LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and EDGAR C. TAGO, complainant

what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. LYCEL B. CASTOR-TAN, respondent.
AC No. 9635 Jan. 20, 2020
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That respondent signed a demand letter stating therein, among
circumstances that others, that he was at the cockpit in the afternoon of June 25,
lead to file a case) 2012 when in truth and in fact he was not; and the use of office
supplies of DepEd for private purposes.
- Complainant accuses respondent of peddling lies with
malicious intent to destroy his good reputation.
Respondent - Respondent denies the accusation against her.
(defenses) - That she was hired as legal counsel by Isabela City Water
District (ISAWAD) with whom complainant has an ongoing
issue regarding the water installed in his house.
- That she acted in accordance with attorney-client relationship
assisting ISAWAD draft the letter of June 25, 2012.
- That as lawyer of ISAWAD, she signed in her capacity as
counsel for said entity a letter dated 18 July 2012, which states,
among others, that on June 25, 2012, Santiago Palacay of
ISAWAD found complainant in a cockpit in Barangay Isabela
City, Basilan Province, wherein Palacay attempted to serve a
letter but complainant refused to receive the letter instead
scolded and humiliated Palacay in public view.
- That on June 26, Palacay recorded into the police blotter the
incident that transpired.
What is the Complainant sought the help of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
recommendation of the Consolacion, Cebu, but respondent failed to attend the mediation.
IBP-CBD? He then wrote a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Cebu Chapter, which then sent a letter to
respondent and scheduled a conference. Respondent requested
for a resetting of the conference, but she still failed to attend.
What is the Administrator ( OCA) referred the same to the Office of the Bar
recommendation of Confidant through a 1st Indorsement4 dated October 5, 2005.
OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent Atty. Lycel Castor-Tan violated the
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Dispositive portion The respondent Atty. Lycel Castor-Tan acted in good faith when
(final decision) she assisted ISAWAD, her client, in drafting and thereafter affixing
her signature on the letter of June 25,2012.

The information acquired by the lawyer from the client in the

course of attorney-client relationship is privileged and the
presumption of good faith applies to the attorney who relied
thereon unless proof to the contrary is adduced.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the complaint

against Atty. Lycel B. Castor-Tan be dismissed for lack of merit.
What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s reputation.
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Honesty, good faith, and respect.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Malicious intentions, dishonesty, and misleading statements.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must always stand for truth and justice and shall respect
that I learned from this the reputation and integrity of the court, his client, and the legal
case so that no case of profession.
similar can be filed
against me in the
future?

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and VICTORIA C. SOUSA, complainant
what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. J. ALBERT R. TINAMPAY, respondent.
AC No. 7428 Nov. 25, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That complainant was a co-defendant in a case for annulment
circumstances that of sale which was raffled to the MTC of Dauis, Panglao, Bohol,
lead to file a case) but was eventually dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but was
later refiled with the RTC.
- That complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney in
favor of respondent, naming, constituting, and appointing him
to be her attorney-in-fact.
- That respondent did not enter his appearance as her counsel in
the proceedings before the MTC.
- That during the pre-trial of the refiled case in the RTC,
complainant was declared in default since neither she nor her
former counsel appeared; and though respondent was present,
he remained silent and did not submit any notice for his
substitution as the new counsel of the complainant.
- That respondent never admitted in open court that he is the
legal counsel of complainant, but he continuously accepted
payment from the complainant.
Respondent - Respondent countered that he was never the counsel of
(defenses) complainant.
- He insisted that Atty. Teofisto Cabilan was the counsel of
record of the complainant’s co-defendants.
- That there was never any retainer agreement between him and
complainant engaging him as counsel and was paid
Php41,500.00 as referral fee.
-
What is the IBP-CBD found that respondent failed in his duty and
recommendation of the responsibility in safeguarding the interest of complainant during
IBP-CBD? the pre-trial. It recommended that respondent be reprimanded or
censured on account of his actuations.

It found that respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and meted

out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period
of 1 year.
What is the n/a
recommendation of
OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Dispositive portion The court finds that respondent was negligent and unmindful of
(final decision) his own duties to complainant.

The court finds the suspension of 1 year sufficient for

respondent’s misconduct appropriate. Considering that this is his
first administrative offense, such penalty, and not disbarment as
prayed for by complainant, serves the purpose of protecting the
interest of the public and the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, the court finds respondent Atty. J. Albert

Tinampay GUILTY of violating Canons 17, 18 and Rules 18.03
 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
the court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for 1 year
effective immediately upon receipt of his decision. He is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s reputation.
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Competence, diligence, and sense of responsibility.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Greed, unmindful, deceitfulness, and irresponsibility.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
that I learned from this reposed by his client in him. He must always serve his client with
case so that no case of competence and diligence. He must also not neglect a legal
similar can be filed matter entrusted to him, and must keep the client informed of the
against me in the status of his case.
future?

LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS

Who (parties) and HERNANDO PETELO, complainant
what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA, respondent.
AC No. 10408 OCT. 16, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That there was a declaration that Fe Mojica Petelo, thru her
circumstances that attorney-in-fact, complainant Hernando Petelo, engaged the
lead to file a case) legal services of Atty. Rivera and that complainant himself
caused the preparation of the complaint.
- That upon discovery of the pendency of the complaint, Petelo
filed a petition praying for the disbarment, suspension, or
imposition of any disciplinary action against respondent for
alleged commission of acts constituting malpractice of law,
misconduct, and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
- Complainant narrated that sometime in 2011, his sister, Fe,
who was based in the U.S., designated him as Attorney-in-Fact
to enter into a joint venture agreement with Red Dragon
Builders Corp. for the construction of a townhouse on the lot
owned by Fe.
- Complainant claimed that the owners of Red Dragon Builders
Corp., inveigled him into surrendering to them the original copy
of the TCT which they eventually used as collateral for the
Php8 million loan they contracted with World Partners Bank
without the knowledge and consent of complainant.
- That the said owners superimposed the name of a certain
Emmer B. Ramirez to make it appear that he was the duly
constituted attorney-in-fact of Fe in the SPA instead of
 complainant.
- That when the spouse owner failed to pay the monthly
amortizations, World Partners Bank instituted foreclosure
proceedings against the mortgage.
- That when complainant leaned of the foregoing transactions,
he instructed his daughter to secure the true copy of the TCT
from the Register of Deeds.
- That to complainant’s surprise, he learned that an entry of lis
pendens for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage,
Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure
Proceedings in Connection with TCT No. 455311 with
Damages before the RTC was annotated at the back of the
title.
- That complainant found out that the civil complaint was filed by
respondent Atty. Rivera purportedly on complainant’s and Fe’s
behalf.
- That since complainant never engaged the services of
respondent, he wrote the latter a letter seeking
clarification/explanation as to how his services was engaged,
but the same went unheeded.
Respondent - That a person representing himself to be complainant Hernando
(defenses) Petelo sought to engage his legal services regarding the filing of
the civil suit.
- That in effect, respondent admitted authorship of the complaint
filed before the RTC of Makati City, which a certain Hernando
Petelo supposedly caused to be prepared and filed thereat.
- That even after being informed that it was not the real Hernando
Petelo, respondent still saw nothing wrong in what he did and
even prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint for
lack of merit.
- That he also informed the court that the RTC of Makati City
already dismissed the civil case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the matter.
- That RTC held that respondent lawyer who signed the complaint
was not authorized by the real Hernando Petelo, the alleged
attorney-in-fact of Fe Mojica Petelo who disowned knowing him,
then, it was safely concluded that respondent lawyer violated
Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
What is the The Investigating Commissioner submitted his report with
recommendation of the recommendation that Atty. Rivera be suspended from the practice
IBP-CBD? of law for at least 1 year with stern warning that repetition of a
similar act would be dealt with more severely. The Investigating
Commissioner gave credence to the version of Petelo finding the
same in accord with normal human experience and
straightforward, while he found the version of Atty. Rivera to have
failed the test of factual consistency, common sense and logic.
What is the recommendation n/a
of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Dispositive portion SC adopts the findings and recommendation of the IPB there
(final decision) being reasonable grounds to hold him administratively liable. Atty.
 Rivera’s act of allowing persons other than himself to use his
signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-
lawyers to practice law.

Rivera failed to display or even manifest any zeal or eagerness to

unearth the truth behind the events which led to his involvement in
the filing of the unauthorized civil suit, he openly admitted
association with the disbarred lawyer and their ongoing
agreement to allow the latter to use his signature and “details” in
the preparation of pleadings.

Clearly, the foregoing acts constituted violations of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Rule
1.10, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10.

He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 year

effective upon the finality of the Decision with a stern warning that
a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s dignity.
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues Honesty, Good faith, and Fairness.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Falsehood, misleading acts, dishonesty, and bad faith.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must not assist in any unauthorized practice of law. He
that I learned from this must not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
case so that no case of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the
similar can be filed bar in good standing.
against me in the
future? A lawyer must not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled.
 LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and NELITA S. SALAZAR, complainant
what (case no. / date)
vs.
ATTY. FELINO R. QUIAMBAO, respondent.
AC No. 12401 MAR. 12, 2019
Why and how
Complainant (all the - That sometime in 2005, complainant entered into contracts of
circumstances that sale involving 2 parcels of land. The subject lands were
lead to file a case) covered by the transfer certificate of title previously owned by
Lorenzo Diaz; and TCT previously owned by Domingo
Urisantos, as presented by his attorney-in-fact, Danilo
Urisantos.
- That the sale of the subject lands was witnessed and assisted
by respondent, who represented himself as a notary public and
the sale was executed in respondent’s law office.
- That complainant, Diaz and Urisantos agreed to engage the
services of respondent to facilitate, notarize, process the sale
and transfer of titles of the subject properties to complainant.
- That they entrusted the owner’s duplicate copies of the 2 titles,
tax declarations, deeds of absolute sale, and other documents
to respondent.
- That on July 6 & 13, 2006, complainant personally gave
Php170,000.00 to respondent as payment for the processing,
transfer of titles, and other related fees, including professional
fees of respondent. The payments were evidenced by Receipts
signed by respondent.
- That on the same day, Urisantos also gave respondent the
amount of Php271,748.35 for payment of the capital gains tax
of the properties so that these can be transferred under
complainant’s name.
- That after 8 years, complainant had not received any document
processed by respondent.
 - Complainant attempted to follow-up the transfer of her lands
but respondent was always out of reach.
Respondent - That a person representing himself to be complainant Hernando
(defenses) Petelo sought to engage his legal services regarding the filing of
the civil suit.
- That in effect, respondent admitted authorship of the complaint
filed before the RTC of Makati City, which a certain Hernando
Petelo supposedly caused to be prepared and filed thereat.
- That even after being informed that it was not the real Hernando
Petelo, respondent still saw nothing wrong in what he did and
even prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint for
lack of merit.
- That he also informed the court that the RTC of Makati City
already dismissed the civil case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the matter.
- That RTC held that respondent lawyer who signed the complaint
was not authorized by the real Hernando Petelo, the alleged
attorney-in-fact of Fe Mojica Petelo who disowned knowing him,
then, it was safely concluded that respondent lawyer violated
Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
What is the IBP Commission found that respondent indeed received several
recommendation of the payments from complainant for the transfer of the subject
IBP-CBD? properties but the former failed to comply with his terms of legal
services engagement, violating his sworn duties as a lawyer.

His acts violated Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for 3 years; to return the
amount of Php170,000.00 to complainant; and to pay a fine of
Php10,000.00 for disobeying the order of the IBP Commission.
What is the recommendation n/a
of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent violated Canons 16, 17, and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Dispositive portion SC adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP
(final decision) Commission and the recommendations of the IBP Board.
Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of
the highest degree of morality, faithful compliance with the rules of
the legal profession, and regular payment of membership fees to
the IBP are the conditions required for remaining a member of
good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law.

The lawyer’s oath requires every lawyer to delay no man for

money or malice and to act according to the best of his or her
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his or her clients.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Felino R. Quiambao is GUILTY violating

Canons 16, 17 and 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, and 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
 He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 years
with a STERN WARNING.
What are the core Love for truth and respect for one’s dignity.
moral values that were Respect for Authority.
ignored?
What are the virtues Honesty, Good faith, Respect for Authority, and Obedience.
that are missing?
What are the vices that Disobedience, dishonesty, irresponsibleness.
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons A lawyer must never delay any man for money or malice and to
that I learned from this act according to the best of his or her knowledge and discretion,
case so that no case of with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his or her clients.
similar can be filed
against me in the
future?