PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
TOPIC: BASI S FOR REDUCTI ON OF PENAL TY
IM POSED
1.QUIAMBAO V. BAMBA
FACTS:
Complainant Quiambao charges respondent
Atty. Bamba with violation of the CPR for
representing conicting interests when the latter
led a case against her while he was at that time
representing her in another case, and for
committing other acts of disloyalty and double-
dealing.
Complainant avers that as president and
managing director of AIB (June 2000-January
2001) she procured the legal services of the
respondent for the corporate affairs of AIB and for
her personal case. Respondent acted as her
counsel of record in an ejectment case (Dec.
2000) against Sps. Torroba in which she paid for
respondent’s legal services.
About 6 months after, respondent filed on behalf
of AIB, without withdrawing as counsel of record in
the ejectment case, a complaint for replevin and
damages against her for purposes of recovering
from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service
vehicle.
On the charge of disloyalty and double-dealing,
complainant avers that respondent proposed to
her that she organize her own security agency
and that he would assist her in its organization,
causing her to resign as president of AIB.
(December 2000) Respondent indeed assisted her
in the formation of another security agency,
QRMSI, registered under complainant’s name,
with the respondent as a “silent partner”.
He also planned to "steal" or "pirate" some of the
more important clients of AIB. While serving as
legal counsel for AIB and a "silent partner" of
QRMSI, he convinced complainant's brother
Leodegario Quiambao to organize another
security agency, San Esteban Security Services,
Inc. (SESSI) where he (the respondent) served as its
incorporator, director, and president. The
respondent and Leodegario then illegally diverted
1|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
the funds of AIB to fund the incorporation of SESSI,
and likewise planned to eventually close down
the operations of AIB and transfer the business to
SESSI.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests in contravention
of the basic tenets of the legal profession.
RULING:
Yes.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that A
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts."
The nature of lawyer-client relationship is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. It
behooves lawyers 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
Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their
duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires them to oppose
The tests to determine whether there is a violation
on the proscription against representation of
conflicting interests are:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight
for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and, at the same time, to oppose that
claim for the other client
2. 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
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the important criterion is probability, not certainty, of
performance of that duty conflict.
3. Whether the lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to use against a Since the respondent has financial or pecuniary
former client any confidential information interest in SESSI, which is engaged in a business
acquired through their connection or competing with his client's, and, more importantly,
previous employment. he occupies the highest position in SESSI, one
cannot help entertaining a doubt on his loyalty to
The proscription against representation of
his client AIB. This kind of situation passes the
conflicting interests applies to a situation where
second test of conflict of interest, which is whether
the opposing parties are present clients in the
the acceptance of a new relationship would
same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of
moment that the lawyer would not be called
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
upon to contend for one client that which the
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that
performance of that duty. The close relationship of
there would be no occasion to use the
the majority stockholders of both companies does
confidential information acquired from one to the
not negate the conflict of interest. Neither does his
disadvantage of the other as the two actions are
protestation that his shareholding in SESSI is "a
wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
mere pebble among the sands."
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the
suit, are present clients and the nature or
And lastly, lawyers are mandated to promote
conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with
respect for the law and refrain from counselling or
each of them would affect the performance of
abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law.
the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
In this case, in organizing SESSI, respondent also
In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the
violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR.
respondent filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB
he was still the counsel of record of the Atty. Nestor A. Bamba is hereby held GUILTY of
complainant in the pending ejectment case. His violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Rule 1.02
representation of opposing clients in both cases, of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice
interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double- of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR.
dealing. While the respondent may assert that the
complainant expressly consented to his continued
representation in the ejectment case, the
respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed TOPIC: APPROPRI ATE S ANCTI ON TO BE
the facts to both his clients and he failed to IM POSED
present any written consent of the complainant
and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of 2.ADVINCULA V. ATTY. MACABATA
the CPR.
FACTS:
The proscription against representation of
Complainant is the client of the Respondent, Atty.
conflicting interests applies where the conflicting
Macabata. She sought legal advice with the latter
interests arise with respect to the same general
about the possibility of filing against a Travel
matter however slight the adverse interest may
Agency for not settling their accounts when she
be.
demanded. In a couple meetings they have,
It applies even if the conflict pertains to the Respondent gave the petitioner a ride home. As
lawyer's private activity or in the performance of a the she gets off the car, Atty. Macabata allegedly
function in a non-professional capacity. An held her arm, kissed her cheek and embraced her
tightly. In another occasion, Atty. Macabata

2|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
forcefully held her face, kissed her lips, and
touched her breasts.
The complainant succeeded in resisting his
criminal attempt and immediately manage to get
out of the car. Complainant now wanted to hire
another lawyer. Then Subsequently, they
exchanged texts where the respondent
apologized to her. Complainant now filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent
charging him with Gross Immorality. Atty.
Macabata admitted kissing Cynthia on the lips
however countered that there was no
harassment, intimidation or lewdness instead
everything was spontaneous.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the actions of respondent
constitute gross immorality which warrants
disbarment.
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
for her honor. The complaint for disbarment
against the respondent, Atty. Ernesto Macabata,
for alleged immorality is dismissed. However, he is
reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in
dealing with his clients.
TOPIC: FAI LURE TO AN SWER I N
ADM I NI STR ATI VE PROCE EDI NGS
3.A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES INC V. ATTY
VALERIO
FACTS:
- Atty. Valerio obtained a loan from
complainant and secured the payment
of the loan obligation with A-1 Financial
Services by issuing a postdated check in
the amount of 50k. However, upon its
maturity date, the check was dishonored
due to insufficient funds. As of the filing of
the instant case, despite repeated
demands to pay her obligation, Atty.
Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of
her obligation.

- After repeated demands by the trial court

RULING:
No. The court said that the perceived acts of
kissing or besobeso on the cheeks as mere
gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of
greetings, casual and customary. The acts of
respondent, though, in turning the head of
complainant towards him and kissing her on the
lips are distasteful. However, such act, even if
considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be
considered grossly immoral. Complainant’s bare
allegation that respondent made use and took
advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to
agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves
no credit.
The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and
she must establish the case against the
respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as
to compel the exercise by the Court of its
disciplinary power. The complainant miserably
failed to establish the burden of proof required of
her. However, her efforts are lauded to stand up
Atty. Valerio failed to give appear in the
BP 22 case despite the warrant, and file
an answer or any responsive pleading
before the IBP. After an administrative
case had been filed by complainant with
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD), the latter’s mother explained that
her daughter had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia; thus, could not properly
respond to the complaint against her.
- IBP-CBD recommended Atty. Valerio be
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, having found her
guilty of gross misconduct. It gave no
credence to the medical certificate
submitted by Atty. Valerio’s mother, in
view of the latter’s failure to appear
before the IBP-CBD hearings to affirm the
truthfulness thereof or present the
physician who issued the same. IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved
with modification of the period of
suspension to 1 year.

