree of

as
being
limited
consanguinity.

In
this
case,
since
Conrado
clearly
does
not
Lucmayons
immediate
family
as
herein
defined,
the
as the formers attorney-in-fact
is not a valid exception

to

the

spouse

fall
under
Judge
latters
appointment
to the rule.

24

DISPLAY
GASPAR

OF BIAS AND PARTIALITY

BANDOY

vs. JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR.

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2399,

November

19,

2014, 740 SCRA 578

FACTS: During the 2007 local elections, Bandoy

former
mayor
Panaligan,
while
De
Jesus,
a
chairpersons of the
Board of Election Inspector.
De
mayoralty
De
captured
the
of

Jesus
was
rumored
candidate, Villarosa.
Jesus
was
on video by

to

caught
in
a member

be

was an
teacher,

closely

the
act
of
of media.

associated
ballot

As
a
result
of
this
incident,
De
Jesus
offense of ballot switching. Accordingly, on
arrest was issued against De Jesus.

On
March
7,
2008,
De
Judge Raul Villanueva.

Jesus

was

with

switching

the

rival

which

was

was
criminally
charged with
August 17, 2007, a
warrant

On
August
20,
2007,
while
there
was
a
standing
against him, De Jesus filed a criminal case before the
for Serious Illegal Detention against Bandoy.
Pias

election watcher of
was
one
of
the

able

to

Because
Bandoy
was
charged
with
Serious
provincial prosecutor recommended no bail leaving him
than two
years.

post

warrant
of
prosecutors
bail

arrest
office

before

Las

Illegal
Detention ,
the
incarcerated
for more

Bandoy
charged
Judge
Jacinto
of
grave
abuse
of
authority when
he
granted
several
postponements
of
De
Jesus
arraignment,
originally
scheduled
on April 23, 2008 but was reset for seven times
until
De Jesus entered
a plea of not
guilty supposedly inside
Judge
Jacintos chamber on July
6, 2011.
ISSUE: Whether Judge
Jacinto
was
and displayed
bias
and
partiality.

guilty

of

gross

ignorance

HELD: YES.
Judge
Jacinto
was
directly
confronted
with
an
he arraigned De Jesus inside his chambers. He
was given
to answer,
but he
chose not
to delve into it.

of

the

law

allegation
that
the opportunity

Ultimately,
Judge
Jacinto
did
not
squarely
face
the
issues
being
imputed against him, which was quite irregular since it was his name and
his capacity as a member of the bench that was being challenged.
not

His silence
acceptable.

introduces

doubts

in

the

minds

of

the

public ,

which

is

Hence,
the
Court
cannot
fathom
why
the
arraignment
of
De
Jesus
was
postponed
from
2007
to
2011
without
appropriate
action
coming
from
the court.
Judge Jacinto should have availed of known legal remedies to
compel De Jesus to personally appear for his arraignment but he did not .
The appearance of leniency
seemingly exhibited in favor of De Jesus gives
an
impression
of
bias
and
partiality
that
should
be
addressed
and
corrected.

The
Code
of
Judicial
Ethics
emphasizes
that
Judges ,
as
officers
of
the
court
have
the
duties
to
see
to
it
that
justice
is
dispensed with
evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest
and impartial ,
but they
must
also appear
to be
honest
and
impartial
in
the
dispensation
of
justice.
Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect
and do
not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public.

*** I HAVE FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT, IVE FINISHED MY RACE***

I HAVE KEPT MY FAITH

25

GODSPEED