CANON 1 the court when it suspended his sentence and granted him
by Rei-Anne Santos probation. And yet, it has been four years since he was ordered
RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO
(A.M. No. P-06-2177, June 26, 2006)
FACTS:
Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in Eastern
Samar. He was found guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to
make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. She was
fined P10k. Since his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful conduct), the SC ordered ordered him to show
cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer
of the court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a timely
remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable; he
maintained his contention that he kept the money in the courts safety
vault and never once used it for his own benefit.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule
1.01.
HELD:
YES. Even though he was in good faith, his action was a
breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides
that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes while Rule 1.01
states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. As servants of the law and officers of the court,
lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and
maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves
exemplars worthy of emulation. The least a lawyer can do in
compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful
conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is
unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not
essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule
1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful
conduct. Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it
was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to account. Atty.
Kho is ordered to pay FINE.
CANON 1
by Rei-Anne Santos
SORIANO v. ATTY. DIZON
(A.C 6792, January 25, 2006)
FACTS:
Atty. Dizon was driving his car on his way home. Soriano,
taxi driver overtook his car driven by Dizon who was under the
influence of liquor. Dizon tailed Soriano until the latter stop ped.
Dizon stopped his car held Soriano by his shirt. To stop the
aggression, the Soriano forced open his door causing the accused to
fall to the ground. Soriano got out of his car to help him get up. But
Dizon, by now enraged, attempted twice to deal Soriano with a fist
blow twice. Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver and shot
Soriano. Soriano survived but sustained a spinal cord injury which
disabled him for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon filed an application for
probation which was granted on the condition that he satisfy the civil
liabilities imposed by the court in favor of Soriano. Dizon failed to
comply with this undertaking and even appealed the civil liability.
IBP recommended that Dizon be disbarred from the practice of law
for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Atty. Dizon violated Canon 1 of the CPR.
2. Whether Atty. Dizon should be disbarred from the practice
of law.
HELD:
1. YES. It is glaringly clear that respondent violated Canon 1
of the CPR through his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He
has thus violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the
courts. Dizon has shown through this incident that he is wanting
in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the benevolence of
Page 1 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To date, respondent
remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation,
2. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is
deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of
justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character.
M oral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." The totality of the
facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his
conduct, respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling
of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a god on the road,
who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly,
his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected
poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession.
When lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the
attending circumstances not the mere fact of their conviction
would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession.
In the present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and
brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness
to continue as a member of the bar. Atty. Dizon is
DISBARRED.
CANON 2
by Jeth Tan
CANTILLER v. POTENCIANO
(A.M. Case No. 3195, December 18, 1989)
FACTS:
Herein respondent, Potenciano, is charged with deceit,
fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
Complainant, after losing to an ejectment case, contracted the legal
service of Potenciano. Respondent told the complainant that the
temporary restraining order would be secured if the judge who would
hear the case is his barkada However, when the case was raffled
and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked respondent to
withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship.
Respondent went into the house of complainant and asked for 2,000
pesos to be given to another judge who could secure the latters
restraining order in the ejectment case. Sometime after the filing of
Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant that there
was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to
enable them to retain possession of the apartment. For this purpose,
respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of 10,000 pesos
allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as
purchase price of the apartment and another 1,000.00 pesos to cover
the expenses of the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the
need and urgency of filing the new complaint. Later on during the
hearing, respondent withdrew his appearance as counsel for
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was
obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment case
was eventually enforced and executed. Later on the complainant
wrote a letter asking for reimbursement of the amount given to
respondent however the respondent did not returned the said amount
(P 11 000) to the complainant. It was also found that the respondent
prepared a "hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly
composed petition for annulment of judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the allegations,
deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court,
charged against him by the complainant?
HELD:
The respondent was found guilty of the offenses charged
against him and was sentenced indefinite suspension until such time
he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to
resume the practice of law. His first duty was to file the best pleading
within his capability as a lawyer. He had also depended on his
closeness to the judge to get desired decisions. He had also extorted
10,000 from client as deposit but deposit was not required and such
was also not made. Lastly, he had failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his clients interest due to the fact that four days before
hearing of preliminary injunction, he already withdrew as counsel
because of his reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to
hemorrhoids, however he failed to find a replacement and failed to
inform the complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead.