3|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
RULING:
YES. The court ruled that lawyers “must at
all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the bar, the courts and to their clients, which
include prompt payment of financial obligations.
They must conduct themselves in a manner that
reflects the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.”
The Court, finds unmeritorious Mrs.
Valerio’s justification that her daughter, Atty.
Valerio, is suffering from a health condition, i.e.
schizophrenia, which has prevented her from
properly answering the complaint against her.
Indeed, we cannot take the “medical certificate”
on its face, considering Mrs. Valerio’s failure to
prove the contents of the certificate or present
the physician who issued it.
Atty. Valerio’s conduct in the course of
the IBP and court proceedings is also a matter of
serious concern. She failed to answer the
complaint against her. Despite due notice, she
failed to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the
IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the
court as she likewise failed to both answer the
complaint against her and appear during her
arraignment, despite orders and notices from the
court. Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the
precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and violates the lawyer’s oath which imposes
upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay
no man for money or malice. Atty. Valerio has
failed to live up to the values and norms of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
SC deems it reasonable to affirm the
sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD, i.e., Atty.
Valerio was ordered suspended from the practice
of law for two (2) years, because, aside from
issuing worthless checks and failing to pay her
debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the
IBP’s and Court Orders in the course of the
proceedings.
4|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
4.SEBASTIAN V ATTY BAJAR
FACTS:
Complainant alleged the following:
 Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of
Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the
Department of Agrarian Reform who
represented Tanlioco in numerous cases
which raised the same issues. Tanlioco is
an agricultural lessee of a land owned
by complainant’s spouse and sister-in-
law (landowners). The landowners filed
an Ejectment case against Tanlioco on
the basis of a conversion order of the
land use from agricultural to residential.
The RTC rendered judgment ordering
Tanlioco’s ejectment subject to the
payment of disturbance
compensation. The RTC’s judgment was
affirmed by the CA and the SC.
 Respondent, as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed
another case for Specific Performance
to produce the conversion order. The
RTC dismissed the complaint due to res
judicata and lack of cause of action.
 Respondent filed a case for
Maintenance of Possession with the
DARAB. The case raised the same issues
of conversion and disturbance
compensation.
 Respondent has violated Rule 10.03 of
the CPR since she misused the rules of
procedure through forum-shopping to
obstruct the administration of justice.
SC issued a resolution requiring respondent to
comment on the complaint lodged against her.
After a second Motion for Extension of Time to
Submit Comment, respondent submitted her
Comment alleging the following:
 Complainant is not the real party-in-
interest. He is also not authorized to
prosecute the disbarment suit.
 Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to
the "Attorney’s Oath" and performed
duties in accordance with Section 20 of
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
 Respondent’s client, Tanlioco, merely
availed of all legal remedies to obtain
benefits secured for him by law.
Complainant (Reply): Alleged that respondent did
not confront the issues of her disbarment squarely
but raised issues that were decided upon with
finality by the courts.
SC:
 Issued a Resolution (25 March 1992)
requiring respondent to file a Rejoinder
within 10 days from notice.
 On 3 June 1992, complainant filed a
Manifestation dated 2 June 1992 stating
that respondent failed to comply with
the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution to
file a Rejoinder.
 On 7 October 1992, the Court ordered
respondent to show cause why she
should not be subjected to disciplinary
action for failure to comply with the
Court’s 25 March 1992 Resolution to file
a Rejoinder.
 The Court also required respondent to
Comment on the complainant’s 2 June
1992 Manifestation.
Respondent:
 Filed a Manifestation alleging that she
had substantially complied with the
Court’s orders relative to her defenses.
 She advised the Court that she had
transferred to the Public Attorney’s
Office and since she was no longer a
"BALA lawyer," the cases involved in this
proceeding had become moot and
academic.
SC (Resolution): The administrative case against
respondent "has not been mooted and nothing
set out in her ‘Manifestation’ excuses her failure to
obey this Court’s Resolutions of 25 March 1992 and
7 October 1992." Resolved to impose a fine
of P500 or imprisonment of five days and to require
respondent to comply with the 25 March 1992 and
7 October 1992 Resolutions.
5|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
Respondent failed, so the Court issued a
Resolution ordering the arrest of respondent for
detention at the NBI for five days. The Court
reiterated that respondent should comply with the
25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992 Resolutions.
Again, respondent failed and the NBI arrested
respondent. The NBI detained respondent for five
days and released her on 25 October 1993.
The Court issued a Resolution referring the case to
the IBP for hearing and decision. The day after,
respondent filed a Rejoinder. Respondent
claimed that complainant had no legal
personality to file this case. Respondent also
alleged that she was merely protecting the
interest of Tanlioco as she was sworn to do so in
her oath of office. Respondent contended that
"she had comported herself as an officer of the
court, at the risk of being disciplined by the latter
if only to impart truth and justice."
Investigating Commissioner Jose: Rendered
respondent unfit to continue the practice of law,
with the following violations of the CPR:
 Appealed a case for purposes of delay
which amounted to an obstruction of
justice.
 Abused her right of recourse to the
courts. The duplication or multiplication
of suits should be avoided, and
respondent’s acts were tantamount to
forum-shopping which is a reprehensible
manipulation of court processes and
proceedings.
 Uttered disrespectful language and
shouted at everybody during the
hearing on 25 May 1995. The want of
intention is not an excuse for the
disrespectful language used.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted and approved
Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation
that respondent be "suspended indefinitely from
the practice of law for Unethical Practices and
attitude showing her propensity and incorrigible
character to violate the basic tenets and
requirements of the Code of Professional
Responsibility rendering her unfit to continue in the
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
practice of law." Governor Gonzales
recommended her "outright disbarment."
The Court noted the IBP Resolution suspending
respondent indefinitely (20 January 1997) and
subsequently issued a Resolution directing the
OCA to circularize the resolution of the IBP
suspending respondent indefinitely from the
practice of law.
OCA, through Court Administrator Benipayo (7
June 1999): Issued Circular informing all courts that
respondent had been suspended indefinitely.
Respondent filed a Motion to Consider the Case
Closed and Terminated (30 January 2003).
Respondent apologized for her demeanor and
prayed that the suspension be lifted.
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
years of indefinite suspension. Investigating
Commissioner Raval then directed the parties to
file simultaneously their Verified Position Papers.
Complainant:
 posited that respondent’s motion did
not state valid grounds to convince the
Court to lift the suspension order.
 stated that by continuing to practice
law, "she is flaunting her defiance of the
Supreme Court by showing that she can
hoodwink another branch of
government."
 also prayed for respondent’s disbarment
due to the gravity of her offense.
Respondent:

Investigating Commissioner Raval (In a hearing):
 Respondent claimed that she did not
receive any notice of the OCA’s Circular
on her indefinite suspension.
 Respondent alleged that the Court
Resolution which she received merely
noted the IBP’s Resolution on her
indefinite suspension.
 Respondent claimed that she only knew
of the suspension when she filed an
application for a judicial position in
Mandaluyong City.
 Respondent admitted that she
continued to practice law as a
Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City despite
her suspension because she believed
that a notation by the Court in the 20
January 1997 Resolution did not mean
an implementation of the IBP’s
Resolution on her indefinite suspension.
Complainant’s counsel asserted that respondent
had been practicing law in the midst of her
suspension and this constituted a violation of the
suspension order which she wanted to be
lifted. Investigating Commissioner Raval asked
respondent to present a valid ground to lift the
suspension order. Respondent requested that her
detention for five days at the NBI be converted into
a five-year suspension, one year for every day of
detention such that she would have served five
 reiterated that complainant is not the
real party-in-interest since the property
that was litigated was owned by
complainant’s wife.
 asserted that she never betrayed her
client’s cause, she was never unfaithful
to her oath, and it was complainant who
filed this case for harassment.
 prayed that the case be considered
closed and terminated due to lack of
merit.
Respondent also sent a letter to Investigating
Commissioner Raval and attached a copy of a
Resolution in a Preliminary Investigation case
which she handled. Respondent contended that
in this Preliminary Investigation case, she
recommended its dismissal because the offended
party was not the real party-in-interest.
Respondent insisted that complainant did not
have the personality to file the disbarment
complaint against her; hence, it should have
been dismissed outright.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted Investigating
Commissioner Raval’s Report and
Recommendation that respondent be disbarred
for her "manifest flagrant misconduct in
disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite
Suspension."

6|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
As culled from the records, the Court had merely
noted IBP Resolution which recommended
respondent’s indefinite suspension. "The term
‘noted’ means that the Court has merely taken
cognizance of the existence of an act or
declaration, without exercising a judicious
deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter
— it does not imply agreement or
approval." Hence, the penalty of indefinite
suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors
has not attained finality. (Section 12 of Rule 139-B)
Necessarily, the Court will now give its "final action"
on this complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be disbarred for her
"manifest flagrant misconduct in disobeying the
SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension."
RULING:
The Court finds the evidence on record sufficient
to support the IBP’s findings. However, the Court
disagrees with the penalty imposed on
respondent.
1. Administrative proceedings against lawyers
are sui generis and they belong to a class of their
own. They are neither civil nor criminal actions but
rather investigations by the Court into the conduct
of its officer. They involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance.
2. A disciplinary action against a lawyer is
intended to protect the administration of justice
from the misconduct of its officers. This Court
requires that its officers shall be competent,
honorable, and reliable men in whom the public
may repose confidence. On these considerations,
the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any
professional or private misconduct showing them
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity,
and good demeanor — or to be unworthy to
continue as officers of the Court."
7|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to
justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment
or suspension proceedings.
3. The evidence presented shows that respondent
failed to comply with the Court’s lawful orders in
two instances:
 In the March 1992 Court Resolution,
respondent was required to file a
rejoinder within 10 days from notice.
However, she only submitted the
rejoinder on November 1993 after she
was detained at the NBI for five days for
failure to heed the Court’s order.
 In the October 1992 Court Resolution,
respondent was required to comment
on complainant’s manifestation. She
instead submitted a manifestation on
February 1993 or almost four months
thereafter. In her manifestation,
respondent alleged that she had
substantially complied with the Court’s
orders. However, the Court in its March
1993 Resolution stated that nothing set
out in respondent’s manifestation
excused her failure to obey the Court’s
Resolutions.
These acts constitute willful disobedience of the
lawful orders of this Court, which under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself a sufficient
cause for suspension or disbarment.
 Respondent’s cavalier attitude in
repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
Supreme Court constitutes utter
disrespect to the judicial institution.
Respondent’s conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility.
 A Court’s Resolution is "not to be
construed as a mere request, nor should
it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively."
 Respondent’s obstinate refusal to
comply with the Court’s orders "not only
betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her
character; it also underscores her
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders
which is only too deserving of reproof."
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
4. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders
and processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
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.
 Respondent’s failure to comply with the
Court’s directive to file a Rejoinder and
to file a Comment also constitutes gross
misconduct.
 The Court defined gross misconduct as
"any inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or
unlawful conduct on the part of the
person concerned in the administration
of justice which is prejudicial to the rights
of the parties or to the right
determination of a cause." It is a
"conduct that is generally motivated by
a premeditated, obstinate, or
intentional purpose."
5. In Bernal Jr. v. Fernandez, the Court held that
failure to comply with the Court’s directive to
comment on a letter-complaint constitutes gross
misconduct and insubordination, or disrespect.
In Cuizon v. Macalino, a lawyer’s failure to comply
with the Court’s Resolutions requiring him to file his
comment was one of the infractions that merited
his disbarment.
6. Furthermore, respondent’s defenses are
untenable. Firstly, respondent contends that
complainant is not the real party-in-interest since
the property that was litigated was owned by
complainant’s wife. The Court is not persuaded
with this defense.
 The procedural requirement observed in
ordinary civil proceedings that only the
real party-in-interest must initiate the suit
does not apply in disbarment cases.
 In fact, the person who called the
attention of the court to a lawyer’s
misconduct "is in no sense a party, and
generally has no interest in the
outcome."
 "A compromise or withdrawal of
charges does not terminate an
8|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
administrative complaint against a
lawyer."
 In Heck v. Santos, the Court held that
"any interested person or the court motu
proprio may initiate disciplinary
proceedings."
 The right to institute disbarment
proceedings is not confined to clients
nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the
alleged wrongdoing.
 Disbarment proceedings are matters of
public interest and the only basis for the
judgment is the proof or failure of proof
of the charges.
7. Secondly, respondent avers that she merely
availed of all the legal remedies for her client.
 In Suzuki v. Tiamson, the Court
enunciated that "while lawyers owe their
entire devotion to the interest of their
clients and zeal in the defense of their
client’s rights, they should not forget that
they are first and foremost, officers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice."
 Respondent’s act of filing cases with
identical issues in other venues despite
the final ruling which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court is beyond the bounds of the law. "
 To permit lawyers to resort to
unscrupulous practices for the
protection of the supposed rights of their
clients is to defeat one of the purposes
of the state — the administration of
justice."
8. Respondent abused her right of recourse to the
courts.
 Respondent, acting as Tanlioco’s
counsel, filed cases for Specific
Performance and Maintenance of
Possession despite the finality of the
decision in the Ejectment case which
involves the same issues.
 The Court held that "an important factor
in determining the existence of forum-
shopping is the vexation caused to the
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
courts and the parties-litigants by the
filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs.
 Indeed, "while a lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client, it should not be at
the expense of truth and administration
of justice."
9. Clearly, respondent violated the proscription in
Canon 19. Canon 19 of the CPR mandates
lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but
within the bounds of the law. It is evident from the
records that respondent filed other cases to
thwart the execution of the final judgment in the
Ejectment case.
The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted
out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent
has shown her great propensity to disregard court
orders. Respondent’s acts of wantonly disobeying
her duties as an officer of the court show an utter
disrespect for the Court and the legal profession.
However, the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it
finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to
accomplish the desired end.
PENALTY: SUSPENSION from the practice of law for
a period of THREE YEARS effective from notice,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
5.HDI HOLDINGS PHIL., INC. V CRUZ
DOCTRINE:
Directives of the IBP, as the investigating arm of
the Court in administrative cases against lawyers,
is not a mere request but an order which should
be complied with promptly and completely.
FACTS:
HDI is a domestic corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. In its complaint, HDI alleged that on
July 10, 2010, they retained the services of Atty.
9|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
Cruz as its in-house corporate counsel and
corporate secretary. In the beginning, HDI's
directors and officers were pleased with Atty.
Cruz's performance, thus, in time, he earned their
trust and confidence that he was eventually
tasked to handle the corporation's important and
confidential matters. Ultimately, Atty. Cruz
became a friend to most of HDI's directors, officers
and staff members.
However, HDI lamented that Atty. Cruz's
seeming friendliness was apparently a mere
façade in order to gain the trust of HDI's officers
and directors for his financial gain. HDI averred
that through Atty. Cruz's deception and
machinations, he managed to misappropriate a
total of (P41,317,167.18), in the following manner,
to wit:
(a) misappropriation of the cash bid in the total
amount of P6,000,000.00 which remains unpaid;
(b) contracting unsecured personal loans with HDI
in the total amount of P8,000,000.00 which remains
unpaid;
(c) deceiving HDI as to the true selling price of the
Q.C. property which resulted in overpayment in
the amount of P1,689,100.00 which remains
unpaid;
(d) fabricating a fictitious sale by executing a
fictitious contract to sell and deed of sale in order
to obtain money in the amount of P21,250,000.00
from HDI which remains unpaid;
(e) collecting rental payments amounting to
P4,408,067.18, without authority, and thereafter,
failed to turn over the same to HDI; and
(f) executing a fake Secretary's Certificate
appointing himself as the authorized person to
receive the payments of the lease rentals.
Later, HDI finally decided to confront him
about his actions. Atty. Cruz went to HDI's office
where he broke down and admitted to
everything. After writing his confession, Atty. Cruz
likewise tendered his resignation from HDI. On the
same occasion, Atty. Cruz's relatives were present
and also expressed their commitment to help pay
Atty. Cruz's debts with HDI.
However, even after several demand
letters, Atty. Cruz failed to return the
misappropriated money.
Considering the above-cited actuations
of Atty. Cruz, it is evident that he violated Canon
1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Rules
16.01, 16.02, 16.03, 16.04 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. HDI alleged that Atty.
Cruz failed to live up to the standards expected of
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
a lawyer, thus, he should be disbarred from the
practice of law.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
directed Atty. Cruz to file his Answer on the
complaint against him. In its Report and
Recommendation, the IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Cruz be disbarred from the practice of
law.
The IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve the report and recommendation of the
IBP-CBD.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty for gross misconduct.
RULING:
YES. Atty. Cruz has chosen to remain silent
despite the severity of the allegations against him.
He was given several opportunities to comment
on the charges yet no comment came.
Consequently, the court is left with no choice but
to deduce his implicit admission of the charges
levelled against him. It was found that the
evidence submitted by HDI, albeit secondary
evidence only being mere photocopies, when put
together with Atty. Cruz' written confession and his
subsequent non-cooperation during the
proceedings before the IBP, would give a
convincing conclusion that indeed Atty. Cruz is
guilty of the abovementioned reprehensible acts.
It is beyond dispute that Atty. Cruz is guilty
of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
In several occasions, he manifested a propensity
to lie and deceive his client in order to obtain
money. His misrepresentations constitute grave
violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These
reprehensible conduct of Atty. Cruz without doubt
breached the highly fiduciary relationship
between lawyers and clients Atty. Cruz's failure to
return the client's money upon demand gives rise
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation
of the trust reposed in him by the client.
Records reveal that he likewise violated
Canon. 16.04 of the CPR. In his private capacity,
10 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
Atty. Cruz requested from HDI, not just one, but
two loans of considerable amounts as evidenced
by contracts of loan and acknowledgement
receipts, the authenticity of which was
undisputed. The first time, he borrowed P4M for the
purchase of his house; and the second time, he
borrowed another P4M in order to help his
brother’s debts. Apparently, these acts of
borrowing money were committed by Atty. Cruz
in his private capacity. That being said, the Court
has consistently held that deliberate failure to pay
just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which
a lawyer may be sanctioned.
Atty. Cruz's indifference to the IBP's
directives to tile his comment on the allegations
against him cannot be countenanced. He
disregarded the proceedings before the IBP
despite receipt of summons and notices. Atty.
Cruz's act of not filing his answer and ignoring the
hearings set by the Investigating Commissioner,
despite due notice, further aggravated his already
disgraceful attitude. As an officer of the Court,
Atty. Cruz is expected to know that said directives
of the IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in
administrative cases against lawyers, is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied
with promptly and completely.
For taking advantage of the trust and
confidence of the complainant, for engaging in
dishonest and deceitful conduct and fraudulent
acts for personal gain, and disrespecting the IBP
due to non-compliance of its directive to file
comment, his acts constitute malpractice and
gross misconduct in his office as attorney.
Cruz guilty of gross misconduct by
violating the Canon of Professional Responsibility
through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct, and willful disobedience of lawful orders
rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus
ordered
DISBARRED.
TOPIC: CAN THE M EM BE RS OF THE BO AR D
OF GOVERNORS OF THE I NTEGR ATED B AR
OF THE PHILI PPI NES B E HELD LI ABLE I N
DAM AGES FOR PREM ATUR EL Y
RECOMM ENDI NG DI SBARM ENT OF A
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
L AW YER B ASED ON THE POSI TI ON PAPERS
AND AFFI DAVI TS OF WI TNESSES OF THE
PAR TI ES
6.CADIZ V PRESIDING JUDGE
FACTS:
Around 2003, the herein petitioners, composed of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors (IBP Board), received an administrative
complaint filed by Lilia Ventura and Concepcion
Tabang against respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott
(Atty. Gacott) for gross misconduct, deceit, and
gross dishonesty. The IBP Board designated
petitioner Lydia Navarro (Navarro), who is also a
member of the Board, as Commissioner to
investigate the case.
Commissioner Navarro summoned the parties to a
mandatory conference and required them
afterwards to submit their position papers. Based
on these, she submitted her Report and
Recommendation to the IBP Board for its
approval. After deliberation, the IBP Board
adopted her findings but increased the
recommended penalty of six months suspension
from the practice of law to
disbarment. Afterwards, the IBP Board transmitted
their report to the Supreme Court (SC).
Further, around 2004, the SC remanded the case
to the IBP Board for further proceedings in order to
give the parties the chance to fully present their
case. The Court said that Commissioner Navarro
rendered her report based solely on the position
papers and affidavits of the witnesses.
She should have subpoenaed and examined the
witnesses of the parties considering the gravity of
the charge against Atty. Gacott.
While the IBP Board was complying with the
Court's directive, Atty. Gacott filed a complaint for
damages against the Board’s sitting members
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In their
Answer, the IBP Board raised the affirmative
defense of failure of the complaint to state a
cause of action and filed a Motion to Dismiss
(MTD) the case on that ground. Thereafter, the
Trial Court denied the MTD, which prompted the
IBP Board to elevate the case to the Court of
Appeals (CA) on Special Civil Action for Certiorari.
11 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
The CA denied both the said petition and Motion
for Reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the CA erred in failing to rule that
the Supreme Court's remand of the disbarment
case to the IBP Board for examination of the
witnesses, cannot serve as basis for Atty. Gacott’s
claim for damages against the members of the IBP
Board?
RULING:
NO, Atty. Gacott anchored his complaint for
damages on the result of the Supreme Court's (SC)
assessment of the IBP Board's report and
recommendation and its remand of the case
against him for further proceedings.
The IBP Board was correct in claiming that Atty.
Gacott's complaint states no cause of action. The
IBP Commissioner and Board of Governors in this
case merely exercised delegated powers to
investigate the complaint against Atty. Gacott
and submit their report and recommendation to
the SC. They cannot be charged for honest errors
committed in the performance of their quasi-
judicial function, particularly in the absence of
any allegation of specific factual circumstances
indicating that they acted maliciously or upon
illicit consideration. If the rule were otherwise, a
great number of lower court justices and judges
whose acts the appellate courts have annulled on
ground of grave abuse of discretion would be
open targets for damage suits.
Parenthetically, Atty. Gacott submitted the
disbarment case against him for Resolution based
on the position papers that he and the
complainants presented, without reservation, to
the IBP along with the affidavits of their
witnesses. The IBP Board prepared its report and
recommendation to the SC based on these
papers and documents.
With these, the SC GRANTED the petition, SET
ASIDE the decision and Resolution of the CA
and DISMISSED the complaint for damages filed
by Atty. Gacott against the IBP Board for failure to
state a cause of action.
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
TOPIC: FI LI NG OF M OTI ON FOR who stamped my name as
RECONSI DERATI ON Notary Public on the bottom of
the "Acknowledgement" ready
7.GERONA V DATINGALING for my signature, but through
inadvertence she overlooked
FACTS: that date July 02, 1997 thereof
as the date of the actual
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by notarization. It bears emphasis
Mena U. Gerona against Atty. Alfredo Datingaling that such date (July 02, 1997)
for allegedly falsifying a document and notarizing was typewritten beforehand
it afterwards. HAICET which could easily be reformed
The complaint, concerns a document if the parties so desire. So why
entitled "Consent to Quarry" purporting to be an does the complainant want to
agreement whereby complainant Mena U. create trouble?
Gerona and her party, composed of Lucila Umali Explaining a little
Magboo, Feliciano U. Umali, Marife Umali, Jovita further, the negotiation or
Umali Galicia, P.J. Galicia, Wendy Sunshine Umali, transaction between the group
and Aurelia Umali Miranda, allegedly agreed to of Ronald Hernandez
allow Ronald Reagan Hernandez, represented by represented by Bayani Melo on
Engr. Bayani N. Melo, of legal age, Filipino, of the one hand (my client), and
Alangilan, Batangas City, his heirs, successors, and the group of Mena Umali
assigns, to enter or occupy a portion of their Gerona on the other took
property in Anilao East, Mabini, Batangas and place at the residence of
engage in a "QUARRY" business and related Mena Umali Gerona in Quezon
activities. City where the document in
Complainant charged that despite question was prepared on July
knowledge of the falsity of the document, 2, 1997, and the parties agreed
respondent, as notary public for Batangas City, to meet each other in
notarized it on July 3, 1997. Batangas City, the following
day July 3, 1997 for purposes of
This Court required respondent Atty. notarization at the office of the
Alfredo Datingaling to comment on the Notary Public ATTY. ALFREDO R.
administrative complaint filed against him. In his DATINGALING.
counter-affidavit dated March 2, 1998,
respondent claimed that the complaint is Attached to the counter-affidavit were the
"baseless, out of focus, an afterthought, childish affidavits of Bayani Melo and Matias
and in the nature of self-indictment." Respondent Magnaye (marked Annexes A and B,
denied the allegations against him and claimed respectively), corroborating respondent's
that complainant had signed the documents on allegations. Bayani Melo had signed as the
July 2, 1997 in Quezon City and had it notarized by representative of Ronald Reagan Hernandez,
respondent the next day (July 3, 1997) in Batangas while Matias Magnaye as a witness to the
City. Respondent stated in his counter-affidavit: "Consent to Quarry."
In reply, complainant submitted an
The document was
affidavit, dated April 23, 1998, received by this
already prepared when it was
Court the following day. Respondent was required
brought to my law office by
to file a rejoinder within 10 days, but he did not do
Bayani Melo and company
so.
who signed in our office on July
03, 1997. It was my secretary

12 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
In her reply-affidavit, complainant
submitted a copy of the resolution of the
provincial prosecutor of Batangas, finding
probable cause against respondent and
recommending the filing of an information for
falsification of a public document against all the
respondents named in the case, including herein
respondent Atty. Alfredo Datingaling. The
prosecutor stated:
After a painstaking
study and careful analysis of
the evidence presented by
both parties, the undersigned
has observed the following
striking dissimilarities on the two
copies of the document
"Consent to Quarry"
(Authorization) which would
clearly distinguish one from the
other, to wit:
Page 1 of the
unnotarized consent to quarry
dated July 2, 1997 reveals that
it has that blank space for the
technical description of a
parcel of land subject of their
agreement; it is undated; it is
signed by Bayani Melo at the
bottom but unsigned by Lucila
Umali Magboo and it has
insertions and modifications
thereon.
On the other hand,
page 1 of the notarized copy
of that consent to quarry
reveals that the technical
description refers to two
parcels of land located at
Anilao, Mabini, Batangas
described in Tax Declaration
No. 003-00097 and in the
approved plan/"Application
for Small Scale Mining Permit for
Quarry"; it is dated July 3, 1997,
it has two signatures of Bayani
Melo and one signature of
Ronald Reagan Hernandez
13 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
and it is also unsigned by Lucila
Umali Magboo.
Page 2 of the
unnotarized consent to quarry
dated July 2, 1997 shows the
signatures of Mena U. Gerona,
Feliciano Umali and Aurelia
Miranda as well as the
signatures of witnesses
Rosemarie, Matias, Geronimo
and Apolonia before the
acknowledgment portion; a
signature of Lucila N. Magboo
at the acknowledgment
portion; blank as to the Notary
Public and the Doc., Page No.,
Book No., and Series of.
Page 2 of the
notarized copy of the Consent
to Quarry bears the signatures
of Mena, Feliciano, and Aurelia
as well as the witnesses before
the acknowledgment portion;
it is dated July 2, 1997 and
signed by Notary public A.R.
Datingaling and it is docketed
as Doc. No. 3473, Page No. 67,
Book No. XXVII, Series of 1997.
It has been also
established that the said
document was brought to
Mena's residence on July 2,
1997 ready for signatures and in
fact it was signed there by
Mena, Feliciano, Aurelia and
Bayani Melo in the presence of
those witnesses. After the
signing of said document, a
copy was left with Mena and
the other copies were brought
by the group of Bayani Melo,
which copies were notarized
by Atty. Alfredo R. Datingaling
on July 3, 1997. The issue now is
whether the crime of
falsification has been

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
committed by
respondents?
From the glaring
dissimilarities between the
copies of the document
consent to quarry and the
testimony of the complainant
and his brother Feliciano, the
undersigned honestly believes
that indeed the crime of
falsification had been
committed by the respondents
in conspiracy with one another.
The evidence is clear that
Mena Umali and her brother
and sisters had not presented
themselves or appeared
before said Notary Public for
the acknowledgment of said
document as their free act and
voluntary deed and that the
lots described in the notarized
document are different from
the lot they intended to be the
subject of their agreement.
From the unnotarized copy
dated July 2, 1997 which bears
the proposed
insertions/modifications, the
land intended to be described
as the subject of that
agreement is but a parcel of
land while in the notarized
copy, it describes two parcels
of land. Further, had the
complainant and her brother
and sisters appeared before
the Notary Public for
notarization of said document,
then there is no reason why
Lucila Magboo, Mena Umali,
Feliciano Umali and Aurelia
Miranda would not be required
to sign on the first page of the
document. In fact, Bayani
Melo signed again the said
document on the first page
while Ronald Reagan
14 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
the Hernandez who is already
represented by Bayani Melo
was required to sign said
document on the first page.
Hence, there is sufficient
ground to hold respondents for
trial for the said offense under
I.S. No. 97-3353.
In addition, complainant submitted on
December 4, 2000 a list of criminal cases, eight in
all, filed against respondent, including that filed by
complainant. Four of the cases had been
dismissed, while four others were pending. Most of
the cases were for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, estafa,
and estafa through falsification of a public
document.
The case was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Thereafter, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Renato G.
Cunanan, to whom this case was assigned,
recommended the suspension of respondent
Alfredo R. Datingaling from the practice of the
profession for a period of one year. In his report,
Atty. Cunanan.
The IBP Board of Governors approved the
report with modification suspending with
disqualification for appointment as Notary Public
for two years from receipt of notice.
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration declaring himself innocent and
insisting he had no participation in the transaction.
In addition, he denied receipt of the resolution
requiring him to file a rejoinder. However, his
motion was denied by the IBP Board of Governors
on the ground that it no longer had jurisdiction
over the case as it had already been endorsed to
this Court. The IBP Board cited Rule 139-B, § 12(b)
of the Rules of Court as the basis of this
resolution. IcTaAH
Rule 139-B, § 12(b) provides:
Section 12. — Review
and decision by the Board of
Governors.
xxx xxx xxx
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
(b) If the Board, by the
vote of a majority of its total
membership, determines that
the respondent should be
suspended from the practice
of law or disbarred, it shall issue
a resolution setting forth its
findings and recommendations
which, together with the whole
record of the case, shall
forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.
As the provision reads, no mention is
made of motions for reconsideration. However, it
was held in Halimao v. Villanueva that
although Rule 139-B, § 12(c) does not mention
motions for reconsideration, there is nothing in its
text or history which prohibits the filing of such
motion. A motion for reconsideration of a
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors may be
filed within 15 days from notice to a party
appealing. Indeed, the filing of such motion
before the Board is in fact encouraged before
resort is made to this Court as a matter of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford
the agency rendering the judgment an
opportunity to correct any error it may have
committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of the evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether the motion for reconsideration
meritorious.
RULING:
NO.
After due consideration of respondent's
motion for reconsideration, we find the motion to
be without merit.
First. As regards the charge of falsification
of a public document filed against respondent,
the records show that as of the date of filing of
15 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
respondent's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
on September 16, 2002, the same is still pending
trial before Branch 8, Regional Trial Court of
Batangas City. Respondent claims that although
he notarized the document, he had no
participation whatsoever in the transaction. He
merely notarized the document on the
representation of the persons who appeared
before him.
The power to disbar must be exercised
with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of a respondent as an officer of the
court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment
should never be decreed where any lesser
penalty, such as temporary suspension, could
accomplish the end desired. To be sure,
conviction in a criminal case is not necessary for
finding a member of the bar guilty in an
administrative proceeding. As we have held
in Calub v. Suller, the dismissal of a criminal case
is not determinative of the liability of the accused
for disbarment. In the case at bar, however, the
criminal prosecution based on the same acts
charged in this case is still pending in the court. To
avoid contradictory findings, therefore, any
administrative disciplinary proceedings for the
same act must await the outcome of the criminal
case for falsification of a public document.
Second. The findings of IBP Investigating
Commissioner, Atty. Renato Cunanan, as to the
violation of Act No. 2103 are fully supported by the
evidence. Act No. 2103, § 1(a) provides:
is
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
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
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 seal, and if
not, his certificate shall so
state.
Respondent had a duty to require the persons
claiming to have executed the document to
appear personally before him and to attest to
the contents and truth of what are stated in
the document. If the parties were represented
by other persons, their representatives' names
should appear in the said documents as the
ones who had executed the same and the
latter should be required to affirm their
acts. Respondent failed to do this.
Respondent also failed to controvert
complainant's evidence that Wendy Sunshine
Umali are actually two different persons named
Wendy and Sunshine, both surnamed Umali; that
they were minors at the time of the execution of
the aforesaid document; and that their signatures
therein had been made by an unidentified
person. It is clear even from the face of the
"Consent to Quarry" that Wendy and Sunshine
Umali are two different minors, who were
represented by a person who signed the
document in their behalf, thus lending credence
to complainant's claim that the document is
fictitious. In fact, the residence certificate number
of Wendy Sunshine Umali is not stated in the
notarized document. In addition, page one of the
agreement appears to have been intercalated
and to have been typed with a different machine.
The acknowledgment of a document is
not an empty act. By it a private document is
converted into a public document, making it
admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity.
The importance of the function of a
notary public cannot therefore be
overemphasized. No less than the public faith in
the integrity of public documents is at stake in
every aspect of that function.
16 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
However, the suspension of respondent
from his commission as a notary public for two
years, as recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors, is too severe a penalty for what he has
committed. In Villarin v. Sabate, Jr., this Court
suspended respondent's commission as a notary
public for one year for notarizing the verification of
a motion to dismiss when the fact was that three
of the affiants had not appeared before him and
for notarizing the same instrument of which he had
been one of the signatories. In accordance with
that case, the suspension of respondent from his
commission as notary public for one year would
be proper.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alfredo
Datingaling is found guilty of violation of Act No.
2103, § 1(a) and is hereby SUSPENDED from his
commission as notary public for a period of one
(1) year. The charge of falsifying a public
document is DISMISSED without prejudice to the
filing of an administrative case for the same act
should the evidence warrant such action.
TOPIC: EFFECTS OF DE SI STANCE
8.WILKIE V ATTY. LIMOS
FACTS:
This administrative case arose from a Complaint
filed with the IBP (La Union), and forwarded to the
IBP, National Office, by Mr. Walter Wilkie against
Atty. Sinamar E. Limos.
It was alleged that the respondent committed
deceitful and dishonest conduct when she
obtained a loan from the complainant and issued
two (2) postdated checks despite knowledge of
insufficiency of funds.
Complainant alleged that he engaged the
services of Atty. Limos regarding his intention of
adopting his wife's nephew. Notwithstanding their
lawyer and client relationship, Atty. Limos
borrowed money (250k) from complainant with an
agreed interest of 24% (60k), that Atty. Limos will
issue 2 postdated checks representing both
amounts.
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas
Complainant deposited the same to his account
but the checks were returned because of
insufficient funds. Despite demands made,
respondent failed to pay her obligation. Criminal
complaints were filed against Atty. Limos.
“Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
conference/hearing because she was physically
unfit at that time. Her office staff whom she relied
upon to receive communications for the office
went on leave without her knowledge and she
was made to believe that the administrative
complaint would be withdrawn in view of the
Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant.

CBD gave Atty. 15 days to submit her Answer. The

Atty. Limos claimed that her loan was an
CBD also sent a Notice of Mandatory
accommodation she extended in behalf of a
Conference/Hearing to the parties which required
client, Hilario Inocencio. That checks were issued
them to appear before the Commission.
on the belief that Inocencio will send her the funds
to cover the said checks pursuant to their
In response, a Manifestation and Motion was filed agreement which was not complied with in spite
by Atty. Limos, requesting that a copy of the of the loan having been fully paid by Atty. Limos
complaint and be given a reasonable time after to the complainant who had filed cases against
receipt to submit a responsive pleading thereto. her for violation of (BP 22).
Atty. Limos also moved for the cancellation and
re-scheduling at a later date of the mandatory
To support her allegations, Atty. Limos attached to
conference/hearing.
her letter the Affidavit of Desistance and the Order
of the MTC, La Union, dismissing the criminal cases
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala rejected Atty’s for violation of BP 22 against her.
claim that she did not receive the complaint in
view of the registry return receipt showing that a
certain JE Limos received the Order. However, in ISSUE:
the interest of justice, he was given a
nonextendible period of (10) days to file an
WON the affidavit of desistance filed before the
Answer but the mandatory conference/hearing
trial court exonerates Atty. Limos from the
was maintained.
consequences of issuing worthless checks.

During the hearing, complainant was present but

Atty. Limos failed to appear and also failed to file
an answer. He was declared in default.
Investigating Commissioner's Report
Recommendation
Suspended for a period of TWO (2)
YEARS from receipt.
RULING:
NO.
and
The excuses given by respondent cannot
exculpate her from an administrative sanction
considering her acknowledgement that worthless
checks were issued by her in payment of the loan.

Respondent did not deny that she obtained a

Board of Governors of the IBP loan with interest from the complainant. Atty Limos
bare claim that the loan was only an
accommodation for a former client who had
REPRIMANDED with STERN WARNING that a already died cannot be given credence and,
repetition of similar conduct will be dealt with indeed, too specious to be believed.
more severely.

Besides, she did not file any answer to the

Atty. Limos in pleading for reconsideration, said complaint nor even appeared personally before
that she was not able to attend the mandatory the CBD despite being duly notified, to allege

17 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
such claim. Also in his manifestation and motion,
no mention was made about the complainant’s
affidavit of desistance. It was only mentioned in
her letter to the IBP. By then, Report and
Recommendation was already submitted to the
Board of Governors.
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 reposed on her. It shows a lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to
render her unworthy of public confidence. It shows
the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful
to the deleterious effects of such act to the public
interest and public order.
The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court.
In Barrios v. Martinez, “we disbarred the
respondent who issued worthless checks for which
he was convicted in the criminal case filed against
him”.
In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure
to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year
suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Limos, however, to secure her exoneration
heavily relies on the complainant's Affidavit of
Desistance dated. But such reliance is misplaced
because while the complainant filed his affidavit
with the trial court, he did not do the same thing in
this case (Admin case).
At the time of the mandatory conference/hearing
before the CBD, complainant did not even inform
the Commissioner that he already desisted in
prosecuting the criminal cases he filed with the
MTC against Atty. Limos and that such desistance
resulted in the dismissal of said cases.
But in Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, a six-month
suspension to Atty. Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro for
having issued several checks to the in payment of
a pre-existing debt without sufficient funds. They
must at all times faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients,
which include prompt payment of financial
obligations.
In this case, the respondent has fully paid her,
amounted to P400,000.00. The criminal cases filed
by the complainant have been dismissed and this
is the first time a complaint of such nature has
been filed against the Atty. Limos.

Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides

in part: Under these circumstances, the Court rules and so
holds that a suspension of three months from the
Sec. 5. Service or dismissal. — . . . .
practice of law would be sufficient sanction on
xxx xxx xxx the respondent.
No investigation shall be interrupted or
terminated by reason of the desistance,
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege
settlement, compromise, restitution,
demanding a high degree of good moral
withdrawal of the charges, or failure of
character, not only as a condition precedent to
the complainant to prosecute the same.
admission, but also as a continuing requirement
for the practice of law. Sadly, Atty. Limos fell short
of the exacting standards expected of her as a
In Rangwani v. Dino, citing Bolivar v. Simbol, the
vanguard of the legal profession
Court ruled that the discipline of lawyers cannot
be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of
charges. ‘’ the exercise of the power is not for the
purpose of enforcing civil remedies between
parties, but to protect the court and the public
against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in
his profession’’.

18 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
9.TIONG V FLORENDO in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks
of the legal profession of its undesirable members
FACTS: in order to protect the public and the courts.

Complainant Tiong and his wife are real estate
lessors and are also engaged in the repair of
motor vehicles. They engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Florendo as their legal counsel
and administrator of their business whenever they
leave for the USA.
Complainant began to suspect that respondent
and his wife were having an illicit affair. Such
suspicion was confirmed when, in their residence,
he chanced upon a telephone conversation
between the two. Listening through the extension
phone, he heard respondent utter the words “I
love you”, I’ll call you later”. His wife eventually
confessed to their love affair. Respondent likewise
admitted the relationship.
It is not an investigation into the acts of respondent
as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of
the Court and his fitness to continue as a member
of the Bar.
Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which
is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have
the effect of abating the instant proceedings.
respondent Atty. Florendo is hereby found GUILTY
of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS
10.BAYONLA V REYES

Respondent and complainant’s wife also FACTS:

confessed before their respective spouses, and
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment
before a Notary Public in a signed affidavit.
for gross dishonesty, deceit, conversion,
Complainant instituted the present suit for breach of trust filed against Atty. Purita Reyes
disbarment 2 years after charging respondent of by Teresita Byonla, her client.
gross immorality and grave misconduct.
Paz Durban and Petra Durban we’re sisters who
Respondent admitted the material allegations of had jointly owned a parcel of land situated
the complaint but interposed the defense of in Butuan City. They died without leaving a
pardon. will. Their land was expropriated in connection
with the construction of the Bacansi airport. An
expropriation compensation amounting to P 2,
453, 429 was to be paid to their heirs. Bayonla
ISSUE: and her uncle.

WON the pardon extended by complainant in the Bayonla and his uncle engaged in the legal
Affidavit dated May 15, 1995 is sufficient to services of Atty. Reyes to collect their
warrant the dismissal of the present disbarment expropriation share in the air transportation
case against respondent for gross immoral office, CDO. Agreeing to her atty’s fees of 10%
conduct. whatever amount she collected.

On Nov 1993 she collected 1M from the ATO; that

Bayonla’s share after deducting her Atty’s
RULING: fees would be P75,000 but Atty. Reyes only
delivered P23,000 and had failed to deliver
No. the balance 52,000 even with repeated
demands.
A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis
and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as

19 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
On June 1995, Atty. Reyes collected P121,119.11 Yes, Atty. Reyes Violated Canon 16 of CPR.
from the ATO and that Bayonlas’s share after
deduction of fees was Based on the records: first release P84,852 then
second release P121,119.11. her total share
P109,007.20 but Atty Reyes only handed her from the two releases was P205,971 with Atty.
P56,500 and he failed to deliver the balance; Reyes being entitled of 40% atty’s fees. The
and that Atty Reyes should be disbarred for net share of Bayonla was P121852.67 but Atty.
depriving her of her share. Reyes only delivered to her only P79,000 which
was short of P44,852 despite the demands
Respondents comment: she admitted that and the order from the IBP.
Bayonla and Alfredo engaged in her legal
services for the purpose of collecting their The pendency of other cases does not halt them
share; that as consideration for her services, they from submitting an accounting and the
agreed upon a 40% contingent fee for her. amount due to Bayonla.

That she had given to Bayonla more than what Denial of due process
had been due her; that Alfredo had received
the check from ATO for the second release The court orders Atty. Reyes to pay complainant
corresponding to the share of Bayonla and Teresita Bayonla within 30 days from the
Alfredo; that she had received only her receipt of this decision the amount P44,852
contingent fee in the second release.; that with interest of 12% per annum from June 22,
she had incurred the travel expenses in 1997 and to complete written accounting and
collecting such share amd that she could be inventory.
absolved from the liability arising from the
SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a period
complaint.
of two years effective from the receipt of
The parties were required to submit documents this decision and a warning that a similar
relative to their defenses especially the offense would be dealt with more severely
amount released by ATO. Only the respondent
submitted.

It could be inferred that the complainant was

supposed to receive P205,971.11 as her share.
11.FREEMAN V REYES
Inasmuch as the Atty’s fees of 40% was supported
by evidence instead of complainant’s FACTS:
allegation of 10% then the respondent was
- Complainant Marites E. Freeman filed a
entitled P82,388.45 as attty’s fees;leaving the
disbarment complaint against
balance 123,582 to the complainant.
respondent Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, for
gross dishonesty in obtaining money from
her, without rendering proper legal
services, and appropriating the proceeds
ISSUE: of the insurance policies of her deceased
husband
WON Atty. Reyes is administratively liable for
violating CPR. - Freeman’s British husband died in London.
She can’t attend the wake and funeral
since her visa applications were denied.
She engaged the services of Reyes to
RULING: help her secure the visas. She advanced
amounts to Reyes covering travel
expenses and legal costs in securing the

20 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
visas. Respondent also asked for “grease
money” to bribe some staff in order to
expedite the release of the visas. Despite
repeated follow-ups with Reyes, nothing
came out.
- Respondent thereafter required Freeman
to affix her signature in a Special Power of
Atty., which was not notarized,
authorizing the former to protect the rights
and interests of the latter relating to the
estate of her dead husband. However,
she found a second and a third SPA
purportedly with her forged signature
authorizing Reyes to recover the
proceeds of the insurance policies of her
decease husband.
- Freeman declared that she made a
demand upon the respondent to return
her passport and the total amount of 200k
which she gave for the processing of the
visa applications.
- Complainant filed a criminal case for
estafa but was dismissed by the trial court
for insufficiency of evidence. On this
point, Reyes alleged that the criminal
complaint for estafa against her was
already dismissed, hence, the
administrative case should also be
dismissed.
- IBP found respondent to be guilty for
betraying the trust of her client for failure
to secure the visas for Freeman and her
son, and that through deceitful means,
she was able to appropriate for herself
the proceeds of the insurance policies of
complainant’s husband. Reyes was
suspended from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
1. WON dismissal of the criminal case will
affect the administrative case against
Reyes. (MAIN ISSUE in relation to the topic)
2. WON Reyes is guilty of the acts alleged.
21 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
RULING:
1. NO.
A criminal case is different from an
administrative case, and each must be disposed
of according to the facts and the law applicable
to each case. Section 5, in relation to Sections 1
and 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in
administrative cases, only substantial evidence is
required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as
in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence
as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. Applying the rule to the present case,
the dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude
the continuance of a separate and independent
action for administrative liability, as the weight of
evidence necessary to establish the culpability is
merely substantial evidence. Respondent's
defense that the criminal complaint for estafa
against her was already dismissed is of no
consequence.
An administrative case can proceed
independently, even if there was a full-blown trial
wherein, based on both prosecution and defense
evidence, the trial court eventually rendered a
judgment of acquittal, on the ground either that
the prosecution failed to prove the respondent's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that no crime
was committed. More so, in the present
administrative case, wherein the ground for the
dismissal of the criminal case was because the trial
court granted the prosecution's motion to
withdraw the information and, a fortiori, dismissed
the case for insufficiency of evidence.
It is sui generis. It is not a criminal
proceeding nor a civil proceeding. It is not criminal
because it is not intended to punish. It is not civil
because it is not intended to award damages.
There is no prosecutor nor plaintiff.
2. YES. Respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct and disbarred from the
practice of law.
Assuming Reyes acted within the scope of
her authority, Canon 16 of the CPR mandates
lawyers to hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his possession. A
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
client showing that the money was spent for a
particular purpose. ITC, nowhere was it shown that
respondent rendered an accounting or, at least,
apprised the complainant of the actual expenses
incurred. This leaves a quandary as to the
discrepancy in the actual amount that
respondent should receive, supposedly pursuant
to an agreement of engaging respondent to be
her counsel, as there was absence of a formal
contract of legal services.
Freeman gave P50,000.00 to the
respondent for the purpose of assisting her in
claiming the insurance proceeds; however, it was
shown that respondent's primary purpose in
traveling to London was to attend the
International Law Conference in Russell Square,
London. It is appalling that respondent had the
gall to take advantage of the benevolence of the
complainant, then grieving for the loss of her
husband, and mislead her into believing that she
needed to go to London to assist in recovering the
proceeds of the insurance policies. Worse,
respondent even inculcated in the mind of the
complainant that she had to adhere to the
nefarious culture of giving "grease money" or
lagay, to the British Embassy personnel, as if it was
an ordinary occurrence in the normal course of
conducting official business transactions, as a
means to expedite the visa applications. This runs
afoul the dictum in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
CPR which states that a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Apart from her bare denials, respondent
never attempted to reconcile the discrepancy, or
give a satisfactory explanation, as to why she
failed to render an accounting, on the proceeds
of the insurance policies that should rightfully
belong to the complainant.
TOPIC: PRESCIPTI ON OF OFFENSE
12.ISENHARDT V REAL
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that on 14 September 2000
respondent notarized an SPA supposedly
executed by her. The SPA authorizes
complainant’s brother to mortgage her real
property located in Antipolo City. Complainant
averred that she never appeared before
22 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
respondent. She maintained that it was impossible
for her to subscribe to the questioned document
in the presence of respondent on 14 September
2000 since she was in Germany at that time.
To support her contention, complainant
presented a certified true copy of her German
passport and a Certification from the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID) indicating that
she arrived in the Philippines on 22 June 2000 and
left the country on 4 August 2000. The passport
further indicated that she arrived again in the
Philippines only on 1 July 2001.
Complainant submitted that because of
respondent’s act, the property subject of the SPA
was mortgaged and later foreclosed by the Rural
Bank of Antipolo City.
Respondent:
 denied the allegations in the complaint.
 narrated that sometime in the middle of
year 2000, spouses Wilfredo and Lorena
Gusi approached him to seek advice
regarding the computer business they
were planning to put up. During one of
their meetings, the spouses allegedly
introduced to him a woman by the
name of Nesa G. Isenhardt
(Complainant), sister of Wilfredo, as the
financier of their proposed business.
 further narrated that on 14 September
2000, spouses Gusi, together with the
woman purporting to be the
complainant, went to his office to have
the subject SPA notarized.
 maintained that the parties all signed in
his presence, exhibiting to him their
respective Community Tax Certificates
(CTCs).
 added that the complainant even
presented to him the original copy of the
TCT of the property subject of the SPA
evidencing her ownership of the
property.
 noted that spouses Gusi even engaged
his services as counsel in a civil case filed
before the RTC. The expenses incurred
for the case, which was predicated on
the closure of their computer business for
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
non-payment of rentals, was allegedly
financed by complainant.
 The professional engagement with the
spouses was, however, discontinued in
view of differences of opinion between
lawyer and clients, as well as, non-
payment of respondent’s professional
fees.
Respondent concluded that complainant’s cause
of action had already prescribed.
 argued that under the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the IBP, a complaint
for disbarment prescribes in two years
from the date of professional
misconduct.
 Since the document questioned was
notarized in year 2000, the accusation of
misconduct which was filed only in
September 2004 had already prescribed.
 noted that the SPA in question
authorizing the grantee Wilfredo Gusi to
mortgage the property of complainant
was not used for any transaction with a
third person prejudicial to the latter. The
annotation at the back of the TCT would
show that the property subject of the
SPA was instead sold by complainant to
her brother Wilfredo for ₱500,000.00. Thus,
he submits that the SPA did not cause
grave injury to the complainant.
IBP Commissioner: Found respondent guilty of
gross negligence as a notary public and
recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and disqualified from
reappointment as notary public for two (2) years.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted and approved
the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent guilty of gross
negligence as a notary public.
23 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
RULING:
SC sustained the findings and recommendation of
the IBP. As stated by the IBP Board of Governors,
the findings of the Investigating Commissioner are
supported by evidence on record, as well as
applicable laws and rules.
1. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and
the CPR when he made it appear that
complainant personally appeared before him
and subscribed an SPA authorizing her brother to
mortgage her property.
 It cannot be overemphasized that a
notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it
is the same person who executed it,
personally appearing before him to
attest to the contents and the truth of
what are stated therein. (Section 1,
Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as
the Notarial Law)
 This is to enable the notary public to
verify the genuineness of the signature
of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the
party’s free act.
2. Respondent insists that complainant appeared
before him and subscribed to the SPA subject of
the instant case.
 His contention, however, cannot prevail
over the documentary evidence
presented by complainant that she was
not in the Philippines on 14 September
2000, the day the SPA was allegedly
notarized.
 Respondent may have indeed met
complainant in person during the period
the latter was allegedly introduced to
him by Spouses Gusi but that did not
change the fact established by
evidence that complainant was not in
the personal presence of respondent at
the time of notarization.
 It is well settled that entries in official
records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer of the Philippines,
or by a person in the performance of a
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
duty specially enjoined by law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. This principle aptly covers
the Certification from the BID that
complainant left the Philippines on 4
August 2000 and arrived back only on 1
July 2001.
3. Respondent’s contention was further negated
when he claimed that complainant presented to
him the original TCT of the property subject of the
SPA. A perusal of the TCT would reveal that
ownership of the property was transferred to
complainant only on 10 January 2001. Thus, it
could not have been presented to respondent by
complainant on 14 September 2000.
4. Anent respondent’s claim of prescription of the
offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline
(RELATED TO TOPIC):
 SC agreed with the Investigating
Commissioner that the rule should be
construed to mean two years from the
date of discovery of the professional
misconduct. To rule otherwise would
cause injustice to parties who may have
discovered the wrong committed to
them only at a much later date.
 In this case, the complaint was filed
more than three years after the
commission of the act because it was
only after the property was foreclosed
that complainant discovered the SPA.
The duties of a notary public is dictated by public
policy and impressed with public interest. It is not
a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging
documents executed by parties who are willing to
pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment
that the subject SPA was not utilized by the
grantee for the purpose it was intended because
the property was allegedly transferred from
complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of
sale consummated between them. What is being
penalized is respondent’s act of notarizing a
document despite the absence of one of the
parties. By notarizing the questioned document,
he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
24 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
PENALTY: The notarial commission of respondent
Atty. Leonardo M. Real was REVOKED. He is
disqualified from reappointment as notary public
for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
effective immediately.
13.HEIRS OF ALILANO V EXAMEN
DOCTRINE:
No matter how much time has elapsed from the
time of the commission of the act complained of
and the time of the institution of the complaint,
erring members of the bench and bar cannot
escape the disciplining arm of the Court.
FACTS:
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina,
were the holders of Original Certificate of Title for
a. parcel of land located in Paitan, Esperanza,
Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on
March 6, 1985 and October 11, 1989, respectively.
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and
September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale were
executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of
Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both
documents were notarized by respondent Atty.
Roberto Examen, brother of the
vendee. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses
Examen obtained possession of the property.
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano
filed a suit for recovery of possession against Sps
Examen.
On November 15, 2003, the heirs of
Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty.
Examen violated the notarial law when he
notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a
notary public is prohibited from notarizing a
document when one of the parties is a relative by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or
affinity within the second civil degree. It is also
alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the
documents knowing that the cedula or residence
certificate number used by Ramon Examen was
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
not actually his but the residence certificate would only serve to embolden them to disregard
number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding
acknowledged that the two witnesses personally from the fact that as long as no private
appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it complainant would immediately come forward,
is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of they stand a chance of being completely
these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these exonerated from whatever administrative liability
documents into evidence violating his oath as a they ought to answer for.
lawyer and the CPR

Thus, Atty. Examen’s defense of

One of the defences posed by Atty prescription therefore is of no moment and
Examen is prescription based on IBP Resolution No. deserves scant consideration.
XVI-2004-13 dated January 26, 2004 where it was
proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to TOPIC: COM PLAI NTS AG AI N ST L AW YER S I N
include a prescription period for professional GOVERNM ENT SERVI CE
misconduct: within two years from the date of the
act. 14.FUJI V DELA CRUZ

GIST:
ISSUE:
Failure to exercise utmost prudence in reviewing
the immigration records of an alien, which resulted
WON Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription is
in the latter’s wrongful detention, opens the
meritorious.
Special Prosecutor in the Bureau of Immigration to
administrative liability.

RULING:
FACTS:
NO. In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, the
Court En Banc opined that there can be no
An administrative complaint was filed by Fuji and
prescription in bar discipline cases. Even the
his family (complainants), against Bureau of
lapse of considerable time from the commission of
Immigration Special Prosecutor Gemma Dela Cruz
the offending act to the institution of the
(SP Dela Cruz) for gross misconduct and gross
administrative complaint will not erase the
ignorance of the law in relation to her issuance of
administrative culpability of a lawyer. Furthermore,
a Charge Sheet against Fuji for overstaying. The
the court ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of
complainants further informed the Supreme Court
the Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD was void
(SC) that they had difficulty obtaining certified
and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and
true copies of the Order of the Board of
thus null and void.
Commissioners, which granted Fuji's Summary
Deportation and Warrant of Deportation from the
Bureau of Immigration personnel.
In Caldo Jr. vs Degamo amd in Heck vs
Santos, the court emphasized that no matter how
much time has elapsed from the time of the
Fuji is a Chinese national, whose work visa was
commission of the act complained of and the
found by SP Dela Cruz as already expired, hence,
time of the institution of the complaint, erring
the former had already overstayed for one (1)
members of the bench and bar cannot escape
year and six (6) months. He was later on arrested
the disciplining arm of the Court.
with police’s assistance, brought to and detained
at the Bureau of Immigration Detention Facility.
This ruling was reiterated in the more
In his administrative complaint, Fuji alleged the
recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo, where the
following:
Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on
administrative cases involving members of the bar

25 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
a) That his rights to due process were
violated since he was not afforded any
hearing or summary deportation
proceedings before the deportation
order was issued against him; and,
b) That SP Dela Cruz failed miserably in
discharging her duties because a simple
initial review of the Bureau of Immigration
records would have revealed that he was
not overstaying.
In her Comment, SP Dela Cruz denied that she
committed any grave misconduct. She claimed
the following:
a) That Fuji was accorded due process
during the summary deportation
proceedings and he was directed,
through an Order to submit his Counter-
Affidavit/Memorandum, which he failed
to do;
b) That Fuji was also able to file his Motion for
Reconsideration and Verified Petition to
Reopen the case;
c) That the Memorandum of the Bureau of
Immigration - Management Information
System (BI-MIS) constituted a substantial
evidence of Fuji's overstay in the country,
hence, her formal charge had legal basis;
d) That as a civil servant, she enjoyed the
presumption of regularity in the
performance of her duties; and,
e) That the Ombudsman (OMB) had in fact
dismissed the complainant's charges
against her through Affidavit of
Desistance that he had mistakenly signed
some documents including the
administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, SP Dela Cruz should be held
administratively liable for her failure to ascertain
the facts before levying the formal charge against
Fuji for overstaying?
RULING:
YES. Generally, the Supreme Court (SC) defers
from taking cognizance of disbarment complaints
against lawyers in government service arising from
their administrative duties, and refers the
complaint first either to the proper administrative
body that has disciplinary authority over the erring
26 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
public official or employee or the Ombudsman.
The SC cited two cases regarding this matter.
For instance, the SC cited the case of Spouses
Buffe v. Gonzales, wherein they dismissed the
disbarment complaint against former Secretary of
Justice Raul M. Gonzalez, former Undersecretary
of Justice Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., and former
Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona, holding
that the respondents were public officials being
charged for actions involving their official
functions during their tenure, which should be
resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman. In that
case, one (1) of the respondents sought to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of forum-shopping
because he allegedly received an order from the
Office of the Ombudsman directing him to file a
counter-affidavit based on the same
administrative complaint filed before the Office of
the Bar Confidant.
Also, in the case of Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, the
SC dismissed the complaint against respondents
who are government lawyers in the Civil Service
Commission. The Court held that the acts or
omissions alleged in the complaint were
"connected with their . . . official functions in the
[Civil Service Commission] and within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their
superior or the Office of the Ombudsman." [37] It
would seem that the complainant directly
instituted a disbarment complaint with this Court
instead of filing an administrative complaint
before the proper administrative body.
However, the case at hand is an exception. Unlike
the circumstances in Spouses Buffe and Alicias,
Jr., the records here showed that the OMB had
previously dismissed Fuji's administrative complaint
due to the pendency of his Verified Petition and
Administrative Complaint before the Bureau of
Immigration, and considered the case closed.
The Bureau of Immigration subsequently granted
Fuji's petition to reopen his case and ordered his
release. However, it was silent as to the culpability
of respondent on the charges levelled by Fuji.
Thus, with the termination of the administrative
proceedings before the OMB and the apparent
inaction of the Bureau of Immigration on
complainant's administrative complaint, the SC
considered it proper to take cognizance of this
case, and to determine whether there is sufficient
 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a Stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
ground to discipline SP Dela Cruz under its "plenary public office being a public trust. The ethical
disciplinary authority" over members of the legal standards under the CPR are rendered even more
profession. exacting as to government lawyers because they
have the added duty to abide by the policy of the
State to promote a high standard of ethics,
Contrary to SP Dela Cruz’s stance, Fuji's purported
competence, and professionalism in public
Affidavit of Desistance is not a sufficient cause to
service. With this, SP Dela Cruz’s negligence
dismiss this administrative complaint. The SC has
evinced a failure to cope with the strict demands
previously held that proceedings of this nature
and high standards of public service and the legal
cannot be "interrupted or terminated by reason of
profession.
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charges or failure of the
The appropriate sanction is discretionary upon the
complainant to prosecute the same."
SC. Under the Civil Service Rules, the penalty for
simple neglect of duty is suspension for one (1)
The primary object of disciplinary proceedings is to month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
determine the fitness of a member to remain in the
Bar. It is conducted solely for the public welfare,
The SC found it appropriate to suspend SP Dela
and the desistance of the complainant is
Cruz for three (3) months considering the
irrelevant. What will be decisive are the facts
consequence of her negligence. This suspension
borne out by the evidence presented by the
included her desistance from performing her
parties.
functions as a special prosecutor in the Bureau of
Immigration.
In the case at hand, SP Dela Cruz failed to observe
Rule 18.03 of the Code of the Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which mandates that "a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted -------Nothing Follows---------
to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable." -------God Bless Us All--------

-------Wash Your Hands------

As a special prosecutor in the Bureau of
Immigration, she is the representative, not of any
private party, but of the State. Her task was to
investigate and verify facts to determine whether
a ground for deportation exists, and if further
administrative action in the form of a formal
charge, should be taken against an alien. Had she
carefully reviewed the records of Fuji, she would
have found out about the approval of Fuji's
application, which would negate her finding of
overstaying. Because of her negligence, Fuji was
deprived of his liberty for almost eight (8) months,
until his release.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as a failure to

give attention to a task due to carelessness or
indifference. SP Dela Cruz showed her
indifference to the fundamental right of every
person, including aliens, to due process and to the
consequences of her actions.

Lawyers in government service should be more

conscientious with their professional obligations
consistent with the time-honored principle of

27 | P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa