CASES: profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.

SC said that he is guilty

1. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyers Oath, Rule 138 of the ROC,
Canon 1 and rule 1.01 of the CPR, article 806 of the civil code and provision of
PRACTICE OF LAW- any activity, in or out of court which requires application of law, notarial law. Thus, atty. is suspended from the practice of law for 1 yr. and his
legal procedures, knowledge, training or experience. notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the
trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public as an officer of the court he is
perpetually disqualified from re appointment as a Notary Public.
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal 4. SANTOS VS. ATTY. LLAMAS
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he
and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years
kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is
engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be- exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the
an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients payment of membership dues.
in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall
fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of
Dictionary, 3rd ed.) membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a
ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does
The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law.
refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from
mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their payment of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal
legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts
qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners, even that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating
chairman, of the Commission on Audit. the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a
2. LEE VS. TAMBAGO violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice. Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP
3. DOCENA VS. ATTY. LIMON dues, whichever is later.
HELD: Atty. limon committed a violation of notarial law and Ethics of legal
1

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
5. PHIL. LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION VS. ANGARA
FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled
an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as
patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular,
members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient
scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed
by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that
the respondent Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of
his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the
preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is
included in the practice of law.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such
appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors,
and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their
opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover,
the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of
other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in
accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other
matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the
legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law
provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or
decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office
involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a
board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.
6. CRUZ VS. ATTY. CABRERA
FACTS: AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY FERDINAND A. CRUZ
CHARGES ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA WITH MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT HE IS A FOURTH YEAR LAW STUDENT SINCE 2001,
DURING A HEARING ON JANUARY 14, 2012 IN ONE CASE IN REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 112 PASAY CITY, THE RESPONDENT ENGULFED WITH ANGER IN A
RAISING VOICE TO THE COMPLAINANT SAYING “APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA
KA MUNA;” WHEREIN THE MANNER, SUBSTANCE AND TONE OF VOICE AND HOW
THE WORDS WERE UTTERED WERE TOTALLY WITH THE INTENTION TO ANNOY, VEX
AND HUMILIATE, MALIGN, RIDICULE, INCRIMINATE AND DISCREDIT COMPLAINANT
BEFORE THE PUBLIC.
THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM BE DISMISSED
CITING THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES.
MARCH 4, 2004 IBP COMMISSIONER LYDIA A NAVARO RECOMMENDED
RESPONDENT'S SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATING RULE 8.01 OF CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
APRIL 16, 2004, THE IBP BOARD, THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS PASSED A
RESOLUTION TO ANNUL AND SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE
THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR LACK OF MERIT. THE COURT HELD THAT IBP
GOVERNORS FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.12 OF
RULE 139.B OF THE RULES OF COURT. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS OPTED TO
RESOLVE THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES.
COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S OUTBURST OF “APPEAR KA NG APPEAR,
PUMASA KA MUNA;” DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF RULE 8.01 OF THE
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. WHEREFORE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST
RESPONDENT ATTY. STANLEY FOR MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. HE IS,
2
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
HOWEVER IS ADMONISHED TO BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
HIS DUTIES AS AN OFFICER IN COURT.
7. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim,
according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients
who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s advertisements which
contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE.
ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Please call: 521-0767; 521-
7232; 522-2041 8:30am – 6:00pm 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal
Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The
Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no
matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-
Gabby Concepcion situation. He s aid that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation
and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the
jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of
Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the
public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such
practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The
services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate
undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of
law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal
Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a
person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote
divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law
which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
8.ATTY MAGNO VS. ATTY VELASCO - JACOBA
Facts: Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), Nueva Ecija Chapter had a disagreement with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a
landscaping contract they had entered into. During the conciliation/confrontation
proceeding, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared on the strength of a Special
Power of Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos. Atty. Magno objected to Atty. Jacoba’s
appeareance in the conciliation but the latter interpose that Lorenzo Inos is
entitled to be represented by a lawyer inasmuch as complainant is herself a
lawyer.
Thus, this petition for willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and (b) Canon 4 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
3
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 Issue: Whether or not Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba violated the Local Government
Code and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Section 415 of the LGC of 1991, on the subject Katarungang Pambarangay,
provides: Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang
pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative, xxxx. There can be no quibbling that
laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between
themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose
presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the
participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal
knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case. Doubtless,
respondent’s conduct tended to undermine the laudable purpose of the
katarungan pambarangay system. What compounded matters was when
respondent repeatedly ignored complainant’s protestation against her continued
appearance in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
Hence, Atty. Jacoba was ordered to fine P5,000 and warned that commission of
similar acts of impropriety on her part in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
9. ZIGA VS. JUDGE AREJOLA
10. JAVELLANA VS. DILG
FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian
Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously
engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from
the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as required by DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-
58. · As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their
profession shall always be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of
Republic Act 5185. In all cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably
recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by the provincial
governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be. · c) That no conflict of
interests between the practice of profession or engagement in private
employment and the official duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby;
Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA
7160) was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides: Sec. 90. Practice of
Profession. - (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from
practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of
their functions as local chief executives. (b) Sanggunian members may practice
their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during
session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of the Bar
shall not: (1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the
adverse party; (2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office; (3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and (4)
Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of
1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the
Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular
trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the
practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No.
90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of
interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of
their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
11. IN RE: CUNAMAN
FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers
Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar
Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
4
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. Section
2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any
subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades
shall be included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar
examinations.”
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not
being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only
the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations.
Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact
that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while
that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was
stricken down was based under the following reasons: The law itself admits that
the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had
inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of
World War II; The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court
on the petitions of the said candidates; The law is an encroachment on the Court’s
primary prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of law and,
therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules
of Court.
The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not
designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice law; and The
pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. As to the
portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to
declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953.
Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to
the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
12. IN RE: ALAMACEN
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case.
They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He
notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and
place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed
but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with
regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on
certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute
resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as
unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender
his lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing
his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to
please for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged
that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without
knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before
the altar of hypocrisy.” He also stated “that justice as administered by the present
members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court
wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not
surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to.
Almacen then asked that he may be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.”
He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is “the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed
5
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for
every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively
carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to
decide “only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have
immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.” It should
be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is
not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to
fully explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said
criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful
and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of
the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But
it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism
is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should
have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing
party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be
entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why
his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
13. IN RE: LANUEVO
FACTS: Disbarment complaint was filed against Victorio Lanuevo. Lanuevo was
the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination. He brought 5 examination
notebooks of Ramon E. Galang to the respective examiners for re-checking. As a
result, Galang passed the examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not should Lanuevo be disbarred?
HELD: YES. Lanuevo has no authority to request for re-evaluation of examination
results. As a Bar Confidant, his function is to serve as a custodian of the
examination notebooks only. All requests should be made by the examinee
himself. Lanuevo breached the trust and confidence given by the court.
14. APPLICATION FOR THE BAR ADMISSION, VICENTE CHING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF THE BAR:
a) Citizen of the Philippines
b) at least 21 yrs old
c) of good moral character
d) resident of the Philippines
e) must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral
character
f) no charges against him, involving moral turpitude have been filed
or pending in any court
g) must have complied with the academic requirements
h) pass the bar examinations
i) take the lawyers oath
j) sign the roll of atty. and receive from the clerk of court of the SC
the certificate of license of the practice of law
15. PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN DACANAY
Loss of Phil. citizenship ipso jure terminates the privelege to the practice of law
in the Phil.
However, pursuant to RA 9225 a filipino lawyer who become a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Phil. citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. Nevertheless, his right to practice law does not
automatically accrue. he must first secure authority from the SC upon compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Updating and payment in Full of annual membership dues in the
IBP
2. payment of Prof. tax
3. Completion of at least 36 credit hours of MCLE
4. retaking of lawyer's oath
6
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
16. PETITION TO REACQUIRE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW, EPIFANIO MUNESES examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
17. VILLA VS. AMA
18. NARAG VS. NARAG True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s
Facts: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a
her husband courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
having children by her. Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-
woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. IBP disbarred him, law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
hence, this petition. still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this
Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public 20. TOLENTINO VS. ATTY. MENDOZA
knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Good 21. LETTER OF ATTY AREVALO REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM IBP DUES PAYMET
moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. 22. TING - DUMALI VS. ATTY TORRES
Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the
Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, II. LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the
practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members. Hence when a DEFINITIONS - it is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an
lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to
disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal the public.
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS:
decency. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but 1. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is INCLUDES: Constitution
flouting those moral standards. Canons of prof. ethics
Rules of Court
19. AGUIRRE VS. RANA Statutes
Special Law
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. Treaties
It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly Decisions
ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of 2. THE NEW CODER OF JUDICIAL FOR PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a
lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a
7