CANON 2
by Jeth Tan
IN RE: TAGORDA
(G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929)
FACTS:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and
a member of the provincial board of Isabela, that he made use of a
card written in Spanish and Ilocano and distributed it to their
municipality so he could render legal service to them. Respondent
also admitted having written a letter in Ilocano addressed to a
lieutenant in his home municipality in Echague, Isabela in which he
stated his continued exercise of his profession as a lawyer and a
notary public, besides being a M ember of the Board of the
municipality of Ilagan, Isabela. He also stated that he would be
willing to render his legal services to the people who have not
contracted any other lawyers services. Respondents service is based
on the registration of land titles and charge people three pesos for
every registration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of Luis B. Tagorda is
meritorious under the code of professional responsibility by
advertising and soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets?
HELD:
The respondent was suspended for 1 month under the Rule
2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because it is stated in
the rule that A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business. Practice of law is not a
trade or a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service,
not money, is the primary consideration.
CANON 2
by Rapunzel Grace Lim
BURBE v. MAGULTA
(A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002)
FACTS:
Petitioner Dominador P. Burbe filed a complaint for
disbarment, suspension or any disciplinary action against Atty.
Alberto C. M agulta. Respondent agreed to legally represent the
petitioner in a money claim and possible civil case. He prepared the
demand letters and other legal papers; however, he later on suggested
that the petitioner must file the necessary complaint. Petitioner paid
an amount of P25, 000 for lawyers fees and amounts for filing the
case. M onths had passed but there was still no feedback regarding the
petitioners case. Petitioner would frequently inquire yet respondent
would repeatedly tell him to wait. To prove that the case was already
filed, respondent brought the petitioner to the Hall of Justice Building
at Ecoland, Davao City. He made the petitioner wait for hours at the
prosecutors office and came back with the news that the Clerk of
Court was absent that day. Petitioner personally went to the Office of
the Clerk of Court and found out that the case was not filed. A
confrontation took place wherein the respondent denied the
allegation. It was only when the certification was shown that Atty.
M agulta admitted that he spent the money for his own purpose and
offered to reimburse the Burbe.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. M agulta should be
disbarred?
HELD:
The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommendation. It is evident that the petitioner deposited an amount
of P25, 00 for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. There was a
lawyer-client relationship established since the respondent agreed to
legally represent the petitioner. Theres an obligation on the part of
Page 2 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
the respondent to file the complaint within the time frame. In addition
to that, there was misappropriation of funds of the client. His actions
caused damages and prejudice to his clients. His conduct was
dishonest thus unsuitable to be a member of the legal profession. He
was not disbarred; nonetheless, he was suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one year.
CANON 2
by Rapunzel Grace Lim
KHAN, JR. v. SIMBILLO
(A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003)
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Rizalino Simbillo had his legal services
published in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
which reads Annulment of M arriage Specialist. A staff member of
the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court pretended to be
an interested party and she spoke to M rs. Simbillo. The latter claimed
that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can
guarantee a court decree within four to six months. She also added
that her husband charges a fee of P48, 000 for the said service. Office
of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office
revealed that similar advertisements were published in the August
2000 issues of M anila Bulletin and Philippine Star. Thus, petitioner
Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of
the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Simbillo for violation of the following:
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court. Disbarment and
suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Sup reme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as
attorney for a party without authority to do so.
This case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and found the respondent guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of
violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court?
HELD:
Respondent was found guilty and was suspended from the
practice of law for a year. The practice of law is not a business but a
public duty. M oney will only be a secondary consideration in such
profession. Respondent also referred to himself as an Annulment of
M arriage Specialist which undermined the sanctity of marriage and
encourage people to go for marriage dissolutions. This would defeat
the purpose of laws protecting marriage bonds. M oreover, there were
elements provided that can distinguish the legal profession from
business. These are the following:
1. A duty of public service
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of
justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and
reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice,
or dealing directly with their clients.
CANON 3
by Gladys Susana
ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
(A.C. No. 553, June 17, 1993)
FACTS:
 Petitioner prays the Court to order the respondent to cease counsel on record of the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646, is the
and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at the NBI for
as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually forgery and respondents themselves conspired and confabulated with
prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to each other in facilitating and insuring the open, blatant and deliberate
the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law. violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code. He further alleged
The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the that respondent should be disbarred for having instigated, abetted and
respondents are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in the verification
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the and certification of non-forum shopping which are contrary to Canon
integrity of the members of the bar and that, to which as a member of 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the adverts of the Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
respondents on providing services for secret marriage and giving
information regarding Guam Divorce, Annulment of M arriage, ISSUE:
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees, etc. In his answer to the petition, Whether or not herein respondent should be disbarred for
respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its violation of Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon
instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, and Canon 10.
the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the
use of modern computers and electronic machines. HELD:
After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court find the
ISSUE: administrative complaint bereft of merit and should be dismissed.
Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal The core issue to be resolved here is whether respondent Atty. Bernas
Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in transgressed Circular No. 28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and
violation of the Code of Professional responsibility. Administrative Circular No. 04 - 94 on forum shopping. Wherefore,
the instant complaint is hereby DISM ISSED.
HELD:
The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term
practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. M onsod. There CANON 3
is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in by Ralph Agbisit
the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to
practice law are or have been permitted with a limited representation
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable
services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or (A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
regulations granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of
FACTS:
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known
A complaint for disbarment is filed by Pedro Linsangan
his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
objective information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he
encroachment of professional services. The complainant alleged that
is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
respondent convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement
promising them financial assistance. The allegations of the
or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he
complainant were supported by the sworn affidavit of James
pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media
Gregorio who attested to the respondents acts of trying to lure him to
in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business
sever his lawyer-client relationship with complainant Linsangan. An
(Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption
attached calling card of the respondent further supported the
of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect
complaint which advertised the respondents law firm with the term
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or
w/ financial assistance.
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been
ISSUE:
engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of
Whether or not respondents acts are iolative of Canon 3 of
the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
other like self-laudation. The respondents defense with the case of
Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the
HELD:
prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement
Yes, Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request
states that A lawyer making known his legal services shall use only
of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statements of
for the specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly
facts. The practice of law is a professions and not a business.
or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or
Lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the
their wares. The act of the respondent in including the phrase with
disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the
financial assistance in his calling card is a conduct of advertising the
exceptions stand therein are not applicable in any state unless and
legal profession with commercialism and with the purpose of enticing
until it is implemented by such authority in that state. The Court
clients to change counsels through the promise of loans to finance
Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from
their legal action. A lawyer need not to advertise the legal profession
issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any
in such a manner similar to commercial businesses, a lawyers best
advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition, and from
and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct and not
conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or
through promises of money.
transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as
indicated herein.

CANON 3
by Ralph Agbisit
CANON 3
by Gladys Susana DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE
(G.R. No. L-41862, February 7, 1992)
CABARRUS, JR. v. BERNAS
FACTS:
(A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997)
A case is filed by complainant Adriano E. Dacanay against
Juan G. Collas Jr. and nine other lawyers engaging the practice of law
FACTS:
under the firm name Baker & M ckenzie. In November 16, 1979, one
On August 30, 1996, M r. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an
of the respondent lawyers, Vicente A. Torres sent a letter using the
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio
Baker & M ckenzie letterhead to Rosie Clurman, a client of herein
Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal
complainant, demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products
Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. In his complaint-
International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client of herein respondents.
affidavit, complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Bernas, the
Complainants response to the letter denied any liability of Clurman
Page 3 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
to respondents client. He also questioned respondents use of a
letterhead belonging to a different law office. Not receiving a reply,
complainant filed the instant case assailing the respondents use of a
foreign law office name.
ISSUE:
Whether or not herein respondents violated Canon 3, Rule
3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, the use of a foreign law office name is misleading
towards the public and the clients. Rule 3.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that In the choice of a firm name,
no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued
use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the
firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is
deceased. The respondents, being associates of the firm Baker &
M ckenzie are not authorized to use the said firms name which may
tend to mislead clients. Respondents' use of the firm name Baker &
M cKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the
firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade
and investment." This is unethical because Baker & M cKenzie is not
authorized to practice law here.
CANON 4
by Nikki Nakhiska Macalino
CORDOVA v. LABAYEN
(A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
FACTS:
On M arch 5, 1993, the M unicipal Trial Court (branch II) of
Batangas City rendered judgment for petitioners with respect to four
ordering the ejectment of private respondents and ordering them to
pay monthly rentals of P50,000.00 starting April 7, 1992 until they
shall have vacated the lots and surrendered their possession to
petitioners and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
On M arch 29, 1993, petitioners moved for the execution of
the decision in their favor, alleging that although private respondents
had filed a notice of appeal, the latter had not filed a supersedeas
bond nor make a deposit every month of the reasonable value of the
use and occupation of the properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8.
Private respondents opposed the motion, claiming that they
are co-owners of the lots from which they were ordered to be ejected
and that to grant immediate execution of the decision would render
their appeal moot and academic.
ISSUE:
Whether there was a late filing of Supersedeas Bond.
HELD:
The petition is not meritorious. As a general rule, a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately
executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the
loss of possession of the property in question. The motion for
execution was filed eighteen days from the date the petitioners
received a copy of the M TC's decision, after the appeal had already
been perfected. Because no supersedeas bond had been filed within
the period for appeal, a writ of execution should have been issued as
a matter of right. Petitioners manifestly failed to adduce a compelling
reason to justify a departure from the afore cited rule. Lawyers as
officers of the court must assist in the administration of justice.
CANON 4
by Nikki Nakhiska Macalino
DULALIA v. ATTY. CRUZ
(A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007)
FACTS:
Complainants wife Susan Dulalia filed an application for
building permit for the construction of a warehouse, but was not
issued a the permit She attributes this fact to the opposition of
respondents who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J.
Abacan, M unicipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of
Page 4 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
M eycauayan, Bulacan The letter alleges that high-rise building under
construction of the said M rs. Soriano-Dulalia is an unbearable
nuisance that causes imminent danger to the respondents and his
family, they being the immediate neighbors of this construction site.
Complainant claims that respondent Atty Cruz opposed the
application for the permit, because of a personal grudge against his
wife Susan who objected to respondents marrying her first cousin
Imelda Soriano, respondents marriage with Carolina Agaton being
still subsisting. The IBP recommended the dismissal of the
complaint, which was adopted and approved by the Board of
Governors. Hence, this petition. Complainant maintains that (1)
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a second marriage
with Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with
Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is
still subsisting; (2) respondent used his influence as the M unicipal
Legal Officer of M eycauayan to oppose his wifes application for
building permit, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and (3) And for engaging in the practice of law while
serving as the M unicipal Legal Officer of M eycauayan, complainant
maintains that respondent violated Rule 7.03.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cruz violated the CPR?
HELD:
YES on first ground only, last two grounds dismissed.
Respondent married Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark
County, Nevada, USA, when the Family Code of the Philippines had
already taken effect. He invokes good faith, however, he claiming to
have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was
Article 83 of the Civil Code In respondents case, he being out of the
country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his
claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the app licable provision
when he contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when
allegedly his first wife abandoned him, an allegation which was not
refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no
showing that he was romantically involved with any woman.
Respondent did not deny he contracted marriage with Imelda
Soriano. The community in which they have been living in fact
elected him and served as President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter from
1997-1999 and has been handling free legal aid cases. However,
respondent may not go scot-free. The act of contracting a second
marriage while the first marriage was still in place is contrary to
honesty, justice, decency and morality
Also, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He claim that he was not aware that the
Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the
United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the
Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does
not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith. The primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are
expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of
the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-
informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative
that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge
competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar.
Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes. He is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
CANON 5
by Mayumi Yraola
DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988)
FACTS:
The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners
collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of
the private respondents resulting in injuries to private respondents
had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the
RTC, petitioners were found guilty of gross negligence. On the last
day of the 15 days period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration which was again denied. The Supreme Court
finds that Court of Appeal did not commit a grave abuse of discretion
when it denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. It correctly
applied the rule laid down in Habulayas vs Japzon. Counsel for
petitioner contends that the said case should not be applied non-
publication in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published
in the Official Gazette before they can be binding.
HELD:
There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court
decision in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a
condition to their becoming effective. It is bounden duty of counsel
as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the
Supreme Court as embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly where issues have been clarified,
consistently reiterated and published in the advance reports of
Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and
law journals.
CANON 6
by Joshua Remollo
Re: Resolution Of The Court Dated 1 June 2004 In
G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty. Avecilla
(A.C. No. 6683, July 21, 2011)
FACTS:
After the resolution of a petition questioning the
constitutionality of B.P. 883, Supreme Court through its JRO took
custody of such rollo (where herein respondent Avecilla was
involved). Now, in order to check on the management of the Judicial
Development Fund, herein respondent Atty. Avecilla made a claim as
through the abovementioned rollo. When the Supreme Court asked
the JRO to inquire, the said rollo was missing. Later on, such
whereabouts where found with Atty. Avecilla, having custody
through his legal work with a retired Supreme Court Justice. Through
the report and recommendation of the Office of the Chief Attorney
(OCAT), it was found out that such rollo was used for a personal
agenda (and only returned after 12 years), but borrowed through a
certain Atty. Banzon, another then legal researcher with the same
abovementioned Justice. However, respondent Atty. Avecilla
asserted that such was not through his fault and only found out that it
was with him when he was contacted to for retrieval. The Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC), for its report and recommendation, agreed
with the OCAT, making Atty. Avecilla liable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Avecilla be held
administratively liable.
HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests XXX. Being a court employee, they should not to take any
court records, papers or documents outside the court premises. Also,
the act of the respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business
entailed the employment of deceit not becoming a member of the bar.
CANON 6
by Joshua Remollo
PNB v. ATTY. CEDO
(A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995)
FACTS:
After having arranged the sale of steel sheets for M rs Siy,
the latter became implicated in a civil case with the complainant
PNB. After having stop employment with PNB, respondent Atty.
Cedo appeared as counsel for M rs. Siy. A similar situation also
happene when spouses Almeda were implicated to a case with
complainant PNB counsel for Sps. Almeda is the Cedo, Ferrer,
M aynigo & Associates. Atty. Cedo was AVP of the Asset
M anagement group of complainant bank, where such loan transaction
of Sps. Almeda came under his purview. Respondent asserted that in
the former case, he did not participate in the litigation before the
Page 5 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
court, while the latter, it was another partner of the firm that handle
the case. IBP made its report and recommendation for suspension for
having deliberate intent to devise way s and means to attract as clients
former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best
position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty . Cedo be held
administratively liable.
HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Canon 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent sought to
litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former
employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while
still an employee of complainant, violated said Canon.
CANON 7
by Roseanne De Jesus
SAMALA v. ATTY. PALANA
(A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005)
FACTS:
This is a complaint files by Joseph Samala against
respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana for alleged fraudulent activities
which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. In February
2001, complainant was looking for a company wherein he could
invest his dollar savings and subsequently was introduced to
employees of First Imperial Resources, Inc. (FIRI), including Atty.
Palana (respondent). Due to the personal representations and
assurances of respondent, claiming that complainant would be
directly putting his investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited
which is a reputable company based in Virgin Islands and has been in
the foreign exchange business for 13 years complainant was
convinced to invest his dollar savings with FIRI on M arch 9, 2001.
Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment by
sending a letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment of
US$10,000 and gave FIRI 10 days to produce such fund. On April
15, 2001 complainant was given a check amounting to P574,045.09,
as the peso equivalent to complainants investment however the
check was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient
funds. On June 1, 2001, respondent as the legal officer of FIRI, gave
complainant P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount of
P3229,045.09. Respondent assured complainant that the check was
signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his (respondents)
presence and that the check would be funded. However, the check
was again dishonored for the same reason as the first. On July 14,
2001, complainant charged Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of
Batas PambansaBilang 22. However, Paul Desiderio could not be
located when sought to be served a warrant of arrest because his
identity was unknown and his residential address was found to be
fictitious. Complainant alleged that respondents act of representing
himself to be the legal officer of FIRI and his assurance that the
check he delivered to him which was signed by the President of FIRI
in his (respondents) presence when in reality no such person exists,
is fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Respondent was also one of those who assured the complainant that
his dollar savings would be directly invested in a reputable company
(Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited).
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Palana has violated Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The court held that Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana is guilty of
violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
thus suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years,
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely. The court also held that the representations of
respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused material damage to the
complainant hence respondent failed to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the
public in the honesty and integrity of the same.
CANON 7
 by Roseanne De Jesus
LEDA v. ATTY. TABANG
(A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992)
FACTS:
Evangeline Leda (complainant) challenges Atty.
TrebonianTabangs (respondent) good moral character in two
complaints she filed against him, one docketed as Bar M atter No. 78
instituted on January 6, 1982 and the case at hand. It appears that
complainant and respondent contracted a marriage in Tigbauan, Iloilo
on October 3, 1976 under as one of the exceptional character under
Article 76 of the Civil Code. The parties agreed to keep their
marriage a secret until respondent had finished his law studies and
had taken the Bar examinations. Complainant admits that they have
not lived together as husband and wife. After respondents law
studies and bar examinations, complainant blocked his oath-taking
(by instituting Bar M atter No. 78) claiming that respondent had acted
fraudulently when he filled out his application declaring he was
single and is thus unworthy to take the lawyers Oath for lack of
good moral character. Respondent filed his explanation claiming that
he was legally married to complainant but the marriage was not yet
made and declared public so that he may finish his studies as well as
take the bar exams and he therefore believed that he was still single.
Respondent also alleged that he and the complainant has reconciled
and prayed that the case be dismissed (on the ground that
complainant confirmed with his explanation as evidence by the
affidavit of desistance made by complainant) which was granted by
the Court on August 20, 1982. However, on February 14, 1983,
complainant filed an Administrative case and prayed for respondents
disbarment on the grounds that: Respondent used his legal knowledge
to contract an invalid marriage; he mirepresented himself in his
application to take the bar exam; lack of good moral character; and
that complainant was deceived into signing the affidavit of desistance
and that the only reason why he reconciled with her is so that she
would withdraw the complaint against him. Complainant also
claimed that respondent sent her a letter which proves all of her
allegations where the respondent states that their marriage was
actually void form the beginning. Respondent denied that he had sent
such letter. On M arch 26, 1984, the Bar Confidants report
recommended indefinite suspension of respondent until the status of
his marriage is settled.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. TrebonianTabang violated Rule 7.01
of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The court held that Atty. TrebonianTabangis guilty of
violating Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
thus suspended from the practice of law until further notice.The
Court held that respondents declaration in his application for
Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for
which he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II
of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A
lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known,
would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar
Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character.
CANON 8
by Martin Gavino
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment
against respondent Atty. Chiong because of the latters violation of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with the
idea that lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and
civility. Chiongs client did not appear upon the court when
Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their preliminary
investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against said client. After which Chiong made an urgent motion to
quash the warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint
Page 6 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
and collection for a sum of money and damages against Atty. Reyes,
Xu (the complainants client) and the Prosecutor. Upon their
confrontation, no settlement was reached.
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as
co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the
suit was groundless. He argues that he impleaded the Prosecutor
because the criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action
of the Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his
clients motion for an opportunity to submit counter affidavit and
evidence.
ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendants
purpose of filing for the collection suit with damages was to be able
to obtain leverage against the estafa case of his client. Clearly there
was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salonga because
they never had any participation in the business transactions between
Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere harassment of the two.
Chiong was suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and
was implemented immediately.
CANON 8
by Martin Gavino
ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR.
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010)
FACTS:
On January 11, 2001 Atty.Barandon filed a complaint-
affidavit with the IBP seeking the disbarment, suspension or proper
disciplinary action against Atty.Ferrer,Sr. for offenses such as the use
of offensive language when insinuating that the complainant
presented a falsified document in court, filing a fabricated charge
against Atty. Barandon, the usage of threatening phrases before the
start of a hearing such as patayan kung patayan, kasamaang lahat
ng pamilya., accusing Atty. Barandon without bothering to check
the facts and lastly the plethora of cases he was facing that time
predominantly the one that deals with sexual harassment.
Atty. Ferrer filed an answer concomitant with his motion to
dismiss. In his answer contains the improbability of the charges
against him because he could have not said those remarks without
being reprimanded while the court was in session. Also, the offended
party in the falsification case vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the
document has been falsified and other conflicting stories against what
Atty. Barandon filed.
While there was this constant clash between the
complainant and the respondent on December 29, 2000, Atty.
Barandon boarded a taxi that was owned by defendants son and it
was involved in an accident, the incident was shady because no help
was given to the victims and that respondent denied knowing the
driver of said taxi. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from
reporting the accident to the proper authorities.
On October 10, 2001 the IBP investigation commissioner
recommended the suspension of respondent for two (2) years because
they have found enough evidence to prove his violation of Canon
8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On June 29,
2002 the IBP board of governors accepted the recommendations of
the investigation commissioner with the reduction of one (1) year
from the suspension.
ISSUES:
1. Did the IBP err in finding Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges
set against him?
2. In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed on him
justified?
HELD:
No, there was no reason to disagree with the findings of the
IBP because it can be seen that there was an appropriate and tedious
investigation set upon him for administrative purposes and it can be
inferred that the decision went through a rigorous process.
 Yes, because as stated in Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, all lawyers conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyer and more
specifically in Rule 8.01 a lawyer shall not in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise
improper. It was clearly seen in this case that there was a violation of
this Canon and also Canon 7 which dealt with the proper conduct of a
lawyer and how he should not behave in a scandalous manner that
would discredit the legal profession, appearing drunk and having
multiple cases piled against him would be very clear that there is a
clear-cut violation of said Canon.
CANON 9
by Renee Jean Medina
CAMBALIZA v. ATTY. CRISTAL-TENORIO
(A.C. No. 6290, July 14, 2004)
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Complainant
Cambaliza, a former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B.
Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit,
grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct
in office. Complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely
representing herself to be married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who
has a prior and subsisting marriage with another woman.
Furthermore, Respondent caused the dissemination to the public of a
libelous affidavit derogatory to M akati City; cooperated in the illegal
practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the
Philippine Bar; converted her client's money to her own use and
benefit, which led to the filing of an estafa case against her; and
threatened the complainant and her family on 24 January 2000 with
the statement "Isang bala ka lang" to deter them from divulging
respondent's illegal activities and transactions. Respondent denied all
the allegations against her. The Case referred to this case to
Investigating Commissioner as the complainant bolstered her claim
that the respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her
husband by submitting: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
Office where the name of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a
senior partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio Group
identification card signed by the respondent as Chairperson where her
husband is identified as "Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr." She added
that respondent's husband even appeared in court hearings.
Respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with
her husband nor allowed her husband to appear in court on her
behalf. If there was an instance that her husband appeared in court, he
did so as a representative of her law firm. The letterhead submitted
by the complainant was a false reproduction to show that her husband
is one of her law partners. But upon cross-examination, when
confronted with the letterhead ofCristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing
her signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a
lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A. Panghulan, who is also not a
lawyer, are named as senior partners because they have investments
in her law office
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held Respondent failed to live up to the exacting
standards expected of him as a vanguard of law and justice. for
culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable for gross
misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law. The lawyer's
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 individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The purpose is to protect
the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see
that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
Page 7 of 7
LEGAL ETHICS----- CANON 1-9
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his
name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law
makes it misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid
a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
CANON 9
by Renee Jean Medina
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA v. ATTY.
REVILLA, JR.
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009)
FACTS:
A Petition for Disbarment was filed by Plus Builders Inc.
and Edgardo C. Garcia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) against Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for committing a willful
and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure
and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating
with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the
Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of complainant,
Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de
Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent Atty. Anastacio
E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The
case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this
Court sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to
pursue his clients lost cause, respondent was found to have
committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with
the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing
of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the
last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision.
Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized
practice of law holding themselves out as his partners/associates in
the law firm.
Respondent denied all allegations and believes that the
courses of action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed
to protect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. The
lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was terminated
because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did
not explain/argue their position very well, refused to listen to them
and, in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent
relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the course of his
interview. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible remedies
and defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law. He
submitted that if he was indeed guilty of violating the rules in the
courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and
supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent guilty of violating the attorneys
oath, Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby
found guilty of gross misconduct. Taking the cudgels from the former
lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not
forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court.
In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to
present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This
obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth
and justice. This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in every
exertion a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly
delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing
court processes. After a careful consideration of herein respondents
motion for reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his
misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to extend a degree of leniency
towards the respondent by reducing his suspension period from two
years to six months.