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
A. A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC
a) Canon 1: THE LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESS.
RULE 1.01 - The lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
RULE 1.02 - The lawyer shall not counsel or or abet activities at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
RULE 1.03 - The lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest
encourage suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
RULE 1.04 - The lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
PALE
Cases:
. Lawyer’s Duty to the Public
(a) Canon 1
23. Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003
FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife.
An answer was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the
preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the
services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of
answer. Motion was denied. The judge then ordered all parties to submit their
affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the
submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment
shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those
who filed the case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to
RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses
were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya
confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything.
Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the
decision. Hence this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
• W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC
because it would just be a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which
just reiterated what he put in his complaint. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder.
Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to
file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses
thereafter. The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable
means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to submit the
pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the
possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once
for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-
client relationship is terminated. Oca’s story shows his appalling indifference to his
clients’ cause, deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of
his duties as a lawyer.
However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-
lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had
strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to
support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Given these
8
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
circumstances the professional conduct of Oca does not warrant disbarment.
24. Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC# 6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS:
In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of
Barrientos and Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks
bounced due to insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed.
The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges and promised to pay her
debt several times, but failed to pay the full amount, even after a complaint for
disbarment was filed against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
***The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn
against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence HELD:
reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to
render her unworthy of public confidence. ***
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the
same were issued in his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate
disciplinary measures.
25. Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256, 2/31/2004
FACTS:
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and
respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage
against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth
certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in
May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint
within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and
its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation “moved”,
same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the
correct, present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her
administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent’s address at 12403 Develop
Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents
be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the
complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for
further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment
was never “deemed served” upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship
with another woman are grounds for disbarment.
complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin.
Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a
subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment
proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country
to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint
against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.
9
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
26. Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC# 4762, 6/28/2004
FACTS:
Complainant’s husband sold a piece of land to Respondent who issued 8 post-
dated checks as payment and which checks however subsequently bounced
prompting Complainant and her husband to make repeated demands but to no
avail. Complainant alleged that Respondent’s unlawful refusal and dilatory tactics
partly triggered the death of her husband, who died “disillusioned and
embittered”. Respondent countered that, Complainant did not know the “real
story”, and that the non-payment of the checks was justified by the unresolved
problem of right-of-way which Complainant’s husband supposedly had
guaranteed. He also alleged that he was entitled to set-off what he owed for the
land acquisition against advances made by Complainant’s husband and for cost
incurred when he defended Complainant’s son in a criminal case.
RULING:
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks,
seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public
order. The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the
erring lawyer’s moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his
professional duties as a member of the bar. He not only sets himself liable for a
serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the CPR,
specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the
respect for law.***
27. Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's)
then-fiance Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a
sports caster, to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with
whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving
from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love
you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene
habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following
day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal
or she was busy with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and
respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted
them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card
bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a
handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it
was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in
the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was
low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families.
He also said that his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous
circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground
for disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
HELD:
YES. 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
10
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
out discreetly.
***While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual
relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital
vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under
penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral
as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.***
28. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales
was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s
oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a
motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to amend his
complaint by making his charges more definite. In a resolution the Court granted
respondent’s motion and required complainant to file an amended complaint.
Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that
respondent committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado,
Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the
Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty
percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with
him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the
land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that
he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney’s fees from the
Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a
public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and
registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent
Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a
champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados
contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a
lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of
litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a
lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be
subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the
Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of
litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay
expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous [citation
omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in this
case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in
consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation
omitted]. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship
between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative
sanctions.
29. Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392, 6/29/2010
FACTS: Complainant was Respondent’s secretary (in 2002), later she became his
lover and common-law wife. Still later, Respondent brought her to a mountainous
part in Biliran where he left her with the Faith Healers Association of the
11
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Philippines, a religious group which Respondent headed. Thereafter, and upon
Respondent’s instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid obligations, and
Complainant with drugs. She remained in captivity until her mother aided by the without the complainant’s knowledge and consent. *** Respondent’s
Provincial Welfare Development and the police, rescued her. Complainant sought abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and
Respondent’s disbarment alleging as well that Respondent contracted a bigamous electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code of Professional
marriage in marrying Leny Azur despite the subsistence of a prior marriage to Ma. Responsibility, particularly Canon I*** (“a lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
Shirley Yunzal. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes”) and
Rule 1.01 (“a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the conduct”).
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes) and Rule 7 (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession) of the CPR; ***his high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the
name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent’s acts of people’s faith and confidence in the judicial and legal system is ensured.
converting his secretary into a mistress, contracting two marriages with Shirley and
Leny are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. 31. Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
Complainant’s subsequent detention and torture is gross misconduct which only a
beast may be able to do. Canon 1 of the CPR.*** FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for the purchase of a piece of land.
Instead of a deed of sale, Respondent issued a temporary receipt and a certificate
of land occupancy assuring Complainant that he could already use the lot.
Complainant, upon learning that the certificate could not be registered with the
30. Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494, 6/27/2008 Register of Deeds, then confronted Respondent who admitted that the real owner
was a certain Rubio and that the lot was still pending litigation.
FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit from Greenville Realty and
Development Corp. represented by Complainant as its president and general RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law practice for 2 years. Respondent’s
manager. Her total unpaid account reached P71,1007.88. Despite repeated credibility is highly questionable – he even issued a bogus certificate of land
demands, Respondent failed to pay her account and even vacated the leased occupancy to Complainant whose only fault was that he did not know better. To
premises without notifying Complainant. the unlettered, said certificate could have easily passed off as a document
evidencing title. In fact, Complainant actually tried, but failed, to register the
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month; WARNED that repetition of same or Certificate of Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds. Complainant readily
similar act will be dealt with more severely. ***Having incurred just debts, parted with P70T because of the false assurance afforded by the sham certificate.
Respondent had the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they
became due.*** Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
12

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
deceitful conduct) of the CPR. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the
performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity,
and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court.
Respondent acted in his private capacity, misrepresented that he owned the lot he
sold to Complainant, later refused to return his money. As a final blow, he denied
having any transaction with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court
that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
PART 2 OF CANON 1
32. SAMANIEGO VS. ATTY FERRER 6/18/2008
Facts:
Early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and
the latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship
became intimate.subsequently, they cohabiatating with each other as husband
and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born. The
affair ended in 2000 and since then,respondent failed to support his daughter.ms.
Samaniegao, filed a complaint against the respondent before the IBP commission
on bar discipline.A member of the bar?
Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional
responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes, the court finds the respondent’s illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral
conduct subject to disciplinary actions. rule 101 of the code of professional
conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal
profession, thus the court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant
that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law.
Principle:
-legal ethics; we have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral
conduct subj. to disciplinary action---We have considered such illicit relation as a
disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.[15] The penalty for
such immoral conduct is disbarment,[16] or indefinite[17] or definite[18]
suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v.
Ferancullo, Jr.,[19] we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years
was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross
immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances
such as an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or
maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of
his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
- That one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal
does not make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego
is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Court’s investigation is not
about Ms. Samaniego’s acts but Atty. Ferrer’s conduct as one of its officers and his
fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[ On another point, we may agree with
respondent’s contention that complainant was not entirely blameless. She knew
about his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one
complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not
make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari
delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Court’s investigation is not about Ms.
Samaniego’s acts but Atty. Ferrer’s conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar.]
33. VENTURA VS. ATTY. SAMSON 11/27/2012
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of
13
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
respondent himself, we find that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young to shock the community’s sense of decency.
lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that *** We find that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants
complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with
did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money.
manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife
marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard marital vow of fidelity. ***
for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
34.Juanita manaois, complainantVs.Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, Facts: complainant,a government employee work as a mail sorter in manila central
then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under respondent’s care. Whether postoffice.she applied for a loan thru the assistance of atty. Deciembre in the
the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or was not amount of 20thousand pesos from rodella loans inc.as security of the
with the latter’s consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a loan,respondent required her toissue blank check that she would fill out according
disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a to their agreed monthlyamortizations.notwithstanding upon full payment of the
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and loan respondent did not return the remaining blank checks.respondent also made
should be disciplined accordingly. falsification of the amount of the check and made it appear complainant had
exchanged them for cash.the respondent filed severalcases against the
Principles: complainant pertaining to the blank checks issuance as well as the loan
( Legal ethics; As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 14 the possession of good payments.the ibp board of go vernors investigate the matter.
moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional
warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. It is responsibility?
the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree of Ruling. Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 1, rule
morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15 Consequently, any errant 101 of the code of professional responsibility.his conduct is a serious dishonesty
behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, and and professionla misconduct,rendering him to be suspended indefinitely in
which tends to show said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or practicing law.
good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. Principle:
( Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that ( Legal ethics; atty; disbarment; Code of professional responsibility; nothing should
show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members b done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
of the community.16 Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high profession---CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
14

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
PROCESSES.Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise mandates
that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession."7 To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal
fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in
the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
( Evidently, respondent failed to comply with the foregoing canons. As shown by
the records and as found by the Commissioner, complainant had supplied
respondent with blank personal checks as security for the P20,000 loan she had
contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully filled out with various
amounts they had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had
already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been dishonored upon
presentment, respondent even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against
complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional
misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from
and highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.9 The fact that the conduct
pertained to respondent’s private dealings with complainant is of no moment. A
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to
his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only
a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but also a continuing
qualification for all members of the Bar.
35.RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege
that respondent sold them a piece of property over which he has no right nor
interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount they have paid him for
it.
In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment,
respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over
a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon
City.
Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed
of Assignment. The balance was to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly
installments of P187,500.00 each. Thus, complainants issued in favor of
respondent four postdated checks in the amount of P187,500.00 each.
Respondent was able to encash the first check dated August 17, 1999.2
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent
has not paid in full the price of the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of
Assignment.
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent,
informing him that they were still willing to pay the balance of the purchase price
of the townhouse on the condition that respondent work on Crown Asia’s
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Allegedly, respondent violated his oath
under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he ought
to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law..
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed
under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes,
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar
may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule,
does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer’s professional duties.
This Court has made clear in a long line of cases7 that a lawyer may be disbarred
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he
15
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
entered into a contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to
transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. When he failed in his
undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for
respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership.
Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
concealed this lack of right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants
that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot,
and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time
of the execution of the Deed of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the
purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters
worse for him.
36. LEE VS. ABASTILLAS, 234 SCRA 28
The 3 meetings by the judge Abastillas with interested who had a stake on the
outcome of the criminal case and the record of telephone conversation where said
cases were discussed manifested judge abastillas willingness, nay, propensity to
enter into deals with motivation incongruous to the merits of the cases pending
before him. Judge Abastillas committed serious misconduct no less. It is peculiarity
essential that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a
high degree to proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the
integrity and impartiality of its administration, because appearance is as important
as reality, so much so that a judge, like cesar’s wif, must be pure but beyond
suspicion.
Principles:
( Code of judicial Conduct requires that a judge be embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence, he should administer justice impartially and without
delay. He should behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The actuations of the judge abastillas
transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required for judges.
37.VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal
who was introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty.
Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file against her
former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent
started having sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent
also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security
for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support
against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign
anAffidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the saidaffidavit.
On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino gave
him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for
the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead ofturning them over to her,
respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and
promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However,
sometime in April or May 2001, respondentinformed her that he could not give
her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign as he was then
running for the position ofProvincial Board Member of the 2nd District of
Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to
return to complainant the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The same
was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP
and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the
Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
16
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(2) Whether or not respondent’s act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a
document disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing
condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. The Court has held that to
justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal actor so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to
a high degree. On sexual relation and on respondent’s subsequent marriage, by his
own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule
1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's
assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting
marriage, complainant’s allegations of deceit were not established by clear
preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering intoa
settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law
encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes
which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As
complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she
cannot later blame her counsel when she experiences a change of heart.
Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary
evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly
performed his duty in accordance with his oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal
GUILTY of immorality and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for
further investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from
receipt of this Decision.
38.ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013
Facts:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a
Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution
before the Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor
Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainant’s motion remained
unacted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still,
there was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a portion of
the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the former how much
would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the
employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a
new writ of execution wherein complainant’s monetary awards were reduced to
the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the
instant disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
averring that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a)
soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b)
issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainant’s
employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of
Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the
Code, delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the
overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest,
17
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any
suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests;
(2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public
duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence
illumines that 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. It treads the line of grossness when it is
so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. On the other hand,
gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a
lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he
had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols,
Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously
decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to,
instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize
respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
Principles:
( Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government office may
disciplined as a member of the bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of the oath as a lawyer--chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyer’s
responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against
lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct;
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying
any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is
particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using
one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private
interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.26 It is well to
note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member
of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer.27In this light, a lawyer’s compliance with and observance of the above-
mentioned rules should be taken into consideration in determining his moral
fitness to continue in the practice of law.
( To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent
and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession."28This proceeds from the lawyer’s duty to
observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar’s integrity.29
Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s
public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or
disbarment.
( Jurisprudence illumines that 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.36 It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as
to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.37 On
the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment."
RAMOS VS. ATTY. NGASEO 12/9/2004
FACTS: Raamos went to atty. Ngaseo to engage his services as counsel in a case
involving a piece of land. After the CA rendered a favorable decision ordering the
land to be returned to Ramos and his siblings (such decision having been final and
18
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
executor). Atty. Ngaseo sent a demand letter to ramos asking for the delivery of a
pieceof alnd without the complainant allegedly promised as payment for
respondents appearancefee. As a result, ramos filed bfore the IBP a comlaint
charging atty. Ngaseo of vioalationof the CPR for demanding the delivery of a
parcel of land whih was subj. of litigation. The IBP found atty. Ngaseo guilty. Atty.
Ngaseo argues that he did not violate 1491 cc because when he demand the
delivery of the piece of land, the case has been transmeitted, when the appellate
ordered the return of the land to the family of ramos.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ngaseo violated 1491 of CC.
HELD:
NO, under art 1491 CC lawyrs are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or
assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in
which they intervene by virtue of their public/ judicial sles. However such
prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place
during the pendency of the litigation involving the client’s property. Consequently,
where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, as in the instant
case, no violation of art. 1491.
Principles:
- LEGAL ETHICS;Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited
from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved
which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their
professional applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place
during the pendency of the litigation involving the client’s property----Under
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by
purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the
litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession.[7] The prohibition
on purchase is all embracing to include not only sales to private individuals but
also public or judicial sales. The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that
public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control
exercised by these persons.[8] It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of
his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of
his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.[9] However, the
said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place
during the pendency of the litigation involving the client’s property. Consequently,
where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of
paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
-The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with a great caution—only in
clear casesof misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and ember of the bar will disbarment or
suspension be imposed as penalty---We note that the report of the IBP
Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-
2003-47, does not clearly specify which acts of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct or what provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility have
been violated. We find the recommended penalty of suspension for 6 months too
harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed by the respondent. The
power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be
imposed as a penalty.[12] All considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient and
reasonable.
BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORP VS. ATTY MENDOZA 3/31 2005
Facts:
On September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car from it and the respondent
personally signed, the latter was to be fetched at his residence. The respondent
rented another Toyota Camry from the complainant on September 28, 2001, this
time with Plate No. WRT 557, and was, likewise, fetched at his residence. This
second contract was also personally signed by the respondent. The statements of
account[4] were, thereafter, sent to the respondent at his office and business
address. Despite repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay
his account. Hence this complaint charging Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza with grossly
immoral and unethical conduct, praying for his disbarment and that his name be
19
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
stricken-off from the Roll of AttorneysAccording to the complainant, the
respondent’s refusal to pay for the complainant’s car rental services constitutes
deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which violates the Canons of
Professional Ethics and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on Human
RelationsRespondent offers two reasons for non-payment: First, that the
obligation was incurred not by him but by his law office Martinez & Mendoza.
Second, that the respondent almost met an accident on the two occasions he used
the services of the complainant and therefore “he should not be penalized for
exercising its right to contest complainants’ questionable billings.”
...
Issue: WON Atty. Mendoza is guilty with with grossly immoral and unethical
conduct.
Held:
As to the first reason, we reiterate that as decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
respondent was liable for the obligation to the complainant. Indeed, respondent
cannot avoid the obligation and pass it on to his law firm and just make a complete
denial considering that he is a name partner in the firm and law partnership of
Martinez and Mendoza
As to the second reason, respondent admits that there was no written demand
made for the complainant to account and answer for the “near accidents” alleged
by respondent, which “near accidents” as we understand are his reasons for not
immediately paying. We find the absence of a written demand from the
respondent quite odd especially in the case of a lawyer who is seeking to exercise
his “right to contest complainant’s questionable billings” or otherwise hold
complainant accountable for the said “near accidents.” It would perhaps be
understandable if the omission was made by a layman; but for a lawyer not to put
his demand in writing, it would be uncharacteristic to say the least.
The reason offered by respondent for not paying complainant particularly the
alleged “near accident” is, therefore, not justifiable. The said reason appears to us
trite and contrived.
Principles:
( Legal ethics; administrative complaints; a member of the legal fraternity should
refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and
trust reposed by the public in the fidelity and integrity in the legal profession--- It
is settled that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court.[11] A lawyer must, at all times, uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. Indeed, a lawyer brings honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts
and to his clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from
doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed
by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity in the legal profession.[12] Thus,
lawyers must promptly pay their financial obligations.[13] Their conduct must
always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.[14]
DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. DE DIOS 1/26/2001
Facts:In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order
to form a corporation, which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in
Olongapo City.On January 10, 1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios,
complainant registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.[2] Complainant paid on respondent a monthly retainer fee
of P5,000.00. On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay
her unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and
thirty five thousand pesos (P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before
December 30, 1997. On January 29, 1998,[3] complainant received notice of the
public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board resolution dated
January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.[4] Complainant soon learned that her
shares had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI.
The sale ousted complainant from the corporation completely. While respondent
rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her life’s savings
invested therein.
20
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Issue:
WON Atty. De Dios in violation of canon 15 and Art 1491 of CC.
Held:
Yes, because she remised in her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar.
Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship between her and
complainant. The claim has no merit. It was complainant who retained
respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in behalf of
complainant.
There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent.
Indeed, the board of directors nowe included respondent as the president, Ramon
del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer
and Takayuki Sato as director.[7] The present situation shows a clear case of
conflict of interest of the respondent.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests and engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Principles:
( Legal ethics; conflict of interest; where a lawyer wa retained by a person to form
a corporation and appeared as counsl in behalfof said person but said lawyer wa
subsequently shown to be in collusion with the board of directors of the
corporation against the said client, there is a clear conflict of interest.
( Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially intheir dealins with their clients
and the public at large with honesty aand integrity in a manner beyond reproach--
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
[8]We said:“To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to
state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, ‘of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold
the law,’ it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate
their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession.”
( The lawyers oath of obligations ad violation thereof is a ground for suspension ,
disbarment or other disciplinary action.
sir: 12/ 3/ 19
(b) NOTARIAL LAW
section 2 rule 3. an atty. must apply as a notary public., because it is impressed
with public interest thats why there is a petition requirement and publication.
authority is valid in 2 yrs ending 31st day of dec. may be renewed by written
application fro renewal, within 45 days before the expiration an atty. may file their
renewal, to renew submit a written application. in case of renewal no hearing,
unlike in applications, hearing is required. if your certification is expired and you
did not file application for renewal, then it os deemed original application. the
jurisdiction is limited only to the province where you filed your application. every
notary public entitled with 1 commission and 1 seal. kaning imo seal, buy it in
accredited seller or manufacturing and you cannot buy it just like over the counter
drug.
what if the seal is destroyed? report to the notarial judge in order to buy new seal
RULE 4
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following
notarial acts:
(1) acknowledgments;
(2) oaths and affirmations;
(3) jurats; chan robles virtual law library
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications; and
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or
other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and
of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other
21
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
mark; the instrument or document -
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and chan robles virtual notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
law library chan robles virtual law library
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an when a a lawyer is one of the recipient? he cannot notarized.
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing. a notary public cannot notarized family relative.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically
unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if: RULE 11
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge
sign on his behalf; shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two commission may be denied. chan robles virtual law library
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose
(3) both witnesses sign their own names ; appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public
(4) the notary public writes below his signature: “Signature affixed by notary in who:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses)”; and (1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat. (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his
notarial acts;
RULE 4 (3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside (10) days of the month following;
his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain (4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request (5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;
of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction: chan (6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge
robles virtual law library concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may (7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
be administered; (8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments evidence;
or documents requiring notarization; (9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or (10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated
document is confined for treatment; and by these Rules; and
(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is (11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive
under detention. Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to administrative sanction.
22

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the
notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the
answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a
summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint
shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved
party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the
appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory,
unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings
against a notary public, subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c)
above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).
RULE 6
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial
register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or
illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days
after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or
vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of
any pertinent police report.
42. TAN TIONG BIO VS. ATTY. GONZALEZ
the lawyer notarized a document in pasig city, when in fact his commission ‘s
jurisdiction is quezon city. SC said while seemingly appearing to be a harmless
incident, respondent’s act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond
the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law
and falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity
in the violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray [13] is very much
apropos:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar
at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may
be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act] without
such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more
specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes.
These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
routinary act. Far from it. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest,
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public
are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.[15]
43. DELA CRUZ VS. ATTY. DIMAANO
Facts: In their complaint for disbarment against respondent, complainants alleged
that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated as
Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed
by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. According to complainants,
respondent had made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of
the notarized document when he made it appear, among other things, that
complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed
their signatures on the document in his presence.
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister,
Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased parents' property in and sell
the same to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in good faith
relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the
signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the document were
23
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
true and correct." Navarro would not, according to respondent, lie to him having
known, and being neighbors of, each other for 30 years.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing violations of 44. ATTY. LINCO VS. LACEBAL
his duties as a notary public.
Held: YES.
It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their
signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are
the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries
public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of
Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be
considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in accordance with the
following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer
taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a Sir: SC said that atty lacebal is suspended because in notarizing a document the
seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.[2]
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in
question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
party’s free act or deed.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity
the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a
routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
Attorney; notarization. The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and
signed the Deed of Donation before the respondent notary public does not justify
the respondent’s act of notarizing the Deed of Donation, considering the affiant’s
absence on the very day the document was actually notarized. In the notarial
acknowledgment of the Deed of Donation, respondent attested that Atty. Linco
personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty.
Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter
died on July 29, 2003 – a day before the Deed of Donation was notarized, and
respondent was aware of that fact. Clearly, respondent made a false statement
and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a
lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath
in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons
who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Florita S. Linco v. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal.
A.C. No. 7241. October 17, 2011.
parties who executed the document must appear personally before the notary
public, even if they previously met and the party informed him his intention for
notarizing his document.
45. NEVADA VS. ATTY. CASUGA (Not discussed)
46. JANDOQUILE VS. ATTY REVILLA
Issue: Is whether the single act of notarizing the complaintaffidavit of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them
to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
Ruled: SC agreed with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for
24
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
disbarment.
we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public
knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid
identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a “jurat” under
Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice or . A “jurat” refers to an
act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to
the notary public identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity ; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document.
Sir: a lawyer notarized a document which the parties to it is his relatives within
4th civil consanguinity. SC said the notary public does not need competent proof
of identity if he personally known the parties because it it shown in the JURAT of
the documents.
47. ESPINOSA VS. ATTY. OMANA
FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal
sought Omana’s legal advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and
live separately. Omana prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said
contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession
of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow
employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by
Omana was not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint
against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract.
She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of
the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa
returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade
her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her
signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaña violated the CPR in notartizing the “Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay.”
HELD: YES.
We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff who
notarized the contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized
the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who notarized the
contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties. We
reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial
register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame
on his secretaries9 or any member of his staff.
Sir: SC said in preparing a void document, he violated the CPR for engaging
unlawful conduct. In the matter of notarizing a document, a lawyer is personally
liable for entries in the notarial book.
48. UY VS. ATTY. SANO
The lawyer was supended because he notarized a document even though his
commission is already expired.
49. BRENNISEN VS. ATTY CONTAWI (Not discussed)
50. WILLIAMS VS. ATTY ICAO (not discussed)
51. PENA VS. ATTY PATERNO (not discussed)
52. GOKIOCO VS. ATTY. MATEO
Sir: the defendants in civil case the compliant is subscribed and sworn to, but in
fact her death certificate says that she was dead at the time the complaint was
said to be subcribed and sworn to. . Before the complainant died before signed the
document she died. SC suspended the lawyer reasoning that he violated his lawyer
oath. Notarial act should be “ Truthful carrying out its duty, for the purpose of
preserving the public integrity.” Courts and public at large must relied the
document being notarized.
25
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(c) Canon 2 & 3
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily
to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.
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 3.02 - 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.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law concurrently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of
the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible
for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing
itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no
artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda.
54. Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC#5299, 8/19/2003
Facts:
Simbillo advertised himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist.” These
advertisements appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
and further research showed that similar advertisements were published in the
Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the Philippine Star in August 5,
2000.
In September 1, 2000, Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and
solicitation of legal services, filed by Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of
Public Information Office, Atty. Ismael G, Khan.
Simbillo’s advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and
violated rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule
138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.
26
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data,
Simbillo professed repentance and beg for the Court’s indulgence, this rings hollow are permissible.
as he again advertised his services in an issue of Buy and Sell Free Ads Newspaper Sir: a lawyer was also suspended due to unlawful solicitation. the practice is not a
in August 14, 2001, and again in October 5, 2001. business but a profession...gaining of a livelihood is a secondary considerations but
the duty of the public
Rulings: legal solicitation - in accordance with the dignity legal profession
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.[12] It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary 55. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, Facts:
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.[13] The gaining of In his position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred
a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public service that he was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the
and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of respondent in a number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for
themselves.[15] The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to
business: ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients.
Issue:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in 1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
which one may attain the highest eminence without making much money; nonpayment of fees to complainant;

2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving 2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability; Held:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent,
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and but did not concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. Professional Responsibility. ***A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or
agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a person not licensed to
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. practice law. ***In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held that an
However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from
the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may
no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of simple signs stating the be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations in
name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against
27

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
respondent on this matter. TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL
TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients. REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that MCLE Purposes: Rule 1, Section 1 (36 UNITS)
respondent had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point 1.) Ensure that IBP members keep abreast with Law and Jurisprudence
out the specific provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he throughout their career.
violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for 2.) Maintain ethics of profession
the purpose of profit. 3.) Enhance the standard practice of law.
RULE 2
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. — Within two (2) months from the
Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall
in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory
bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be
used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature RULE 15
that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law. SECTION 1. Composition. — The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5)
members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4)
Sir:can a lawyer engage other profession or business? members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
practice does not make us rich, Villatuya is an accountant. atty. Tabalingcos center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or
promise to give the former 10% of the atty. fees for the service rendered to the law professors.
client. However the latter did not pay the obligations.
Atty. fees should not be shared with a non-lawyer. SC said he violated CPR the The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall
prohibition of soliciting cases. (suspended) be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive
such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
(d)Canon 4 & 5 – MCLE (BM#850, 10/2/2001) -commission shall monitor the program, every IBP members is req. within 3 yrs.
to complete 36 units.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL 2 hours of international
SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE RULE 3:
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin
not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36)
28

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
RULE 7
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar
are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and *any group maybe accredited to become an MLCE provider
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman
and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
RULE 9 (To issue accreditation)
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall
agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by
the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall
include the member on the official record of attendance only if the member’s
signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record
of attendance shall contain the member’s name and number in the Roll of
Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of
the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount
of ________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as
appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities
prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE
COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the
time, date, location, subject matter and length of the activity.
29
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal
education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of
Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of
monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity,
the time devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall
make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved
Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms
for a period of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the
MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
appropriate sanctions. public duties.
RULE 12-constitutes non- compliance
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. — The following shall constitute
non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
(e) Canon 6
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.03 - 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.
56. Atty. Vitriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, AC#4984, 4/1/2003 (ND)
57. Lim vs. Atty. Barcelona, AC#5438, 3/10/2004
We had held previously that if a lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of his official
duties as government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the
Bar on such ground.[19] More significantly, lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
who holds a responsible public office.
30
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It
is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually,
academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in
his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the
bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal
profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes
suspension and disbarment.[21] More importantly, possession of good moral
character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege
of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege.
58. Collantes vs. Atty. Renomeron, AC#3056, 8/16/1991
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by
Atty. Collantes, house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G),
against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s
irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163
pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its
subdivision.
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended
the registration of the documents with certain “special conditions” between them,
which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from
Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the
sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He
himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said documents to
Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the
registrability of the documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the
respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties
interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous
denial.
Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court
for his malfeasance as a public official, and (2) WON the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of official tasks.
Held: (1) Yes, a lawyer’s misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation
of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and
its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
(2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in
the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or
interest” (Rule 1.03).
59. Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, AC#5738, 2/19/2008 (ND)
60. Sierra vs. Lopez, AC#7549, 8/29/2008 61. Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., AC#7332,
6/18/2013 (ND)
Canon 7
1. In re Edillon
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The
IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from
its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the
Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining
to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the
sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence
of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the
Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP
By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
31
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All
lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him
to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar
integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to
further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
require thet the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice law
before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if
the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce
its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over
matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as
part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of
the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.
2. Francia vs Atty Abdon
He has, nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he
introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in
facilitation fee from the union members. The records bear out that the complainant, at the outset,
made clear his intention to seek the respondent’s assistance in following up the union’s case in the
CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan, a former client
who allegedly won a case in the CA in August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the
complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and does this for a
fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during a telephone conversation when the
latter told him he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation fee. 34 His connection with Vistan was the
reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him and that he got a
portion of the loot. His gesture of introducing the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that
what the latter asked of him was with his approval. It registered a mistaken impression on the
complainant that his case can be expeditiously resolved by resorting to extraneous means or
channels. Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant, the fact
is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistan’s illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the
legal profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary
for which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a “lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the
dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain the high regard to the
profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard
the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice.
3. In re: Haron Meling
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling
(Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary
penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that
he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less
Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of
media practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the
injuries to the latter.
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the
Bar.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson,
their former professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
a. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as
“closed and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude.
b. Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications really contained
the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the office clerk.
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
a. Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases,
not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still
pending.
b. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the
Court to ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE: WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD: PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
32
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
1. Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.”
a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he
signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable
for indirect contempt of court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as
the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than
the possession of legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver that he
or she “has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation
before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by
any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any
pending case or charge against him/her.”
a. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate
silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
4. Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit
Facts:
Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and
Abandonment.
Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing the bar,
respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a married woman, who
bore him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case
of adultery against respondent and Benita later followed.
Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it was
Rebecca who was the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the country
without his consent and thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.
Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently, before the IBP-
CBD. Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to support her allegations of
abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the existence of
prima facie case for adultery. Respondent, however, failed to present evidence to support his claim
and failed to personally attend hearings.
The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his suspension from
the practice of law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was accepted and adopted by the IBP
Board of Governors.
Issues:
Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for disbarment?
Ruling:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct: CANON 7 –
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.
The fact that respondent’s philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession
would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from
Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138,9 of the Rules of Court are not
limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or
private capacity." To reiterate, possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification
for all members of the bar.
33
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have children with
another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems to be
little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other woman.As we
have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to
maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED
5. Sps. Rafols vs Atty Barrios
FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General
SantosCity, wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge
Dizon, Jr.The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as
acceptance fee.On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence
and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The
respondent andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was
already waiting. Therespondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their
case was pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor,
assuring their success up tothe Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct
HELD: YES Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the
Bar Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the
complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent wasaware of the illegal purpose of
the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the
aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report andRecommendation, viz.:. . . Being
the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court issomething
beyond the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact in
arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast
Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge
Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case
which waspending before the sala of Judge Dizon.The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened
with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of ourlegal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency but also a very highstandard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
in order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the
high moral standards of the legal profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the integrity and
dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar
6. Garrido vs Atty Garrido
Facts: The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplementalaffidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline,
chargingthe m with gross imm oral ity, in violati on of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 , of the Code
of P rofessi onal Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her
daughter that he r husband was hav ing an aff air with a woman other than his wi fe
and al re ady had achild with her; and the same informati on was confi rme d when
one r of he r daughte rs saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other
respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their chil d in tow. After a much further investigation into the
matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband
had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and
joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed
financialsupport. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when
theycomm itt e d the suppose d i mmorali ty, so as such, they we re not gui lty of a
vi ol ati on of Canon1, R ule 1.01.
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01
and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense beingsupposedly
com mi tt ed whe n they we re not lawye rs.
Held:Yes. M em be rshi p in the Bar is a pri vile ge , and as a pri vile ge be stowe d by l aw
through the Supre me Court, me mbership in the Bar can be wi thdrawn whe re
circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they
academic or moral.In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.
Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule
1.01 of the Code of P rof essi onal Re sponsi bi li ty, whi ch com mands that a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, Thecontention
of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall notaff ord the m
exe mpti on from sancti ons; good moral characte r was already re qui re d as a condition
precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty.
Garrido and Valencia wereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in
promoting obedienceto the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
cater to hisown personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the
legalprofession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
Garrido’sabandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner;
34
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not
consistentwith the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment
isaffi rme d
7. Mendoza vs Atty Deciembre
FACTS:
Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from
Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in
six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn
against the Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates,
she made remittances, however, to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to
March 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough
to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would
deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00.
Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent
was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent
payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby
paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.
Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with
the amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000
respectively, which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant
received on November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed
P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount.
Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling
up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against
complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was
complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15,
1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason
“account closed”; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction;
complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P.
Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued
by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up
when complainant affixed her signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue
blank checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several
checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher
amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.
ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law.
HELD:
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of
members of the bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be
beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.
The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to
bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed,
there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his
professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another.
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of
members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:
* CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands
excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious
amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as
bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts
manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession.
35
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty
could accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to
wield its supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because
in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his
privilege to practice law for life is in order.
8. Atty Embido vs Atty Pe
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the
dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can
justify a lawyer’s disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of
moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in
this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on
the personal status of a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
Bar.
It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing
that may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity
and integrity.The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among
them who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorney’s Oath for
them to:
x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x
x x not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
nor consent to the same; x x x delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct themselves
as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to their clients x x x.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a
privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny
the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of
ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended
from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional
duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the
privilege to practice law confers upon him.27 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary
authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer
misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. 28 The test is whether the
conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of
the Court.29 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys.
9. Zaguirre vs Atty Castillo
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with
Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for
the bar and before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s
daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and
promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found
him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support
her. In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a
lawyer and proving his good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter
stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year since the
original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to
the Court and attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months
of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct, making him punishable
of Indefinite Suspension.
36
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross
immoral conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. The
attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to
support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is
highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-
stultification.
This Court has repeatedly held: "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good
moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of
the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." While respondent does not deny
having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing
out that "men by nature are polygamous," and that what happened between them was
"nothing but mutual lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the
reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the community is a just
and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite
suspension of two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the
support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
Canon 8
1. Atty Reyes vs Atty Chiong
FACTS
Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a business venture to set up a
factory for seafood products. Xu invested P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not
established the factory and asked for his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored Xu. Xu
engaged the services of Atty. Reyes, who filed a complaint for estafa against Pan (represented by
Atty. Chiong). The complaint was assigned to Asst. Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga, who
issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. For failure to appear and
submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Pan in the RTC of
Manila. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion
to quash the warrant of arrest. He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga a civil complaint for the
collection of a sum of money, damages, and for the dissolution of the business venture against
Xu, Atty. Reyes and Salanga. Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Chiong for
filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong alleges
that Atty. Reyes was impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing the estafa case. Salanga was
impleaded because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the investigation. The SC
referred the case to the IBP.
ISSUE
W/N the civil complaint was groundless
W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in the civil complaint
HELD
Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead Atty. Reyes and
Prosecutor Salanga in said civil complaint.
IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case. There was no
need to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga since they were not parties in the business
venture. Their inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and the suit was
filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit, Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension
SC: affirmed IBP’s recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned some alternative
remedies Atty. Chiong could have taken if his allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have
filed a motion for reinvestigation or motion for reconsideration of Salanga’s decision to file the
information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was also available if it was indeed filed
without basis.
2. Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco
Facts:
Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque) filed a complaint against
Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of the bar for using improper and offensive language and
threatening and attempting to assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani was
conferring with his client in the PAO office when the wife of the murdered victim, in tears, came
and askef for a settlement. Moved by the plight of the woman, Pefianco, who was standing
nearby, scolded and shouted at Salvani to not settle the case and to have his client imprisoned
so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the office, Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but
this ended up with Pefianco saying that Alcantara was an idiot for sending him out of the PAO.
Also, Pefianco tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, “Gago ka!”
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8
37
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Held:
Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. Pefianco’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so
caused the incident. And although Pefianco was moved by the woman’s plight, what he thought
was righteous did not give him the right to scold Salvani and insult and berate those who tried
to calm him down. Whatever moral righteousness he had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation.
3. Saberon vs Atty Larong
Facts:
Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave misconduct for allegedly using
abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty.
larong with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia,that this is another in the series of
blackmail suits filed by plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin for
financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous and bereft of any factual or
legal basis" complainant filed the present complaint.
By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP Investigating commissioner held that
the word "blackmail" connotes something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is
criminally charged with extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not offensive,to characterize
that persons act as blackmail.In view thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of
gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30days.IBP Board of Governor
disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack of merit
Issue:
Complainant appealed challenges hthev res. as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandatory
requirements of sec12(a) of rule 139-b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to
writing,clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
Held:
This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his
pleadings.
The code of professional responsibility mandates:
canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues,and shall avoid harassing tactics against oppossing counsel.
canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,use language which is abusive,offensive or
otherwise improper.
canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial officer and
should insist on similar conduct.
rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive,or menacing language or behavior before
the courts
4. Camacho vs Pagulayan
FACTS
AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due
to having published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty.
Camacho who is the counsel for the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty.
Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics
which provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon
the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint
was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the expelled students
and their parents compromise agreements in which the students waived all kinds of claims they
may have against AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed
against it. The compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the consent
and knowledge of Atty. Camacho given that he was already the counsel for the students at that
time. It was averred that the acts of Atty. Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics
HELD
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the
Code of Professional Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by Atty.
Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending
case filed by the students against AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact.
However, Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to negotiate with the students and the parents
without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even being aware that the students
were being represented by counsel.
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of
the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty.
38
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Pangulayan in this case fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member
of the Bar.
*In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of
Canon 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it
is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."
5. Dallong-Galincinao vs Atty. Castro
Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner
and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the
records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the
counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, “You mean to
say, I would have to go to Manila to get a copy?” Complainant replied that respondent may
show instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that
complainant should’ve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the
respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging
the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva of
your mother, you woman!”)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she won’t appear in the hearing of the case in
view of the respondent’s public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
Held:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he will
enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the
clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not
that he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only
ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainant’s
subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the
latter accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his
actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if
they repent afterwards.
6. Garcia vs Atty Lopez
In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged
respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and
officer of the court, and misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent
be suspended or disbarred.
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96
which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento
sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This
was granted by the court. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the
RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order
dated February 21, 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of
registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file
an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court.
Hearings were scheduled.
On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed
his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.
Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from
the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court
that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant
was the counsel of record. According to him, his attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent
basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the
proceedings was tantamount to “unfair harvesting” of the fruit of complainant's labors since
1996.
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarviña
(Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarviña), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson,
Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her
relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarviña and
Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of respondent and that
they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.
In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who
sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his services.
They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the next day.
Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to immediately file an entry of appearance with
motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the
39
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted
that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and
recommendation dated January 8, 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and
violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify
in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. He recommended that
respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a repetition of the same or
similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP
Board of Governors in its resolution passed on February 27, 2004.
We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the
causes of their clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities.
Membership in the bar imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to uphold
the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each
other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-
client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina
Jarviña and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf
of the “compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento” when in truth he was merely
representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation
which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He
clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court.”
Likewise, the CPR states:
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers:
CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his
appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who
had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been
discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of
record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by
being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached
upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.
We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a
calculated deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He
should have been more careful about his actuation since the court was relying on him in its task
of ascertaining the truth.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of
respondent.
7. Atty Barandon jr vs Atty Ferrer
Canon 9
1. Cambaliza vs Stty Cristal-Tenorio
FACTS
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on
the grounds of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing
marriage
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor.
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in
her law office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a
senior partner, 2) an id wherein he signed as an “atty”, 3) appearance in court as counsel.
40
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

HELD
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that
may only be performed by members of the bar in good standing
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the
investigation because such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such
that desistance of the complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the
bar from those unfit to practice law.
2. Villatuya vs Atty Tabalingcos
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the respondent
to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would
handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18
Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being able
to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay the
amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by
setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of
gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He
proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit
of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since
it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the
allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of
respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to
in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he
had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing
his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved for
the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge,
the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for
having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he be
reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be
guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
41
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondent’s disbarment.
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees
to complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations in this case had not been proven,
the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits
lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the
former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations
related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on
the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a
negative pregnant.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice
42
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held
thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional
dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice,
in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree
of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly
repose confidence in him.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are
grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
3. Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco
FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent for
grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to
10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Sps. Yap, whom he referred,
in an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap.
Respondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 17% attorney’s fees of the total estate of 40M.
Respondent told complainant that the Sps. Yap assumed to pay the amount after respondent
agreed to reduced fees.
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards
required of his profession. Respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he
has two children, and cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children.
Complainant also accused respondent of engaging in money-lending business without
authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted the case in a 25% contingent fee basis
and the letter of Sps. Yap stating that they will pay the complainant’s commission is a forgery.
The court referred the case to IBP wherein the commissioner recommended that the
respondent be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty.
HELD: YES. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession.
Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from
dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The settled rule is that betrayal of
the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. However, SC finds the charge of
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. The lending of
money to a single person without showing that such service is made available to other persons
on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is engaged in the business
of lending. Thus, the SC deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.
4. Petition to Sign Attorney’s Roll, Michael Medado
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979, took and passed the
same year’s bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath, failed to sign the Attorney’s Roll. After
more than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012,
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign
the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and he believed that since he had
already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as
a lawyer.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the
matter recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.
43
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Issue:
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of
a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such
action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.
The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado
himself who admitted his own error and not any third person. Second, petitioner has not been
subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron,
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development
Corporation.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His
justification of his action, that it was “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief
and an honest error of judgment” was opposed by the Court.
“A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed
to know the law and its consequences.” Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a
person from the legal consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary steps to
complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Such
action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the
amount of P32,000.
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A.
Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During
the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing
any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with
severely by the Court.
Canon 10
78. NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C.
FLORIDO, respondent.
Facts: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty.
James Benedict C. Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for
allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer “by manufacturing, flaunting and using a
spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of
respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living
separately from each other. They have two children. Complainant filed a case for
the annulment of her marriage with respondent. there is another case related to
the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court of
Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled, “James Benedict C. Florido
v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al.” Respondent went to complainant’s residence in
Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor
children be surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged
Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion
for temporary child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter
informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody
filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the
alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her.
Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two
dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she
refused to give custody of their children to respondent. While complainant was
with her children in the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent,
accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender
to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away
with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National
Bureau of Investigation. complainant received information that a van arrived at the
44
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod
City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room,
where they stayed until later in the morning. respondent filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition for the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of
the alleged Court of Appeals’ resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified
the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18,
2002 from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering
complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued.
After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-
Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The
IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three years with a warning that another offense of this nature will
result in his disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the Report and recommendation of the Commission with the
modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years.
ISSUE: WON respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and
attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
RULING:
In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith
in invoking the Court of Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to
be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact that he used and presented
the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by respondent on at
least two occasions: first, in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas
Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, which he filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the
assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover
custody of his minor children from complainant. Since it was respondent
who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its
fabrication.
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the
judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by
counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of
allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then
that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a client’s
cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional
Responsibility states:
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO
THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent
the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his
pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. A lawyer’s language should
be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyer’s arguments whether
written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should
be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By
calling complainant, a “sly manipulator of truth” as well as a “vindictive congenital
prevaricator”, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
Respondent’s actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They
constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed
by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefore.- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction
45
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
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.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
79. De Zuzuarregui vs Atty Soguilon
FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr. against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon.
Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct, concealment of the truth and
misleading the court.
Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for reconstitution,
respondent introduced as evidence the certified copy of the technical description
and the sketch plan of the land. Exhibits “F” and “G,”- This is not an updated
survey data; This plan is used for reference purposes only. the trial court allowed
reconstitution of the title. As such, complainant submitted that respondent was
remiss in not calling the attention of the trial court to the notations indicated in
the documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the truth from the
court.
In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges against her.
Anent the annotations on the documents, respondent stated that she could not be
charged of concealing facts from the court as she had submitted the documents
without alteration for the evaluation of the trial court.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Decided - Clearly, what should
have been fatal omissions on the part of Respondent, as counsel
of the petitioner in the Petition for Reconstitution (LRC Case No.
Q-7195 [95]) were allowed to pass without challenge. A simple
perusal of the Decision dated June 5, 1995 (In Re: Petition for
Reconstitution of TCT No. 17730, LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) x x x
shows that there was reversible error on the part of the presiding
judge of RTC, Branch 93 of Quezon City.
xxxx
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not punish
errors, mistakes or incompetence. Errors and mistakes are
corrected by legal remedies such as motions for reconsideration,
appeals, and petitions for relief. The reversal of the June 5, 1995
Decision of the trial court has remedied the error committed.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent
did not commit any act for which she should be disciplined or
administratively sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in acting as counsel
for the petitioner in the petition for reconstitution of title.
RULING: NO- Respondent’s failure to point out the notations in the documents she
had submitted, in the Court’s opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that
there was absence of proof that respondent had intended to mislead or deceive
the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid bare for the trial court’s
evaluation. There were no attempts on respondent’s part to manipulate or hide
them.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum
of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant. In the present case, the Court finds that complainant, who
notably owns one of the properties subject of the title sought to be reconstituted,
and is consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear and preponderant
evidence to show respondent’s guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In
any event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any, caused by respondent’s
oversight against complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later
on by a different judge who set aside the order of reconstitution.
46
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of IBP to investigate the matter and recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty
any desire to dupe or defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous blunders against respondent. He failed to file his answer and personally appear before the
that were made without intent to harm. As plain acts of inadvertence, they do not IBP investigation, as a result decision was rendered based on the pleading and was
reach the level of professional incompetence. While professional incompetence is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of
not among the grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the respondent to six (6) months.
Revised Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined
for inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced Issue: WON respondent violated his lawyer’s aoth and the act would be a violation
that respondent should not be sanctioned. of the lawyer’s duty of candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is Ruling: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.
AFFIRMED. All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, “do no
falsehood” and “conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of
[their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to [their] clients.” These particular fundamental principles are reflected in
80. Macias vs Atty Selda the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:
FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
violation of the lawyer’s oath. Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an
Election Case. He basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could artifice.
not cope up with the pace of the proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as
that the hearings of the election protest case would run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 counsel for Norma T. Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation.
p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at Philippine Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In
Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However, fact, this obligation to the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus,
respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and
counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative which
of the pre-judgment of the case by complainant, who, on several occasions necessitates appropriate punishment.
insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest. He stated that he was The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension
convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal from the practice of law for one (1) year. This serves the purpose of protecting the
from the case was his best recourse. This Court set aside complainant’s inhibition interest of the court, the legal profession and the public. For indeed, “if respect
after finding no strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to continue for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened, no law can
hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch. save us as a society.”
Deploring the act of respondent as “serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct
as a lawyer and in utter violation of the lawyer’s oath,” complainant requested the 81. Mariveles vs Atty Mallari
47

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint against his former could not find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
counsel, Attorney Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten apple if only
to handle his defense in Criminal Case (BP Blg 22). After an adverse decision was to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to
rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the trial court's decision the noble profession. (pp. 249-250, Rollo)
to the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of
Appeals, despite numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he 82. Atty Alonso vs Atty Relamida
obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari failed to file the appellant's brief, FACTS:
resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter
his client? ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed
RULING: YES at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for
The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
dereliction of duty toward his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the On February 17, 2005, the Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already
legal profession and to immediately cease and desist from the practice of law. The
become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been
respondent demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility
issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since
to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession. However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of
our Code of Professional Responsibility. action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier,
xxx xxx xxx thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario
Rule 12.03 — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However,
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of
Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the
if in the course of that practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law profession.
The last thing that his peers in the law profession and the Integrated Bar ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating
of the Philippines would do is to disrobe a member of the profession, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
for he has worked for the attainment of his career burning the midnight
oil throughout school and passing the bar. The undersigned, however, HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty.
48

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is 83. maligaya vs Atty Doronilla
employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a
Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, hearing, he said “…we had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against
he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial
him(Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the cases. Do with that understanding, he
of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that even retired and he is now receiving pension.” Atty. Doronilla was then charge
the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata.
of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction
He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of of justice
his client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 .ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation
months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. of canon 10 of the code of professional responsibility.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory
client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing
tenets of ethical conduct. Not only violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood,
of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper nor consent to the doing of an in court,” but also his acts infringed on every
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice lawyer’s duty to “ never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law
such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a for two months.
final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only
incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties assuspension from the practice of law. For this reason, we disagree with the IBP’s
an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such recommendation for Atty. Doronilla’s suspension from the government military
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. service. After all, the only purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the
Doronilla’s liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal
doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for us to order, as a
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyer’s oath, his suspension from
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his employment in the Judge Advocate General’s Service. Of course, suspension from
actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as employment as a military legal officer may well follow as a consequence of his
well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice." suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for us to impose
it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: purpose of this proceeding were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the IBP’s
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which recommendation as one for suspension from the practice of law.
found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res
Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED 84. Molina vs Atty Magat
for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of Governors of the
Decision Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat)
liable for unethical conduct and recommending that he be reprimanded.
49

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law
is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society,
the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Magat’s act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Ma
gat to mislead the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal
charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any
false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was
a similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he
had to do was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case
was filed.
85. Afurong vs Atty Aquino
FACTS:
Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment against Victorino Flores for
nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner
Paraluman Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution. Facing eviction, Flores
sought help from Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G
Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions. When the court set a pre-trial, he filed
an Urgent Motion for Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and
indicated the address of Citizens Legal Assistance Office as his office address
notwithstanding the fact that he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance
Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that he could not attend the
pre-trial conference because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour. But the
Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the
aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing. Thus,
Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for filing
frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision, committing
falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement, and misrepresenting himself as
an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino denied the
charges against him and contended that such acts had been done without
malice.In a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of
contempt of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false
allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his duties
expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional
Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the commission of
the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months
suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
ISSUE:
WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided
under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC
in force at the time of the commission of the acts in question
RULING:
The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel
or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari
considering that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution
of a valid judgment.
Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for
Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the
50
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
same day as the pre-trial of the Civil Case. Such act violates the Canons Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless bribery charge against
of Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the complainant, respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional
truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promoting or suing any groundless
manner. suit" including baseless administrative complaints against judges and other court
Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for conduct officers and employees.
tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed
with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee, or a lawyer, is to
said office. be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and
The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of malpractice derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions,
and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for six (6) months commencing upon or on the basis of hearsay.
receipt of notice hereof.
No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind charges against
86. Judge Cervantes vs Atty Sabio judges and lawyers. But it is also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits
Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant judge on the ground which are intended to, among other things, harass them.
that EDC (a party to the case handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and
lot putting into serious doubt his impartiality, independence and integrity. The Canon 11
motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of complaint, Atty. Sabio submitted 87. Judge Madrid vs Atty Dealca
an affidavit stating certain instances pointing out irregularities with the handling of FACTS: Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case pending in
his case under Judge Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed. Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City, presided by
complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes against Sabio Judar who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. But aside
alleging that (1) the complaint for bribery filed by the latter against the former from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved
were unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded suspicion, and, (2) such that Criminal Case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC. Judge Madrid
complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional retirement. denied Atty. Dealca’s motion to re-raffle. Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint4 in
the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca’s unethical practice of entering
The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of the his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrid’s issuance of the order unconstitutionally
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional and unlawfully deprived the accused of the right to counsel, to due process, and to
Responsibility for filing a malicious, false and untruthful complaint. a fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act on the
motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused; and
51

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law.
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation, report and
recommendation. the Court in Yap v. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit
the administrative complaint against Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing, but referred to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the
propensity of Atty. Dealca to file administrative or criminal complaints against
judges and court personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued
adversely to him and his clients.
ISSUE: (1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints
against judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility?
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge
Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795?
RULING: 1. Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded
suits.
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a
high sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and
inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that direction should
be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self-interest. The noble cause of cleansing
the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. Atty. Dealca exhibited his
proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP
Commissioner Hababag pointed outm his bringing of charges against judges, court
personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from
decisions or rulings being adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew,
therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither
vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the
appropriate legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every
lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
them.
Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper
administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of the
unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the
workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise
of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. Atty.
Dealca’s bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges, court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his
part, considering that he made allegations against them therein that he could not
substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous and unworthy of the
Court’s precious time and serious consideration.
2. Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties,
responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their
membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them.
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
pertinently state:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxxx
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial
institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year effective
from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
52
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
88. Uy vs Atty Depasucat injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to
FACTS: Before us is a verified complaint filed by Johnny K.H. Uy against render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or
respondents lawyers, Reynaldo C. Depasucat, William O. Su and Celso delas Alas,
interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in
for gross misconduct. his judgment.
Complainant filed before the BSP a Petitionagainst Surigaonon Rural Banking Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative
Corporation (the bank) and Alfredo Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises
complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order to
the majority stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of the bank’s registration
the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint is
and franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the bank’s and/or Bonpin’s refusal
not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as
to return various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the
obtained by his (complainant’s) wife, despite alleged full payment of the loan and
assailed order is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty.
interests. A perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of
the respondent judge when he rendered the assailed decision. A judge's
89. Racines vs Judge Morallos failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented
Facts: Complainant Jaime Racines (Racines) was required by the Court in its
does not necessarily render him administratively liable.
Resolution dated November 22, 2007 to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court for filing a baseless and unfounded administrative case.
90. Baculi vs Atty Battung
Racines filed a Complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin
On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of a
Cabusao for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, other deceits, violation of
case, respondent Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, violation of Article 32 of the New Civil
arguing his motion. Petitioner, Judge Rene Baculi, had advised respondent to tone
Code, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and the Code of Judicial
down his voice but the respondent consistently kept shouting, even when he was
Conduct.
warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually being cited for
Ruling: According to respondent sheriff, the filing of the ejectment direct contempt and was imposed a fine of P100.00, the respondent left. However,
complaint did not deprive complainant of his property right. He argues that while other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court and shouted
plaintiff therein was only asserting his right as a lessor over the leased “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” He was
property subject of the above-entitled case. Respondent sheriff further escorted out of the courtroom and was again cited for direct contempt for the
argues that due process of law was observed. Hence, the instant second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he saw petitioner at
administrative proceeding is not the proper remedy. the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the latter to a fight. He
EVALUATION: The instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. was then escorted out of the building.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not
subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability whether Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes,
civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la Rama,
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with Jr. found that the respondent was the one who shouted first at the complainant,
fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an
53

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
despite the latter’s claim that he was provoked by the petitioner. The
Commissioner further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer
shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behaviour before
the courts. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and
approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his
courtroom
HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the respondent
did violate Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By
shouting at the petitioner, Atty. Battung clearly disrespected the former in the
presence of litigants and their counsels and court personnel. Furthermore, the
respondent even threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross ignorance of
the law against the latter. The respondent’s actions are found not only against the
person, the position and the stature of petitioner but also against the court whose
proceedings were disrupted.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to uphold the
dignity and authority of the courts. A lawyer who insulted a judge inside a
courtroom completely disregard’s the latter’s role, stature and position in our
justice system. Respects for the courts guarantee the stability of the judicial
institution and without such, the courts would be resting on very shaky
foundations and will thus, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to
a file a case against the judge, Atty. Battung seems to erode public confidence in
the petitioner’s competence. However, incompetence is a matter that, even if true,
should be handled with sensitivity in the manner that is provided under the Rules
of Court, and not how the respondent handled the situation. The respondent’s
actions, being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system,
clearly showed a violation of the Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
91. Judge Lacurom vs Atty Lacoba
Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R.
Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico
Barrientos. The Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in
favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The case
was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge.
Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (“Resolution”) reversing the earlier
judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. The plaintiff-appellee
Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and DESIST from ejecting the
defendant-appellant Federico Barrientos. Veneracion’s counsel filed a
Motion for Reconsideration (with Request for Inhibition) “This
RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely
DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense
that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the DARAB
(Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE
and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x”
Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and
explain why she should not be held in contempt of court for the “very
disrespectful, insulting and humiliating” contents of the 30 July 2001
motion. Velasco-Jacoba claimed that “His Honor knows beforehand who
actually prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the
undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case.”
Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any “conscious or deliberate intent to degrade
the honor and integrity of the Honorable Court or to detract in any form
from the respect that is rightfully due all courts of justice.”
RULING: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
54
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 Rule 11.03.—A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04.—A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly
exceeded the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his client’s cause. We recall
his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity,
horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an
anachronism in the judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the
words created “a cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect.” Well-
recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen,
to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of
courts and judges. However, even the most hardened judge would be scarred by
the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided
the case according to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyer’s
language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in
judicial administration.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for
two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND
Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) months
effective upon finality of this Decision.
92. Provincial Prosecutor Visbal vs Judge Buban
FACTS: Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Provincial Prosecutor Robert M.
Visbal of Tacloban City charged Judge Marino S. Buban, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, with gross inefficiency and misconduct in
Office. Presiding Judge Marino S. Buban, respondent, resolved the motion only on
March 20, 2000, or almost eight (8) months from the date it was filed. He
deliberately failed to resolve the motion within the prescribed period of ninety
(90) days because he begrudged complainant's filing of an administrative charge
and several motions for his inhibition. Respondent’s delay in resolving the motion
violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Judicial
Conduct. Furthermore, respondent committed falsification by stating in his
Certificates of Service from October 1999 to February 2000 that he has no pending
motions submitted for resolution. respondent judge admitted he incurred delay in
resolving the "Motion to Correct and Re-mark Exhibits of the Prosecution." He
attributed such delay to the frequent resetting of the hearing of the cases. He also
alleged that his clerk of court “failed or forgot” to submit the records of the
pertinent case to him and to call his attention to the unresolved motion attached
to the voluminous records. He blamed the complainant for failing to remind him
earlier of the motion. It was only during the hearing of March 20, 2000 that
complainant called his attention to the pending incident. Immediately, he granted
the motion and ordered the remarking of exhibits. He stressed that the delay in
resolving the motion did not impede the flow of the proceedings. He surmised
that complainant filed the instant administrative case in order to force him
(respondent) to inhibit himself from hearing Criminal Case No. 98-11-18 for direct
assault upon a person in authority. The accused therein is complainant’s wife.
RULING: Delay in resolving motions is inexcusable and should not be
condoned. Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge
within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution
and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Further, such
delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which mandates that a judge should dispose of the court’s business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods. It is undisputed that
respondent failed to resolve complainant’s motion within the reglementary
period of ninety (90) days. He cannot escape liability by claiming that his
clerk “failed or forgot” to inform him of the unresolved motion. Though
blame may conveniently be placed on court personnel’s mismanagement of
the records of cases, it must be kept in mind that they are not the guardians
55
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
of a judge’s responsibilities. Proper and efficient court management is as
much the judge’s responsibility for he is the one directly responsible for the
proper discharge of his official functions. We find respondent judge
administratively liable for undue delay in rendering an order, a less serious
charge under Section 9, Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of
Court. Pursuant to Section 11(b) of the same Rule, such offense is
punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, for incurring undue delay in rendering an order, respondent
Judge Marino S. Buban of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Branch 1, Tacloban City, is ordered to pay a FINE of Eleven Thousand
(P11,000.00) Pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
offense will be dealt with more severely.
93. Hon. Rodriguez-Manahan vs Atty Flores
Facts:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as
counsel for the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof
of MCLE compliance hence; it was expunged from the records
without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing
the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his
Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a
quo gave respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with
stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered a waiver on his
part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE
number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date
and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference,
respondent manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his
MCLE on the following day. The Investigating Judge found
Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing
to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance
with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The Investigating Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended
from the practice of law for one year.
Issue:
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for
using intemperate language in his pleadings
Held:
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order
to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several
opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in
his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be
circumspect in his language.
However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not
commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It appears
that this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not
prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year suspension for
humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has
been in the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his
twilight years. Considering the foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine
respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey
and respect court processes.
Canon 12
94. Atty Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto
Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the
General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a
member of the Board of Directors (the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar
Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the
pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a complaint
56
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of the the assistance of respondent Guerrero as her counsel appealed the decision to the
Board and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent CA. The CA affirmed the decision. Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA,
had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Mabanag and respondent as counsel appeal the decision to the SC. The SC
Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court, when affirmed the decision of the court a qou.
having ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his motion, of However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as counsel did not end there,
extension of time, did not file any position paper and further ignored the Court’s since the filed multifarious suits and motions based on the ground that Spouses
subsequent show cause order. Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless Alcazares, being foreigners have no eligibility to own lands in the Philippines. The
criminal complaints against complainant. ground which these various petitions and motions is based is already decided by
the Court with finality when it decided the civil case concerning the sale of the
Issue: Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions of property..
the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10.
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his action of questioning
Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and the eligibility of the Spouses Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision
respondent’s deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof and the determination of the validity of the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are
will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary ineligible to own lands in the Philippines then the sale is void.
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any
other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. Issue:
The Court further noted that respondent had previously been suspended from the Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum shopping, thus warrant
practice of law for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, sanction.
that respondent has not reformed his ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus
called for, respondent was subjected to suspension for two years. Held:
Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such
95. Foronda vs Atty Guerrero numerous petitions in behalf of his client, the respondent thereby engaged in
Facts: forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his principals, Ramona and involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil Case for specific performance and damages before successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case involved a parcel of land which a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in
were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while the case was pending, Catalina Balais- another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the respondent as the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An
their lawyer, intervened in the case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation
questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the Philippines. caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through
57

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at ISSUE
the expense of truth and the administration of justice. Under the Code of The respondent’s abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at
efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment in the RTC and
impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. Such filing of lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases)to
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes and improper assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients.
and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files Facts
such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a The respondent also committed forum – shopping by filing the subject cases in
final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for order to obstruct, impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for
incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to
an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. RULING
The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant
We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late
clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget that Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the
they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to respondent’s clients.
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open
In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the
matter, the respondent violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional said case where the respondent asserted the falsehood.
Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also preparation. Thus, the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all
violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate “to squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
delay no man for money or malice.” Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondent’s
repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law. rules in defending the interests of his client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03,
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a
96. Que vs Atty Revilla lawyer to “observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat
Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the the ends of justice.”
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) of committing various violations on the Code The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as stated in the Professional Responsibility as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of
following which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same
58

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to
degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure
and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction
by the MeTC and RTC even knowing – fully well that the competent courts have
jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsility
and the Rules of Court
The respondent’s also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court
in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are
already deceased
Conrado Que vs Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr
Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer
“never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement
of fact or law”.
In defending his clients’ interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01,
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF LAW
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his clients x x x
Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant’s and his
siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being
authorized to do so.
Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-
03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.
The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical
infractions and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions
should carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when
he undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may
not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from the latter’s
representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional
Responsibility, and is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the
Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify
the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the respondent should beDISBARRED
from the practice of law.
CANON 13
97. Jimenez va Atty Verano
FACTS: Before this Court is the Resolution1 ﾧ of the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano
liable for improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence and/or giving
the appearance of influence upon a public official.
RULING:
98. FoodSphere, inc vs Atty Maurico
FACTS:
[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in
Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As
Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they
found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside
the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings
between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged
a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the
BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty.
Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness,
later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the
document.
59
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others
for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the
Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing
of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil
case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against
complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
RATIO:
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the
Canon of Professional Responsibility which reads: “A lawyer shall not make
public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.”
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the
integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the
Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the
impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it
and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild
allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his
pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1
also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to
“uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.” Respondent defied said status quo order, despite
his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession to “obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.”
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up to his
oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession,
respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which directs a lawyer to “at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of
the legal profession.”
D. Lawyer’s Duty to his Client
CANON 14 &15
99. Baens vs Atty Sempio
FACTS:
This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the
respondent to represent him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-
affidavit dated March 15, 2010, the complainant alleged, among others, that
the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of 250,000.00 to cover for the
expenses in the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it
was the complainant’s wife who successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-
08,7 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on December 8, 2008; (2) even
with the complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated
December 15, 2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9 and was able to file it only
on March 13, 2009 which was after the 15-day period stated in the
Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground of
improper venue as neither the complainant nor his wife were and are
residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of the
case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings set for the case;
and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2463-08 was decided10 on October 27,
2009 without the complainant being able to present his evidence.
In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and
explained that: (1) after a meeting with the complainant, he drafted the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and asked the complainant to
go over said draft after which he proceeded to file the same with the
60
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the complainant was aware
that said petition will be filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the
verification and certification of the petition; (3) the case became pending
and was later on withdrawn because of the complainant’s refusal to testify;
(4) what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he
still had to let the complainant go over the same and sign the verification
thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the case because he did
not receive any notice from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December
2, 2009 when he found out that the trial court has already rendered its
decision and that the complainant had changed counsels.
Specifically, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to
diligently attend to the case and was grossly negligent in discharging his
responsibilities considering the fact that he has already been fully compensated.
The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent should have manifested
or made known to the trial court that he was not receiving any notice at all since it
behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the cases he is
handling.
ISSUE:
Held:
It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the
respondent to handle his case. The records, however, definitively bear out
that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the
complainant’s case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00
for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case.
The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or
notices from the trial court is highly intolerable.1âwphi1 In the first place,
securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records was within the
respondent’s control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the
preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that fully
fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the respondent. It was
incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and
incidental to the advancement of his client’s cause of action.
Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the
progress of his client’s case with the trial court, and neither did he resort to
available legal remedies that might have protected his client’s interest.
Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ
in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within
the authority of law to support his client’s interest. When a lawyer agrees to
take up a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting the latter’s rights.18
Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor,
fairness, and loyalty to his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A
lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.19
In this case, the respondent’s reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived
his client of due process and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his
clients’ interests. A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal
advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court
or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and
filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the client
or the court.
100. HocormaFoundation vs Stty. Funk
FACTS: Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent.
It alleged that respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief
61
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended Atty. Funk’s suspension
served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration but
was denied.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and
damages against Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former
acquired while with the foundation. client in violation of the CPR when he filed several actions against such client on
behalf of a new one.
As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by
Don Teodoro Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent
that, in all these, the attorney-client relationship was always between Santos and conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
him. He was more of Santos’ personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal
Foundation. counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship with the
foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the
Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed foundation’s written consent.
that the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos
donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary
authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it Santos’ sale or donation of a 5- nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited
hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. The
expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former client’s doings,
Santos provided. It was Santos’ intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it
Institute free of rent and expenses. not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their
relationship.
According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that
board, a suggestion that the foundation followed. After Santos died, respondent Respondent collected attorney’s fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an
was elected President of Mabalacat Institute. obligation not to use any knowledge he acquired during that relationship,
including the fact that the property under litigation existed at all, when he sued
The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funk’s fees, thus he severed his ties with the foundation.
Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and
SC decided in favor of the respondent. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of the IBP
SUSPENDS Atty. Richard Funk from the practice of law for one year effective
After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have immediately.
violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a
pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his former
62

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
101. Seares vs Stty Gonzales-Alzate
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the
May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert Z.
Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra;
The petition was dismissed because it is fatally defective, time-barred and violation the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong
of forum shopping(false statements)
When he ran on may 2010, she was retained as counsel for the opponent party
When he was charged for abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra, she represented the complainant Torqueza of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former client,
and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him
defenses: (a) she was engaged as an attorney
in the May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for
Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of
whom was Seares, Jr.’s political opponent;
(b) Carlito Turqueza used to be
a political ally of Seares, Jr.;
(c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once
acted as a counsel of Seares, Jr.;
(d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal representation of Turqueza; and (e) the paste” method in preparing the verification and certification for non-forum
2007 election protest that she handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the
administrative complaint that Turqueza brought against Seares, Jr. in 2010.
Issues:
(a) Was Atty. Gonzales-Alzate guilty of professional negligence and
incompetence in her handling of Seares, Jr.’s electoral protest in the RTC?
(b) Did Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests when she assisted Turqueza in his
administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former client?
Ruling:
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act
of the attorney s hould be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was
highly prejudicial to the client’s interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed
administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure
to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal, especially
when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file
the pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance.The Court has found
remedy, or belatedly files an appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a
complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court hearings. Gross misconduct on the
part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature
the true cause of the dismissal of Seares, Jr.’s “Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam”
was its prematurity in light of the pendency in the Commission on Elections of his
“Petition to Suspend Canvass and Proclamation.”
we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the
filing and eventual dismissal of the subsequent “Petition for Protest.” The
verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition
contained handwritten superimpositions by Atty. GonzalesAlzate, but such
superimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the corrections of the
dates of subscription and the notarial document number and docket number for
the verification and certification. If that was all there was to the superimpositions,
then there was nothing to support the trial judge’s observation that the “cut and
shopping constituted “professional negligence” that proved fatal to her client’s
protest.
The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was
clear from the start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her
previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her legal representation of Turqueza in the
latter’s administrative charge against Seares, Jr. There was no indication
whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information during her previous
engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used against Seares, Jr. Her engagement
63
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
by Seares, Jr. related only to the election protest in 2007, but Turqueza’s complaint
involved Seares, Jr.’s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the
president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores, Abra in 2010. There is no
question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another. Moreover, the
prohibition against representing conflicting interest further necessitated identity
of the parties or interests involved in the previous and present engagements. But
such identity was not true here. The adverse party in Seares, Jr.’s election protest
in 2007 was Albert Z. Guzman, the newly-elected Municipal Mayor of Dolores,
Abra, who was not involved in Turqueza’s administrative complaint against Seares,
Jr. In fact, Turqueza was not even a mayoral candidate in Dolores, Abra in the
elections held in 2007 and in 2010. The allegation by Seares, Jr. that Atty. Gonzales-
Alzate represented his political opponent was not even true because Turqueza was
Seares, Jr.’s political ally, as Atty. Gonzales-Alzate stated.
102. Castro-Justo vs Atty Galing
Attorney; conflict of interest. Respondent attorney drafted a demand letter on
behalf of complainant in connection with the dishonored checks issued by Ms.
Koa. In the ensuing criminal cases, respondent filed a Motion for Consolidation on
behalf of Ms. Koa and appeared at the preliminary investigation hearing as Ms.
Koa’s counsel. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed
between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the
services he rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the demand letter only
as a personal favor to complainant who is a close friend. A lawyer-client
relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant
and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting
the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the
demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent
was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases
is of no moment. Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate
respondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt
lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with
conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-
client relationship is established and extends beyond the duration of the
professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. Atty. Rodolfo Galing.
103. Sibulo vs Atty. Cabrera
At bar is an administrative complaint against the respondent, Atty. Stanley Cabrera,
for unethical practice/conduct.
The facts that matter are as follows:
In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al.", docketed as
Civil Case No. 90-55209 before Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained the services of the herein respondent as his
lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also entered his appearance as
counsel for plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in the same case, without withdrawing his
appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo Marcelo. In view of such
development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with
the Manila Regional Trial Court a motion to disqualify the respondent on the
ground of unethical conduct. Finding merit in the said motion, the trial court
ordered the disqualification of respondent in the case.
Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-
55209, brought the present administrative complaint against respondent, praying
for the latter’s removal from or suspension in the practice of law, on the ground of
unethical practice/conduct.
In his Answer] to the Complaint, respondent denied the wrongdoing alluded to
him; theorizing that "xxx I merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same
time I was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants xxx."
Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in
his Answer that he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I
[he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants." Such a revelation is a
categorical admission that he (respondent) represented two conflicting interests,
which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
"CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL
HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx.....xxx.....xxx
64
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject
civil case. When he agreed to represent the defendant and later on, also the
plaintiff in the same case, he could no longer serve either of his said clients
faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with his duty to the
defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double
dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of unethical conduct for representing
two conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND
(P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.
104. Samala vs Atty Valencia
Facts:
Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia
(respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the
case was deemed submitted for resolution.
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension
for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension
from six months to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue
on immorality and as to the recommended penalty.
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties.
Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel
for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation
and Compliance before the RTC.
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being
counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He
may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may
represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of
public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client
which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty.
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for
ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's
ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the
name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
65
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the
Answer was filed in the said case, that was the time that he came to know that the
title was already in the name of Alba; so that when the court dismissed the
complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent further avers that Valdez
did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for
rescission was filed in 2002.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by
respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its
decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is
decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by
presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled
and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.
(c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No.
2000-657-MK at the RTC, Branch 272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC,
Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-036162 both entitled "Valencia v.
Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the Marikina City
Prosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation
for the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa and
I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with
respondent. As payment for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property
for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to their retainer agreement.
The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of
filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his
own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge
unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial
processes to commit injustice.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest
of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer
who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client.
(d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita
Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also
admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over
20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.
Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments
being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with
Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He
reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in
Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult
to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet,
for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that
"conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of
misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years,
effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.
105. Buted vs Atty Hernando
FACTS:
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a
partition case of the late Teofilo Buted’s lot. He successfully defended the
case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew appearance. Luciana once
sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued to
the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando
to represent him (free of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple.
Atty. Hernando claims to have terminated relationship with Bolisay. In
66
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Luciana’s heirs
without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The
couple filed disapproval. The case was dismissed for prescription. In August
of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their
counsel
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest.
In the action for specific performance, Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay
couple’s right to ownership but assailed the very same right in the cadastral
proceeding in favor of Luciana’s heirs. The Canons of Professional Ethics
prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. “It is unprofessional to represent
conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The
obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge
his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers
or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the
client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.”And despite Atty
Hernando’s claim that he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer
Certificate of Title or that he divulged any confidential information
belonging to the Bolisay couple, that the mere fact that respondent had acted
as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should
have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the
cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the spouses. There is no
necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential information to
an attorney in the course of his employment by his first client in order that
he may be precluded from accepting employment by the second or
subsequent client where there are conflicting interests between the first and
the subsequent clients. The prohibition on conflict of interest was designed
not only to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as
well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. Although the relation of attorney and client has
terminated, and the new employment is in a different case; nor can the
attorney use against his former client any knowledge or information gained
through their former connection.
SUSPENDED for 5 months.
106. Perez vs Atty Dela Torre
Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec
2001, severalsuspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny
Boy Ilo and Diego Avilawere apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that
respondent went to the unicipal bldg.of Calabanga where the accused were being
detained and made representations that he couldsecure their freedom if they sign
the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused,
respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim;
The extrajudicialconfessions included herein the complainant as the mastermind in
the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his
extrajudicial confession,he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and
only after he was convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion did he assist the
accused in executing the extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD:
Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended
for three years from the practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services
as a lawyer wereretained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the
time that atty. De la Torre wasrepresenting the said two accused, he was also
representing the interest of the victim¶s family.Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by writtenconsent of all
67
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore
duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in
a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded
on principles of public policy andgood taste. In course of a lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connectedwith the client¶s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers notonly
to keep inviolate the client¶s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
improprietyand double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case
invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to hisclients. What is unsetting is
that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions
whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal
offensesknowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of
the victims.Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should
have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused¶s choice
of counsel.
107. Rural Bank Calape vs Atty Florido
Attorney; representation within bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Code provides
that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For
this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client
compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to
counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and
refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Rural Bank of Calape,
Inc. (RBCI), Bohol vs. Atty. James Benedict Florido
FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against
respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagos 108. Gonzales vs Atty Sabacajan
group, through force and intimidation, forcibly took over the management FACTS
and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the
bank manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their own staff to run
the bank.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed
against him by RBCI was already dismissed; while the complaint for grave
coercion was ordered suspended because of the existence of a prejudicial
question. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against
him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against RBCI’s
counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to
prove their allegations. Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the
complaint were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and
that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 19.
HELD: The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended
for a year. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws
of the land. It is the lawyer’s duty to promote respect for the law and legal
processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use
peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an
intentional wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To
that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and
must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.
68
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B.
Pantanosas against Atty. Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it alleged that
complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that
the complainants’ owner’s duplicate of title covering their lands, Transfer
Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who
in turn entrusted the same to respondent. However the latter admitted and
confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even
shown the same the complainant Salud but when demanded to deliver the said
titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the respondent refused
without any justification to give their titles and when confronted, respondent
challenged the complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable
Supreme Court. That respondent’s dare or challenge is a manifestation of his
arrogance taking undue advantage of his legal profession over innocence and
ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for
which complainants shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated demands,
the respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, the
complainants which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal
and moral obligations emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who
had sworn to uphold law and justice, to the prejudice and damage of the
complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met Salud but claims
that, to his recollection, “Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan” has never been to his office.
Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court,
much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred complainant
Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for
whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of
the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain certificates
of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants,
that is, supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an
examination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondent’s
claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different
from each other.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility for his refusal without just cause to return/ give to complainants
their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the
good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their
clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary obligations to his client, that
does not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title since there is
no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the
payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order
authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently,
respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need
for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly
refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce
payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to
impress the latter of his power to do so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this
proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can
duly show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to
and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by complainants, or can present a
judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his
client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more severely.
109. Penilla vs Atty Alcid, Jr
Attorney; Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated
Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under Canon 18 to “serve his client with
69
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
competence and diligence” when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts
of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To
be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed
another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages
before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC due to the amount
involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases.
Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of
professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal
profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to
accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the
client’s interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in
order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to
perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyer’s
Oath. Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr
Areola vs. Mendoza, 713 SCRA 173, January 15, 2014, A.C. No. 10135
Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility;
Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the
judge and plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This
admission corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza — that
she told her clients “Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon.” Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily
moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for
their cases to be dismissed. As such, the Court agrees with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible
advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.”
Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility;
Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our
legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from
external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s
careless remark is uncalled for. It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not
to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his client’s success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which
is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s
cause, is condemnable and unethical.
Legal Ethics; Disbarment;
The Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2) months as excessive and
not commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s infraction. Disbarment and suspension of a
lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed
with great caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court notes that when Atty. Mendoza made
the remark “Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon”, she was not compelled by bad faith or malice. While
her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not disparaging
and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary.
Legal Ethics; Disbarment;
In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual
penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s
length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions
and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had
varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty. The
70
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the present case and her
being a PAO lawyer as her main source of livelihood. Furthermore, the complaint
filed by Areola is clearly baseless and the only reason why this was ever given
consideration was due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these reasons, the
Court deems it just to modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP
Board of Governors.

71

2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes