Pale Compiled

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Week 1 litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other

papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds,
CAYETANO VS. MONSOD and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all
advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of
President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an
COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney,
Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in for services rendered by his associate.
the practice of law for at least ten years.
In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed relationship, it is whether in or out of court. Atty. Monsod's past
the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor
— verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement —
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a years.
citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent MAURICIO ULEP VS THE LEGAL CLINIC
appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void. 223 SCRA 378 – 42 SCAD 287 – Legal Ethics – Advertisement
in the Legal Profession – Practice of Law
ISSUE:
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio
Whether or not the appointment of Christian Monsod violates Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward
Sec 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a
HELD:
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C: advertisements which contain the following:
“There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a SECRET MARRIAGE?

Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment,
at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
and must not have been candidates for any elective position in
the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.” 8:30am – 6:00pm
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of
86-55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated GUAM DIVORCE
Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has
DON PARKINSON
also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for
more than ten years. An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during
Black defines "practice of law" as:
office hours.
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
application of legal principles and technique to serve the
Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa.
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 1

Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement
Spouse/Children. are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
Call Marivic. trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective
service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767 needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-
entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star product of able service and the unwholesome result of
wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter following as allowed forms of advertisement:
how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Advertisement in a reputable law list
Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his
staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various Use of ordinary simple professional card
fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists
in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a specialization
battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
IN RE: CUNANAN
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in
view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John FACTS: In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar
Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan
advertisement is merely making known to the public the et. al petitioners. In recent years few controversial issues have
services that The Legal Clinic offers. aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972
popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.”
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the
practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a
advertisement may be allowed. general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any
subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70%
composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include 1949-74%, 1950-1953 – 75%). Many of the bar examinees
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal believed themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and felt that they
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are obtained averages of a few percentages lower than those
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951
Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the
be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying
member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then
entitled to practice law. became law on June 21, 1953 .Republic Act 972 has for its
object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials
advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had
use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as
or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession evidenced by their failure in the exams.
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise ISSUE: WoN RA 972 is constitutional?
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal HELD: No, RA 972 is not constitutional. In the judicial system
Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension,
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts disbarment and reinstatement of attorney at law in the practice
can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible. of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably
a judicial function and responsibility. It is obvious therefore,
that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law

belong EXCLUSIVELY to the court and the law passed by As regards the use of the title "Attorney," Meling admits that
Congress on the matter is permissive in character, of as other some of his communications really contained the word
authorities may say, merely fix the minimum conditions for the "Attorney" as they were, according to him, typed by the office
clerk.
license.
Issue:
Whether or not the act of concealing constitutes dishonesty

B. M. No. 1154 June 8, 2004
Held:
IN THE MATTER OF THE

It has been held that good moral character is what a person
DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the
HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he
EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds
ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional
SHARI’A BAR, ATTY. FROILAN R. integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a
MELENDREZ, petitioner. person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.
Facts:
The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases filed against
him makes him also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall
filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition1 to be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate for admission to the bar."5
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
Anent the issue of the use of the appellation "Attorney" in his
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose letters, the explanation of Meling is not acceptable. Aware that
in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why
three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial he signed as "attorney" whoever may have typed the letters.
Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal Cases
Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and
Although there is no showing that Meling is engaged in the
Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
practice of law, the fact is, he is signing his communications as
"Atty. Haron S. Meling" knowing fully well that he is not entitled
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which thereto. As held by the Court in Bar Matter 1209, the
occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered unauthorized use of the appellation "attorney" may render a
defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of person liable for indirect contempt of court.
media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the
Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be
injuries to the latter.
allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of
Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar Examinations.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using Further, it recommended that Meling’s membership in the
the title "Attorney" in his communications, as Secretary to the Shari’a Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court.
Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court,
letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and
is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon
appears on its face to have been received by the Sangguniang
individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are
Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.
also known to possess good moral character. 8 The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
In his Answer,3 Meling explains that he did not disclose the precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because retired possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to law.
settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in good
faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge
has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007
professor in the College of Law, Meling considered the three
cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving
the same parties as "closed and terminated." Moreover, Meling
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME
denies the charges and adds that the acts complained of do PRACTICE OF LAW,
not involve moral turpitude. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE
practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to
seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA
applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free & VICTORIANO TENAZAS petitioners,
medical aid program. His application was approved and he vs.
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY,
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, &
(Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), QUINTIN MUNING respondents.
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. 1 On that day, he
took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Facts:
Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter,
he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his
law practice. The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No.
72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela
Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations
The Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of his rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila
again met all the qualifications and has none of the and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18
disqualifications for membership in the bar. It recommends that October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for
he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines, the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November
his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Philippine 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a
bar. reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3
December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-
Issue: objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their
backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a
whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to
in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by
in May 2004. Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
Held: The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge
was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio
Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and
No. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first
conditions.2 It is so delicately affected with public interest that it by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin
is both a power and a duty of the State (through this Court) to Muning.
control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the
public welfare.
Issue:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in
the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases WON a non-lawyer recover attorney’s fees for legal services
prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement rendered
for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in
the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in Held:
the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino
citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or
the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-litigant
foreigners.16 does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for
such representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of Court, providing —
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's
citizens who become citizens of another country shall agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under be entitled to have and recover from his
the conditions of [RA 9225]."17Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who client no more than a reasonable
becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have compensation for his services, ...
lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never
to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a
automatic right to resume law practice accrues. condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a relationship
cannot exist unless the client's representative in court be a
lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971 establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and
Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore,
recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that
legal work in representation of parties litigant should be WON respondent may engage in the private practice of law as
entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and an elective official
who are sworn, to observe the rules and the ethics of the
profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary Held:
control for the protection of courts, clients and the public.
Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule
not be violated;7 that acting as an attorney with authority applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and
constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or in connection "with any matter in which he intervened while in
imprisonment or both,8 and the law will not assist a person to said service." In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan,11 we ruled that Rule
reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
law;9 and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would "engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in which [they] had intervened while in said service."
case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition,
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to
disciplinary measures. Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time
he committed the act complained of. Therefore, he was not
covered by that provision.
A.C. No. 5738 February 19, 2008
Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and
WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant, employees, during their incumbency, from engaging in the
private practice of their profession "unless authorized by the
vs. Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict
ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent. or tend to conflict with their official functions." This is the
general law which applies to all public officials and employees.
Facts:
Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities,
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot1 and the municipalities and barangays are the following: the governor,
building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres Street, the vice governor and members of the sangguniang
Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and panlalawigan for provinces; the city mayor, the city vice mayor
Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz- and the members of the sangguniang panlungsod for cities; the
Catu2 and Antonio Pastor3 of one of the units in the building. municipal mayor, the municipal vice mayor and the members
of the sangguniang bayan for municipalities and the punong
barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the
Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, members of the sangguniang kabataan for barangays..
summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. 5 When the
parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent
issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in On the other hand, members of the sangguniang
court. panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang
bayanmay practice their professions, engage in any
occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours. In
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment other words, they may practice their professions, engage in
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of any occupation, or teach in schools outside their session
Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and municipal mayors,
counsel for the defendants in that case. Because of this, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, 6 claiming panlungsod or sangguniang bayan are required to hold regular
that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer sessions only at least once a week.14Since the law itself grants
and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the them the authority to practice their professions, engage in any
defendants despite the fact that he presided over the occupation or teach in schools outside session hours, there is
conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or
barangay. authorization from any other person or office for any of these
purposes.
In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties
as punong barangay was to hear complaints referred to the While, as already discussed, certain local elective officials (like
barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa. As such, he heard the governors, mayors, provincial board members and councilors)
complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to
As head of the Lupon, he performed his task with utmost practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such
objectivity, without bias or partiality towards any of the parties. interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members
The parties, however, were not able to amicably settle their of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio
dispute and Regina and Antonio filed the ejectment case. It alterius.15 Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the
was then that Elizabeth sought his legal assistance. He presumption is that they are allowed to practice their
acceded to her request. He handled her case for free because profession. And this stands to reason because they are not
she was financially distressed and he wanted to prevent the mandated to serve full time. In fact, the sangguniang
commission of a patent injustice against her. barangay is supposed to hold regular sessions only twice a
month.16
Issue:
Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not considering that in appearing as counsel in court, he did so
forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should have without permission from his superiors and, worse, he falsified
procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his his time record of service to conceal his absence from his
Department, as required by civil service regulations. office on the dates in question. Indeed, the number of times
that respondent acted as counsel under the above
circumstances would indicate that he was doing it as a regular
A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978 practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of
justice.
JULIO ZETA, complainant,
vs. RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE
FELICISIMO MALINAO, respondent. THE LAWYERS OATH
BARREDO, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar

examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his
Facts: oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. The criminal case which
Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the death of a
interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar. neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in
Charged as follows: September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other accused
initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The
1. ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — MR. Malinao eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-
has been appearing in the municipal court of this town arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting
for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. in homicide.The trial court granted herein petitioner's
Reliable information also says he has been appearing
application for probation. The trial court as well issued an order
in the municipal courts of Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora
and even Sta. Rita. He is not authorized to do so we approving a report dated 6 April 1994 submitted by the
believe. He makes it his means of livelihood as he Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge from
collects fees from his clients. He competes with probation.
attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that
his doing so should be stopped for a good
On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to
government. These facts can be checked with records
of those municipal courts. be allowed to take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his
2. Grave misconduct in office discharge from probation. On 13 July 1995, the Court through
3. Crime of Falsification then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a
4. Violation of executive order and Civil Service Law resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the
Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying
Issue: with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon
those seeking admission to the bar. In compliance with the
above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
WON the act of the respondent appearing as counsel
constitutes illegal practice of law certifications/letters executed by among others two (2)
senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of
Held: religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a
scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul
We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter's
conclusions of fact of the Investigator to be amply supported by family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.
the evidence, particularly the documents consisting of public
records and the declarations of the judges before whom ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath
respondent had appeared. It is clear to Us that respondent, office and admit him to the practice of law.
apart from appearing as counsel in various municipal courts
without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those
service by making it appear therein that he was present in his who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications
office on occasions when in fact he was in the municipal courts required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and
appearing as counsel, without being a member of the bar, efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this
which, furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law. We,
Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a
therefore, adopt the above findings of fact of the Investigator.
disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal
importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath,
The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for
defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in
services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of recent years has undoubtedly become less than
one in the locality" cannot, even if true, carry the day for him, irreproachable.

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow Makati; (3) Land Transportation Office's records showing his
petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign and respondent's driver's licenses; (4) records from St. Mary's
the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the University showing that complainant's transcript of records
from the University of Makati and his Birth Certificate were
following admonition: In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the
submitted to St. Mary's University's College of Law; and (5)
lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not Alumni Book of St. Mary's University showing respondent's
inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various photograph under the name "Patrick A. Caronan." Complainant
certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine later learned that the reason why he was invited by the NBI
concern for civic duties and public service. was because of respondent's involvement in a case for
qualified theft and estafa filed by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap
(Agtarap), who was one of the principal sponsors at
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all
respondent's wedding.
efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial
Issue:
notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious
and uncalculating. We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and
Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being
to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's admitted to the Bar.
oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, Held:
the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer
and easier for everyone concerned. In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college
degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year
later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993
A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the
requisite pre-law degree.
PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v.
The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent
RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. may later on complete his college education and earn a law
PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent. degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of
his brother's name, identity, and educational records renders
Facts: him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all,
is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to
everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to
Complainant and respondent are siblings born to Porferio R. citizens of good moral character. In In the Matter of the
Caronan, Jr. and Norma A. Caronan. Respondent is the older Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002
of the two, having been born on February 7, 1975, while Bar Examinations and for Disciplinary Action as Member of the
complainant was born on August 5, 1976. Complainant Philippine Shari'a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez, the Court
obtained a degree in business administration in University of explained the essence of good moral character:
Makati. Meanwhile, respondent was discharged in PMA in
1993 to help in the family’s car rental business. Good moral character is what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion
In 1999, during a visit to his family in Metro Manila, respondent generally entertained of him, the estimate in which .
told complainant that the former had enrolled in a law school in he is held by the public in the place where he is
Nueva Vizcaya. Subsequently, in 2004, their mother informed known. Moral character is not a subjective term but
complainant that respondent passed the Bar Examinations and one which corresponds to objective reality. The
that he used complainant's name and college records from the standard of personal and professional integrity is not
University of Makati to enroll at St. Mary's University's College satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a
of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and take the Bar person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good
Examinations. Complainant brushed these aside as he did not moral character includes at least common
anticipate any adverse consequences to him. honesty.[60] (Emphasis supplied)
Sometime in May 2009, however, after his promotion as Store Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of
Manager, complainant was ordered to report to the head office moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the
of PSC in Mandaluyong City where, upon arrival, he was name, identity, and school records of his own brother and
informed that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was dragged the latter into controversies which eventually caused
requesting his presence at its office in Taft Avenue, Manila, in him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had
relation to an investigation involving respondent who, at that been working for years. Good moral character is essential in
point, was using the najne "Atty. Patrick A. those who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the nature of
Caronan." Accordingly, on May 18, 2009, complainant the office of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists between
appeared before the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division him and his client, as well as between him and the court.
of the NBI where he was interviewed and asked to identify
documents including: (1) his and respondent's high school Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by
records; (2) his transcript of records from the University of pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer.

He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of several practice of law.
criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts
do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the
primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and A.C. No. 10164 March 10, 2014
dignity.
STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA
ROMANILLOS BRUNET, Complainants,
B.M. No. 2112 July 24, 2012 vs.
ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent.
IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE
PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE Facts:
PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B.
MUNESES, Petitioner, Complainants alleged that in February 1997, they engaged the
services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they
acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked
Facts: for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) including
expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed that full
On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title;
(petitioner) with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that Atty. Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand
that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Pesos (Pl,000.00) which they gave; that Atty. Guaren took all
Philippines. the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-
certified true copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the
The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of donation, survey plan,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966; that and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty.
he lost his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos
of the United States of America (USA) on August 28, 1981; (₱6,000.00) which they dutifully gave; that from 1997 to 2001,
that on September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and each
citizenship pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the time he would say that the titling was in progress; that they
"Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by became bothered by the slow progress of the case so they
taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the demanded the return of the money they paid; and that
Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA; that respondent agreed to return the same provided that the
he intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume amount of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) be deducted to
the practice of law. answer for his professional fees.
Issue: Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an

WON petitioner may resume the practice of law attorney-client relationship between them, Atty. Guaren made
a special appearance against them in a case pending before
Held: the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).
A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country Issue:

and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No.
9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, WON Atty. Guaren was unethical
as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is
not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who Held:
intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply
with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
It can not be overstressed that: venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
conditions. It is so delicately affected with public administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
interest that it is both the power and duty of the State lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what
(through this Court) to control and regulate it in order they owe to themselves.
to protect and promote the public welfare.
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his provides that:
compliance, particularly with the MCLE. After all the
requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
the petitioner has met all the qualifications and none of the and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
disqualifications for membership in the bar, the OBC him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence from the practice of law did not include his suspension from
and diligence. public office.
In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted Considering that the period of suspension from the practice of
the amount of ₱7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance law and disqualification from being commissioned as notary
fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the public imposed on respondents have [sic] already elapsed. In
case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5 compliance with this court's order, Attys. Calubaquib and
years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with Baliga filed their respective motions to lift order of
competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter suspension.28 Atty. Baliga also filed his comment on
entrusted to him.1 complainant Lingan's allegation that he continued performing
his functions as Regional Director during his suspension from
the practice of law. Stating that his functions as Regional
A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014 Director did not require the practice of law, Atty. Baliga claimed
thaf he "faithful[ly] [complied] with [this court's resolution
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, suspending him from the practice of law]."
vs.
ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. Issue:
BALIGA, Respondents.
WON Atty. Baliga violated the court’s order to desist from the
practice of law for a period of 1 year
Facts:
Held:
In the resolution2 dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys.
Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Yes. The Court held that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order
Responsibility3 and of the Lawyer's Oath.4 Respondents of suspension. The Court, therefore, suspend him further from
allowed their secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, the practice of law for six months.
in violation of Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial Law. This
court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires
year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
from reappointment as notaries public for two years. experience."57 It includes "[performing] acts which are
characteristics of the [legal] profession"58 or "[rendering any
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal
reconsideration,7 praying that respondents be disbarred, not knowledge or skill."59
merely suspended from the practice of law. In the
resolution8 dated September 6, 2006, this court denied Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is
complainant Lingan's motion for reconsideration for lack of considered practice. of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, 60 this
merit. court cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the
On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of Commission on Audit requiring "[the use of] legal knowledge or
the Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region legal talent"61 is practice of law.
II, filed the undated ex parte clarificatory pleading with leave of
court.9 B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003
In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that
on July 14, 2006, complainant Lingan wrote the Commission DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant,
on Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to vs.
investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter's suspension from EDWIN L. RANA, Respondent.
the practice of law.
CARPIO, J.:
After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of
law, the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the FACTS:
resolution10 dated January 16, 2007, suspending him from his
position as Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission on Human
Rights Regional Office for Region II. According to the Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only
Commission on Human Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga's to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the
suspension from the practice of law "prevent[ed] [him] from resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges
assuming his post [as Regional Director] for want of eligibility in respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave
the meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended." misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an
Atty. Baliga · argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election
connected with his functions as Commission on Human Rights Canvassers (“MBEC”) of Masbate before he took his oath and
Regional Director. According to Atty. Baliga, his suspension
signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent

alleges he only provide specific assistance and advice not as a that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was
lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He contends that probably just an attendance record.7
he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar
Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working.
that according to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation
respondent actively participated in the proceeding and signed work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation
in the pleading as counsel for the candidate. practice.
Issue:
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal
WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar. Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his
roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited. 10
Held:
Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to
The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized provide his roll number.
practice of law. It held that all the activities he participated
during that time involves the practice of law despite the fact About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed
that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice law the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the
is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally upright Roll of Attorneys.
and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict
regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its Issue:
members. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two WON Medado should be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys
essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this
Held:
Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Because the
court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the Bar,
notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he was Yes. For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good
denied admission to the bar. moral character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign
in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third party
who called this Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission;
B.M. No. 2540 September 24, 2013 rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged his own
lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years.
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law,17 which is more than
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner. what we can say of other individuals who were successfully
admitted as members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this
SERENO, CJ.: fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has
Facts: prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to
be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with
the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 1 and passed the same Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able
year's bar examinations with a general weighted average of legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel
82.7.2 Law Office,18 Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine
National Oil Company, and the Energy Development
Corporation.19
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine
International Convention Center (PICC) together with the
successful bar examinees.3 He was scheduled to sign in the All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged
Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4 but he failed to do so on his member of the Philippine Bar.1âwphi1 While the practice of
scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the law is not a right but a privilege,20 this Court will not
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys 5 given by the Bar Office unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have
when he went home to his province for a vacation.6 shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of
the profession.
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college
files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by
was then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, and
acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect attending a hearing. She informed them that the redemption
contempt of court,27 which is punishable by fine or was under process, and that the certificate of redemption
imprisonment or both.28 Such a finding, however, is in the would be issued in two to three weeks time.9
nature of criminal contempt29 and must be reached after the
filing of charges and the conduct of hearings.30 In this case, After communicating through text messages with the
while it appears quite clearly that petitioner committed indirect respondent, Verlita and Raymond finally went to see the Clerk
contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City On
practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability November 27, 2013 to inquire on the status of the redemption.
for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto There, they discovered that the respondent had not deposited
has been filed against him. the redemption price and had not filed the letter of intent for
redeeming the property.
Week 2 On December 5, 2013, Verlita and Raymond again went to

Branch 145 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City where
July 19, 2016 A.C. No. 11078 the respondent had a hearing, and handed to her their demand
letter requiring her to return the amount she had received for
the redemption.11 She acknowledged the letter and promised
VERLITA V. MERCULLO and RAYMOND
to return the money on December 16, 2013 by depositing the
VEDANO, Complainants, amount in Verlita's bank account. However, she did not fulfill
vs. her promise and did not show up for her subsequent scheduled
ATTY. MARIE FRANCESE RAMON, Respondent. hearings in Branch 145.
IBP: respondent to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of

BERSAMIN, J.: Professional Responsibility for engaging in deceitful conduct,
and recommended her suspension from the practice of law for
Facts: two years
This case concerns the complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Issue:
Marie Frances E. Ramon for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath WON respondent should be disbarred
for deceiving the complainants in order to obtain the
substantial amount of P350,000.00 on the pretext of having the Held:
foreclosed asset of the latter's mother redeemed.
The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty and
In the period from 2002 to 2011, the National Home Mortgage deceit.
Finance Corporation (NHMFC) sent several demand letters to
Carmelita T. Vedaño1 regarding her unpaid obligations The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of
secured by the mortgage covering her residential property in every lawyer. Any violation of the oath may be punished with
Novaliches, Caloocan City. On June 20, 2012, Carmelita either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or
received a letter from the sheriff of the Regional Trial Court other commensurate disciplinary action.16 Every lawyer must at
(RTC) in Caloocan City, stating that her property would be put no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not
up for auction in July 2013. Verlita and Raymond thus went to only conditions precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are
the NHMFC to see the respondent, who advised them about also essential for his continued membership in the Law
their right to redeem the property within one year from the Profession.17 Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer constitutes
foreclosure. In August 2013, Verlita and Raymond called up a violation of his oath.
the respondent, and expressed their intention to redeem the
property by paying the redemption price. The respondent
The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by
issued two acknowledgment receipts for the redemption price
receiving money from the complainants after having made
and for litigation expenses,5 presenting to the complainants her
them believe that she could assist them in ensuring the
NHMFC identification card. Before leaving them, she promised
redemption in their mother's behalf. She was convincing about
to inform them as soon as the documents for redemption were
her ability to work on the redemption. She did not inform them
ready for their mother's signature. soon enough, however, that she had meanwhile ceased to be
connected with the agency. It was her duty to have so informed
Verlita and Raymond went to the NHMFC on September 9, them. She further misled them about her ability to realize the
2013 to follow up on the redemption, but discovered that the redemption by falsely informing them about having started the
respondent had already ceased to be connected with the redemption process. She concealed from them the real story
NHMFC. On September 20, 2013, they met with her at Branch that she had not even initiated the redemption proceedings that
145 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City where she was she had assured them she would do. Everything she did was
dishonest and deceitful in order to have them part with the Miagao, Province of Iloilo, complainant accepted the check
substantial sum of money. She took advantage of the without question.
complainants who had reposed their full trust and confidence in
her ability to perform the task by virtue of her being a lawyer.
Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public
trust in the Legal Profession. Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it
was dishonored due to insufficient fluids. Respondent failed to
make good the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor
Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the unlawful act or
and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a
omission of the respondent within the coverage of Rule 1. 01 of
criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP)
the Code of Professional Responsibility.20The Code exacted
22 against respondent, before the Office of the Provincial
from her not only a firm respect for the law and legal processes
Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, which issued a Resolution dated
but also the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing
May 26, 2006 recommending the filing of the appropriate
with clients and the moneys entrusted by them pursuant to
information against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court
their fiduciary relationship.21
of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC). Subsequently, said
information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604.
Yet another dereliction of the respondent was her wanton
disregard of the several notices sent to her by the IBP in this MTC: guilty of BP 22, appealed
case. Such disregard could only be wrong because it reflected
her undisguised contempt of the proceedings of the IBP, a RTC: affirmed MTC, April 16, 2009 judgment became final and
body that the Court has invested with the authority to executor
investigate the disbarment complaint against her. She thus
exhibited her irresponsibility as well as her utter disrespect for On February 12, 2009, complainant filed this administrative
the Court and the rest of the Judiciary. It cannot be complaint before the Court, through the Office of the Bar
understated that a lawyer in her shoes should comply with the Confidant. In his defense, respondent denied that he
orders of the Court and of the Court's duly constituted committed dishonesty against complainant, as prior to
authorities, like the IBP, the office that the Court has September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there were
particularly tasked to carry out the specific function of insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check.
investigating attorney misconduct. Respondent claimed that he merely issued the check in order
to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the loan,
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS ATTY. MARIE stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds
FRANCES E. RAMON guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of thereof. Unfortunately, said friend had died and respondent
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's had no means by which to pay for the amount of the check. He
Oath; SUSPENDS HER FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A also claimed that complainant threatened him and used his
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage.
the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be
dealt with more severely; ORDERS her to return to the complainants IBP: suspend from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
the sum of P350,000.00 within 30 days from notice, plus legal interest
months for violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of
of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full
Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as for having been
payment; and DIRECTS her to promptly submit to this Court written
proof of her compliance within the same period of 30 days from notice found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
of this decision.
Issue:
A.C. No. 8172 April 12, 2016 Whether or not respondent should be administratively
disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving
ALEX NULADA, Complainant, moral turpitude
vs. Held:
ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent.
In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a
crime involving moral turpitude, had been indubitably
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: established. Such conviction has, in fact, already become final.
Facts: Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well
as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP
Complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent and, thus, must be subjected to disciplinary action.
issued in his favor a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as
payment for the latter's debt. Because of respondent's standing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
as a respected member of the community and his being a
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for the Motion in a Resolution2 dated 16 December 2003.
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he
the oath which he is required to take before acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience law."3 Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal,
of any lawful order of a superior court, Or for because respondent never informed them of the adverse
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for decision. Complainant further claims that she asked
a party to a case without authority to do so. The respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal, but
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of "despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic]," to
gain, either personally or through paid agents or the damage and prejudice of the spouses.4
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January
Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all members of the bar "to obey
2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution sometime
the laws of the land and promote respect for law x x x." Rule
in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC came to her house
1.01 thereof specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
and informed her of the Resolution.
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
By taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of
the law and an indispensable instrument for the orderly On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of
administration of justice. As such, he can be disciplined for any Complaint, seeking the disbarment of respondent. In his
conduct, in his professional or private capacity, which renders Counter-Affidavit/Answer, respondent prayed for the outright
him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court. dismissal of the Complaint. Respondent explained that he was
not the lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to the
As a final word, it should be emphasized that membership in mandatory conference set by the IBP on 13 December 2005,
the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A he had never met complainant, because it was her husband
lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or who had personally transacted with him. According to
her actions whether acting in a public or private capacity.[36] respondent, the husband "despondently pleaded to me to
Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to him
diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three
public's faith in the legal profession as a whole. In this case, days." Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on
respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards Appeal because he honestly believed that "it is this pleading
expected of him as a member of the bar, for which he must which was required." Before filing the Memorandum,
suffer the necessary consequences. respondent advised complainant’s husband to settle the case.
The latter allegedly "gestured approval of the advice." 10
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
After the husband of complainant picked up the Memorandum
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is warned that a
for filing, respondent never saw or heard from him again and
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
thus assumed that the husband heeded his advice and settled
the case. When respondent received an Order from the CA
A.C. No. 9387 June 20, 2012 requiring him to file a comment on the Motion to Dismiss filed
(Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1562) by Duigan, he "instructed his office staff to contact Mr.
Hernandez thru available means of communication, but to no
EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, avail."11 Thus, when complainant’s husband went to the office
of respondent to tell the latter that the Sheriff of the RTC had
vs. informed complainant of the CA’s Resolution dismissing the
ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA, Respondent. case, respondent was just as surprised. The lawyer exclaimed,
"KALA KO BA NAKIPAG AREGLO NA KAYO."
SERENO, J.:
IBP: Suspend for 6 months; Motion for recon, one month
Facts: suspension
Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with Issue:
the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them
to file their Appellants’ Brief. They chose respondent to WON respondent should be suspended
represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a
Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus, Held:
The Court thus affirm the six-month suspension the Board Facts:
originally imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution. First of all,
there were several remedies that respondent could have This is a complaint 1 for disbarment filed by
availed himself of, from the moment he received the Notice complainants Fidela G. Bengco (Fidela) and Teresita N.
from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment Bengco (Teresita) against respondent Atty. Pablo Bernardo
Complaint filed against him. But because of his negligence, he (Atty. Bernardo) for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a
chose to sit on the case and do nothing. member of the Bar and violation of his duties and oath as a
lawyer.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his That sometime on or about the period from April 15,
clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so amounted 1997 to July 22, 1997, Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and
to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which reads: in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat
[wilfully] and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to
18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of defraud herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N.
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the Bengco by using false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect
client’s request for information. that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the
Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney- complainants herein and they convinced herein complainant[s]
client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the that if they will finance and deliver to him the amount of
client’s cause.23 Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would expedite the titling
that lawyer’s duty to serve the client with competence and of the subject land and further by means of other similar deceit
diligence.24 Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. like misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William Gatchalian,
the prospective buyer of the subject land, who is the owner of
Plastic City at Canomay Street, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile,
he is the one handling William Gatchalian's business
the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by
transaction and that he has contracts at NAMREA, DENR,
filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He
CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he
could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel
well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce
of complainant and her husband in the case and informed the
the complainant[s] to give and deliver the said amount
court that he could no longer contact them. 28 His failure to take
([P]495,000.00) and once in possession of said amount, far
this measure proves his negligence.
from complying with his obligation to expedite and cause the
titling of the subject land, [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to
a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his
his personal use and benefit and despite demand upon him to
part.1âwphi1 Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for
return the said amount, he failed and refused to do so, which
negligence in handling the client’s case, viz:
acts constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar and Violation of Duties and Oath as a
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted lawyer.
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable. In support of their complaint, the complainants
attached thereto Resolutions dated December 7, 1998 3 and
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, June 22, 1999 4 of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court
otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render (MCTC) of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga
them liable for disciplinary action.29 Respondent has failed to and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando,
live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his Pampanga, respectively, finding probable cause for the filing of
duties to his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional the criminal information 5 against both Atty. Bernardo and
conduct for which he should be held accountable. Andres Magat (Magat) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48, charging them with
the crime of Estafa punishable under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of
violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of the Revised Penal Code.
Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the
The respondent was required to file his
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more
Comment. 6 On September 24, 2004, the respondent filed an
severely. undated Comment, 7 wherein he denied the allegations
against him and averred the following:
Bengco v. Bernardo 2. He had not deceived both complainants

A.C. No. 6368, [June 13, 2012], 687 PHIL 7-18 between the period from April 15, 1997 to
July 22, 1997 for purposes of getting from
them the amount of [P]495,000.00. It was
Andy Magat whom they contacted and completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability
who in turn sought the legal services of the they ought to answer for. 25 CITcSH
respondent. It was Andy Magat who
Further, consistent with his failure to file his answer
received the said money from them.
after he himself pleaded for several extensions of time to file
3. There was no connivance made and the same, the respondent failed to appear during the
entered into by Andy Magat and mandatory conference, as ordered by the IBP. As a lawyer, the
respondent. The arrangement for titling of respondent is considered as an officer of the court who is
the land was made by Teresita N. Bengco called upon to obey and respect court processes. Such acts of
and Andy Magat with no participation of the respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on
respondent. the court's authority which can not be countenanced.
4. The acceptance of the respondent to It can not be overstressed that lawyers are
render his legal service is legal and instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of
allowed in law practice. 8 our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people's faith and
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be
recommendation. disciplined — whether in their professional or in their private
On February 16, 2005, the IBP ordered the capacity — for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
respondent to submit a verified comment pursuant to Rule 139- probity and good demeanor.
B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court as it appeared that the Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
respondent's undated comment filed with the Court was not
read:
verified. 9
Rule 2.03. — A lawyer shall not do or
On March 15, 2005, respondent through counsel permit to be done any act designed
requested for an additional fifteen (15) days from March 17,
primarily to solicit legal business.
2005, or until April 1, 2005, within which to comply due to his
medical confinement. 10 Rule 3.01. — A lawyer shall not use or
permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
Thereafter, on April 4, 2005, the respondent filed a misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
second motion 11 for extension praying for another 20 days, or laudatory or unfair statement or claim
until April 22, 2005, alleging that he was still recovering from regarding his qualifications or legal
his illness. services.
On August 3, 2005, the case was set for mandatory There is no question that the respondent committed
conference. 12 The respondent failed to appear; thus, the IBP the acts complained of. He himself admitted in his answer that
considered the respondent in default for his failure to appear his legal services were hired by the complainants through
and for not filing an answer despite extensions granted. The Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly
case was then submitted for report and recommendation. purchased. While he begs for the Court's indulgence, his
Issue: contrition is shallow considering the fact that he used his
position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into
Whether or not the administrative case has prescribed believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject
properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the
Held:
money given by the complainants in the amount of
The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and P495,000.00. IcCDAS
conclusions of the IBP.
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession
It is first worth mentioning that the respondent's in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
defense of prescription is untenable. The Court has held that consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
lapse of considerable time from the commission of the necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to
will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. the administration of justice should be the primary
Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from interests or what they owe to themselves.
the fact that as long as noprivate complainant would
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon Thereafter, Manuel entered the hotel's coffee shop and
notice hereof. informed the respondent that he had already handed the
money to the judge.
Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo
(1) to RETURN the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco On December 24, 1997, at about 6:00 a.m., the
and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this respondent again visited the complainants. He was on board
Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the judge's Nissan pick-up driven by the judge's driver. The
the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN respondent relayed to the complainants the message that the
(10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN WARNING that failure to judge needed the balance of P100,000.00 in order to complete
do so shall merit him the additional penalty of suspension from the construction of his new house in time for the reception of
the practice of law for one (1) year. his daughter's wedding. However, the complainants managed
to raise only P80,000.00, which they delivered to the
respondent on that same day.
Spouses Rafols v. Barrios On January 20, 1998, Judge Dizon, Jr. called up the
complainants' residence and instructed their son to request his
Jr., A.C. No. 4973, [March 15, 2010], 629 PHIL parents to return his call, leaving his cell phone number. When
213-229 Manuel returned the call the next day, the judge instructed
Manuel to see him in his office. During their meeting in his
The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
chambers, the judge demanded the balance of P30,000.00.
6209 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General Santos City,
Manuel clarified to the judge that his balance was only
wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. Civil
P20,000.00 due to the previous amount given being already
Case No. 6209 was assigned to Branch 37 of the RTC,
P80,000.00. The judge informed him that the amount that the
presided by Judge Dizon, Jr. The complainants were
respondent handed was short. Saying that he badly needed
represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as
the money, the judge insisted on P30,000.00, and even
acceptance fee.
suggested that the complainants should borrow in order to
On December 22, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., the respondent raise that amount.
visited the complainants at their residence and informed
On January 22, 1998, Judge Dizon, Jr. called the
complainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted
complainants to inquire whether the P30,000.00 was ready for
to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel thus went to the
pick up. After Manuel replied that he was ready with the
East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was
amount, the judge asked him to wait for 20 minutes. The judge
already waiting. The respondent introduced Manuel to the
and his driver later arrived on board his Nissan pick-up. Upon
judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in his
instructions of the judge's driver, the complainants followed the
sala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in
Nissan pick-up until somewhere inside the Doña Soledad
their favor, assuring their success up to the Court of Appeals, if
Estate, Espina, General Santos City. There, the judge alighted
they could deliver P150,000.00 to him. As he had no money at
and approached the complainants and shook their hands. At
that time, Manuel told the judge that he would try to produce
that point, Manuel handed P30,000.00 to the judge. The judge
the amount. The judge then stated that he would wait for the
then told Manuel that the RTC judge in Iloilo City before whom
money until noon of that day. Thus, Manuel left the coffee shop
the perpetuation of the testimony of Soledad Elevencionado-
together with the respondent, who instructed Manuel to come
Provido was made should still testify as a witness during the
up with the money before noon because the judge badly
trial in his sala in order for the complainants to win. The judge
needed it. The two of them went to a lending institution,
persuaded the complainants to give money also to that judge;
accompanied by Allan Rafols, but Manuel was told there that
otherwise, they should not blame him for the outcome of the
only P50,000.00 could be released the next day. From the
case. ETCcSa
lending institution, they went to the complainants' shop to look
for Ditas Rafols, Allan's wife, who offered to withdraw The complainants were forced to give money to the
P20,000.00 from her savings account. judge, because they feared that the judge would be biased
against them unless they gave in to his demands. But when
On their way to the bank, Manuel, Allan and Ditas
they ultimately sensed that they were being fooled about their
dropped off the respondent at the hotel for the latter to assure
case, they consulted Larry Sevilla, their mediamen friend, and
Judge Dizon, Jr. that the money was forthcoming. Afterwards,
narrated to Sevilla all the facts and circumstances surrounding
Ditas and Manuel withdrew P20,000.00 and P30,000.00 from
the case. They agreed that the details should be released to
their respective bank accounts, and went back to the hotel with
the media. The expose was published in the Newsmaker, a
the cash. There, they saw the judge and his driver, who
local newspaper.
beckoned to them to go towards the judge's Nissan pick-up
then parked along the highway in front of the hotel. Manuel Thereafter, the respondent and Judge Dizon, Jr.
alighted from his car and approached the judge. Manuel made several attempts to appease the complainants by
personally handed the money to the judge, who told Manuel sending gifts and offering to return a portion of the money, but
after asking about the amount that it was not enough. the complainants declined the offers.
According to the complainants, the respondent our strong impression of the respondent's liability, confirmed
demanded P25,000.00 as his expenses in securing the his awareness of the gross impropriety of the transaction.
testimony of Soledad Elevencionado-Provido in Iloilo City to be Being the complainants' attorney in the civil case being heard
used as evidence in their civil case. In addition, the respondent before the judge, the respondent could not but know that for
requested the complainants to borrow P60,000.00 from the the judge to borrow money from his clients was highly irregular
bank because he wanted to redeem his foreclosed Isuzu Elf, and outrightly unethical. If he was innocent of wrongdoing, as
and because he needed to give P11,000.00 to his nephew who he claimed, he should have desisted from having any part in
was due to leave for work abroad. the transaction. Yet, he did not, which rendered his explanation
unbelievable. Compounding the unworthiness of his
Issue: explanation was his admission of having retained P30,000.00
Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred? of the "borrowed" money upon the judge's instruction.
Held: And, lastly, the OBC has pointed out that the
respondent's act of requesting the NBI Regional Office in
We approve and adopt the report and Davao City to investigate was an afterthought on his part. We
recommendations of the OBC, which we find to be fully and agree with the OBC, for the respondent obviously acted in
competently supported by the evidence adduced by the order to anticipate the complainants' moves against him and
complainants and their witnesses, but we impose the supreme the judge. To be sure, the respondent sensed that the
penalty of disbarment, which we believe is the proper penalty. complainants would not simply forgive and forget the mulcting
they had suffered at the hands of the judge and their own
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension
attorney from the time that the complainants assured him that
proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant.
they were no longer interested to get back their money despite
The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the
their being very angry at the judge's greed.
complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant
evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. 19 The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is with conditions. 24 The attorney is a vanguard of our legal
innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal
proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the proficiency but also a very high standard of morality, honesty,
Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and
20 cDHAES confidence in the legal system are ensured. 25 Thus, he must
conduct himself, whether in dealing with his clients or with the
Here, the complainants successfully overcame the
public at large, as to be beyond reproach at all times. 26 Any
respondent's presumed innocence and the presumed regularity
violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
in the performance of his duties as an attorney of the
justifies the imposition on the attorney of the appropriate
complainants. The evidence against him was substantial, and
penalty, including suspension and disbarment. 27
was not contradicted
Specifically, the Code of Professional
To begin with, the respondent's denial of knowledge
Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,
of the transaction between the complainants and Judge Dizon,
dishonest, or deceitful conduct. 28 Corollary to this injunction is
Jr. was not only implausible, but also unsubstantiated. It was
the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the integrity
the respondent himself who had introduced the complainants
and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of
to the judge. His act of introducing the complainants to the
the Integrated Bar.
judge strongly implied that the respondent was aware of the
illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the WHEREFORE, Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. is
respondent's clients. disbarred.
Secondly, the respondent's insistence that he did not This decision shall be entered in the records of Atty.
see the complainants' act of handing the money to the judge is Barrios, Jr. as a member of the Philippine Bar.
unbelievable. In his comment, the respondent even admitted
having himself received the P80,000.00 from the complainants, Copies of the decision shall be furnished to the Bar Confidant
and having kept P30,000.00 of that amount pursuant to the and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for record purposes;
instruction of the judge as a token of the friendship between and to the Court Administrator, for circulation to all courts
him and the judge. 22 The admission proved that the nationwide.
respondent had known all along of the illegal transaction
between the judge and the complainants, and belied his PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
feigned lack of knowledge of the delivery of the money to the GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioner,
judge. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants
FACTS:
had given the money to the judge as a loan, far from softening

In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) employment in connection with any matter in which he had
encountered financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended intervened while in said service.
considerable financial support to Filcapital Development
Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current ISSUE:
account with the Central Bank.[1] It was later found by the
Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans to Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
directors, officers, stockholders and related interests applies to respondent Mendoza. Again, the prohibition states:
totaling P172.3 million, of which 59% was classified as doubtful A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
and P0.505 million as uncollectible. [2]As a bailout, the Central engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
Bank extended emergency loans to GENBANK which which he had intervened while in the said service.
reached a total of P310 million.[3] Despite the mega loans,
HELD:
GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. On March
25, 1977, the Central Bank issued a resolution declaring NO. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility deals
GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with particularly with former government lawyers, and provides, viz.:
safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public,
and ordering its liquidation.[4] A public bidding of Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
GENBANKs assets was held from March 26 to 28, 1977, accept engagement or employment in connection with
wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the winning any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
bid.[5] Subsequently, former Solicitor General Estelito P.
Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First The case at bar does not involve the adverse interest aspect of
Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no
court in GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of adverse interest problem when he acted as Solicitor General in
Republic Act No. 265. Sp. Proc. No. 107812 and later as counsel of respondents
Tan, et al. in Civil Case No. 0005 and Civil Case Nos. 0096-
In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos 0099 before the Sandiganbayan.We hold that this advice given
government. One of the first acts of President Corazon C. by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
Aquino was to establish the Presidential Commission on Good GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the
Government (PCGG) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion
former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his cronies. No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the
Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the
damages against respondents. In connection therewith, the term matter and cannot disqualify.
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties
allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by taking Secondly, it can even be conceded for the sake of argument
advantage of their close relationship and influence with former that the above act of respondent Mendoza falls within the
President Marcos. definition of matter per ABA Formal Opinion No. 342. Be that
as it may, the said act of respondent Mendoza which is
On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to the matter involved in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is entirely
disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
Tan, et al. with the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan. Again, the plain facts speak for themselves. It is given that
The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the
Solicitor General[10]and counsel to Central Bank, actively Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. It is also given that he did
intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The
subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became matter where he got himself involved was in informing
Allied Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza allegedly Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate
intervened in the acquisition of GENBANK by respondents GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition in
Tan, et al. when, in his capacity as then Solicitor General, Sp. Proc. No. 107812 in the then Court of First Instance. The
he advised the Central Banks officials on the procedure to subject matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not
bring about GENBANKs liquidation and appeared as counsel the same nor is related to but is different from the subject
for the Central Bank in connection with its petition for matter in Civil Case No. 0096. Civil Case No. 0096 involves
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK which he filed with the sequestration of the stocks owned by respondents
the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila Tan, et al., in Allied Bank on the alleged ground that they are
and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 107812. The ill-gotten. The case does not involve the liquidation of
motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied
Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former Bank. Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied
government lawyers from accepting engagement or Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of the
dissolution and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was

liquidated by the Central Bank due, among others, to the questioned said administrative order before this Court through
alleged banking malpractices of its owners and officers. In a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition[5] claiming
other words, the legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not that the Office of the President did not have the authority and
an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of jurisdiction to remove him from office. He also insisted that
the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of respondents[6] in that petition violated the laws on security of
banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of tenure and that respondent Reynaldo V. Maulit, then the
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent administrator of the LRA committed a breach of Civil Service
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor Rules when he abdicated his authority to resolve the
General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a administrative complaint against him (herein respondent).
matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.
0096. On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case,
complainant is now before us, seeking the disbarment of
ALI VS BUBONG respondent. Complainant claims that it has become obvious
that respondent had proven himself unfit to be further entrusted
FACTS: with the duties of an attorney[8] and that he poses a serious
threat to the integrity of the legal profession.[9]
This is a verified petition for disbarment [1] filed against Atty.
Mosib Ali Bubong for having been found guilty of grave ISSUE:
misconduct while holding the position of Register of Deeds of
Marawi City. Whether respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct
committed while he was in the employ of the government.
It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of
the administrative case earlier filed by complainant against HELD:
respondent. In said case, which was initially investigated by the
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to
Land Registration Authority (LRA), complainant charged
apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the
respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of
government service. In fact, by the express provision of Canon
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821 in the names of
6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall
LawanBauduliDatu, Mona Abdullah,[2] AmbobaeBauduliDatu,
apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
MatabaeBauduliDatu, MooamadaliBauduliDatu, and
official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers misconduct as a
AmenolaBauduliDatu; and manipulating the criminal complaint
government official is of such nature as to affect his
filed against Hadji Serad BauduliDatu and others for violation
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he
of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the
may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
BaudaliDatus are relatives of respondent.
grounds.[31] Although the general rule is that a lawyer who
The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved in favor of holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member
respondent. The investigating officer, Enrique Basa, absolved of the bar for infractions he committed as a government official,
respondent of all the charges brought against him, thus: It is he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct
crystal clear from the foregoing that complainant not only failed constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal
to prove his case but that he has no case at all against profession.[32]
respondent Mosib Ali Bubong. Wherefore, premises
In the case at bar, respondents grave misconduct, as
considered, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint
established by the Office of the President and subsequently
against respondent be dismissed for lack of merit and
affirmed by this Court, deals with his qualification as a lawyer.
evidence.[4]
By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of
The case was then forwarded to the Department of Justice for Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the rules
review and in a report dated 08 September 1992, then governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives,
Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon exonerated respondent of respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to
the charges of illegal exaction and infidelity in the custody of perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his
documents. He, however, found respondent guilty of grave membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
misconduct for his imprudent issuance of TCT No. T-2821 and Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It reads:
manipulating the criminal case for violation of the Anti-
Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
Squatting Law instituted against HadjiSeradBauduliDatu and
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
the latters co-accused. As a result of this finding, Secretary
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Drilon recommended respondents dismissal from service.
Respondents conduct manifestly undermined the peoples
On 26 February 1993, former President Fidel V. Ramos issued
confidence in the public office he used to occupy and cast
Administrative Order No. 41 adopting in toto the conclusion
doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. The ill-conceived
reached by Secretary Drilon and ordering respondents
dismissal from government service. Respondent subsequently
use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA affirmed the
nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law. NLRC’s ruling with modification.
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainants Complainant alleged that he filed a Motion for Issuance of a
daughter, requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot Writ of Execution before the Cebu City RAB. At this point, the
possibly favorably act on the same as proceedings of this case had already been assigned to the new LA, herein
nature cannot be interrupted or terminated by reason of respondent. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainant’s
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the Motion for Execution on March 3, 2005. Eight (8) months
same.[37] As we have previously explained in the case of Irene thereafter, still, there was no action on complainant’s motion.
Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos: Thus, on November 4, 2005, complainant proceeded to
respondent’s office to personally follow-up the matter. In the
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless process, complainant and respondent exchanged notes on
of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters how much the former’s monetary awards should be; however,
is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, their computations differed. To complainant’s surprise,
the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been respondent told him that the matter could be "easily fixed" and
duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary thereafter, asked "how much is mine?" Despite his shock,
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not complainant offered the amount of P20,000.00, but respondent
in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff replied: "make it P30,000.00." By force of circumstance,
and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary complainant acceded on the condition that respondent would
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress have to wait until he had already collected from PT&T. Before
for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted complainant could leave, respondent asked him for some cash,
solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the compelling him to give the latter P1,500.00.
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is Respondent issued a writ of execution, directing the sheriff to
called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the proceed to the premises of PT&T and collect P1,470,082.60.
court. The complainant or the person who called the attention He issued a new writ of execution wherein complainant’s
of the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense monetary awards were reduced from P1,470,082.60 to
a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as P114,585.00, inclusive of execution and deposit fees.
all good citizens may have in the proper administrative of
justice.[39] Aggrieved, complainant filed a Petition for Injunction before the
NLRC, which annulled respondent’s December 9, 2005 Order,
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby stating that respondent had no authority to modify the CA
DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Decision which was already final and executory.
Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the
respondents record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the Aside from instituting a criminal case before the Office of the
same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and Ombudsman, complainant filed the instant disbarment
on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
courts in the country. averring that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in
A.C. No. 7332 exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong
decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T.
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found that
RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., respondent. respondent tried to twist the meaning of the CA Decision out of
all logical, reasonable and grammatical context in order to
On January 21, 1999, complainant filed an illegal dismissal
favor PT&T. That respondent deliberately left complainant’s
case against Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
efforts to execute the CA Decision unacted upon until the latter
(PT&T) before the Cebu City Regional Arbitration Branch
agreed to give him a portion of the monetary award thereof.
(RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Notwithstanding their agreement, immoral and illegal as it was,
Finding merit in the complaint, Labor Arbiter (LA) Ernesto F.
respondent later went as far as turning the proceedings into
Carreon ordered PT&T to pay complainant P113,100.00 as
some bidding war which eventually resulted into a resolution in
separation pay and P73,608.00 as backwages. Dissatisfied,
favor of PT&T. In this regard, respondent was found to be
PT&T appealed the LA’s Decision to the NLRC. The NLRC set
guilty of gross immorality and therefore, Commissioner
aside LA Carreon’s ruling and instead ordered PT&T to
Limpingco recommended that he be disbarred.
reinstate complainant to his former position and pay him
backwages. On reconsideration, it modified the amounts of the On July 17, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed
aforesaid monetary awards but still maintained that Resolution No. XVIII-2008-345 (IBP Resolution), adopting and
complainant was illegally dismissed.4 Consequently, PT&T approving Commissioner Limpingco’s recommendation.
ISSUE: belies the truthfulness of the foregoing assertion. On point, the
dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
Whether respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his
violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Canon 6 of the Code. decision of public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission dated September 12, 2001 and October 8, 2002
HELD: are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION, ordering petitioner
PT&T to pay private respondent Eduardo A. Abella separation
The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of pay (as computed by the Labor Arbiter) in lieu of reinstatement.
Commissioner Limpingco as adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors. Noticeably, the CA affirmed with modification the NLRC’s
rulings which both explicitly awarded backwages and other
The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of unpaid monetary benefits to complainant. The only
the Code, delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule modification was with respect to the order of reinstatement as
1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from pronounced in both NLRC’s rulings which was changed by the
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful CA to separation pay in view of the strained relations between
conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any the parties as well as the supervening removal of
suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt complainant’s previous position.
motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed
to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using Lamentably, respondent tried to distort the findings of the CA
one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) by quoting portions of its decision, propounding that the CA’s
advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to award of separation pay denied complainant’s entitlement to
interfere with public duties.26 It is well to note that a lawyer any backwages and other consequential benefits altogether.
who holds a government office may be disciplined as a Fundamental in the realm of labor law is the rule that
member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a backwages are separate and distinct from separation pay in
violation of his oath as a lawyer.27 lieu of reinstatement and are awarded conjunctively to an
employee who has been illegally dismissed.
In this light, a lawyer’s compliance with and observance of the
above-mentioned rules should be taken into consideration in Therefore, absent any cogent basis to rule otherwise, the Court
determining his moral fitness to continue in the practice of law. gives credence and upholds Commissioner Limpingco’s and
the IBP Board of Governor’s pronouncement of respondent’s
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a gross immorality. Likewise, the Court observes that his
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant infractions constitute gross misconduct.
admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession."28 This proceeds from the lawyer’s duty to observe In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar’s states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral
integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or
lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, which disbarred.
tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or Thus, as respondent’s violations clearly constitute gross
disbarment. immoral conduct and gross misconduct, his disbarment should
come as a matter of course. However, the Court takes judicial
In this case, records show that respondent was merely tasked notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a
to re-compute the monetary awards due to the complainant previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v.
who sought to execute the CA Decision which had already Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.,39 which therefore precludes the Court
been final and executory. When complainant moved for from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing,
execution – twice at that – respondent slept on the same for the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the
more than a year. It was only when complainant paid amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s
respondent a personal visit on November 4, 2005 that the latter transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
speedily issued a writ of execution three (3) days after, or on commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
November 7, 2005. Based on these incidents, the Court
observes that the sudden dispatch in respondent’s action soon Villatuya vs Tabalingcos
after the aforesaid visit casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of
his denial, i.e., that he did not extort money from the A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012
complainant.
FACTS:
Respondent contends that he was merely implementing the CA
Decision which did not provide for the payment of backwages. In this Complaint for disbarment filed with the Office of the Bar
A plain and cursory reading, however, of the said decision Confidant, Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) charges Atty.

Bede S. Tabalingcos (respondent) with unlawful solicitation of that the latter would attend to the financial aspect of
cases, violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for the case such as the preparation of the rehabilitation
nonpayment of fees to complainant, and gross immorality for plans to be presented in court. Respondent attached
marrying two other women while respondent's first marriage a Joint Venture Agreement entered into by his law
was subsisting. firm and Jesi and Jane
• On the charge of gross immorality, respondent did not
Complainant's Accusations specifically address the allegations regarding his
alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.
• Non-payment of fees: Complainant averred that on IBP's Report and Recommendation
February 2002, he was employed by respondent as a
financial consultant to assist the latter on technical • Dishonesty forthe nonpayment of shares in the fees
and financial matters in the latter's numerous petitions was dismissed for lack of merit.
for corporate rehabilitation filed with different courts. • Commission found respondent to have violated the
He claimed that they had a verbal agreement rule on the solicitation of client for having advertised
whereby he would be entitled to P50,000 for every his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It
Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they recommended that he be reprimanded for the
would handle violation.
• Unlawful solicitation: Complainant alleged that • As for the third charge, the Commission found
respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for
in violation of Section 27 of the Code of Professional violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Responsibility. Allegedly respondent set up two Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule
financial consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the
Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, and acts of respondent, the Commission recommended
used them as fronts to advertise his legal services that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken off
and solicit cases. the roll of attorneys.
• Gross immoral conduct: Complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first The IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution, adopted
marriage was subsisting. He submitted a Certification and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General- Investigating Commissioner. Respondent filed a Motion for
National Statistics Office (NSO) certifying that Bede Reconsideration, but the IBP Board of Governors denied the
S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent, contracted Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their
marriage thrice: First, on 15 July 1980 with Pilar M. Resolutionrecommending respondent's disbarment.
Lozano, which took place in Dasmariñas, Cavite; the
second time on 28 September 1987 with Ma. Rowena ISSUES:
Garcia Piñon in the City of Manila; and the third on 07
September 1989 with Mary Jane ElgincolinParaiso in 1) Whether respondent violated the Code of
Ermita, Manila. Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to
Respondent’s Defense complainant,
• Respondent denied the charges against him. He 2) Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful
asserted that complainant was not an employee of his solicitation, and
law firm — Tabalingcos& Associates Law Office —
3) Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral
but of Jesi and Jane, where the former is a major
conduct for having married thrice
stockholder. He alleged that complainant was
unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job HELD:
as a financial consultant, resulting in the latter's
dismissal of many rehabilitation plans they presented First Charge: Dishonesty for nonpayment of share in the
in their court cases. Respondent also alleged that fees
there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of The first charge of complainant against respondent for the
professional fees paid by his clients and that the nonpayment of the former's share in the fees, if proven to be
salary of complainant had been paid. true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 45
• As to the charge of unlawful solicitation, respondent of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
denied committing any. He contended that his law proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for
firm had an agreement with Jesi and Jane legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice
Management, Inc., whereby the firm would handle the law. Based on the allegations, respondent had agreed to share
legal aspect of the corporate rehabilitation case; and with complainant the legal fees paid by clients that complainant

solicited for the respondent. Complainant, however, failed to In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests
proffer convincing evidence to prove the existence of that upon the complainant. For the court to exercise its disciplinary
agreement. powers, the case against the respondent must be established
by convincing and satisfactory proof. In this case, complainant
Second Charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent
entered into two marriages while the latter's first marriage was
The records reveal that respondent indeed used the still subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the
business entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague
to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant. He did not
corporate rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, dispute the authenticity of the NSO documents, but denied that
he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from he contracted those two other marriages. He submitted copies
soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. of the two Petitions he had ifled separately with the RTC of
Laguna — one in Biñan and the other in Calamba — to declare
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business
the second and the third Marriage Contracts null and void.
or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when
the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a We find him guilty of gross immorality under the Code.
manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer's duties as a
member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement Marriage Contracts bearing the name of respondent are
of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used competent and convincing evidence proving that he committed
as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer's behalf; or is of bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the the bar. Having been issued by a government agency, the
practice of law. NSO certification is accorded much evidentiary weight and
carries with it a presumption of regularity. In this case,
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted respondent has not presented any competent evidence to
by complainant that Jesi& Jane Management, which purports rebut those documents.
to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to procure professional What has been clearly established here is the fact
employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases. The that respondent entered into marriage twice while his first
letter clearly states that, should the prospective client agree to marriage was still subsisting.
the proposed fees, respondent would render legal services
related to the former's loan obligation with a bank. This Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree
circumvention is considered objectionable and violates the of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He made a
Code, because the letter is signed by respondent as President mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
of Jesi& Jane Management, Inc., and not as partner or and dignity. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted
associate of a law firm. grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Rule 15.08 50 of the Code mandates that the lawyer
is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as Thus, we adopt the recommendation of the IBP to disbar
a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those respondent and order that his name be stricken from the Roll
occupations related to the practice of law. The reason is that of Attorneys.
certain ethical considerations governing the attorney-client
relationship may be operative in one and not in the other. In WHEREFORE, this Court resolves the following charges
this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows:
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
1. The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of
Considering, however, that complainant has not merit.
proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by 2. Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal
respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the advertisement and solicitation.
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code. 3. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for
engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.
Third Charge: Bigamy Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records
of Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
The third charge that respondent committed bigamy and another copy furnished to the IBP.
twice is a serious accusation. Tosubstantiate this allegation,
complainant submitted NSO-certified copies of the Marriage The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out the name of Bede S.
Contracts entered into by respondent with three (3) different Tabalingcos from the Roll of Attorneys.
women.
A.C. No. 9226
MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C, ADVINCULA, family and visited the children regularly; that Dr. Advincula left
for the United States of America (USA) to work as a nurse; that
Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO C.
the custody of their children was not entrusted to him but he
ADVINCULA, Respondent. agreed to such arrangement to avoid further division of the
family; that during the same period he was also busy with his
This administrative case stemmed from the complaint for
law studies; that Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their
disbarment dated June 16, 2006 brought to the Integrated Bar
children migrate to the USA but he opposed the proposal
of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula
because he would not be able to practice his profession there;
(Atty. Advincula) by no less than his wife, Dr. Ma. Cecilia
that Dr. Advincula stated that if he did not want to join her, then
Clarissa C. Advincula (Dr. Advincula).
she would just get the children to live with her; that when Dr.
Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed Advincula came home for a vacation he was not able to
unlawful and immoral acts; that while Atty. Advincula was still accompany her due to his extremely busy schedule as Chief
married to her, he had extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National
Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga); that the extra-marital Bureau of Investigation; that when they finally met arguments
relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga flared out, during which she threatened to file a disbarment suit
Advincula (Alexandria); that Atty. Advincula failed to give against him in order to force him to allow her to bring their
financial support to their own children, namely: Ma. Samantha children to the USA.
Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his
Findings and Recommendations of the IBP-CBD
having sufficient financial resources; that he admitted in the
affidavit of late registration of birth of Alexandria that he had After exhaustive hearings, Commissioner Angelito C. Inocencio
contracted another marriage with Ms. Gonzaga; that even of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) rendered the
should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration in the affidavit following findings and observations, and recommended the
of late registration of birth was motivated by some reason other following sanctions, to wit:
than the fact that he truly entered into a subsequent marriage
with Ms. Gonzaga, then making such a declaration was in itself Based on Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional
still unlawful; that siring a child with a woman other than his Responsibility for Lawyers comes this provisions (sic): "A
lawful wife was conduct way below the standards of morality lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
required of every lawyer; that contracting a subsequent deceitful conduct."
marriage while the first marriage had not been dissolved was
also an unlawful conduct; that making a false declaration This means that members of the bar ought to possess good
before a notary public was an unlawful conduct punishable moral character. Remember we must (sic) that the practice of
under the Revised Penal Code; and that the failure of Atty. law is a mere privilege. The moment that a lawyer no longer
Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his has the required qualifications foremost of which is the
moral character to be below the standards set by law for every presence of that character earlier mentioned, the Honorable
lawyer. Dr. Advincula prayed that Atty. Advincula be disbarred. Supreme Court may revoke the said practice.
In his answer, Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He Was his conduct grossly immoral?
asserted that during the subsistence of his marriage with Dr.
Advincula but prior to the birth of their youngest Jose Leandro, Before answering that, let us recall what the highest Court of
their marital relationship had deteriorated; that they could not the Land defined as immoral conduct: "that conduct which is
agree on various matters concerning their family, religion, willful, flagrant or shameless and which shows a moral
friends, and respective careers; that Dr. Advincula abandoned indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
the rented family home with the two children to live with her members of the community."
parents; that despite their separation, he regularly gave
financial support to Dr. Advincula and their children; that during Deemed favorable to Respondent's cause were the various
their separation, he got into a brief relationship with Ms. exhibits he presented evidencing the fact that he supported
Gonzaga; and that he did not contract a second marriage with their children financially. Such conduct could not illustrate him
Ms. Gonzaga. as having championed a grossly immoral conduct.
Atty. Advincula further acknowledged that as a result of the Another factor to consider is this: Complainant should share
relationship with Ms. Gonzaga, a child was bom and named part of the blame why their marriage soured. Their constant
Alexandra; that he only learned that the birth of Alexandra had quarrels while together would indicate that harmony between
been subsequently registered after the child was already them was out of the question.
enrolled in school; that he strived to reunite his legitimate
Just the same, however, while this Commissioner would not
family, resulting in a reconciliation that begot their third child,
recommend the supreme penalty of disbarment for to deprive
Jose Leandro; that Dr. Advincula once again decided to live
him of such honored station in life would result in irreparable
with her parents, bringing all of their children along; that
injury and must require proof of the highest degree pursuant to
nevertheless, he continued to provide financial support to his
the Honorable Supreme Court's ruling in Angeles vs. Figueroa, tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord
470 SCRA 186 (2005), he must be sanctioned. continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral
character is of much greater import, as far as the general
In the light of the foregoing disquisition, having, in effect, public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Respondent's own admission of having committed an extra-
marital affair and fathering a child, it is respectfully On different occasions, we have disbarred or suspended
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law lawyers for immorality based on the surrounding circumstances
for at least one month with the additional admonition that of each case. Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the
should he repeat the same, a more severe penalty would be same gravity. Although his siring the child with a woman other
imposed. than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed
the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The
It would be unjust to impose upon him the extreme penalty of degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had
disbarment. What he did was not grossly immoral. committed the immorality when already a member of the
Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape administrative
Atty. Advincula accepted the Resolution of the IBP Board of liability. Taking all the circumstances of this case into proper
Governors as final and executory, and manifested in his context, the Court considers suspension from the practice of
compliance dated February 26, 2013, as follows: law for three months to be condign and appropriate.
That on 28 November 2011 this Honorable Court issued a As a last note, Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance
resolution suspending the undersigned Attorney from the dated February 26, 2013 that he had immediately accepted the
practice of law for two (2) months. resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspending him from
the practice of law for two months as final and executory; that
That the undersigned Attorney would like to notify this
he had then gone on leave from work in the NBI for two
Honorable Court of his compliance with the above
months starting in November and lasting until the end of
resolution/order so that he may be able to practice his law
December, 2012; and that such leave from work involved
profession again.
refraining from performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the
ISSUE:Whether Atty. Advincula may practice law again? NBI.
HELD: The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like

him ought to know that it is only the Court that wields the
The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by power to discipline lawyers. The IBP Board of Governors did
lawyers at the time of their application for admission to the Bar, not possess such power, rendering its recommendation
and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of against him incapable of finality. It is the Court's final
law. In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility determination of his liability as a lawyer that is the reckoning
states: point for the service of sanctions and penalties. As such, his
supposed compliance with the recommended two-month
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, suspension could not be satisfied by his going on leave from
immoral or deceitful conduct. his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government
employee necessitates that his suspension from the practice of
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and law should include his suspension from office. A leave of
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the absence will not suffice. This is so considering that his position
Integrated Bar. mandated him to be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing. The suspension from the practice of law will not be a
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that penalty if it does not negate his continuance in office for the
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, period of the suspension. If the rule is different, this exercise of
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is rendered inutile
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. and becomes a mockery because he can continue to receive
his salaries and other benefits by simply going on leave for the
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of
duration of his suspension from the practice of law.
the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral character, but
must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES ATTY.
lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA GUILTY of immorality; and
community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of
of the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous THREE MONTHS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE HEREOF, with
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself a STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be
as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that imposed should he commit the same offense or a similar
he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to offense; DIRECTS ATTY. ADVINCULA to report the date of his
remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, receipt of the Decision to this Court; and ORDERS the Chief of
whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master its the Personnel Division of the National Bureau of Investigation
to implement the suspension from office of ATTY. ADVINCULA IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent VIRGILIO R.
and to report on his compliance in order to determine the date GARCIA guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of
of commencement of his suspension from the practice of law. continuing membership in the legal profession. We order him
DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
Week 3 the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
ALITAGTAG v. GARCIA, A.C. No. 4738, [June TORRES v. JAVIER, A.C. No. 5910, [September
10, 2003], 451 PHIL 420-428 21, 2005], 507 PHIL 397-409
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's

FACTS:
language must be dignified and choice of language is
important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his
This is petition for disbarment against respondent for the
client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior
falsification of a deed of donation and notarizing the same. In
intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper.
that said Deed the alleged donor is one Cesar Flores and the
alleged donee is Gregorio Gamad Flores, the brother of Maria
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
Eugenia who is the wife of the respondent. Respondent was
provides: "CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT
later on the appointed attorney-in-fact by the donee, his
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
brother-in-law, with the broad power of administering and
TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL
selling the property donated. The subject Deed was notarized
AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
by respondent Atty. Garcia however he did not submit a copy
COUNSEL. — Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in professional
of the notarized deed of donation to the Office of the Clerk of
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
Court, Pasig City, as required. He explained that his "secretary
otherwise improper." instructs that respondent's arguments in
at the time could have misplaced it inadvertently as it was she
his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and
who has the responsibility of reporting [his] notarial documents,
opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly
or [his] father-in-law could have kept all the copies forgetting to
addressed by one gentleman to another. The language vehicle
give [him] a copy. After examining several specimen
does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but
signatures, the PNP Crime Laboratory, Questioned Documents
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
Section, found that the signature in the deed of donation is
offensive.
different from the usual signature of the donor, Cesar Flores.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
By complaint, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad

Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.
Celestino (complainants) charged Atty. Jose Concepcion
Javier (respondent) for malpractice, gross misconduct in office
HELD:
as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
YES. Respondent's conduct warrants his severance from the
The charges stemmed from the statements/remarks made by
legal profession for life.
respondent in the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all
funds of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA),
As a notary public, he is required to keep a copy of the
as counsel for the therein petitioners UEFA then Treasurer
documents he notarized and he cannot impose this obligation
Rosamarie Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President
to his subordinates, much less to his clients.
Eleonor Javier, before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR),
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against herein
"Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is
complainants (audit case), and from the pleadings filed by
placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey
respondent in another labor case as counsel for the one
the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
hundred seventy six (176) faculty members of the University of
any." In the case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath
the East complainants against herein complainant Atty. Ireneo
as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful
L. Torres (attorney's fees case).
conduct. He maintained that the signature of the donor was a
genuine despite the finding of experts to the contrary. He also
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of action against
tried to make a mockery of the legal profession by advancing
respondent.
the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a copy of the
document to the Clerk of Court was his secretary's fault.
1) The first cause of action is based on respondent's “Motion to
Expedite” filed in the audit case which complainants allege
A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery
contained statements which are absolutely false,
destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of crimes of
does not deserve to continue as member of the bar.
robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds, destruction or concealment of both of which were dismissed after trial on the merits, thus
UEFA's documents and some other acts tending to cause prompting him to state that "these dismissed cases indubitably
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their persons. indicate Atty. Torres' pattern of mental dishonesty."
2) As second cause of action, complainants allege that in the Respondent further claims that in his Answer in the same
attorney's fees case, respondent, in his "Reply to Respondents attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres accused his client, Prof.
(Torres and Marquez) Answer/Comment" filed before the Maguigad, of forging the signature of a notary public and of
DOLE, used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and "deliberately us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax
improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a Certificate" in order to justify the dismissal of the case against
quasi-judicial officer. him (Atty. Torres); 23 and that Atty. Torres continued harassing
his clients including his wife by filing baseless complaints for
3) As third/last cause of action, complainants quote falsification of public document.24 Hence, in defense of his
respondent's statement in the aforesaid Reply, to wit: clients, the following statements in his Reply:
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public Respondent further concluded that lead petitioner Prof.
asking their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a Maguigad "falsified the said petition by causing it to appear that
notarial office and sign for them. These girlfriends, nephews, he participated" in the falsification "when he did not in truth and
etc. take affidavits, administer oaths and certify documents. . . in fact participate thereat" . . . obviously oblivious of the
., obvious that it is highly improbable for Prof. Maguigad to have
forged the signature of the notary public. If he intended to forge
and allege that the statement is demeaning to the integrity of it, what was the big idea of doing so? To save Fifty Pesos
the legal profession, "uncalled for and deserves censure, as (P50.00) for notarial fee? Needless to say, the allegation that
the same might shrink the degree of confidence and trust lead (sic) petitioner Maguigad used a falsified Com. Tax Cert.
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the is patently unfounded and malicious.
legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial document."
To the mind of the undersigned, this is the height of
Not wanting to allow his wife to be maligned by Atty. Torres, irresponsibility, coming as it does from a member of the
respondent admits having responded with a counter-attack in Philippine Bar. There is no evidence to charge them with
his "Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez) falsification of public document, i.e. the "verification" appended
Answer/Comment" wherein he stated: to the present petition. They did not even sign it. The crime
imputed is clearly bereft of merit. Frankly, the undersigned
What kind of a lawyer is this Atty. Torres? The undersigned thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law student would not
feels that Atty. Torres just cannot kick the habit of injecting oblige with such a very serious charge.
immaterial, irrelevant, and impertinent matters in his pleadings.
More than that, he lies through his teeth. The undersigned It is not uncommon for us trial lawyer[s] to hear notaries public
thinks that if he has any common sense at all he should shut asking their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to "operate"
up about his accusation that Prof. Javier spent more than half a notarial office and sign for them. These girlfriends, nephews,
a million pesos for negotiation expenses . . . she obtained only etc. take affidavits, administer oaths, and certify documents.
P2-increase in union members salary, etc. because of the Believing that the said "verification" was signed by an
pendency of the damage suit against him on this score. He impostor-relative of the notary public [Atty. Jorge M. Ventayan]
easily forgets the sad chapter of his life as a practitioner when through no fault of his client, Prof. Maguigad, the undersigned
he lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit (Case No. sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
NCR-OD-M-9401-004) which he filed to gain "pogi" points prior (NBI). On May 2, 2002, an NBI agent called up the
to the UEFA election in 1994. undersigned to inform him that he arrested in the area near UE
one Tancredo E. Ventayen whom he caught in flagrante delicto
xxx xxx xxx notarizing an affidavit of loss and feigning to be Atty. Jorge M.
Ventayen, supposedly his uncle. 25
To repeat, if respondent Atty. Torres has any common sense
at all, he should stop making irrelevant, libelous and xxx xxx xxx
impertinent allegations in his pleadings. This means changing
his "standard tactic" of skirting the main issues by injecting a Petitioners devoted so much space in their answer/comment
web or a maze of sham, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous vainly trying to prove that Profs. Maguigad, Mendoza, Espiritu,
matters. Ramirez, and Javier committed the crime of falsification of
public document reasoning out that they made "untruthful
Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring to the BLR's statements in the narration of facts" in the basic petition.
attention that Atty. Torres had the habit of hurling baseless
accusations against his wife to embarrass her, including one Respondent Torres is a member of the Philippine Bar. But
for unjust vexation and another for collection and damages what law books is he reading?
He should know or ought to know that the allegations in is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." instructs that
petitioners' pleading are absolutely privileged because the said respondent's arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to
allegations or statements are relevant to the issues. both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as
may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating the Code It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for
of Professional Responsibility for using inappropriate and reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of
offensive remarks in his pleadings. judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions
and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
The pertinent portions of the Investigating Commissioner's pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or
Report and Recommendation read: malicious they may be.
Respondent admits that he was angry when he wrote the The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so
Manifestation . . . and alleges that Complainant implicated his that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an
wife in a burglary. Moreover, Respondent alleges that efficient administration of justice may not be abused as a cloak
Complainant has been "engaged in intimidating and harassing" from beneath which private malice may be gratified. If the
his wife. pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and
alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his
It appears that herein Complainant and herein Respondent's privilege.
wife have had a series of charges and counter-charges filed
against each other. Both parties being protagonists in the A matter, however, to which the privilege does not extend must
intramurals within the University of the East Faculty be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the
Association (UEFA). Herein Complainant is the President of controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy
the UEFA whereas Respondent's wife was the former or impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in
President of UEFA. every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It
must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent
xxx xxx xxx to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial. 33
Clearly, [r]espondent's primordial reason for the offensive
remark stated in his pleadings was his emotional reaction in 1) The first cause of action of complainants is based on
view of the fact that herein Complainant was in a legal dispute respondent's allegation in his "Motion to Expedite" that a
with his wife. This excuse cannot be sustained. Indeed, the burglary of the UEFA office took place, and his imputation to
remarks quoted above are offensive and inappropriate. That complainants of a plausible motive for carrying out the burglary
the Respondent is representing his wife is not at all an excuse. — the concealment and destruction of vital documents relating
to the audit. The imputation may be false but it could indeed
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended possibly prompt the BLR to speed up the resolution of the audit
that respondent be reprimanded. case. In that light, this Court finds that the first cause of action
may not lie.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), by Resolution adopted and approved the 2) This Court does not countenance Atty. Torres' incorporating
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating in his Answer in the attorney's fees case statements such as
Commissioner. The Report of the IBP faulting respondent is "the assembly . . . was apparently irked by Mrs. Eleonor Javier
well taken but not its recommendation to reprimand him. when she was booed while talking on the floor like a confused
gabble (sic)." But neither does it countenance respondent's
ISSUE: retaliating statements like "what kind of lawyer is Atty.
Torres?," "he lies through his teeth," "if he has any common
W/N Atty. Javier should be reprimanded for the offensive sense at all he should shut up," and "Atty. Torres forgets the
statements in his pleadings? sad chapter of his life as a practitioner when he lost out to Prof.
Javier in the petition for audit which he filed to gain pogi
HELD: points." Nor respondent's emphasis that Atty. Torres is of the
habit of hurling baseless accusations against his wife by
YES. Atty. Javier was suspended from the practice of law for 1 stating that the dismissal of the cases against his wife, of which
month because of such offensive statements. A lawyer's Atty. Torres was the complainant, "indubitably indicate Atty.
language must be dignified and choice of language is Torres' pattern of mental dishonesty."
important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his
client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the
intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper. Also, Rule 8.01. A ill-feeling existing between clients should not be allowed to
lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use language which
influence counsel in their conduct toward each other or toward to another. The language vehicle does not run short of
suitors in the case. expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but
not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was acting as counsel
for himself as respondent and complainant was acting as 3) As to the reference by respondent to the unfortunate and
counsel for his wife as complainant. Although it is contemptible practice of notaries public — basis of the last
understandable, if not justifiable, that in the defense of one's cause of action, while it may detract from the dignity that
clients — especially of one's wife or of one's self, the zeal in so should characterize the legal profession and the solemnity of a
doing may be carried out to the point of undue skepticism and notarial document, respondent, who justifies the same as
doubts as to the motives of opposing counsel, the spectacle legitimate defense of his client who was being accused by Atty.
presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering Torres of forgery, may, given the relevance of the statement to
and recrimination is far from edifying, and detract from the the subject matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of the
dignity of the legal profession. doubt.
Moreover, in arguing against the dismissal of the attorney's WHEREFORE, for employing offensive and improper language
fees case on the basis of the alleged forgery of the notary in his pleadings, respondent Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby
public's signature, respondent did not only endeavor to point SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) Month,
out that Atty. Torres erred in advancing such an argument, but effective upon receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
personally attacked Atty. Torres' mental fitness by stating that WARNED that any future infraction of a similar nature shall be
"the undersigned thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law dealt with more severely.
student would not oblige with such a very serious charge," and
"[r]espondent Torres is a member of the bar [b]ut what law LIKONG v. LIM A.C. No. 3149, [August 17, 1994]
books is he reading."
Summary: Bale may utang si Likong sa client ni Atty. tapos
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's pambayad niya pension niya (provide SPA to withdraw)
language must be dignified and choice of language is ngayon nirevoke ni Likong edi nagkagulo na shet. Injunction
important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his injunction sila sa court dinefend si Likong two lawyers (wow
client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior walang pambayad utang pero dalawa abogado wow rich
intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper. hahaha char) tapos nagreach nalang ng compromise ngayon
etong si Atty. wa nalang pag inform kela atty. ni Likong kesyo
As reflected above, the inclusion of the derogatory statements tinake care na daw niya (wow sana ako din itake care ni crush
by respondent was actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings CHAROT HAHAHA) NGAYON, OMG juicy part to, Nag
towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the mantle of increase utang ni ate gurl naging 150k tapos may interest pa
absolute immunity does not extend. Personal colloquies na 40% per annum omg super unconscionable nung interest.
between counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly Sabi ni Court, conduct unbecoming daw yun of the legal
wrangling should be carefully avoided. profession (Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics, Rule
1.01, Rule 8.02 and Rule 15.03 ng CPR) so suspended si Atty.
If indeed Atty. Torres filed criminal complaints for falsification of Lim.
public documents against respondent's clients as a scheme to
harass them, they are not without adequate recourse in law, for Facts:
if they plead for a righteous cause, the course of justice will
surely tilt in their favor, the courts being ever vigilant in the Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of
protection of a party's rights. P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant
executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she
provides: regularly receives from the United States government as a
widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of
CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise executed a special
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran
City. The above documents were apparently prepared and
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel.
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after the
instructs that respondent's arguments in his pleadings should execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney,
be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of complainant informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she
such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman was revoking the special power of attorney. As a consequence,
Geesnell Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages Issue:
against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared
as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. WON respondent committed malpractice and grave
Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant). misconduct
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a Held:

compromise agreement again without the participation of the
former's counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member
that complainant Cerina B. Likong admitted an obligation to of the legal profession.
Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that
complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:
monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest
of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months. The 9. Negotiations with opposite party.
compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15
August 1985. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject
of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less
On 24 November 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed the present should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter
complaint for disbarment, based on the following allegations: with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent
upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may
In all these motions, complainant was prevented from seeking tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he
assistance, advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; should not undertake to advise him as to the law.
no copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to
complainant herself despite the latter's pleas to be furnished The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 — A
copies of the same; lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or
Complainant was even advised by respondent that it was not indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without
that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule
new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
sign; (e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to disclosure of the facts.
save her time; and in any event respondent already took care
of everything; The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional
conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the
Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting fully her case imposition upon him of the proper sanction from this Court.
by means of fraud, deception and some other form of Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct
mendacity practiced on her by respondent; Finally, respondent cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode
fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise
complainant and connived in her defeat; prevent justice from being attained.
Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated
complainant, 2 August 1985, complainant's debt to Yap was increased to
P150,000.00 (from 92,100.00) after the lapse of only ten (10)
Atty. Roland B. Inting had abandoned his client. Atty. Lim months. This translates to an interest in excess of seventy-five
further stated that the other counsel, Atty. Enrico Aumentado, percent (75%) per annum. In addition, the compromise
did not actively participate in the case and it was upon the agreement provides that the P150,000.00 debt would be
request of complainant and another debtor of Yap, Crispina payable in fifty-four (54) monthly installments at an interest of
Acuna, that he (respondent) made the compromise agreement. forty percent (40%) per annum. No great amount of
Respondent states that he first instructed complainant to notify mathematical prowess is required to see that the terms of the
her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned compromise agreement are grossly prejudicial to complainant.
her since she could not pay his attorney's fees.
With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's
Complainant filed a reply denying that she had been counsel of the compromise agreement, it is of record that
abandoned by her lawyers. Complainant stated that complainant was represented by two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting
respondent never furnished her lawyers with copies of the and Aumentado. Complainant states that respondent
compromise agreement and a motion to withdraw the prevented her from informing her lawyers by giving her the
injunction cash bond deposited by Yap.
reasons enumerated in the complaint and earlier quoted in this Dina D. Lucenario, members of the faculty of the University of
decision. the Philippines College of Law published a statement on the
allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the
There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform Courts decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Essentially,
opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty.
there any showing that respondent informed the trial court of Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice
the alleged abandonment of the complainant by her counsel. Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism
in his work.
Instead, even assuming that complainant was really
abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the
take advantage of the situation, and the result was the educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against
execution of the compromise agreement which, as previously Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an
discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed
prejudicial to complainant. dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how
he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the
imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law articles supposedly plagiarized.
for a period of ONE (1) YEAR, effective immediately upon his
receipt of this decision. The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by
imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the
Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well
ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE the Court for even the most basic values of decency and
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE respect.
OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for
the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit
THE SUPREME COURT, A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC
the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s
honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for
Facts:
its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort women’s
claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would
Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty.
fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that
Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against
would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of
obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28,
first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
2010. In said case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari
they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as
filed by Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers of the
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of
executive department[2] to espouse their claims for reparation
justice.
and demand apology from the Japanese government for the
abuses committed against them by the Japanese soldiers
Issue:
during World War II. Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the
comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is
Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute
presently the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On August 9, 2010, (37) Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan
M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona,
Held:
Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador
Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay,
Members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines
Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera,
College of Law, are directed to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10)
Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A.
days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution, why they should
Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J.
not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of
Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig,
Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code
Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L.
of Professional Responsibility.
Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Via, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C.
Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M.
Further, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen is directed to SHOW
Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty,
CAUSE, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution,
Evalyn G. Ursua, Raul V. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva, and
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for violation of
Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting, ANTERO J. POBRE VS. SEN. MIRIAM
through his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, A.C. NO. 7399
of G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya v. Executive Secretary and of the
investigation before the Committee on Ethics and Ethical
FACTS: The Judicial Bar Council (JBC) sent public invitations
Standards, for the consideration of the Court En Banc, a
for nominations to the soon-to-be-vacated position of Chief
dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the
Justice. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago applied for the
purported statement, entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement
position. However, the JBC then informed the applicants that
by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of
only incumbent justices for the Supreme Court could qualify for
Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in
the position. For not being qualified, Sen. Miriam Santiago
the Supreme Court.
delivered this speech on the senate floor.
Dissenting Opinion: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I

am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
(1) Serreno, J. degraded. And I am only not that, I feel like throwing up to be
living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am
This Court, as complaining party, must state plainly how its nauseated. I spit on the face of the Chief Justice Artemio
ability to view the motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no
decision can be affected in any way by the UP Law Faculty’s longer interested in the position (of Chief Justice) if I was to be
statement. It must also state plainly how its ability to enforce its surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment
future orders would be eroded by the release of the UP Law but not in the Supreme Court of idiots. x x x
Faculty Statement. The milieu in which the Vinuya decision
was received by the public is well-known. It is not as if any To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect
outrage at the Vinuya decision was caused by the UP Law on the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio
Faculty Statement alone. It is also incredible how the Court can Panganiban and the other members of the Court and
claim that its honesty, integrity and competence could be constituted direct contempt of the court. Accordingly, Pobre
eroded by an extraneous act of any person other than itself. asks the disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions
Either one is honest, has integrity, or is competent – or he is be taken against the lady senator.
not. No one can undermine those qualities other than the one
in whom they inhere. In her comment, Senator Santiago did not deny making the
statements. However, she explained that those statements
Even more important to keep in mind is the apparently were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
redemptive intent of the UP Law Faculty when it issued its immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the
statement. The statement is headlined by the phrase discharge of her duty as member of Congress. The purpose of
“Restoring Integrity.” In the second paragraph, the Faculty her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open
says: “Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future
surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose
obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction, as this would only what she believed "to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar
further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system.” In the Council (JBC)," which, after sending out public invitations for
next paragraph, it says: “The Court cannot regain its credibility nomination to the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice,
and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices
conduct, whether collectively or through its members, is of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt
beyond reproach.” In the same paragraph, it further says: “It is that the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory
also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be
Court as the final arbiter of all controversies: a position that considered for the position of Chief Justice.
requires competence and integrity completely above any and
all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of ISSUE:
judicial and professional ethics.”
Won the disbarment proceedings and other disciplinary actions
Carpio Morales, J. taken against the lady senator continue?
The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing RULING: NO.

of the judicial muscle that could hardly be characterized as
judicious. This knee-jerk response from the Court stares back The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on
at its own face, since this judicial act is the one that is “totally the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which
unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced provides: “A Senator or Member of the House of
vigilance.” Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while

the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned even after complainant sent respondent a final demand.
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate Complainant remained in peaceful possession of the property
in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” Explaining the until he received letters from the Rural Bank of Albuera (Leyte),
import of the underscored portion of the provision, the Court, in Inc. (RBAI) informing him that the property was mortgaged by
Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, said: Our Constitution enshrines respondent to RBAI, that the bank had subsequently
parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege foreclosed on the property, and that complainant should
cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic therefore vacate the property. complainant instituted a criminal
world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose “is to complaint for estafa against respondent. respondent denied
enable and encourage a representative of the public to that his agreement with complainant was a pacto de retrosale.
discharge his public trust with firmness and success” for “it is He claimed that it was an equitable mortgage. IBP’s
indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent was in
of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of bad faith when he dealt with complainant and executed the
every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" but later on claimed
liberty may occasion offense.” that the agreement was one of equitable mortgage.
Respondent was also guilty of deceit or fraud. Considering
This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the respondent’s "commission of unlawful acts, especially crimes
forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity involving moral turpitude, actsof dishonesty, grossly immoral
and promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court lost sight conduct and deceit," the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
of the importance of the legislative and oversight functions of approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
the Congress that enable this representative body to look Recommendation with modification as follows: respondent is(1)
diligently into every affair of government, investigate and suspended from the practice of law for two years, with warning
denounce anomalies, and talk about how the country and its that a similar misdeed in the future shall be dealt with more
citizens are being served. Courts do not interfere with the severity, and (2) ordered to return the sum of ₱15,000.00
legislature or its members in the manner they perform their received in consideration of the pacto de retrosale, with legal
functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any interest.
claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of
the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not ISSUE:
destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly
and the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or WON The IBP was correct in holding the respondent guilty of
correct such abuses committed in the name of parliamentary deceit, fraud, and acts of dishonesty.
immunity.
HELD:
For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the
dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of
is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable Governors to suspend respondent from the practice of law for
criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of two years. The Investigating Commissioner correctly found,
Court. It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word on and the IBP Board of Governors rightly agreed, that
the matter. respondent caused the ambiguity or vagueness in the "Deed of
Sale with Right to Repurchase" as he was the one who
FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA VS. ATTY. ARTURO prepared or drafted the said instrument. Respondent could
have simply denominated the instrument as a deed of
B. ASTORGA, A.C. NO. 4697/ A.C. NO. 4728
mortgage and referred to himself and complainant as
"mortgagor" and "mortgagee," respectively, rather than as
FACTS:
"vendor a retro" and "vendee a retro." Respondent, as owner of
the property, had the right to mortgage it to complainant but, as
Complainant Florencio A. Saladaga and respondent Atty.
a lawyer, he should have seen to it that his agreement with
Arturo B. Astorga entered into a "Deed of Sale with Right to
complainant is embodied in an instrument that clearly
Repurchase" where respondent sold (with rightof repurchase)
expresses the intent of the contracting parties. A lawyer who
to complainant a parcel of coconut land located at Barangay
drafts a contract must see to it that the agreement faithfully and
Bunga, Baybay, Leyte. Respondent represented that he has
clearly reflects the intention of the contracting parties
"the perfect right to dispose as owner in fee simple" the subject
property and that the said property is "free from all liens and
encumbrances."3 The deed also provided that respondent, as SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ VS.
vendor a retro, had two years within which to repurchase the ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, A.C. NO. 7618
property, and if not repurchased within the said period, "the
parties shall renew [the] instrument/agreement." Respondent FACTS:
failed to exercise his right of repurchase within the period
provided in the deed, and no renewal of the contract was made

Complainants alleged that sometime in June 2006, and while account for all money or property collected or received for or
living abroad, they secured the services of respondent as from the client.
counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a minor
child, Ethan Benedict Victore. In consideration therefor, Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
complainants, through a representative, paid respondent the his client when due or upon demand. Even worse, respondent
aggregate amount of P75,000.00, which was duly received by misrepresented to complainants that she had already
the latter. A few months later, or on October 6, 2006, they commenced an adoption proceeding on behalf of the latter.
purposely came back to the Philippines for a two (2)-week stay These deceitful acts of respondent clearly violate Rule 1.01,
but no petition was filed during their stay. Sometime in May Canon 1 of the CPR, which provide: Rule 1.01 — A lawyer
2007, complainants, through Jonathan's employer, received shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
respondent's letter dated March 6, 2007, requesting that conduct. Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard
complainants be allowed to come home to the Philippines to when she committed the afore-described acts of deception
appear and testify in court for the adoption case she against complainants. Such acts are not only unacceptable,
purportedly filed on behalf of complainants before the Regional disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they
Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 30 (RTC), reveal basic moral flaws that make him unfit to practice law. To
docketed as Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890. Thus, complainants aggravate further respondent's administrative liability, the Court
returned to the Philippines in June 2007, only to find out that: ( notes that it repeatedly required her to comment on
a ) Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890 referred to a petition for the complainants' petition, but respondent ignored such
declaration of the presumptive death of another person filed by commands. contravenes Canon 11 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12
another lawyer; and ( b ) respondent had yet to file a petition of the CPR, all of which read:
for adoption on their behalf. Utterly dismayed, complainants
withdrew all their documents from respondent's custody and CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
hired another lawyer to handle the filing of the adoption case. due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
Moreover, complainants demanded the return of the amount of similar conduct by others. CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert
P75,000.00 given as legal fees. However, respondent refused every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
to return such money, retorting that as a standard operating efficient administration of justice. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall
procedure, she does not return "acceptance fees." In view of not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment
the foregoing, complainants filed the instant administrative or misuse court processes.
case against respondent before this Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar E. Limos is found
IBP REPORT : The IBP Investigating Commissioner found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, Rule
respondent guilty of violating CPR, as she neglected the legal 12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and
matter entrusted to her by complainants Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED from
ISSUE: the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, effective
upon the finality of this Decision, with a stern warning that a
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
liable for violating the CPR. severely. Furthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return to
complainants-spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez the legal
HELD: fees she received from the latter in the amount of P75,000.00,
with legal interest, within ninety (90) days from the finality of
Yes, she should be held administratively liable for violating the this Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
CPR. As correctly pointed out by the IBP Investigating warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Commissioner, respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation
of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit: Rule 18.03 – A SUZETTE DEL MUNDO VS. ATTY. ARNEL C.
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his CAPISTRANO, A.C. NO. 6903
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Under the foregoing provisions, once a lawyer takes up the
On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan
cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
(Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to
competence, and to attend to such client's cause with
handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective
diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or
marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the
for free. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter
same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by
entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable
and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an
negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as
acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of
in this case. In this relation, respondent also violated Rules
PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when she failed to
pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to
return the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees that
prepare Php 76,000.00 for additonal expenses.
complainants paid her, viz .: Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall
In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of
Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00, for acceptance Professional Responsibility.
fee and filing fees.
Ruling:
For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from
Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with
latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD but takes
before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting exception to the amount of PhP140,000.00 recommended to
notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she could be returned to Suzette.
hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her case from the
Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
of Tuparan had been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
yet been filed for her. COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Hence, Suzette called for a conference, which was set on July RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property
28, 2005, where she demanded the refund of the total amount collected or received for or from the client.
of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return
the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to RULE 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparans case, to which separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
she agreed. However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the him.
amount of PhP5,000.00 and thereafter, refused to
communicate with her, prompting the institution of this xxx
administrative complaint.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
In his Comment/Answer dated November 14, 2005, Atty. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Capistrano acknowledged receipt of the amount of
PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and his undertaking to return the xxx
agreed sum of PhP63,000.00. He also admitted responsibility
for his failure to file Suzettes petition and cited as justification RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
Officer of Manila and lack of available funds to immediately him liable.
refund the money received.
RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
The Action and Recommendation of the IBP status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the clients request for information.
The IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that
Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients interest by his failure Indeed, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants
to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters
agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes
honesty, probity and good demeanor. Hence, he was held him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
guilty of violating Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the profession, the courts and society. His workload does not
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the justify neglect in handling ones case because it is settled that a
penalty of suspension for two years from the practice of law. lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently
handle.
On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the report and recommendation of Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his
Commissioner Quisumbing through Resolution No. XVIII-2007- client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such
9810 with modification ordering the return of the sum of funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his
PhP140,000.00 attorneys fees to Suzette. own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such
as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be
However, upon Atty. Capistranos timely motion for returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise
reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors passed to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of
Resolution No. XIX-2011-26311 on May 14, 2011 reducing the the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds
penalty of suspension from two years to one year. entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional
ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
Issue:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having notarization returned to the office where we were given our
clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional personal file, without reading every detail of the documents.
Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or Upon arriving at our residence, I read the contents of the
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Said MOA was not signed
to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of by Atty. Bangot and did not bear the signature of witnesses. I
PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and was surprised to know that the terms of the (MOA) did not
DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of such payment. reflect the true intentions being contemplated in our previous
discussions. Contrary to what I have told him, a different area
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO VS. which is 37925-G under TCT No. 121708 was written. I already
told him that my other lots including the lot written in the MOA
ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR, A.C. NO. 8494
could no longer be. disposed of because these lots were
already committed to each of my children. The lot area was
The complainants averred that a private survey team had
also increased from 250 sq. m. to 300 sq. m. Because of this
conducted a survey of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351 on October 10-
situation, I called my wife and children and told them about the
11, 2008 pursuant to the order of the Regional Trial Court,
problem. My daughter whose share was involved reacted badly
Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in connection with the
and she was hurt because she will then be deprived of her
reconstitution of the lost certificate of title of said lot by the
place to live in, in the future. We continued our discussion and
owners; that after conducting the perimeter survey, the survey
we decided to see Atty. Bangot to have the MOA be revoked
team had tried to enter the premises owned by them but they
because we felt that we were deceived, Atty. Bangot took
had prevented the team from doing so because their premises
advantage of our old age, thus breaking the trust and
had already been segregated by virtue of the issuance of
confidence the client[']s and lawyer should uphold at all times
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3387; that their land covered
in the exercise of one's profession.
by OCT No. P-3387 had already been subdivided into nine
lots; that the survey team had then desisted from proceeding
As a gesture of acknowledging his efforts, we offered to pay
with their survey of their land but had nonetheless informed
him in cash, fair enough for the services he had rendered to
them that they would return another time for the survey; and
us. However, he refused to revoke the MOA because
that this had forced them to consult a lawyer on the legal
accordingly, he would consult his wife which finally did not
remedies to prevent the intrusion on their property.
materialize because his wife was not amenable which in effect
showed that they have vested interest on the property and they
The complainants further averred that they had then consulted
are bent on taking the property at any cause. He even
with the respondent, briefing him on their concern, and
challenged us to file an appropriate case in court against him
delivering to him the documents pertinent to their land; that
rather than agree with our pleading for payment of cash.
after scrutinizing the documents, he had told them that he
Likewise, he refused our offer to pay his services in cash
would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify
alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and
the order for the reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad.
claimed that our possession would not be disturbed and that
237 Lot No. 1351; that he had then insinuated that one of their
he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised
lots would be his attorney's fees; and that they had not initially
agreed to the insinuation because the lots had already been
To our surprise though, we came to know that the
allocated to each of their seven children, but they had
Manifestation filed by Atty. Bangot is not a preparatory
ultimately consented to giving him only a portion of Lot No.
pleading for certiorari. No way could it even stop the intrusion
37926-H with an area of 250 square meters
into our property. Basically, we were deceived by Atty. Bangot
into believing that the Manifestation he filed would stop any
The complainants recalled that on October 17, 2008 the
legal disturbance on our property and the same is preparatory
respondent requested them to proceed to his law office. What
for certiorari.
thereafter transpired and that led to the signing of the MOA
were set forth in their complaint, as
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In due course, IBP Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero

On October 17, 2008, my wife received a phone call from the
submitted his Report and Recommendation9 finding the
office of Atty. Bangot directing us to go to his office to sign
complaint against the respondent meritorious, and
documents they have prepared. The phone call was relayed to
recommending that the respondent be suspended from the
me by my wife so we immediately proceeded to his office
practice of law for one year for his unfair and injudicious
arriving thereat at exactly 4:00 PM. The daughter of Atty.
treatment of the complainants as his clients. In Resolution No.
Bangot handed to us two sets of documents for our signatures.
XX-2013-71,10 the IBP Board of Governors increased the
Because of full trust to Atty. Bangot, we did not bother reading
duration of the respondent's recommended penalty to
the contents of the documents. Per instruction, we brought the
suspension from the practice of law for two years
papers to their friend lawyer for notarization and after the

Issue: Respondent) and the effort or service already performed or still
to be performed by him. The Complainants were not made
Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a parties to the LRC case or any other case and Respondent
member of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants? filed a mere two-paged Manifestation for Information in court
which he did almost effortlessly. It is not clear how the court
Held: had reacted to the manifestation but Respondent did not follow
it up with [any] other action. Despite the same, Respondent
We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his stuck to his tale that the Complainants had signed [the] MOA
Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an attorney because and despite his minimal representation of the Complainants in
he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his court, he held on to his idea that he had taken from his clients
clients. valid title to a million [pesos] worth of real estate in payment of
his fees.
To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the
following factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged
Professional Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit: (a) Manifestation for Information constituted the respondent's
the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or rendition of professional services for the complainants.
required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; Although he did claim that the filing of the Manifestation for
(c) the importance of the subject matter; (d) the skill Information had prevented any intrusion on their property,
demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a thereby fulfilling his end of the contract,13 the worth of such
result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when
charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP taken in the context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925-
chapter to which he belongs; (g) the amount involved in the G with 300 square meters in area. The two-paged
controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the Manifestation for Information was not even the procedural
service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover, he
the character of the employment, whether occasional or did not actually file the petition for certiorari as he had
established; and j) the professional standing of the lawyer. promised. And, lastly, he did nothing more after filing the
Manifestation for Information. He certainly transgressed the
The question to ask is, "Was the MOA fair to the parties and Lawyer's Oath by receiving property of a substantial value from
entered into by them in goodfaith?" the complainants after having made them believe that he could
ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took
The undersigned resolves in the negative. To begin with, the advantage of them who had reposed their full trust and
conduct of Respondent had evinced an instinctive interest in confidence in his ability to perform the task by virtue of his
the property of Complainants. He had the MOA executed at the being a lawyer. He was definitely bent on obtaining Lot No.
same time he filed the Manifestation for Information before the 37925-G than in protecting the complainants' interest in their
court that was hearing LRC Case No. 98-010. Not only that, property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give
Respondent's proposal to have a MOA executed between him cash for his attorney's fees instead of the land. We sadly note
and the Complainant was meant to impress that his supposed in this connection that his changing the property ostensibly
attorney's fees would be paid on contingent basis, however, a agreed upon with the bigger lot as payment for his legal
perusal of the MOA indicates that the payment of services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the relationship.
Respondents' fee by way of a real property is being made He maintained the deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA
immediately effective upon execution of the agreement. against them through the action for specific performance.
As to the agreement of the Complainant and the Respondent, As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee
the undersigned gives full faith to the allegation of Complainant arrangement. Indeed, a contingent fee arrangement is a
that the payment of Respondent's attorney's fees by way of a contract in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed percentage
real property would come from TCT No. 121709 and not T- of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend
121708. Complainants explained that the latter lot had already upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed
been committed to their seven (7) children especially because right.15 The amount of the contingent fee agreed upon by the
this lot is situated in a prime location thus they could not have parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for
picked the same over Lot No. 121709. The Respondent knew his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much
straightforwardly that lot 121708 was a better lot yet higher compensation is allowed as contingent fee in
Respondent gave a different account of their agreement and consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing should
took advantage of the frailty and advance ages (sic) of his the suit fail. Such arrangement is generally recognized as valid
clients. and binding in this jurisdiction but its terms must be
reasonable.16 Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
But, the most shocking of all, is the apparent inequity or states that "a contract for a contingent fee, when sanctioned by
disproportion between the amount of attorney's fees law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the
(measured from the value of the property taken by case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation,
but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as engaged by complainants for the purpose of enabling them to
to its reasonableness." A contract of this nature is permitted secure or obtain tourist visas from the U.S. Embassy in Manila;
because it redounds to the benefit of the poor client and the (4) that after interviewing complainants individually, he
lawyer especially in cases where the client has a meritorious suggested that complainants file a collective application,
cause of action but has no means with which to pay for the meaning that the complainants, along with other applicants for
legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a a U.S. tourist visa, should constitute themselves into a tour
contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of group, so that their overall chances of obtaining visas for all
the litigation. Oftentimes, such arrangement is the only means members of the group would be enhanced; (5) that he made
by which the poor and helpless can seek redress for injuries this suggestion because he believed that the more applicants
sustained and have their rights vindicated.17chanrobleslaw join the group, the lesser the fees that would be charged; (6)
that it was agreed that a group of 10 applicants would
Considering that a contingent fee arrangement is susceptible comprise a tour group; (7) that although some applicants paid
to abuse, the courts should closely scrutinize it to protect the the proper fees and submitted the required documents, others
client from unjust charges. neither paid the proper fees nor submitted the necessary
documents; (8) and that because of this lack of cohesive
WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent action, the plan did not push through at all.
ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR. guilty of violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Atty. Estebal posited that complainants’ demand for the return
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for five (5) years or refund of their money has no factual or legal basis at all,
effective upon notice of this decision, with warning that sterner especially because he had invested considerable time, talent
sanctions will be meted on him for a similar offense; and and energy in the processing of complainants’ tourist visa
DECLARES that he is not entitled to recover any attorney's applications with the U.S. Embassy.
fees from the complainants.
In his Commissioner’s Report,4 Investigating Commissioner
WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR VS. ATTY. Jose I. De la Rama, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner), noted
that Atty. Estebal received a total of ₱345,000.00 from
ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, A.C. NO. 10443
complainants; that notwithstanding receipt thereof, Atty.
Estebal did not make any attempt to process or submit their
FACTS:
visa applications; that even if the amount collected is
considered as attorney’s fees, the same is excessive; and that
In the early part of 2006, complainants engaged the services of
even if Atty. Estebal is entitled to attorney’s fees, the amount of
Atty. Estebal to assist each of them in securing tourist visas to
₱15,000.00 would be considered appropriate under the
the United States (U.S.). Toward this end, on January 24,
circumstances. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner
2006, Campos and Atty. Estebal entered into a Service
recommended that Atty. Estebal be suspended from the
Contract2 stipulating an acceptance/service fee of
practice of law for six (6) months for violating Canons 15, 16
₱200,000.00 exclusive of out-of-pocket expenses such as
and 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP
tickets, filing fees, and application fees; and that in case no
Board of Governors issued Resolution affirming with
visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has been
modification the Investigating Commissioner’s
actually paid less 7% thereof Campos paid Atty. Estebal the
recommendation and suspend Atty. Estebal from the practice
sum of ₱150,000.00. For their part, Batac an.d Carpio gave
of law for a period of six (6) months.
Atty. Estebal the amounts of ₱75,000.00 and ₱120,000.00,
respectively. Unlike Campos, their agreement with Atty.
ISSUE:
Estebal was not put in writ Complainants claimed that despite
receipt of their monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure
Is Atty. Estebal guilty of professional misconduct for violating
for them the U.S. tourist visas that he promised. Thus, they
the pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional
demanded for the return of their monies. Atty. Estebal,
Responsibility?
however, failed to return the amount despite repeated
demands. Hence, they filed this Complaint praying that Atty.
HELD:
Estebal be suspended or disbarred from the practice of law,
and that he be directed to return their monies.
YES. Respondent clearly violated Canons 15, 16, 16.01 and
20, 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Estebal averred: (1) that he is a practicing lawyer
specializing in immigration, international law and illegal arrest
Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he was not
cases, including the procurement of tourist visas; (2) that like
candid enough to tell the complainants their chance[s] of
any other professional, he is paid not only for the results he
getting [a] US visa. Instead, the respondent made the
delivered, but also for the time, talent, industry and other items
complainants believe that they will have a good chance of
of professional services he rendered, irrespective of the
getting the US visa if they will be joined with other groups. It
result/s thereof; (3) that his professional services were
turned out to be false. Complainants waited for so long before
the respondent could find other members of the group. In the (2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney’s fees,
end, nothing happened. the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable
by the Court
He also violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 because he did not
account [for] the money he received from the (3) when the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely
complainants.1âwphi1 It is not clear to the complainants how formal defects of execution
much is the amount due to the respondent.
(4) when the lawyer for justifiable cause was not able to finish
Lastly, it appears that the attorney’s fees that he collected from the case for its conclusion
the complainants are excessive and unreasonable.
Considering the degree of work and number of hours spent, (5) when the lawyer and the client disregard the contract for
the amount he collected from the complainants is not attorney’s fees and
commensurate to the degree of services rendered. Obviously,
respondent took advantage of the weakness of the (6) when the client dismissed his client before the termination
complainants in their desire to go the United States. of the case or the latter withdrew therefrom for valid reason
While lawyers are entitled to the payment of attorney’s fees, VDA. DE CAINA VS. VICTORIANO, G.R. NO. L-
the same should be reasonable under the circumstances. Even
12905
if we base the attorney’s fees of the respondent on quantum
meruit, still, the amount collected by the respondent is still
Summary: So etong case na to, about sa lupa. Nirepresent ni
excessive. Respondent should return the money to the
counsel si Vda (Biyuda) de Caina, ngayon yung case. Di siya
complainant. The attorney’s fees is excessive in a sense that in
nabayaran. So ngayon nagfile siya ng motion sa court na
the Service the scope of work of Atty. Estebel was only to
iannotate yung claim/lien niya at the back of the Torrens Title,
conduct Initial interview of client and collation of all information
and then, nanalo siya. File ngayon si client ng MR kasi di daw
relevant to the case; assessment of case; evaluation of
siya nainform (same ate, same) na may motion na ganun
documents; formulation of the theory of the case; filing up of
ngayon, denied si ate gurl. Edi file for certiorari na. Sbi ni court,
forms, DS-156 & 157; general briefing, specific briefing
may 2 types daw na lien, retaining lien tsaka charging lien.
including mock interview. If this is only the scope of work done
Yung retaining, tinatago mo files nila kasi nga gago ka
by the respondent, the amount of P200,000.00 that he
kelangan mo pera HAHAHA JOKE LANG MAHAL MAG ARAL
received from complainant William Campos is really excessive.
KAYA KELANGAN NG PERA HAHAHA. Yung charging naman
nakabase yun dun sa judgment nung case na hinandle ganun.
There is hardly any doubt that Atty. Estebal’s act of receiving
Yung mga “attorneys fees” shit sa wherefore something
such substantial sums from complainants without in the least
hahahahaha. So ayun, grave abuse of discretion ginawa ni
intending to honor his word to secure the U.S. tourist visas that
court nung inallow iannotate sa likod ni title. So pag atty. na
he promised to get for them constitutes a breach of his
tayo, isipin natin na noble profession to na we don’t need
professional responsibility. It was both a refusal and a failure to
money to buy us happiness hahahaha char.
give complainants their due; it was also both a refusal and a
failure to observe honesty and good faith in his dealings with
Facts:
them. Indeed, Atty. Estebal acted unjustly; he denied
complainants their due; and he displayed unmitigated
Petitioners are the widow and children of the late Valeriana
dishonesty and bad faith in his professional and personal
Caiña who was the owner of a parcel of land covered by
relations with complainants.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21702. A portion of this
property was transferred to one Gavina Cierte de Andal and as
Respondent Atty. Alexander C. Estebal is hereby found guilty
a result said title was cancelled and a new one issued in their
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
names bearing No. 51585.
hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year.
Respondent Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. was the attorney of one of
petitioners, Elena Peralta Vda. de Caiña, in an action for
(Sinama ko na just in case ipa-enumerate ni Atty. Tanyag)
ejectment filed before the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan,
Rizal, against one Ricardo Nabong, which was dismissed and
The Supreme Court, in justifying quantum meruit, has laid
appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In the latter
down the following requisites:
court, the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3875, and
because of the non-appearance of defendant, the latter was
Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is
declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of
authorized
plaintiff. This judgment became final and executory for lack of
appeal.
(1) when there is no express contract for payment of attorney’s
fees
On June 26, 1957, respondent Dalisay filed a motion in the the sense that his purpose is to make of record his claim in
same ejectment case for annotation of his attorney's lien on the order that it may be considered in the execution of the
back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51585 claiming that, judgment that may be rendered in the case, and this he has
notwithstanding the services he had rendered to the widow and already done. Thus, he had already caused a statement of his
her children who were presented by him in said case, they claim to be entered in the record of the ejectment case and
have failed to pay him his attorney's fees which he fixed at that is all what the rule requires of him to do. Certainly, he
P2,020. This motion was set for hearing and thereafter the cannot go any further, such as what he led the trial court to do,
same was granted in an order entered on July 10, 1957 that is, to have his lien annotated on the back of the title of
wherein the court ordered petitioners to surrender their petitioners which is beyond the province of the court. The lien
duplicate copy of said certificate in order that the annotation of respondent is not of a nature which attaches to the property
requested may be made. in litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a
writ of execution.
Upon receipt of a copy of this order, petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration alleging that they were never furnished with ANION VS. SABITSANA, A.C. NO. 5098
a copy of respondent's motion, nor notified of the date of its
hearing, for which reason they were not able to appear to In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that
contest the same. This motion was opposed by respondent she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in
Dalisay who averred that petitioners were furnished with a the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale
copy of his motion by registered mail three days before the over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband,
hearing as shown by the return card attached to his written Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
opposition. And on August 27, 1957, the court denied the confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her
motion. for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L.
Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant
Issue: accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information
he obtained from her in filing the civil case.
Whether the attorney's lien of respondent Dalisay for services
he had rendered in the ejectment case can be ordered Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the
annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he
51585. denied having received any confidential information. Atty.
Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was
Held: instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the
disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty.
An attorney's lien is of two kinds: one is called retaining lien Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.
and the other charging lien. The retaining lien is the right of the
attorney to retain the funds, documents, and papers of his The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
client which have lawfully come into his possession until his
lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty.
such funds to the satisfaction thereof. The charging lien is the Sabitsana administratively liable for representing conflicting
right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the interests. The IBP Commissioner opined:
payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said
judgments, which he has secured in litigation of his client In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not
(Section 33, Rule 127; Rustia vs. Abeto, 72 Phil., 133). Under handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and
this rule, this lien, whether retaining or charging, takes legal thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that Zenaida
effect only from and after, but not before, notice of said lien has L. Caete, respondents present client in Civil Case No. B-1060
been entered in the record and served on the adverse party. did not initially learn about the sale executed by Bontes in favor
of complainant thru the confidences and information divulged
It may therefore be seen that the right of a lawyer to insure the by complainant to respondent in the course of the preparation
payment of his professional fee is either to retain the funds, of the said deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty to
documents, and papers of his client which may have lawfully decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida Caete in
come into his possession, or to enforce it upon any judgment view of the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting
for the payment of money he may secure in favor of his client. interests.
And it has been held that the retaining lien is dependent upon
possession and does not attach to anything not in attorney's A lawyer may not represent conflicting interests in the absence
hands. The lien exists only so long as the attorney's retains of the written consent of all parties concerned given after a full
possession ends (Rustia vs. Abeto, supra). disclosure of the facts.
In the instant case, the lien which respondent attorney tried to Complainant and respondents present client, being contending
enforce for the satisfaction of his professional fee is charging in claimants to the same property, the conflict of interest is
obviously present. There is said to be inconsistency of interest them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided
when on behalf of one client, it is the attorneys duty to contend fidelity to both clients.[9]
for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose.
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue
IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to
Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner. oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers
argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer
Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
Issue: acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client
1. whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
representing conflicting interests. performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the
lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against
2. Whether the IBP recomendation was a violation of his right a former client any confidential information acquired through
to due process on the ground that the charge in the complaint their connection or previous employment.
was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential information,
not for representation of conflicting interests. On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find
substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsanas violation of
Ruling: the above rule, as established by the following circumstances
on record:
1. Yes.
One, his legal services were initially engaged by the
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should complainant to protect her interest over a certain property. The
ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and records show that upon the legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in
prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most the complainants favor.
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered
exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Caete to discuss the
client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer latters legal interest over the property subject of the Deed of
based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge that
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to Zenaida Caetes interest clashed with the complainants
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and interests.
transactions with the client.[6] Part of the lawyers duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from
Responsibility quoted below: Zenaida Caete.
Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests Four, Atty. Sabitsanas actual knowledge of the conflicting
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full interests between his two clients was demonstrated by his own
disclosure of the facts. actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf
of Zenaida Caete; second, he impleaded the complainant as
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for
applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously
clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.[7] The prepared and executed for the complainant.
prohibition also applies even if the lawyer would not be called
upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion Responsibility provides an exception to the above prohibition.
to use the confidential information acquired from one to the However, we find no reason to apply the exception due to Atty.
disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly Sabitsanas failure to comply with the requirements set forth
unrelated.[8] To be held accountable under this rule, it is under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of
enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Caete before he
would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Caete. The
conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a
letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Caetes of Cebu, the Provincial Governor, etc., whether or not the said
adverse claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale cases will be amicably settled or decided by the courts by final
and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana judgment. We shall take care of all expenses in connection
however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also with the said cases.
being engaged as counsel by Zenaida Caete.[11] Moreover,
the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the During the pendency of the aforesaid cases or on April 17,
written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, 1979, petitioner registered his charging/retaining lien based on
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the Agreement. The camineros obtained favorable judgment
when the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Cebu ordered
2. No. We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP that they be reinstated to their original positions with back
recommendation on the ground that the charge in the salaries, together with all privileges and salary adjustments or
complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential increases. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Public Highways
information, not for representation of conflicting interests. To and the District Engineer filed certiorari cases before this Court
Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable for the latter offense is a where the petitioner willingly rendered further legal assistance
violation of his due process rights since he only answered the and represented the camineros.
designated charge.
In April 1979, the camineros, represented by the petitioner, and
We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsanas due process rights. the province of Cebu, through then Gov. Gullas, forged a
Although there was indeed a specific charge in the complaint, compromised agreement. Apparently, the camineros waived
we are not unmindful that the complaint itself contained their right to reinstatement embodied in the CFI decision and
allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule the province agreed that it immediately pay them their back
on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. salaries and other claims.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is In view of the finality of the above decision, the camineros,
simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge against through their new counsel (who substituted for the petitioner),
oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative moved for its execution. The court then ordered the issuance
proceedings, the opportunity to explain ones side or the of a partial writ of execution directing the payment of only 45%
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling of the amount due them based on the computation of the
complained of. These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. provincial engineering office as audited by the authority
Sabitsana, as shown by the above circumstances. concerned. The court did not release the remaining 55%, thus
holding in abeyance the payment of the lawyers fees pending
All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui the determination of the final amount of such fees. However,
generis. In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court instead of complying with the court order directing partial
merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his payment, the province of Cebu directly paid the camineros the
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of full amount of their adjudicated claims.
preserving the purity of the legal profession. We likewise aim to
ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by Petitioner filed a complaint for damages anchoring his claim
purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, under article 19 of the civl code. He alleged that by directly
have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with paying the camineros the amount due them, the respondents
the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. induced the camineros to violate their written contract for
attorneys fees. He likewise claimed that they violated the
RAUL H. SESBREO VS HON. COURT OF compromise agreement approved by the Court by computing
the camineros money claims based on the provincial instead of
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 161390
the national wage rate which, consequently, yielded a lower
amount.
FACTS
While maintaining the validity of the compromise agreement,

On January 26, 1970, Mrs. Rosario Sen and other camineros
the trial court found that the petitioners money claims should
hired the petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases Nos. R-10933[5]
have been computed based on the national and not the
and R-11214, evidenced by an Agreement, the terms of which
provincial rate of wages paid the camineros. Accordingly, the
read as follows:
court declared that the petitioner was prejudiced to the extent
of the difference between these two rates. The court further
AGREEMENT
upheld the petitioners status as a quasi-party considering that
he had a registered charging lien. However, it did not give
WE, the undersigned, hereby agree to pay Atty. Raul H.
credence to the petitioners claim that the respondent public
Sesbreo, thirty (30%) percent of whatever back salaries,
officials induced the camineros to violate their contract, and
damages, etc. that we may recover in the mandamus and
thus, absolved them from liability.
other cases that we are filing or have filed against the Province

On appeal, the CA reversed the trial courts decision and trust for him to the extent of the amount of his recorded lien,
dismissed the complaint. The appellate court concluded that because after the charging lien had attached, the attorney is, to
petitioner failed to sufficiently establish his allegation that the the extent of said lien, regarded as an equitable assignee of
respondents induced the camineros to violate the agreement the judgment or funds produced by his efforts.
for attorneys fees and the compromise agreement, and that he
suffered damage due to respondents act of directly paying the The judgment debtors may likewise be held responsible for
camineros the amounts due them. their failure to withhold from the camineros the amount of
attorneys fees due the petitioner.
Issue
In the instant case, the petitioner rightly commenced an action
Whether or not the petitioner can enforce his 30% attorneys against both his clients and the judgment debtors. However, at
fees against the respondent the instance of the petitioner himself, the complaint against his
clients was withdrawn on the ground that he had settled his
Ruling differences with them. He maintained the case against
respondents because, according to him, the computation of the
NO. Petitioners claim for attorneys fees was evidenced by an camineros money claims should have been based on the
agreement for attorneys fees voluntarily executed by the national and not the provincial wage rate. Thus, petitioner
camineros where the latter agreed to pay the former thirty insists that the respondents should be made liable for the
(30%) percent of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. that difference.
they might recover in the mandamus and other cases that they
were filing or have filed. Clearly, no fixed amount was The withdrawal was premised on a settlement, which indicates
specifically provided for in their contract nor was a specified that his former clients already paid their obligations. This is
rate agreed upon on how the money claims were to be bolstered by the certification of the clerk of court that his former
computed. The use of the word whatever shows that the basis clients had deposited their passbooks to ensure payment of
for the computation would be the amount that the court would the agreed fees. Having been paid by his clients in accordance
award in favor of the camineros. Considering that the parties with the agreement, his claim against the respondents,
agreed to a compromise, the payment would have to be based therefore, has no leg to stand on. n the instant case, petitioners
on the amount agreed upon by them in the compromise act in withdrawing the case against the camineros and
agreement approved by the court. And since the compromise agreeing to settle their dispute may be considered a waiver of
agreement had assumed finality, this Court can no longer his right to the lien. No rule will allow a lawyer to collect from
delve into its substance, especially at this time when the his client and then collect anew from the judgment debtor
judgment had already been fully satisfied. We cannot allow the except, perhaps, on a claim for a bigger amount which, as
petitioner to question anew the compromise agreement on the earlier discussed, is baseless.
pretext that he suffered damage. As long as he was given the
agreed percentage of the amount received by the camineros, Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
then, the agreement is deemed complied with, and petitioner merchants. Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. The
cannot claim to have suffered damage. returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service
rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which
A charging lien is an equitable right to have the fees and costs enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental
due to the lawyer for services in a suit secured to him out of interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is
the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. It is based on subject to state regulation.
the natural equity that the plaintiff should not be allowed to
appropriate the whole of a judgment in his favor without paying Lastly, we cannot ascribe bad faith to the respondents who
thereout for the services of his attorney in obtaining such directly paid the camineros the amounts due them. The
judgment. records do not show that when they did so, they induced the
camineros to violate their contract with the petitioner; nor do
In this case, the existence of petitioners charging lien is the records show that they paid their obligation in order to
undisputed since it was properly registered in the records. The cause prejudice to the petitioner. The attendant circumstances,
parties even acknowledged its existence in their compromise in fact, show that the camineros acknowledged their liability to
agreement. However, a problem arose when the respondents the petitioner and they willingly fulfilled their obligation. It would
directly paid in full the camineros money claims and did not be contrary to human nature for the petitioner to have acceded
withhold that portion which corresponds to petitioners fees. to the withdrawal of the case against them, without receiving
the agreed attorneys fees. Thus, petition is Denied.
When the judgment debt was fully satisfied, petitioner could
have enforced his lien either against his clients (the camineros SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND
herein) or against the judgment debtor (the respondents BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION VS. ATTY. ELMER
herein). The clients, upon receiving satisfaction of their claims
without paying their lawyer, should have held the proceeds in
A. DELA ROSA, A.C. NO. 10681
In their Verified Complaint, complainants alleged that from Party Complaint which Nault filed as third-party defendant in a
19972 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained related collection case instituted by the complainants against
lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many respondent. In said pleading, Nault explicitly denied knowing
of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, complainants and alleged that it was respondent who incurred
among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business the subject loan from them.
towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to
materialize. The IBP Report and Recommendation
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from IBP Investigating Commissioner, Jose I. de La Rama, Jr.
their failed business venture, respondent, called Henry to (Investigating Commissioner), issued his Report finding
borrow the amount of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to respondent guilty of violating: (a) Rule 16.04 of the CPR which
return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter. Henry consulted provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his clients
his wife, Blesilda, who, believing that respondent would be unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of
soon returning the money, agreed to lend the aforesaid sum to the case or by independent advice; (b) Canon 7 which states
respondent. She thereby issued three (3) EastWest Bank that a lawyer shall uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
checks profession and support the activities of the IBP; and (c) Canon
16 which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all monies
Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
containing: (a) photocopies of the checks; and (b) an
acknowledgment that he received the originals of the checks The Investigating Commissioner observed that the checks
and that he agreed to return the P2,500,000.00, plus monthly were issued in respondent’s name and that he personally
interest of five percent (5%), within five (5) days.7 In the received and encashed them. Annex “E” of the Verified
afternoon of March 23, 2006, the foregoing checks were Complaint shows that respondent acknowledged receipt of the
personally en cashed by respondent. three (3) EastWest Bank checks and agreed to return the
P2,500,000.00, plus a pro-rated monthly interest of five percent
On March 28, 2006, or the day respondent promised to return (5%), within five (5) days.
the money, he failed to pay complainants. Thus, in April 2006,
complainants began demanding payment but respondent On the other hand, respondent’s claim that Nault was the real
merely made repeated promises to pay soon. Blesilda sent a debtor was found to be implausible. The Investigating
demand letter to respondent, which the latter did not heed. Commissioner remarked that if it is true that respondent was
Complainants, through their new counsel, Atty. Kathryn not the one who obtained the loan, he would have responded
Jessica dela Serna, sent another demand letter to respondent. to complainants’ demand letter; however, he did not. He also
In his Reply, the latter denied borrowing any money from the observed that the acknowledgment Nault allegedly signed
complainants. Instead, respondent claimed that a certain Jean appeared to have been prepared by respondent himself.
Charles Nault (Nault), one of his other clients, was the real Finally, the Investigating Commissioner cited Nault’s Answer to
debtor. Complainants brought the matter to the Office of the the Third Party Complaint which categorically states that he
Lupong Tagapamayapa in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de does not even know the complainants and that it was
Oro City. The parties, however, failed to reach a settlement. respondent alone who obtained the loan from them.
On January 11, 2010, the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter Respondent’s failure to appear during the mandatory
received complainants’ letter-complaint charging respondent conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CBD.
with violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR. The rule prohibits Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
lawyers from borrowing money from clients unless the latter’s that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.
independent advice.
Finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the
In his Comment, respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 evidence on record and by the applicable laws and rule, the
from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor. He IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect Investigating Commissioner’s Report but reduced the penalty
from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose. against the respondent to indefinite suspension from the
practice of law and ordered the return of the P2,500,000.00 to
In their letter-reply, complainants maintained that they the complainants with legal interest, instead of stipulated
extended the loan to respondent alone, as evidenced by the interest.
checks issued in the latter’s name. They categorically denied
knowing Nault and pointed out that it defies common sense for Respondent sought a reconsiderationmwhich was denied.
them to extend an unsecured loan in the amount of
P2,500,000.00 to a person they do not even know. Issue:
Complainants also submitted a copy of the Answer to Third
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
liable for violating the CPR. INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
Ruling: BAR.
The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by
recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount of blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the trust
P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants. and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so doing,
failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Respondent’s theory that Nault is the real debtor hardly Thus, he should be equally held administratively liable on this
inspires belief. While respondent submitted a document score.
purporting to be Nault’s acknowledgment of his debt to the
complainants, Nault, in his Answer to Third Party Complaint, That being said, the Court turns to the proper penalty to be
categorically denied knowing the complainants and incurring imposed and the propriety of the IBP’s return directive.
the same obligation.
The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by complainants, it would be exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding
illogical for them to extend a P2,500,000.00 loan without any facts.
collateral or security to a person they do not even know. On
the other hand, complainants were able to submit documents In Frias, the Court suspended the lawyer from the practice of
showing respondent’s receipt of the checks and their law for two (2) years after borrowing P900,000.00 from her
encashment, as well as his agreement to return the client, refusing to pay the same despite court order, and
P2,500,000.00 plus interest. This is bolstered by the fact that representing conflicting interests. Considering the greater
the loan transaction was entered into during the existence of a amount involved in this case and respondent’s continuous
lawyer-client relationship between him and complainants, refusal to pay his debt, the Court deems it apt to suspend him
allowing the former to wield a greater influence over the latter from the practice of law for three (3) years, instead of the IBP’s
in view of the trust and confidence inherently imbued in such recommendation to suspend him indefinitely.
relationship.
The Court also deems it appropriate to modify the IBP’s
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited Resolution insofar as it orders respondent to return to
from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s complainants the amount of P2,500,000.00 and the legal
interests are fully protected: interest thereon. It is settled that in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the
properties of his clients that may come into his possession. Bar. In such cases, the Court’s only concern is the
determination of respondent’s administrative liability; it should
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client not involve his civil liability for money received from his client in
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to
the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend his professional engagement. In this case, respondent
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has received the P2,500,000.00 as a loan from complainants and
to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is not in consideration of his professional services. Hence, the
handling for the client.” IBP’s recommended return of the aforementioned sum lies
beyond the ambit of this administrative case, and thus cannot
The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his be sustained.
client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage
of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the
client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the Week 4
legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.
Perea v. Almadro, A.C. No. 5246, March 20, 2003
As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money from
complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Perea
lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected. against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as
Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent, lawyer of herein complainant. Respondent was his counsel
complainants relied solely on the former’s word. before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 99)
where he (complainant Perea) is being charged with the crime
In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated of Frustrated Homicide. RTC issued an order granting Atty.
Canon 7 of the CPR which reads: Almadro’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within
ten (10) days from said date. All the while, complainant thought

that respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier
dismissed. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant asked permission from the trial court and which his client,
learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial herein complainant was relying on. More than that, he failed to
court ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his contact his client and to apprise the latter about the
defense. Later, a warrant was issued for his arrest prompting developments of the case leaving complainant completely
him to surrender to the court and post bail. Complainant surprised and without any protection when years later, he
suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent’s received summons from the trial court asking him to present
neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of his evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial court
hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to issued a warrant for his arrest. Respondent’s negligence is
withdraw formally as his counsel so he could hire another compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the
lawyer. Because of Atty. Almadro’s neglect, complainant is story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette,
now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood. mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in
his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed
Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a
comment. The Court resolved to grant the said motions with a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on
warning that no further extensions shall be granted. the procedural steps he would undertake regarding
Respondent, through the law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a complainant’s case when instead he received a copy of this
Manifestation and Motion that respondent has not yet received complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP,
a copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the is not only outrageous but is contemptuous as it makes a
complainant to furnish them a copy. mockery of the Court.
Respondent through said law firm submitted an Answer to the Respondent would have this Court believe a very
complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC granted the preposterous story of how his draft disappeared, all the time
manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary
to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be
accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor. The act of
computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra to
court; a few days before the deadline, herein respondent tried show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court
to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were for deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation in the
nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led preparation of the Answer for herein respondent is appropriate.
him to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the Records reveal that both Attys. Sua and Alambra have filed
edited versions accordingly filed since it is his practice to their Joint Explanation.
expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized
and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge of the RTC Issue:
retired, as a consequence, actions on pending cases were held
in abeyance; moreover, communications with the herein Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of violation of Code
complainant had become rarer; thereafter, towards the end of of Professional Responsibility?
1997 up to the next five months of 1998, respondent was
preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where Held:
he ran and subsequently lost; then he was offered a position at
the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
Surveillance Division which he accepted; his time and attention misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the
was spent in the performance of his demanding job at the PSE argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
as well as in the preparation of his testimony before the Senate authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with the "BW" scam; inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
anent the case of herein complainant, he offered on several which has not been proved. A lawyer shall not knowingly
occasions to withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper,
complainant even to the extent of offering to return his language or argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a
acceptance fee which the latter however refused;6 it is not true decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
that complainant pleaded with respondent to withdraw as his already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
counsel, the truth being that it was complainant who refused to assert as a fact that which has not been proved. If not faithfully
let go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel or exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of the court may
of complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other
merely a collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty. courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled.
Solomon Villanueva; finally, he was actually mulling over the
possible procedural steps to take with regard to complainant’s Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
case when he received instead, a copy of the present
No. 144412, November 18, 2003
complaint. It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer
Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by insubordination, the Labor Arbiter misquoted this Courts
petitioner Allied Banking Corporation on 11 January 1978 and decision in Dosch v. NLRC, thus:
rose from accountant- book(k)eeper to assistant manager in
1991. His appointment was covered by a Notice of Personnel “As a general rule, the right to transfer or reassign an
Action which provides as one of the conditions of employment employee is recognized as an employers exclusive right and
the provision on petitioner’s right to transfer employees: the prerogative of management (Abbott Laboratories vs.
NLRC, 154 SCRA 713 [1987]). The exercise of this right, is not
REGULAR APPOINTMENT: xxx It is understood that the bank however, absolute. It has certain limitations. Thus, in Helmut
reserves the right to transfer or assign you to other Dosch vs. NLRC, et al. 123 SCRA 296 (1983), the Supreme
departments or branches of the bank as the need arises and in Court, ruled:
the interest of maintaining smooth and uninterrupted service to
the public. While it may be true that the right to transfer or reassign an
employee is an employers exclusive right and the prerogative
Private respondent was promoted several times and was of management, such right is not absolute. The right of an
transferred to several branches. employer to freely select or discharge his employee is limited
by the paramount police power xxx for the relations between
Effecting a rotation/movement of officers assigned in the Cebu capital and labor are not merely contractual but impressed with
homebase, petitioner listed respondent as second in the order public interest. xxx And neither capital nor labor shall act
of priority of assistant managers to be assigned outside of oppressively against each other.
Cebu City having been stationed in Cebu for seven years
already. Private respondent manifested his refusal to be Refusal to obey a transfer order cannot be considered
transferred to Bacolod City in a letter dated 19 April 1994 citing insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal,
as reason parental obligations, expenses, and the anguish that such (sic) as that of being away from the family. (Underscoring
would result if he is away from his family. He then filed a supplied by the Labor Arbiter)”
complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter reasoned that Galanida’s transfer was
Subsequently, petitioner bank informed private respondent that inconvenient and prejudicial because Galanida would have to
he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch effective 23 May incur additional expenses for board, lodging and travel. On the
1994. Private respondent refused. In a letter dated 13 June other hand, the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank failed to
1994, petitioner warned and required of private respondent show any business urgency that would justify the transfer.
ubsequently, petitioner informed private respondent that he
was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch, however, private On appeal, the NLRC likewise ruled that Allied Bank
respondent again refused. As a result, petitioner warned and terminated Galanida without just cause. Citing Dosch v. NLRC,
required him to follow the said orders; otherwise, he shall be the Court of Appeals held that Galanida’s refusal to comply
penalized under the company’s discipline policy. with the transfer orders did not warrant his dismissal. The
appellate court ruled that the transfer from a regional office to
Furthermore, private respondent was required to explain and the smaller Bacolod or Tagbilaran branches was effectively a
defend himself. The latter replied stating that whether he be demotion. The appellate court agreed that Allied Bank did not
suspended or dismissed, it would all the more establish and afford Galanida procedural due process because there was no
fortify his complaint pending before the NLRC and further hearing and no notice of termination. The Memo merely stated
charges petitioner with discrimination and favoritism in ordering that the bank would issue a notice of termination but there was
his transfer. He further alleges that the management’s no such notice.
discriminatory act of transferring only the long staying
accountants of Cebu in the guise of its exercise of ISSUE:
management prerogative when in truth and in fact, the ulterior
motive is to accommodate some new officers who happen to WON the LA and Atty. Durano violated Canon 10, Rule 10.02
enjoy favorable connection with management. As a result,
petitioner, through a Memo, informed private respondent that HELD:
Allied Bank is terminating him. The reasons given for the
dismissal were: (1) continued refusal to be transferred from the YES. Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante and Atty. Loreto M.
Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; and (2) his refusal to report for Durano are ADMONISHED to be more careful in citing the
work despite the denial of his application for additional vacation decisions of the Supreme Court in the future.
leave.
The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and, worse, the
After several hearings, the Labor Arbiter held that Allied Bank assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, both misquoted the
had abused its management prerogative in ordering the Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC. The Court held in
transfer of Galanida to its Bacolod and Tagbilaran branches. In Dosch:
ruling that Galanida’s refusal to transfer did not amount to
“We cannot agree to Northwests submission that petitioner Lerio, Criminal Case for attempted murder, before respondent
was guilty of disobedience and insubordination which Judge Antonio J. Fineza, RTC of Caloocan.
respondent Commission sustained. The only piece of evidence
on which Northwest bases the charge of contumacious refusal The respondent judge was charged administratively by Atty.
is petitioners letter dated August 28, 1975 to R.C. Jenkins Antonio D. Seludo, counsel for the accused, before the Office
wherein petitioner acknowledged receipt of the formers of the Court Administrator of the SC, with the following
memorandum dated August 18, 1975, appreciated his offenses: (1) gross ignorance of the law, (2) oppression in
promotion to Director of International Sales but at the same office, (3) grave abuse of authority, and (4) conduct
time regretted that at this time for personal reasons and unbecoming of a judge.
reasons of my family, I am unable to accept the transfer from
the Philippines and thereafter expressed his preference to It was alleged that on November 27, 2002, respondent judge
remain in his position, saying: I would, therefore, prefer to ordered the arrest of complainant for the failure of accused,
remain in my position of Manager- Philippines until such time Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, as well as their counsel, Atty.
that my services in that capacity are no longer required by Antonio Seludo, to appear in today’s promulgation of the
Northwest Airlines. From this evidence, We cannot discern decision despite due notice. The Order of Arrest commanded
even the slightest hint of defiance, much less imply any officer of the law to arrest complainant and to keep him in
insubordination on the part of petitioner.” jail until the decision in said Criminal Case shall have been
promulgated.
The phrase [r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be
considered insubordination where employee cited reason for Complainant averred that he was the defense counsel in two
said refusal, such as that of being away from the family does separate Criminal Cases: (1) before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo
not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. Galanida’s and (2) before respondent judge. On November 11, 2002,
counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized complainant received an order from respondent setting the
lines in the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case (before
Reports Annotated (SCRA). respondent judge) on November 18. The promulgation did not
push through as respondent judge was confined in a
The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of hospital. On November 25, complainant received another order
Supreme Court decisions or resolutions is not the work of the setting the promulgation at 8:30 a.m. of November 27.
Court, nor does it state this Courts decision. The syllabus is However, upon checking his calendar, complainant noticed
simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of that on the said date and time, he had a previously-set hearing
the decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the of Criminal Case before Judge Ramizo. Due to the conflicting
convenience of lawyers in reading the reports. A syllabus is not schedule, he instructed his secretary to inform the office of
a part of the courts decision. A counsel should not cite a respondent judge that he could not attend the promulgation of
syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision his decision. He was thus surprised to receive on November
of the Court. 28, the aforementioned order directing his arrest and detention.
In the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Durano Upon his arrest, complainant requested permission to go to the
began by quoting from Dosch, but substituted a portion of the court of respondent judge to ask for reconsideration. In court,
decision with a headnote from the SCRA syllabus, which they respondent judge refused to see him. Complainant waited and
even underscored. In short, they deliberately made the quote was able to talk to respondent judge when the latter went out
from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme of his chambers and walked to his car. Complainant pleaded
Court. We admonish them for what is at the least patent with respondent judge, who opened the windows of his car
carelessness, if not an outright attempt to mislead the parties and, in the presence of the police officers, said, kung gusto
and the courts taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates kita.
that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
text of a decision or authority. It is the duty of all officers of the Complainant spent the night in jail. The next day, he was
court to cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court brought to court for the promulgation of the decision. However,
accurately. Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., the public prosecutor, came
late and was improperly dressed. Respondent judge flared up,
Seludo v. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813, fined him and held the promulgation in abeyance until
Prosecutor Mananquil paid the cashier the one thousand peso
November 21, 2003
(P1,000.00)-fine meted on him. Atty. Eduardo Rodriguez, the
lawyer assisting complainant, requested for a written order to
The incident which gave rise to this administrative case
be presented to the cashier as basis for the payment of the
occurred in the course of the proceedings of People of the
imposed fine, but respondent merely told him, If you want an
Philippines vs. Alfonso De Villar, Errol De Villar and Rodeo
order, I will sign that order on Monday. Fortunately,
Prosecutor Mananquil was able to pay the fine. The decision
was promulgated on the same afternoon and complainant was detention of complainant since he is a counsel and not a
released from jail. material witness to a case. Section 6, Rule 120 (Promulgation
of judgment) of the Rules of Court is likewise of no help to the
Respondent judge: denied the allegations of the complaint. He respondent. It does not require the presence of the counsel
averred that he ordered the incarceration of complainant to during the promulgation of a judgment.
avoid delay in the promulgation of the decision in criminal
case. Allegedly, complainant failed to attend the first scheduled We hold that respondent violated Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the
date of promulgation. He likewise denied the car incident and Code of Judicial Conduct, which states:
alleged that he merely asked complainant, umalis ka diyan at
baka masagasaan iyong paa, since complainant was leaning Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous
on the left side of his car. to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses,
and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid
Complainant: Replied stating that his secretary called consciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are
respondents office on November 18, and was told that all made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
hearings scheduled for the day were cancelled due to
respondents hospitalization. He denied he was delaying the It is plain that respondent was impatient and discourteous in
case. dealing with complainant. Judges should respect all people
appearing before their courts, be they lawyers or
OCA: The arrest of the complainant was, therefore, not only litigants. Respondent ordered complainants arrest without
illegal, but also oppressive, and it violated his constitutional according him the elementary right to challenge the order. The
right to due process. Complainant was arrested and detained violation of his right to due process cannot be denied. To be
without giving him the opportunity to be heard. In so doing, sure, complainant satisfactorily explained his absence in the
respondent judge, wittingly or unwittingly, committed arbitrary November 18 scheduled promulgation. Before the
detention defined and penalized under Article 124 of the promulgation, complainants secretary called respondents office
Revised Penal Code when the order of arrest was issued for to verify the schedule and was informed that all hearings for
complainant (who) was not committing a crime the day were cancelled due to respondents confinement in the
hospital. It is therefore inaccurate to contend that complainant
In his COMMENT, respondent judge used the words: fact was absent twice, and he has to be arrested to prevent delay
fabricator, congenital liar, Indian who fails to comply with his in the promulgation of the decision. The Office of the Court
commitment and dim-witted lawyer, as descriptive of the Administrator correctly observed that the respondent should
complainant. These words are inflammatory which should have have followed the following procedure:
been avoided. In explaining why he issued the order of arrest
against the complainant, the use of intemperate and insulting What respondent judge should have done under the
rhetorics is not necessary, if only to maintain the dignity of, and circumstances obtaining at the time he issued the order of
respect for, the court as an institution arrest of complainant was first to issue an order directing him
(Seludo), within a reasonable time, to show cause why he
The OCA recommended that respondent judge be penalized to should not be punished for indirect contempt of court and,
pay a FINE in the amount of twenty thousand pesos reset the promulgation of the decision to some other time at
(P20,000.00) for gross ignorance of the law, oppression, grave the convenience of the court. If the explanation is not
abuse of authority and violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and satisfactory to the court, then and only then, that a penalty
Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional should be imposed upon the contemner.
Responsibility.
It is likewise provided in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC that
ISSUE: administrative cases against judges of lower courts, who are
likewise lawyers, are based on grounds which are also
W/N respondent judge should be fined? grounds for disciplinary action of members of the Bar, among
others, for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
We consider respondent judge to have violated: (1) Rule 8.01,
YES. The court held respondent judge guilty of gross Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
ignorance of procedure and impose on him a fine prohibits the use of inappropriate language: Rule 8.01. A
of P40,000.00, and gross misconduct and impose on him a fine lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
of P40,000.00, considering his repetition of the offense. which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper; and
Respondent based his authority in ordering complainants (2) Rule 10.03, Canon 10, which mandates the proper
incarceration on Section 14, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of observance of the rules of procedure:
Court (Bail to secure appearance of material witness). The rule
relied upon by the respondent cannot be used as basis for the
Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and Baculi v. Battung, A.C. No. 8920, September 28,
shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
2011
We are disappointed by respondents penchant for improper
Summary: So mga bes this case stems from a warfreak atty.
words when he called the complainant a fact fabricator, a
ewan ko guys pero grabe si koya naglitanya tas tinambangan
congenital liar, an Indian who fails to comply with his
niya outside ng courthouse si Judge! Grabe hahaha. Sigaw
commitment and dim-witted. We had previously admonished
siya ng sigaw hahahaha. Basta sobrang rak nitong abogado na
respondent judge for using inappropriate language. In Judge
to hahahaha. So sinuspend siya ng SC for a year, A lawyer
Antonio J. Fineza vs. Romeo P. Aruelo, where respondent
shall observe and maintain respect sa courts and to the
judge was enjoined to be more circumspect in his
judges. Kasi nga sigaw siya ng sigaw kahit na ibang tao na
language. We admonished him to exercise prudence and
yung nag uundergo ng trial sa courtroom ni Baculi. Basta rak
restraint in his language and sternly warned that a repetition of
kasi si kuya hahahaha.
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. In
a more recent case decided by the Court En Banc, Lim vs.
Facts:
Judge Antonio J. Fineza, respondent judge was also found
guilty of gross misconduct for failing to execute a judgment
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
which had become final, and was fined P30,000.00, with a
Battung with the Commission on Discipline of the IBP against
stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with
the respondent, alleging that the latter violated Canons 11 and
more severely.
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We consider respondents act of ordering the detention of

Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing
complainant without just cause as gross ignorance of the law
on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, the
or procedure, and the improper use of words in his Comment
respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge
as gross misconduct,[15] both under Section 8, Rule 140 of the
Baculi advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the
Revised Rules of Court, [16] as amended, viz:
respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that
he would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted,
Sec. 8. Serious charges Serious charges include:
"Then cite me!" Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and
imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left.
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct;…
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-
entered the courtroom and shouted, "Judge, I will file gross
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" Judge Baculi
ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the
Section 11 of the same Rule, provides the following
courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for the
penalty, viz:
second time. After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and
saw the respondent at the hall of the courthouse, apparently
SEC. 11. Sanctions A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a threatening
charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
tone.
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the

On the alleged violation of Canon 12 of the CPR, according to
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory pleadings in Civil
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
Case No. 2640, an ejectment case. Judge Baculi rendered on
government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
October 4, 2007 a decision in Civil Case No. 2640, which he
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include
modified on December 14, 2007. After the modified decision
accrued leave credits;
became final and executory, the branch clerk of court issued a
certificate of finality. The respondent filed a motion to quash
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
the previously issued writ of execution, raising as a ground the
more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Baculi asserted that the respondent knew as a lawyer
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
that ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of First Level
exceeding P40,000.00.
Courts and the latter was merely delaying the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. The respondent filed his
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent judge guilty of gross
Answer, 9 essentially saying that it was Judge Baculi who
ignorance of procedure and impose on him a fine
disrespected him (wow ganda ka??) [hinuhumiliate daw siya to
of P40,000.00, and gross misconduct and impose on him a fine
make it appear in public that he is a negligent lawyer,
of P40,000.00, considering his repetition of the offense.
incompetent, mumbling, and irresponsible lawyer]
SO ORDERED.
IBP findings: At the first part of the hearing as reflected in the A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely
TSN, it was observed that the respondent was calm. He disregards the latter's role, stature and position in our justice
politely argued his case but the voice of the complainant system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly
appears to be in high pitch. During the mandatory conference, threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for gross
it was also observed that indeed, the complainant maintains a ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent
high pitch whenever he speaks. Thereafter, it was observed effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public
that both were already shouting at each other. But after confidence in Judge Baculi's competence and in his ability to
hearing the tape, the undersigned in convinced that it was Atty. decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must
Battung who shouted first at the complainant. be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act
IBP: (lah ikaw naman pala talaga bes.) respondent failed to in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the
observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility justice system into disrepute.
that requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the
courts and judicial officers. The respondent also violated Rule WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Melchor A.
11.03 of Canon 11 that provides that a lawyer shall abstain Battung is found GUILTY of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of
from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is
before the courts. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective
upon the finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY WARNED
With respect to the charge of violation of Canon 12 of the Code that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more
of Professional Responsibility, Commissioner De la Rama severely.
found that the evidence submitted is insufficient to support a
ruling that the respondent had misused the judicial processes Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. 152072/ G.R.
to frustrate the ends of justice. Respondent: Reprimanded
No. 152104, July 12, 2007
Issue:
In a Resolution dated 26 September 2006, the Court En Banc
ordered Atty. Romeo G. Roxas to explain in writing why he
WON Atty. Battung violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the CPR
should not be held in contempt of court and subjected to
disciplinary action when he, in a letter dated 13 September
Held:
2006 addressed to Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario
with copies thereof furnished the Chief Justice and all the other
YES. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at
Associate Justices, intimated that Justice Nazario decided
him inside the courtroom during court proceedings in the
G.R. No. 152072 and No. 152104 on considerations other than
presence of litigants and their counsels, and court personnel.
the pure merits of the case, and called the Supreme Court a
The respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This
dispenser of injustice.
behavior, in front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed. We
note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi
The decision referred to in the letter is the Courts decision in
and acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his
these consolidated cases where Attys. Roxas and Santiago N.
position even after the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact,
Pastor were ordered to return, among others, to Antonio de
after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to the
Zuzuarregui, Jr., et al. the amount of P17,073,224.84. On 16
courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. These
November 2006, by way of compliance with the 26 September
actions were not only against the person, the position and the
2006 resolution, Atty. Roxas submitted his written explanation.
stature of Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose
proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and brought
His letter stated that:
to disrepute by the respondent.
“With all due respect to this Honorable Court, and beyond my
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their
personal grievances, I submit that the ruling in the subject
position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to
consolidated cases may not have met the standards or
publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court
adhered to the basic characteristics of fair and just decision,
that he represents.
such as objectivity, neutrality and conformity to the laws and
the constitution. Quite notably, despite my aggrieved
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
sentiments and exasperated state, I chose to ventilate my
due the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
criticisms of the assailed ruling in a very discreet and private
similar conduct by others.
manner. Accordingly, instead of resorting to public
criticism through media exposure, I chose to write a personal
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
letter confined to the hallowed halls of the highest tribunal
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
of the land and within the bounds of decency and propriety.
This was done in good faith with no intention whatsoever to

offend any member, much less tarnish the image of this xxx xxx xxx
Honorable Court. Nonetheless, it is with humble heart and a
repentant soul that I express my sincerest apologies not only to Rule 11.03. — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
the individual members of this Honorable Court but also offensive and menacing language or behavior before the
to the Supreme Court as a revered institution and ultimate Courts.
dispenser of j ustice. As earlier explained, I was merely
exercising my right to express a legitimate grievance or Rule 11.04. — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
articulate a bona fide and fair criticism of this not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Honorable Courts ruling. If the nature of my criticism/comment
or the manner in which it was carried out was perceived to It is the duty of a lawyer as an officer of the court to uphold the
have transgressed the permissible parameters of free dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence in
speech and expression, I am willing to submit myself to the the fair administration of justice and in the Supreme Court as
sound and judicious discretion of this Honorable Court. x x x” the last bulwark of justice and democracy. Respect for the
courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without
ISSUE: such guarantee, the institution would be resting on a very
shaky foundation. When confronted with actions and
W/N Atty. Roxas should be cited in contempt? statements, from lawyers and non-lawyers alike, that tend to
promote distrust and undermine public confidence in the
HELD: judiciary, this Court will not hesitate to wield its inherent power
to cite any person in contempt. In so doing, it preserves its
Yes. We find the explanations of Atty. Roxas unsatisfactory. honor and dignity and safeguards the morals and ethics of the
The accusation against Justice Nazario is clearly without basis. legal profession.
The attack on the person of Justice Nazario has caused her
pain and embarrassment. His letter is full of contemptuous Re : Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo,
remarks tending to degrade the dignity of the Court and erode
Adm. Case No. 7006, October 9, 2007
public confidence that should be accorded it. To prevent
liability from attaching on account of his letter, he invokes his
This administrative case stemmed from the events of the
rights to free speech and privacy of communication. The
criminal case No. 5144 entitled People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza,
invocation of these rights will not, however, free him from
heard before the sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan,
liability. As already stated, his letter contained defamatory
RTC of Surigao City
statements that impaired public confidence in the integrity of
the judiciary. The making of contemptuous statements directed
This criminal case was originally raffled to the sala of Judge
against the Court is not an exercise of free speech; rather, it is
Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City. Judge Buyser
an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of
denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring
the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise
that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was
of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and
sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of
efficiency of courts or public respect therefor and confidence
murder. Consequently, the counsel for the defense filed a
therein. Free expression must not be used as a vehicle to
Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty.
satisfy ones irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor and the
and even destroy this Court and its magistrates.
deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on
the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with
In the case at bar, we find the statements made by Atty. Roxas
reclusion perpetua, was not subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule
to have been made mala fides and exceeded the boundaries of
114 of the Rules of Court.1
decency and propriety. By his unfair and unfounded accusation
against Justice Nazario, and his mocking of the Court for
In an Order, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from further trying
allegedly being part of a wrongdoing and being a dispenser of
the case because of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior
injustice, he abused his liberty of speech. With his
Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold
contemptuous and defamatory statements, With his
neutrality of an impartial magistrate," by allegedly suggesting
contemptuous and defamatory statements,
the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel
Atty. Roxas likewise violated Canon 11 of the Code of
for the accused.
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 11.03 and
11.04. These provisions read:
The case was transferred to RTC of Surigao City, presided by
Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan. In an Order dated November 12,
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN
2002, Judge Tan favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the
THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL
Amount of Bail Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond at
OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT
P40,000.
BY OTHERS

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); instead of HELD: Yas!
availing himself only of judicial remedies, respondent caused
the publication of an article regarding the Order granting bail to Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are
the accused in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by
lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon
out," them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the
The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he]
the article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, to should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon
appear in court on September 20, 2003 to explain why they 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge
should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the to the proper authorities only.
publication of the article which degraded the court and its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation. Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he
The said Order stated that contrary to the statements in the made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002
article, Judge Buyser described the evidence for the allowing the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on
prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to prove the guilt of the bail.
accused only for homicide. Moreover, it was not true that
Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated
reason. Judge Buyser, in an Order dated August 30, 2002, that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article
declared in open court in the presence of respondent that he entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing
was inhibiting himself from the case due to the harsh murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18,
insinuation of respondent that he lacked the cold neutrality of 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondents
an impartial judge. statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case
No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of
Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold Star Daily Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall not make public
caused the publication of the article. He disclosed that statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
respondent stated that the crime of murder is non-bailable. arouse public opinion for or against a party.
When asked by the trial court why he printed such lies, Mr.
Francisco answered that his only source was respondent. Mr. In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing,
Francisco clarified that in the statement alleging that Judge respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of
Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an unclear reason, Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper
the phrase "for an unclear reason," was added by the authorities only for redress of his grievances against Judge
newspaper's Executive Editor Herby S. Gomez. Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of
the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was
conference, but refused to answer whether he made the studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was
statements in the article until after he shall have filed a motion a liar.
to dismiss. For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared
him in contempt of court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn
Rules of Court. to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his]
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
After this, respondent still entertained media interview in a courts as to [his] clients.
radio station, and in said interview, again attacked the integrity
of Judge Tan, calling him a judge who does not know the law, As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court,
a liar, and a dictator who does not accord due process to the respondent should have set the example of observing and
people. He was ordered by the trial cause to show cause why maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial
he should not be held in contempt and not be suspended from officers.
the practice of law for violating Canon 11 and 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. However, on scheduled hearing Montecillo v. Gica held: It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain
respondent did not appear or informed the court of his towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the
absence. court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the
court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has
ISSUE: taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our
democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be
Whether or not Prosec. Bagabuyo violated the canons? resting on a very shaky foundation.

Gabriel v. Court of Appeals 72 SCRA 272 the second petition itself), since the decision sought, to be
reviewed has long become final and executory with the entry
The petition in the cases at bar for review of the CA decision on May 10, 1976 of final judgment of denial of the first petition.
which affirmed in toto the Manila CFI’s judgment convicting,
after joint trial, the two petitioners accused of the crime of theft, Santiago v. Rafanan 440 SCRA 91
was denied for lack of merit. The court further noted that a first
petition for the same purpose filed through another lawyer had Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
been previously denied and final judgment entered, and cited Management and Penology filed for the disbarment of Atty.
Atty. Cornelio Orteza who filed the second petition at bar for Edison V. Rafanan. Than Complaint was filed with the
contempT and/or disciplinary action. Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. The petition stated that respondent, in notarizing
Respondent Atty. Orteza still filed without leave of court a several document on different dates failed and/or refused to: a)
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s resolution denying his make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community
petition for review and after having secured for the purpose an tax certificate of the affiants. B) enter the details of the
extension (on the ground of pressure of work) filed on July 12, notarized documents in the notarial register and c) make and
1976 his explanation. execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in
the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial
The Burden of both pleading is that the first petition to set provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
aside the CA affirmance of petitioner’s conviction was a special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, while the second petition Complainant likewise alleged that respondent executed an
was one for review under Rule 45. affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence
in the case wherein he was actively representing his client. The
ISSUE: IBP Board of Governors modigied the disbarment proposal and
instead imposed a penalty of PHP 3000 wih a warning that any
W/N Atty. Orteza should be cited in contempt repetition of the violation will be dealt with a heavier penalty.
RULING: Issue:
YES. The explanation is manifestly unsatisfactory. However WON the penalty imposed by the IBP is proper.
zealous may be counsel's concern and belief in the alleged
innocence of the petitioners, it is elementary that counsel may Held:
not split their appeal into one to set aside the appellate court's
denial of petitioners appellants' motion for reconsideration of its Yes. Atty. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law
decision affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction and/or and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
for new trial (the first petition) and into another to set aside the Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries
appellate court's decision itself, which affirmed the trial court's public. They are required to certify that the party to every
conviction of the petitioners-appellants (the second petition). document acknowleged before them has presented the proper
Residence certificate or exemption from the residence tax. And
Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court's to enter its number, place of issue, and date as part of such
processes and improper conduct that tends to impede obstruct certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a
and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished notarial registed; to enter therein all insruments notarized by
as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who filed the; and to “give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or
such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays acknowledged before them a number corresponding to the one
the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects in their register and to state therein the page or pages of their
himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing register, on which the same is recorded. Failure to perform
any better or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to these duties would result in the revocation of their commission
act with all good fidelity to the courts and to maintain only such as notaries public.
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with
truth and honor. Canon 5 is also violated because the canon state the
obligation of lawyers to be well-informed of the existing laws
Respondent Atty. Orteza is therefore adjudged guilty of and to keep abreast with the legal developments, recent
contempt of court and is ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred enactments and jurisprudence which the respondent failed to
(P500.00) pesos with ten (10) days from notice hereof failing satisfy.
which, he shall be imprisoned for a period of (50) days.
Hence, the penalty imposed by the IBP is proper.
Petitioners' purported motion for reconsideration of the Court's
resolution of June 11, 1976 denying their second petition is Foodsphere v. Mauricio 593 SCRA 367
ordered expunged from the records as a sham motion, (as is
Foodsphere, Inc, corporation engaged in the business of meat Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at he time of
processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods the filing of the present administrative complaint.
and grocery products under the brand name CDO, filed a
Verified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII-2006-
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and
(IBP) against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to suspend
Batas Mauricio (respondent), a writer/columnist of tabloids respondent from the practice of law for two years.The Court
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP well-taken. The Court,
HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity for
ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio program every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that
Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for (1) grossly promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal
immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and (3) profession, which confidence may be eroded by the
disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors. irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar.
On June 22, 2004, Cordero purportedly bought from a grocery ISSUE:

in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver
spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were Whether or not respondent Atty. Mauricio violated several
eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility
to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the
can. Corderos wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of RULLING:
Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory examination
confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver spread. YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the
practice of law.
Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and
incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos as long as they By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the
were supported by receipts, but the offer was turned down. Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers
And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
attention of the media. Respondent sent complainant via fax a deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in
copy of the front page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of the
issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 12 complaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds
which complainant found to contain articles maligning, for his BATAS Foundation and seek sponsorships and
discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its advertisements for the tabloids and his television program.
products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless
complainant gave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier Responsibility, which mandates: A lawyer shall not make public
conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned it down. statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.
The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the
withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the
dismissed the complaint. Respondent, who affixed his Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, viz:
signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and
document. shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31- language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper, by
September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, he wrote using intemperate language.
an article captioned KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD! In
another article, he wrote IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting
SILIPIN! which appeared in the same publication in its standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated
September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
its September 14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the
entitled DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO. dignity of the legal profession.
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent Wherefore, Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the
and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as
under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three years effective
upon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely. The Commissioner noted that both complaints remained
unsubstantiated, while the letter-complaint of Jimenez and
Jimenez v. Verano/ Lozamo v Verano, A.C. No. Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no evidence was
adduced to prove the charges. However, by his own
8108/ A.C. No. 10299, July 15, 2014
admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Comment,
respondent drafted the release order specifically for the
Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the
signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of "feeding" the draft
Complaint as the "Alabang Boys") were the accused in cases
order to the latter was found to be highly irregular, as it tended
filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
to influence a public official. Hence, Commissioner Abelita
the illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. 3 In a Joint
found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of
Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the charges
Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be
were dropped for lack of probable cause. 4 Because of the
issued a warning not to repeat the same or any similar action.
failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory
questions during the evaluation of the case, several media
ISSUE:
outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up"
allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. This
whether or not the attorney is administratively liable for the
prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its
violation of the code of professional responisibility
own congressional hearings. It was revealed during one such
hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his
RULING:
three clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.
After a careful review of the records, we agree with the IBP in
Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of
finding reasonable grounds to hold respondent administratively
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), sent a letter
liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating
of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated
Commissioner, states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits
that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and
of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act.
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court."
They argued that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ
We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional
letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a
Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not
member of the bar.
limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the
justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times
For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on
demanded from a member of the bar.
respondent's alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall
During the mandatory hearing conducted by the Committee on
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
Bar Discipline, respondent stated that the PDEA refused to
promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano contended
release his clients unless it received a direct order from the
that respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal
DOJ Secretary. This refusal purportedly impelled him to take
processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a high-
more serious action. He personally visited Secretary Gonzales
ranking public official, even though the latter was not a
and according to him he ( Gonzales) was entertaining us, and
government prosecutor.
we were discussing the case.
RESPONDENT'S VERSION
Respondent likewise stated that his "experience with Secretary
Gonzales is, he is very open;" and that "because of my
In his Comment, respondent alludes to the Joint Inquest
practice and well, candidly I belong also to a political family, my
Resolution dropping the charges against his clients for lack of
father was a Congressman. So, he (Gonzalez) knows of the
probable cause, arguing that the resolution also ordered the
family and he knows my sister was a Congresswoman of
immediate release of Brodett and Tecson. He reasoned that
Pasay and they were together in Congress. In other words, I
the high hopes of the accused, together with their families,
am not a complete stranger to him." Upon questioning by
came crashing down when the PDEA still refused to release
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco, respondent admitted that he
his clients. Sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and
was personally acquainted with the Secretary; however, they
fidelity to their cause prompted him to prepare and draft the
were not that close.
release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was
overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then
These statements and others made during the hearing
everything may be expedited." In any case, respondent
establish respondent's admission that 1) he personally
continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the
approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case
Secretary and therefore remained "a mere scrap of paper with
was still pending before the latter; and 2) respondent caused
no effect at all."
the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ
stationery despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in (complainants) office and demanded a certain amount from
view of "expediting the case." him other than what they had previously agreed upon. The
petitioner was shocked to find out later that instead of filing the
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent
intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a filed a letter-complaint against him with the Office of the
government agency. This is precisely the type of improper Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents.
behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances
bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the subject
tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have
an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial process filed.
is diluted. The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but
to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients' Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client relationship
success is wholly subordinate. Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer between him and complainant was terminated when he gave
shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law the handwritten letter to complainant; that there was no longer
or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Further, any professional relationship between the two of them when he
according to Rule 15.06, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document;
he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint
body." The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer "to for falsification were culled from public documents procured
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug, Pangasinan.
principles of fairness."
In a Resolution dated October 18, 2000, the Court referred the
Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
always be within the bounds of the law. Given the import of the investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner
case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not Villanueva-Maala ordered both parties to appear before the
serve as commensurate penalty for the offense. IBP. On said date, complainant did not appear despite due
notice. There was no showing that respondent received the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Felisberto L. notice for that days hearing and so the hearing was reset.
Verano, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07,
in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional On April 29, 2003, Commissioner received a letter from one
Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice Atty. Augusto M. Macam, stating that his client, William S. Uy,
of law for six (6) months effective immediately. This also had lost interest in pursuing the complaint he filed against Atty.
serves as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of any similar Gonzales and requesting that the case against Atty. Gonzales
offense shall be dealt with more severely. be dismissed.
Let copies of this Decision be appended to the respondent's On June 2, 2003, Commissioner submitted her report and
bar records. The Court Administrator is hereby directed to recommendation, portions of which read as follows:
inform the different courts of this suspension.
When respondent filed the Letter-Complaint to the Office of the
SO ORDERED. Special Prosecutor, he violated Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which expressly provides that A
lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
Chapter 4 (14-15) Attorney Client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Relationship Respondent cannot argue that there was no lawyer-client
relationship between them when he filed the Letter-Complaint.
Uy v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5280 The duty to maintain inviolate the clients confidences and
secrets is not temporary but permanent. It is in effect perpetual
William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case for it outlasts the lawyers employment (Canon 37, Code of
against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the Professional Responsibility) which means even after the
confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship. The relationship has been terminated, the duty to preserve the
complainant alleges: clients confidences and secrets remains effective. Likewise
Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Rules of Professional
Sometime in April 1999, he engaged the services of Responsibility provides that A lawyer shall not, to the
respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the
issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own
respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with the
discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the RTC.
When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to his
On 29 April 2003, the Commission received a letter dated 24 given to him, complainant failed to fulfill his end of the bargain
April 2003 from Atty. Augusto M. Macam, who claims to because of the alleged loss of the title which he had admitted
represent complainant, William S. Uy, alleging that to respondent as having prematurely transferred to his
complainant is no longer interested in pursuing this case and children, thus prompting respondent to offer his assistance so
requested that the same be dismissed. The aforesaid letter as to secure the issuance of a new title to the property, in lieu
hardly deserves consideration as proceedings of this nature of the lost one, with complainant assuming the expenses
cannot be interrupted by reason of desistance, settlement, therefor.
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of
the complainant to prosecute the same. (Section 5, Rule 139- As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a
B, Rules of Court). Moreover, in Boliver vs. Simbol, 16 SCRA lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation
623, the Court ruled that any person may bring to this Courts of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any
attention the misconduct of any lawyer, and action will usually kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional
be taken regardless of the interest or lack of interest of the advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should
complainant, if the facts proven so warrant. have employed the attorney on any previous occasion or that
any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for,
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty. neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not
Fermin L. Gonzales to have violated the Code of Professional afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was
Responsibility and it is hereby recommended that he be had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is
SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS from receipt sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession.
hereof, from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and
member of the Bar.[10] Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule
cannot apply to the present case. Evidently, the facts alleged in
On June 21, 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public
Bar of the Philippines issued Resolution No. XV-2003-365 Documents filed by respondent against complainant were
adopted and approved the recommendation of the obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with
Investigating Commissioner. complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the
issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense from complainant. Respondents immediate objective was to
a civil action. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private secure the title of the property that complainant had earlier
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are bought from his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They relationship between respondent and complainant. The
are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only
from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in incidental to their personal transaction.
them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his
conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the The alleged secrets of complainant were not specified by him
person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's in his affidavit-complaint. Whatever facts alleged by
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally respondent against complainant were not obtained by
no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may respondent in his professional capacity but as a redemptioner
have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the of a property originally owned by his deceased son and
evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant against herein complainant, which necessarily involved
or his withdrawal of the charges. alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not,
in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate
ISSUE: the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant
to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty,
WON the suspension was valid? probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be
HELD: precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to
protect his personal or proprietary interests.
No. A scrutiny of the records reveals that the relationship
between complainant and respondent stemmed from a WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XV-2003-365 dated June 21,
personal transaction or dealings between them rather than the 2003 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is REVERSED
practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with and SET ASIDE and the administrative case filed against Atty.
complainant only because he redeemed a property which Fermin L. Gonzales, docketed as A.C. No. 5280, is
complainant had earlier purchased from his (complainants) DISMISSED for lack of merit.
son. It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant
P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its title and
execute the Deed of Redemption. However, despite the period
Regala v. Sandinganbayan, G.R. No. 105938. hearing on October 18, 1991 in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
September 20, 1996
In its "Comment," respondent PCGG set the following
The matters raised herein are an offshoot of the institution of
conditions precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, namely:
the Complaint on July 31, 1987 before the Sandiganbayan by
(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of
the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential
documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c)
Commission on Good Government against Eduardo M.
the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners
Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal defendants, for the
executed in favor of its client covering their respective
recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of
stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil
shareholdings.9
Case No. 0033), entitled "Republic of the Philippines versus
Eduardo Cojuangco, et al."1
Consequently, respondent PCGG presented supposed proof to
substantiate compliance by private respondent Roco of the
Among the dependants named in the case are herein
conditions precedent to warrant the latter's exclusion as party-
petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V.
defendant in PCGG Case No. 33, to wit: (a) Letter to
Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P.
respondent PCGG of the counsel of respondent Roco dated
Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, and
May 24, 1989 reiterating a previous request for reinvestigation
herein private respondent Raul S. Roco, who all were then
by the PCGG in PCGG Case No. 33; (b) Affidavit dated March
partners of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala
8, 1989 executed by private respondent Roco as Attachment to
and Cruz Law Offices (hereinafter referred to as the ACCRA
the letter aforestated in (a); and (c) Letter of the Roco, Bunag,
Law Firm). ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its
and Kapunan Law Offices dated September 21, 1988 to the
clients, which included, among others, the organization and
respondent PCGG in behalf of private respondent Roco
acquisition of business associations and/or organizations, with
originally requesting the reinvestigation and/or re-examination
the correlative and incidental services where its members
of the evidence of the PCGG against Roco in its Complaint in
acted as incorporators, or simply, as stockholders. More
PCGG Case No. 33. 10
specifically, in the performance of these services, the members
of the law firm delivered to its client documents which
It is noteworthy that during said proceedings, private
substantiate the client's equity holdings, i.e., stock certificates
respondent Roco did not refute petitioners' contention that he
endorsed in blank representing the shares registered in the
did actually not reveal the identity of the client involved in
client's name, and a blank deed of trust or assignment covering
PCGG Case No. 33, nor had he undertaken to reveal the
said shares. In the course of their dealings with their clients,
identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-
the members of the law firm acquire information relative to the
stockholder.
assets of clients as well as their personal and business
circumstances. As members of the ACCRA Law Firm,
Held:
petitioners and private respondent Raul Roco admit that they
assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies
I
included in Civil Case No. 0033, and in keeping with the office
practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of
It is quite apparent that petitioners were impleaded by the
the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings.2
PCGG as co-defendants to force them to disclose the identity
of their clients. Clearly, respondent PCGG is not after
On August 20, 1991, respondent Presidential Commission on
petitioners but the "bigger fish" as they say in street parlance.
Good Government (hereinafter referred to as respondent
This ploy is quite clear from the PCGG's willingness to cut a
PCGG) filed a "Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint" and
deal with petitioners — the names of their clients in exchange
"Third Amended Complaint" which excluded private
for exclusion from the complaint. The statement of the
respondent Raul S. Roco from the complaint in PCGG Case
Sandiganbayan in its questioned resolution dated March 18,
No. 33 as party-defendant.3 Respondent PCGG based its
1992 is explicit:
exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant on
his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s
ACCRA lawyers may take the heroic stance of not revealing
for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the companies
the identity of the client for whom they have acted, i.e, their
involved in PCGG Case No. 33.
principal, and that will be their choice. But until they do identify
their clients, considerations of whether or not the privilege
Petitioners ACCRA lawyers subsequently filed their
claimed by the ACCRA lawyers exists cannot even begin to be
"COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION" dated October 8, 1991
debated. The ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse themselves from
with Counter-Motion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the
the consequences of their acts until they have begun to
same treatment to them (exclusion as parties-defendants) as
establish the basis for recognizing the privilege; the existence
accorded private respondent Roco.8 The Counter-Motion for
and identity of the client.
dropping petitioners from the complaint was duly set for

This is what appears to be the cause for which they have been of necessity and public interest 23 based on the hypothesis
impleaded by the PCGG as defendants herein. (Emphasis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is
ours) an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice.
In a closely related case, Civil Case No. 0110 of the In our jurisdiction, this privilege takes off from the old Code of
Sandiganbayan, Third Division, entitled "Primavera Farms, Civil Procedure enacted by the Philippine Commission on
Inc., et al. vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government" August 7, 1901. Section 383 of the Code specifically "forbids
respondent PCGG, through counsel Mario Ongkiko, counsel, without authority of his client to reveal any
manifested at the hearing on December 5, 1991 that the communication made by the client to him or his advice given
PCGG wanted to establish through the ACCRA that their "so thereon in the course of professional employment." 28 Passed
called client is Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco;" that "it was Mr. on into various provisions of the Rules of Court, the attorney-
Eduardo Cojuangco who furnished all the monies to those client privilege, as currently worded provides:
subscription payments in corporations included in Annex "A" of
the Third Amended Complaint; that the ACCRA lawyers Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
executed deeds of trust and deeds of assignment, some in the communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to
name of particular persons; some in blank. matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
It would seem that petitioners are merely standing in for their xxx xxx xxx
clients as defendants in the complaint. Petitioners are being
prosecuted solely on the basis of activities and services An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
performed in the course of their duties as lawyers. Quite examined as to any communication made by the client to him,
obviously, petitioners' inclusion as co-defendants in the or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
complaint is merely being used as leverage to compel them to professional employment, can an attorney's secretary,
name their clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
nail these clients. Such being the case, respondent PCGG has client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
no valid cause of action as against petitioners and should which has been acquired in such capacity.
exclude them from the Third Amended Complaint.
The question now arises whether or not this duty may be
II asserted in refusing to disclose the name of petitioners'
client(s) in the case at bar. Under the facts and circumstances
The nature of lawyer-client relationship is premised on the obtaining in the instant case, the answer must be in the
Roman Law concepts of locatio conductio operarum (contract affirmative.
of lease of services) where one person lets his services and
another hires them without reference to the object of which the As a matter of public policy, a client's identity should not be
services are to be performed, wherein lawyers' services may shrouded in mystery 30 Under this premise, the general rule in
be compensated by honorarium or for hire, 17 and mandato our jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer
(contract of agency) wherein a friend on whom reliance could may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
be placed makes a contract in his name, but gives up all that identity of this client. 31
he gained by the contract to the person who requested him. 18
But the lawyer-client relationship is more than that of the The reasons advanced for the general rule are well
principal-agent and lessor-lessee. established.
In modern day perception of the lawyer-client relationship, an First, the court has a right to know that the client whose
attorney is more than a mere agent or servant, because he privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and
possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on blood.
him by his client. 19 A lawyer is also as independent as the
judge of the court, thus his powers are entirely different from Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-
and superior to those of an ordinary agent.20 Moreover, an client relationship has been established. The attorney-client
attorney also occupies what may be considered as a "quasi- privilege does not attach until there is a client.
judicial office" since he is in fact an officer of the Court 21 and
exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of action to be Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of
taken favorable to his client. the relationship.
Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing
rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. "A party
those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate, suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent is." 32 He
exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces.
degree of fidelity and good faith, 22 that is required by reason 33
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is may not represent conflicting interests in the absence of the
however qualified by some important exceptions. written consent of all parties concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. IBP Commisser said that In the present
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists case, no such written consent was secured by respondent
that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in before accepting employment as Mrs. Cañete's counsel-of-
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. record. The former ruled that, Complainant and respondent's
present client, being contending claimants to the same
2) 2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil property, the conflict of interest is obviously present. There is
liability; his identity is privileged. For instance, the peculiar said to be inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one
facts and circumstances of Neugass v. Terminal Cab client, it is the attorney's duty to contend for that which his duty
Corporation,37 prompted the New York Supreme Court to to another client requires him to oppose. The IBP
allow a lawyer's claim to the effect that he could not reveal the Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be
name of his client because this would expose the latter to civil suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
litigation.
The case was transmitted to the IBP Board of Governors, it
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be
name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of fully supported by the evidence on record, the applicable laws
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the and rules. Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above
client's name is privileged. resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion
in a resolution dated July 30, 2004.
Aninon v. Sabitsana, 669 SCRA 46
ISSUE:
In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that
she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for
the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale representing conflicting interests.
over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband,
Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her HELD:
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her
for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. After a careful study of the records, the court agree with the
Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and
accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information the IBP Board of Governors. The relationship between a
he obtained from her in filing the civil case. Atty. Sabitsana lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the
admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of
and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of
received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted the client's most confidential information to his/her lawyer for
that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one an unhampered exchange of information between them.
Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the
and had instigated the complaint for this reason. The lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his
disbarment complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer's
investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report and duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests,
Recommendation, IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
found Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable for representing Professional Responsibility, saying that, “A lawyer shall not
conflicting interests. The IBP Commissioner opined that, In the represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
case of Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” "The
handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and proscription against representation of conflicting interests
thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that Zenaida applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present
L. Cañete, respondent's present client in Civil Case did not clients in the same action or in an unrelated action." The
initially learn about the sale executed by Bontes in favor of prohibition also applies even if the "lawyer would not be called
complainant thru the confidences and information divulged by upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to
complainant to respondent in the course of the preparation of oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion
the said deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty to to use the confidential information acquired from one to the
decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida Cañete disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly
in view of the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting unrelated." To be held accountable under this rule, it is
interests. Also, in support of IBP’s Resolution, it cited then "enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom
case, In re De la Rosa and it clearly suggests that a lawyer would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or
conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Cañete. The
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a
fidelity to both clients." letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete's
adverse claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale
Three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana
is present in a given case. however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also
being engaged as counsel by Zenaida Cañete. Moreover, the
1.) One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the written
issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon
oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer's 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer
in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. Accordingly, we find — as the IBP Board of Governors did —
Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
2.) Test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance interests. We likewise agree with the penalty of suspension for
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the one (1) year from the practice of law recommended by the IBP
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or Board of Governors. This penalty
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to
ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the Commission
3.) Another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty.
the new relation to use against a former client any confidential Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for
information acquired through their connection or previous representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03,
employment. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.
The court found that, Atty. Sabitsana's violation of the above
rule, as established by the following circumstances on Atty. Sabitsana is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of
record:One, his legal services were initially engaged by the his receipt of this Decision so that we can determine the
complainant to protect her interest over a certain property. The reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
records show that upon the legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the
Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in SO ORDERED.
the complainant's favor.Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida
Cañete to discuss the latter's legal interest over the property Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68
subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana
already had knowledge that Zenaida Cañete's interest clashed Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma.
with the complainant's interests.Three, despite the knowledge Socorro Manas, and Trinidad Nordista were the President,
of the clashing interests between his two clients, Atty. Vice-President, Treasurer, and Auditor, respectively, of the
Sabitsana accepted the engagement from Zenaida FEUFA. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino
Cañete.Four, Atty. Sabitsana's actual knowledge of the Salvador. The latter then commenced with the Department of
conflicting interests between his two clients was demonstrated Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint to declare illegal
by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the his expulsion from the union.
complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he
impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and In his resolution, Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin declared illegal
third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Salvador's expulsion and directed the union and all its officers
Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the to reinstate Salvador's name in the roll of union members with
complainant. all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. This resolution
was affirmed in toto by the Secretary of Labor and
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one Employment.
client against another client in the same action; he also
accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial
oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, a complaint against the
legal services had been previously retained. complainants herein for actual, moral, and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil
To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Code. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
Responsibility provides an exception to the above prohibition.
However, we find no reason to apply the exception due to Atty. As the complainants' counsel, the respondent filed a motion to
Sabitsana's failure to comply with the requirements set forth dismiss the said case on grounds of (1) res judicata by virtue of
under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of the final decision of the Med-Arbiter and (2) lack of jurisdiction,
facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Cañete before he
since what was involved was an intra-union issue cognizable mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
by the DOLE. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion
the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
The trial court, per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, granted devotion. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
Salvador's motion for reconsideration, however, it reconsidered by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
the order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an
complainants herein to file their answer within a nonextendible attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law
period of fifteen days from notice. carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration and dismissal of the case. This motion having In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the
been respondent explained his non-filing of the required answer by
impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume
denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case
certiorari, which was later referred to the Court of Appeals. he attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due to
Although that petition and his subsequent motion for his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial
reconsideration were both denied, the respondent still did not court.
file the complainants' answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's motion, the complainants were Certainly, "overzealousness" on the one hand and "volume and
declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to present his pressure of legal work" on the other are two distinct and
evidence ex-parte. separate causes or grounds. The first presupposes the
respondent's full and continuing awareness of his duty to file
The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of an answer which, nevertheless, he subordinated to his
default and to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before conviction that the trial court had committed a reversible error
the Clerk of Court, but to no avail. or grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order reconsidering
its previous order of dismissal of Salvador's complaint and in
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the denying the motion to reconsider the said order. The second
complainants herein to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff ground is purely based on forgetfulness because of his other
Salvador the amounts of moral damages, exemplary damages commitments.
or corrective damages; and attorney's fees; plus cost of suit.
Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains
The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated that the respondent did not comply with his duty to file an
the case to the Court of Appeals, which, however, affirmed in answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. His lack of diligence was
toto the decision of the trial court. compounded by his erroneous belief that the trial court
committed such error or grave abuse of discretion and by his
The respondent asserts that he was about to appeal the said continued refusal to file an answer even after he received the
decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the Court of Appeals' decision in the certiorari case. There is no
complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally showing whatsoever that he further assailed the said decision
terminated by complainant Veronica Santiago. before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court to prove his claim of overzealousness to
ISSUE: W challenge the trial court's order. Neither was it shown that he
alleged in his motion to lift the order of default that the
hether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as complainants had a meritorious defense. And, in his appeal
would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the from the
complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 for which
reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was judgment by default, he did not even raise as one of the errors
rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, of the trial court either the impropriety of the order of default or
which was received ex-parte. the court's grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to
lift that order. The respondent committed a breach of Canon 18
HELD: of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires him
to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence
Yes. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that
the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a "losing cause" for the
complainants since the claims therein for damages were based Yes, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
on the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating Canon
complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
illegal. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity
Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule
client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a]
probable results of the client's case, neither overstating nor lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
understanding the prospects of the case. consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from
REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more representing parties with conflicting interests in a controversy.
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is
founded on principles of public policy and good taste. A lawyer-
Castro-Justo v. Galing, A.C. No. 6174, client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close
friendship between complainant and respondent. The
November 16, 2011
relationship was established the moment complainant sought
legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks.
In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services
By drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such
of respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection with
relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in
dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W.
the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not
Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the
eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the
respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding
criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-
payment of the checks.Respondent advised complainant to
client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter
the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the
before filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal
case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust
complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas
and confidence
Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep
Consolidation that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
Professional Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a
which is of paramount importance in the administration of
demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only
justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him
in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason
but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will
of a professional engagement as professed by complainant.
not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the
He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he
Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients
rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant
cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former
would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged
lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only
that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the
malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence
services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated that the
resulting from the attorney-client relationship.Considering that
movants in these cases are mother and daughter while
it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the
complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these
complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by
cases arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and
the Board of Governors of the IBP,respondent is suspended
complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and
from the practice of law for one (1) year.
witnesses. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client
relationship existed between him and complainant because
there was no professional fee paid for the services he Jimenez v. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548,
rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative December 10, 2014
complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the
practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Summary: Eto, yung mark Jimenez, may stocks siya na
Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest. binigay niya sa common law partner niya siguro para di kunin
kasi madami siya cases for fraud talaga (pinaextradite pa nga
ISSUE: siya ni US eh.) ngayon, nagkaonsehan na sa corp.,so nagfile
sila mark and atty. Francisco ng complaint for estafa against
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 numerous people. NGAYON omg juicy part: etong Atty.
of Code of Professional Responsibility. Francisco pala binibigyan ni hunny bunch Caroline ng chika
chika about the company. Sila nagdraft and legal counsel ng
HELD: corp tapos shookt af si ate gurl nung kinasuhan na siya for

estafa (Pipiliin mo kasi itatrust mo in life.) Walang atty-client property were all prepared and drafted by Atty. Francisco or
relationship so hindi privilege yung communication. the members of his law office. 7 Atty. Francisco was the one
who actively participated in the transactions involving the sale
Facts: of the Forbes property. Without admitting the truth of the
allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its
Mario Crespo, otherwise known as Mark Jimenez (Jimenez), execution clearly betrayed the trust and confidence she
filed a complaint for estafa against complainant, her sister reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason, complainant
Rosemarie Flaminiano, Marcel Crespo, Geraldine Antonio, prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.
Brenda Heffron, Magdalena Cunanan, and Isabel Gonzalez.
Jimenez alleged that he was the true and beneficial owner of Atty. Francisco mainly argued that he violated neither the rule
the shares of stock in Clarion Realty and Development on disclosures of privileged communication nor the proscription
Corporation. On November 5, 2002, Jimenez transferred all his against representing conflicting interests, on the ground that
shares to complainant by another deed of assignment, making complainant was not his client. He was the lawyer of Jimenez
her the holder of Clarion shares amounting to P1,249,997.00. and the legal counsel of Clarion, but never of the complainant.
He might have assisted her in some matters, but these were all
According to Jimenez's complaint, while he was in prison in the under the notion that Jimenez had given him authority to do so.
United States in 2004(Naextradite na kasi siya dun [Sec. of Further, though he acted as legal counsel for Clarion, no
Justice vs. Lantion]), he learned from Atty. Francisco that his attorney-client relationship between him and complainant was
son, Marcel Crespo (Marcel), approached the complainant and formed, as a corporation has a separate and distinct
threatened her, claiming that the United States Internal personality from its shareholders.
Revenue Service (IRS) was about to go after their properties.
Marcel succeeded in persuading complainant to transfer her Investigating Commissioner: Guilty of violations of CPR,
nominal shares in Clarion to Geraldine Antonio, through suspended for 1 year. Andami kasi niyang inamin na
another deed of assignment. Again, this was reflected in kagaguhan (as alluded to by Atty. Francisco, the report stated
Clarion's GIS for the year 2004. that it would appear that the latter permitted
misrepresentations as to Clarion's ownership to be reported to
Thereafter, Jimenez was informed by Atty. Francisco that, the SEC through its GIS.)
through fraudulent means, complainant and her co-
respondents in the estafa case, put the Forbes property for IBP: Suspended for 1 year.
sale sometime in August 2004. The said property was
eventually sold to Philmetro Southwest Enterprise, Inc. Atty. Francisco appealed to the compassion of the IBP-BOG,
(Philmetro) for the amount of P118,000,000.00 without reasoning out that the penalty of suspension of one (1) year is
Jimenez's knowledge. This sale was again undervalued at too severe considering that in his more than three decades of
P78,000,000.00 per the deed of sale. Atty. Francisco relayed practice, he had never been involved in any act that would
to Jimenez that he was the one who received the payment for warrant the imposition of disciplinary action upon him.
the sale of the Forbes property and that he handed all the
proceeds thereof to Rosemarie Flaminiano in the presence of MR: denied by IBP
complainant.
Issue:
Jimenez's complaint for estafa was based on complainant's
alleged participation in the fraudulent means in selling the WON Atty. Francisco had violated the Code of Professional
Forbes property which was acquired by Clarion with Jimenez's Responsibility (Canon 1, 10, 15 and lawyers oath)
money. Complainant was duty-bound to remit all the proceeds
of the sale to Jimenez as the true and beneficial owner. Held:
Complainant and her co-respondents, however,
misappropriated and converted the funds for their personal use Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to
and benefit. laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is
expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any
Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in the act or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal
complaint for estafa filed by Jimenez against her. She felt even deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it also
more betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, inspires respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the
on whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion's public. Rule 1.0, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct
corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to be observed by all lawyers.
to file a disciplinary case against Atty. Francisco for
representing conflicting interests. According to her, she usually Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
conferred with Atty. Francisco regarding the legal implications unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards
of Clarion's transactions. More significantly, the principal the law is "unlawful.""Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily
documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion's imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad
enough to include such element. 16 To be "dishonest" means Jimenez's family by taking an upfront and candid stance in
the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be dealing with Jimenez's children and complainant. He could
unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in have been staunch in reminding the latter that his tasks were
principle, fairness and straightforwardness 17 while conduct performed in his capacity as legal counsel for Clarion and
that is "deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent and Jimenez. Be that as it may, Atty. Francisco's indiscretion does
deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used not detract the Court from finding that the totality of evidence
upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice presented by the complainant miserably failed to discharge the
and damage of the party imposed upon. 18 burden of proving that Atty. Francisco was her lawyer. At most,
he served as the legal counsel of Clarion and, based on the
Membership in the legal profession is bestowed upon affirmation presented, of Jimenez. Suffice it to say,
individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to complainant failed to establish that Atty. Francisco committed a
possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and violation of the rule on conflict of interests.
comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF
legal profession. LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE:
In the facts obtaining in this case, Atty. Francisco clearly 1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective
violated the canons and his sworn duty. He is guilty of attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted relationship that the client made the communication.
to having allowed his corporate client, Clarion, to actively
misrepresent to the SEC, the significant matters regarding its 2. The client made the communication in confidence. The mere
corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
shareholdings. confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
confidential.
RULE ON CONFLICTING INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE OF
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: 3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, "[a] lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Edgar B. Francisco
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the GUILTY of violation of Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
facts." 24 "The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client Professional Responsibility for which he is SUSPENDED from
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's most commission of the same or similar offense in the future will
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a
Week 5
client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer
based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and Businos v. Ricafort, Adm. Case No. 4349,
transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer's duty in this December 22, 1997
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests. . ." 25
Respondent Atty. Ricafort was the counsel of records of herein
Thus, even if lucrative fees offered by prospective clients are at
complainant in a civil case wherein he was appointed to be the
stake, a lawyer must decline professional employment if the
true and lawful attorney-in-fact of complainant to represent,
same would trigger a violation of the prohibition against conflict
testify and collect the sum of money from the court.
of interest.
Respondent received the amount from the court and Oas
Standard High School which was entrusted to him by herein
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the rule on conflict of
complainant to deposit the same to the bank account of
interests presupposes a lawyer-client relationship. The
complainant’s husband. However, instead of depositing the
purpose of the rule is precisely to protect the fiduciary nature of
money, herein respondent used the same for his personal use
the ties between an attorney and his client. Conversely, a
and despite of several demands of complainant, he failed to
lawyer may not be precluded from accepting and representing
return the money which forced complainant to file a criminal
other clients on the ground of conflict of interests, if the lawyer-
case, administrative case and disbarment case against him.
client relationship does not exist in favor of a party in the first
Complainant further accused him for demanding and receiving
place.
Php 2,000.00 which he said will be used for the bond in civil
case which was never really required in the said case. The
Markedly, Atty. Francisco could have prevented his
court issued several resolutions against respondent but he did
entanglement with this fiasco among the members of
not comply. The court decided that he deemed to have waived that the said property was already sold at a public auction on
his right to file his comment. On the third hearing of the estafa June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and
case against respondent, he came to the court with the money registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
and paid complainant which made her not to pursue with the
xxx
estafa case but did not withdrew the administrative case.
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
ISSUE:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee,
WN Atty Ricafort violated his lawyer’s oath?
provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all
HELD: expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of ISSUE:
having used the money of his clients without their consent.
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in
involving a champertous contract.
favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately
turned over to them HELD:
Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six
personal use without their consent , and by deceiving the (6) months.
complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00
RATIO: The Court finds that the agreement between the
purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is,
respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the
undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross
Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer
misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in
may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the
him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an
expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of
unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an
Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good
honorable profession.
faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be
“When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent
client after it has been demanded he may be punished for and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for
contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by
official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay
not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.” expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is
champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against
public policy especially where, as in this case, the attorney has
Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625, February agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in
consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in
12, 1990
dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his
Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.
gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Required by
this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed
a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to order Junio v. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020, December 18,
complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges
2001
more definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondent’s
motion and required complainant to file an amended complaint. This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Salvador
Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, M. Grupo for malpractice and gross misconduct.
alleging that respondent committed the following acts:
Complainant Rosario N. Junio alleged that:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients,
Sometime in 1995, [she] engaged the services of [respondent],
namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha
for the redemption of a parcel of land registered in the name of
Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all
her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes, and located
expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty
at Loay, Bohol.
percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.
On 21 August 1995, [complainant] entrusted to [respondent]
xxx
the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the redemption
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter of the aforesaid property. Respondent received the said
into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the amount as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt
development into a residential subdivision of the land involved
However, respondent did not redeem the property; as a result
in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929,
of which the right of redemption was lost and the property was
claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as
eventually forfeited. Because of respondents failure to redeem
attorney’s fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well
the property, complainant had demanded [the] return of the advice. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent
money which she entrusted to the former for the above-stated failed to pay his clients money. However, in view
purpose, but respondent has continuously refused to refund of respondents admission of liability and plea for magnanimity,
the money. the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent
be simply reprimanded and ordered to pay the amount of
In his Answer, respondent Junio admitted receiving the amount
P25,000.00 loan plus interest at the legal rate.
in question for the purpose for which it was given. However, he
alleged that the subject land for which the money of The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
complainant was initially intended to be applied could really not Investigating Commissioners findings. However, in addition to
be redeemed anymore. Complainant knew the mortgage the order to pay the amount, it ordered: Respondent be
agreement between her parents and the mortgage-owner had suspended indefinitely from the practice of law for the
already expired, and what respondent was trying to do was a commission of an act which falls short of the standard of the
sort of a desperate, last-ditch attempt to persuade the said norm of conduct required of every attorney
mortgagee to relent and give back the land to the mortgagors
ISSUE:
with the tender of redemption; but at this point, the mortgagee
simply would not budge anymore. For one reason or another, W/N Respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR?
he would no longer accept the sum offered.
HELD:
By the time that complainant was to return to Manila, it was
Yes, Atty. Grupo is guilty of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code
already a foregone matter that respondents efforts did not
of Professional Responsibility and the Court orders him
succeed. When transaction failed, respondent requested the
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
complainant that he be allowed, in the meantime, to avail of the
month and to pay to respondent, within 30 days from notice,
money because he had an urgent need for some money
the amount of P25,000.00 with interest at the legal rate.
himself to help defray his children’s educational expenses. It
was really a personal request, a private matter between The existence of a loan in the amount of P25,000.00 is
respondent and complainant, thus, respondent executed a confirmed by the execution of a promissory note on 12
promissory note for the amount, a copy of which is probably December 1996 by the respondent who undertook to pay Mrs.
still in the possession of the complainant. Junio on or before January 1997. Moreover, the demand letter
of 12 March 1998 mentions of reimbursement of the sum
The family of the complainant and that of the respondent were
received and interest of 24% per annum until fully paid giving
very close and intimate with each other. Complainant, as well
the impression that the funds previously intended to be used
as two of her sisters, had served respondents family as
for the repurchase of a certain property was converted into a
household helpers for many years when they were still in
loan with the consent of the complainant.
Manila, and during all those times they were treated with
respect, affection, and equality. They were considered Be that as it may, the duty and obligation to repay the loan
practically part of respondents own family.That is why, when remains unshaken. Having utilized the sum to fulfill his urgent
complainant requested assistance regarding the problem of the need for some money, it is but just and proper that he return
mortgaged property which complainant wanted to redeem, the amount borrowed together with interest.
respondent had no second-thoughts in extending a lending
Five (5) years had already passed since respondent retained
hand. Respondent did not ask for any fee. His services were
the cash for his own personal use. But notwithstanding the
purely gratuitous; his acts [were] on his own and by his own. It
same and his firm promise to pay Mrs. Junio on or before
was more than pro bono; it was not even for charity; it was
January 1997 he has not demonstrated any volition to settle
simply an act of a friend for a friend. It was just lamentably
his obligation to his creditor.
unfortunate that his efforts failed.
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
Of course, respondent accepts his fault, because, indeed,
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or
there were occasions when complainants sisters came to
by independent advice (Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
respondent to ask for the payment in behalf of complainant,
Responsibility). This rule is intended to prevent the lawyer from
and he could not produce the money because the
taking advantage of his influence over the client.
circumstances somehow, did not allow it. It does not mean that
respondent will not pay, or that he is that morally depraved as This rule is especially significant in the instant case where the
to wilfully and deliberately renege in his obligation towards the respondent enjoys an immense ascendancy over the
complainant. complainant who, as well as two of his sisters, had served
respondents family as household helpers for many years.
The case was thereafter referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and Having gained dominance over the complainant by virtue of
recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found such long relation of master and servant, the respondent took
respondent liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of advantage of his influence by not returning the money
Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from entrusted to him. Instead, he imposed his will on the
borrowing money from their clients unless the latters interests complainant and borrowed her funds without giving adequate
are protected by the nature of the case or by independent
security therefor and mindless of the interest of the ayaw ibigay ni kuya guys! Grabeycious ang atty. binayaran
complainant. niya lang ng 2650 yung clients. Jusq from 6500 naging 2650.
So kinasuhan siya then sabi niya, pinilit daw siya na dun na
In the light of the foregoing, respondent has committed an act
ibawas yung atty.’s fee pati other expenses. Sabi ng court,
which falls short of the standard of the norm of conduct
deserve ni atty. mabash dahil naviolate niya ang Canon 17 and
required of every attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is
16.03 kasi nga mga bes, nag enter siya into compromise
required by the law to repay the loan failing which he may be
nanag walang authority then winiwithhold niya yung bayad di
subjected to court action, it is more so in the case of a lawyer
man lang inisip na matatandang obrero yung clients niya
whose conduct serves as an example.
hassle.
Respondents liability is for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code
Facts:
of Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from
borrowing money from their clients unless the latters interests Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the complainants
are protected by the nature of the case or by independent in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against their
advice. In this case, respondents liability is compounded by the employer, the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, before the
fact that not only did he not give any security for the payment National Labor Relations Commission. Respondent was their
of the amount loaned to him but that he has also refused to counsel. Judgment was rendered in their favor, in the amount
pay the said amount. His claim that he could not pay the loan of P6,500. After the decision became final, a writ of execution
because circumstances did not allow it and that, because of issued. However, without authority from his clients, respondent
the passage of time, he somehow forgot about his obligation compromised the award and was able to collect P5,500 only.
only underscores his blatant disregard of his obligation which Complainants said they made several demands upon
reflects on his honesty and candor. A lawyer is bound to respondent to turn over to them the amount collected minus
observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and the agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%), but
transactions with his client. Atty. Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum of
P2,650. Complainants then instituted the instant case.
Respondent claims that complainant is a close personal friend
and that in helping redeem the property of complainants In his answer, filed on December 15, 1975, respondent stated
parents, he did not act as a lawyer but as a friend, hence there that he offered to give complainants their money, but they
is no client-attorney relationship between them. This contention insisted that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount of
has no merit. As explained in Hilado v. David,[9] P2,000, representing the amount discounted by the counsel of
the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, together with sheriff
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that
legal fees and other administrative expenses." 4 Respondent
the client should have employed the attorney professionally on
claimed that to accept complainants' proposition meant that he
any previous occasion . . . It is not necessary that any retainer
"would not be compensated for prosecuting and handling, the
should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it
case."
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a SC: refer kay OSG
person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any
OSG: conduct hearing pero 3x lang nag attend, SG ordered
kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with
respondent testimony be stricken and moved the case to be
the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and
submitted for resolution for his failure to appear.
the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be IBP: no one appeared (Di tulad ng birds na suddenly nag
regarded as established . . . aappear every time you are near) tas sinubpoena, unserved
kasi it appears na naglipat bahay gang na si Atty. moved to
WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty of violation of
submit the case for resolution on the basis of existing
Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
evidence; MR si respondent. Rinefer kay Office of the Bar
orders him suspended from the practice of law for a period of
Confidant (OBC)
one (1) month and to pay to respondent, within 30 days from
notice, the amount of P25,000.00 with interest at the legal rate, Issue:
computed from December 12, 1996.
WON Atty. Angeles be suspended from the practice of law
SO ORDERED.
Held:
Alleging difficulties in collecting the full amount awarded,
Manalang v. Angeles, A.C. No. 1558, March 10, respondent compromised the award on execution and
collected only P5,500 from the losing party in NLRC case. This
2003
compromise was allegedly without authority from his clients.
Summary: Si Atty. Angeles counsel nila complainant sa labor The authority to compromise cannot be lightly presumed and
case. Nanalo. Ngayon may inaward na pera pero dahil hirap must be supported by evidence. In the instant case,
maningil kela losing party nag enter into compromise si atty. respondent failed to show such authority. Money claims due to
nabawasan yung amount paid from 6500 naging 5500. Tapos workers cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement or

compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the Ramos v. Imbang, A. C. No. 6788, August 23,
workers concerned. A client has every right to expect from his
2007
counsel that nothing will be taken or withheld from him, save
by the rules of law validly applied. By compromising the This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty.
judgment without the consent of his clients, respondent not Jose R. Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of
only went against the stream of judicial dicta, he also exhibited Professional Responsibility.
an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well
THE COMPLAINT
as want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.
In so doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance
Responsibility. of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal
actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.
Worse, as found by the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline,
She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter
respondent only offered to remit to complainants the amount of
issued a receipt for P5,000 only.
P2,650 or P1,325 each, an amount substantially less than the
P2,275 that each complainant was entitled to receive under the The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her
judgment. On this score, respondent failed to establish any cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never
credible defense. Moreover, he consistently failed to appear at allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait
the hearings scheduled by the CBD. Hence, his excuse for outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform
failing to give the money due his clients merit scant her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This
consideration. happened six times and for each appearance in court,
respondent charged her P350.
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. 20 In the instant After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
case, the records clearly and abundantly point to respondent's suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her
receipt of and failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of cases in the trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She
P4,550 intended for his clients. This is a clear breach of Rule was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case
16.03, 21 Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in
Moreover, his excuse in his answer, that he should be allowed the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
to deduct sheriff's fees and other administrative expenses RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
before delivering the money due his clients, is unsatisfactory.
Respondent clearly failed to comply with the Rules of Court in According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in
the enforcement of an attorney's liens. 22 The records of this the government service from the very start. In fact, he first met
case are barren of any statement of respondent's claims for the complainant when he was still a district attorney in the
lien or payment of his alleged disbursements. Nor did Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of
respondent present any showing that he caused written notices Bian, Laguna and was assigned as counsel for the
of his lien on the money judgment to be served upon his clients complainant's daughter.
and to the losing party. In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an
His act of holding on to his clients' money without their action for damages against the Jovellanoses. Because he was
acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and with the PAO and aware that the complainant was not an
propriety. He was clinging to something which was not his, and indigent, he declined. Nevertheless, he advised the
to which he had no right. 23 He appears oblivious of the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a relative who was a
admonition that a member of the legal fraternity should refrain private practitioner. Atty. Ungson, however, did not accept the
from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and complainant's case as she was unable to come up with the
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and acceptance fee agreed upon. Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's
integrity of the legal profession. refusal, the complainant allegedly remained adamant. She
insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she might spend
Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the instant case the cash on hand, the complainant asked respondent to keep
were poor working men. They were made to wait long for their the P5,000 while she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's
money, by their very own counsel, contrary to the Attorney's acceptance fee.
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is
contrary to all ethical principles that members of the bar are A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an
supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no hesitance in imposing on antedated receipt because one of her daughters asked her to
respondent the penalty of suspension. However, this is the first account for the P5,000 she had previously given the
case on record against him, a fact which could be taken into respondent for safekeeping. Because the complainant was a
account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount friend, he agreed and issued a receipt dated July 15, 1992.
involved, the penalty of six (6) months suspension appears to On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO. A few
us in order. months later or in September 1994, the complainant again
asked respondent to assist her in suing the
Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was now a private practitioner,
respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he was he, a government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees
unable to finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant. and not allowed to accept them.
ISSUE: WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating
the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule
WON Atty Imbag should be disbarred
18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
HELD: YES. he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are
expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they
are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of Hernandez v. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, June 20,
the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to 2012
public service.
This is a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez
Government employees are expected to devote themselves (complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla
completely to public service. For this reason, the private (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, for his
practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code alleged negligence in the handling of her case.
of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
The records disclose that complainant and her husband were
provides:
the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to the RTC Manila.
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
In a decision penned by Judge Carandang, the RTC ordered
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein, Elisa
and employee and are hereby declared unlawful:
Duigan (Duigan), attorneys fees and moral damages.
xxx xxx xxx
Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal to the CA. –
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, Granted!
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution
not:
dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant
xxx xxx xxx claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he
acted with deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless
law. Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal,
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such
because respondent never informed them of the adverse
practice will not conflict with their official function.
decision. Complainant further claims that she asked
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private respondent several times about the status of the appeal, but
cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response, to the
the work of their respective offices. damage and prejudice of the spouses.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the The complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the
complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking the disbarment
was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a of respondent on the following grounds: deceit, malpractice,
client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Respondent's and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages
admission that he accepted money from the complainant and in the amount of ₱350,000.
the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client
Respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint.
relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the
Respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of
receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while
complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory
he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated
conference set by the IBP on 13 December 2005, he had
the prohibition on private practice of profession.
never met complainant, because it was her husband who had
There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of personally transacted with him. According to respondent, the
violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. husband despondently pleaded to me to prepare a
Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the period
complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days. Thus,
held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as an respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal
amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment because he honestly believed that it is this pleading which was
obligation in favor of the client) nor was it given to him for a required.
specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised
bond). Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as
complainants husband to settle the case. The latter allegedly

gestured approval of the advice. After the husband of filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel. He
complainant picked up the Memorandum for filing, respondent could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel
never saw or heard from him again and thus assumed that the of complainant and her husband in the case and informed the
husband heeded his advice and settled the case. When court that he could no longer contact them. His failure to take
respondent received an order from the CA requiring him to file this measure proves his negligence.
a comment on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Duigan, he
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and
instructed his office staff to contact Mr. Hernandez thru
a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his
available means of communication, but to no avail.
part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence
Respondent insists that he had never met complainant prior to in handling the client’s case, viz:
the mandatory conference set for the disbarment Complaint
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
she filed against him. However, a perusal of the Memorandum
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had
him liable.
signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein,
including complainant and her husband. Nowhere does the Respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating
document say that it was filed only on behalf of complainants Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04 of the Code of Professional
husband. Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a
ISSUE:
repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with
Whether or not Rules 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04 were violated more severely.
RULING:
Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle Zarate-Bustamante v. Libatique, A.C. No. 4990,
any legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true
September 26, 2001
that respondent was not complainant’s lawyer from the trial to
the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his Elena Zarate-Bustamante, Felicitas Zarate-Savet, and
duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he Florencio Zarate were children of Casimiro and Trinidad
felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters Zarate. The spouses Zarate owned a parcel of land in Bauang,
involved, as he was approached by complainant’s husband La Union, with an area exceeding 3,000 square meters.
only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Casimiro donated the land to Florencio in 1944. In 1974, with
Appellant’s Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for respondent as counsel, Bustamante and Savet filed an action
extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of seeking partition of the land Defendant therein was Florencio
whatever pleading he could come up with, just to “beat the Zarate. On October 2, 1975 the CFI ordered the parties to
deadline set by the Court of Appeals.” voluntarily partition the property, inasmuch as all three siblings
have a right to the land. Zarate appealed from the decision of
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice
the CFI. In a decision promulgated on January 29, 1982, the
of the fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of
Court of Appeals reversed the order of the CFI and dismissed
explaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the
the complaint, after it found that the property in question was
appellate court, he chose to ignore the CA’s Order. He claims
donated to Zarate by his father in 1944. Bustamante secured a
that he was under the presumption that complainant and her
copy of the CFI order of partition and inquired from respondent
husband had already settled the case, because he had not
if it could still be enforced. Respondent replied that the CFI
heard from the husband since the filing of the latter’s
order of partition could still be enforced, and that the
Memorandum of Appeal.
extrajudicial partition made by the heirs of Zarate was null and
This explanation does not excuse respondent’s actions. void, being contrary to the CFI order. Respondent agreed to
file a new case to enforce the order, for an acceptance fee of
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could
P10,000.00 and appearance fee of P500.00. Complainants
have availed himself of from the moment he received the
paid the acceptance fee on September 30, 1998. On the same
Notice from the CA to the moment he received the disbarment
day, respondent, as counsel for Bustamante and Savets
Complaint filed against him. But because of his negligence, he
daughter Leonora Savet- Catabian, filed a new case for
chose to sit on the case and do nothing.
recovery of ownership, partition, and declaration of nullity of
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his extrajudicial partition. However, the case was dismissed upon
clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so amounted motion of the heirs of Zarate, who cited the 1982 ruling of the
to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which reads: CA upholding Zarates ownership of the property, which had
become final and executory. Complainants claimed to have
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
been unaware of the appeal made by Zarate to the CA, and
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
confronted respondent about the matter. However, respondent
to the client’s request for information.
allegedly claimed ignorance of such appeal. Respondent
If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, stated that in agreeing to accept the new case, he only relied
the least respondent could have done was to inform the CA by on the order of the CFI dated October 2, 1975, which he
believed could still be enforced. He also believed that the FERNANDO MARTIN PENA vs. ATTY. LOLITO
extrajudicial partition made by Zarates heirs was null and void,
G. APARICIO A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007
owing to the CFIs order of partition.
Facts:
ISSUE:
•
Whether or not Atty. Libatique is negligent in handling the case
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C.
RULING: YES.
Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor
Respondent admits having filed an appellees brief when the Relations Commission (NLRC) against complainant Fernando
CFIs order of partition was appealed to the CA. Yet, he claims Martin Pena.
to have lost track of the case owing to numerous other
Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, but Pena
commitments requiring his attention. He faults complainants for
rejected the claim as baseless.
failing to inquire from him about the status of the case, despite
having had the opportunity to do so when they went home to •
Bauang on several occasions. He blames them for not taking
Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's
further steps to enforce the CFI order and protect their right to
claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he threatened
the property. Respondent also argues that complainants
complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they
should have known of the appeal, since he certainly did not
propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts
personally cause the printing of the appellees brief and provide
including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as
the money to pursue the appeal in Manila.
tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of
We are not entirely persuaded by respondents attempt to shift business license to operate due to violations of laws.
the blame to his clients regarding their case on appeal.
Issue:
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
* WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR,
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with zeal within
diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04
the bounds of the law?
provide: Rule 18.03.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith YES NB: Rule 19.01.
shall render him liable. Rule 18.04.A lawyer shall keep the A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate
within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
Clearly, respondent breached his duty to his client when he charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
conveniently forgot about the appeal filed by Zarate. His proceeding."
negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and * WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio?
diligence required of every lawyer, and his admission of
NO, reprimand only
negligence does not mitigate his liability. He cannot now shift
the blame to complainants for failing to inquire about the status Held:
of the case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to
* Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file
inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to him. His
any unfounded or baseless criminalcase or cases against the
failure to do so is an infraction that this Court will not
adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel
countenance.
the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against
Respondent cannot simply say that he lost track of the first the lawyer's client.
partition case because he had numerous other commitments to
* In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for
attend to. Like all professionals, he is expected to devise ways
violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.
to follow the course of his cases and to keep his files updated.
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats
None of these would have happened had respondent been
of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,…
more mindful of his responsibilities as an attorney.
obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining
Neither is the passage of time an excuse. It is a fundamental from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some
rule of ethics that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an secret calculated to operate to his prejudice."
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. It is
The letter in this case contains more than just a simple
respondents bounden duty to see his cases through until
demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory
properly completed and not abandon or neglect them in
charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his
midstream.
client's claim for separation pay. Indeed, letters of this nature
are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

•It was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed
violations of the law as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the Resolution No. XVI-2004-121, adopting and approving in toto
letter even contains an implied promise to "keep silent" about Commissioner Navarros Report and Recommendation.
the said violations if payment of the claim is made on the date
Incidentally, upon learning of our Decision, respondent went to
indicated.
the MTC, Branch I, Binangonan, Rizal to verify the status of
•DECISION: Civil Case No. 00-044. There, he learned of the trial courts
Decision dated December 6, 2001 holding that the tax
While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards,
declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official
we hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed
records of the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed.
on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his
Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint
overzealousness to protect his client's interests. Accordingly,
against complainant charging her with violations of Article 171
the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.
and 172, and/or Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code. He
* On the sui generis character of disbarment proceedings, the alleged that complainant offered tampered evidence.
Court ratiocinated in In re Almacen: Disciplinary proceedings
In this motion for reconsideration, respondent raises the
against lawyers aresui generis.
following arguments:
Neither purely civil nor purely criminal they do not involve a trial
First, complainant did not engage his services as counsel in
of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court
Civil Case No. 00-044. She hired him for the purpose of filing
into the conduct of one of its officers Not being intended to
two new petitions, a petition for declaration of nullity of title and
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
a petition for review of a decree.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein.
It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is Second, Civil Case No. 00-044 was considered submitted for
its primary objective, and the real question for determination is decision as early as August 6, 2001, or more than two months
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the prior to October 13, 2001, the date he was engaged as
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary counsel, hence, he could not have done anything anymore
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to about it.
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the
Third, complainant refused to provide him with documents
end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and
related to the case, preventing him from doing his job.
the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who by their misconduct have proved And fourth, complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In against her.
such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a
The petitioner contends that: (1) respondent violated the
complainant or a prosecutor.
principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client
when he filed falsification charges against her; (2) respondent
should have returned her money; (3) respondent should have
Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 5655, January verified the authenticity of her documents earlier if he really
23, 2006 believed that they are falsified; and (4) his refusal to return her
money despite this Courts directive constitutes contempt.
On October 13, 2001, Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant,
engaged respondents services as counsel in Civil Case No. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser
00-044, entitled Lucio De Guzman, etc., complainants, v. or advocate for every person who may wish to become his
Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent, pending before the client. He has the right to decline employment. But once he
Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal. accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is
Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in established, giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients
the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant, respondent cause. From then on, he is expected to be mindful of the trust
never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause
return of her money and documents, but respondent refused. with wholehearted devotion.
On January 13, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. ISSUE:
Navarro of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Whether or not respondent Mauricio Jr. should be suspended
Commission on Bar Discipline, found that for the amount of
for his malpractice and gross misconduct?
P56,000.00 paid by the complainant x x x, no action had been
taken nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent except his
HELD: Yes.
alleged conferences and opinions rendered when complainant
frequented his law office. She recommended that respondent The present administrative case was resolved by the IBP on
be required to refund the amount of P56,000.00 to the the basis of respondents previous admission that complainant
complainant, and surprisingly, that the complaint be dismissed. engaged his legal services in Civil Case No. 00-044. He cannot
now unbind himself from such admission and its the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
consequences. In fact, if anything at all has been achieved by of Court.
respondents inconsistent assertions, it is his dishonesty to this
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead
Court.
of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask
At any rate, assuming arguendo that complainant indeed her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant
engaged respondents services in filing the two (2) new refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her.
petitions, instead of Civil Case No. 00-044, still, his liability is Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited
unmistakable. There is nothing in the records to show that he Rule.
filed any petition. The ethics of the profession demands that, in
In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins
such a case, he should immediately return the filing fees to
with his or her retainer. It gives rise to a relationship between
complainant. In Parias v. Paguinto, the court held that a lawyer
an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of
shall account for all money or property collected from the
a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character, requiring
client. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such
a high degree of fidelity and good faith. If much is demanded
as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must
from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
immediately be returned to the client on demand. Per records,
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the
complainant made repeated demands, but respondent is yet to
client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A
return the money.
lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not
Neither do the court find merit in respondents second only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends
argument. The fact that Civil Case No. 00-044 was already of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
submitted for decision does not justify his inaction. After respect of the community to the legal profession. Indeed, law is
agreeing to handle Civil Case No. 00-044, his duty is, first and an exacting goddess demanding of her votaries not only
foremost, to enter his appearance. Sadly, he failed to do this intellectual but also moral discipline.
simple task. He should have returned complainants money.
Surely, he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing.
In his third argument, respondent attempts to evade THE HEIRS OF BALLESTEROS, SR. vs. ATTY.
responsibility by shifting the blame to complainant. He claims APIAG, A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005
that she refused to provide him with documents vital to the
1. Civil Case Nos. 1645-1648 Respondent handled four actions
case. He further claims that he would be violating the Code of
for Unlawful Detainer and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of
Professional Responsibility by handling a case without
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction docketed as Civil Case Nos.
adequate preparation. This is preposterous. When a lawyer
1645-1648 ("ejectment cases"). Respondent failed to submit
accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation
the position papers in all 4 ejectment cases. On 8 December
that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and
1999, Judge Absin issued four identical Orders dismissing the
ability to handle the case. As a lawyer, respondent knew where
ejectment cases. Complainant claims that respondent never
to obtain copies of the certificates of title. As a matter of fact,
informed him of the dismissal of the ejectment cases. 2. Civil
he admitted that his Law Office, on its own, managed to verify
Case No. 3844 Respondent also handled Civil Case No. 3844
the authenticity of complainants title. It bears reiterating that
for Quieting of Title with Preliminary Injunction and Declaration
respondent did not take any action on the case despite having
of Nullity of Deed of Mortgage. Respondent failed to appear at
been paid for his services. This is tantamount to abandonment
the pre-trial. He did not file a pre-trial brief as well. The trial
of his duties as a lawyer and taking undue advantage of his
court then ordered the third-party plaintiff to present evidence
client.
ex-parte.
Finally, in an ironic twist of fate, respondent became the
3. Civil Case No. 3395
accuser of complainant. In his fourth argument, respondent
accuses her of offering falsified documentary evidence in Civil Respondent also prosecuted the latter stages of an Action for
Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases Reconveyance of Real Property docketed as Civil Case No.
against her. He thus justifies his inability to render legal 3395. This case is now on appeal with the Court of Appeals'
services to complainant. 13th Division. However, when the case was still in the Regional
Trial Court, respondent failed to file a Motion for
Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who
Reconsideration, particularly on the cancellation of the Notice
perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding.
of Lis Pendens annotated on the Torrens title of the property
Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his
under litigation.
client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule
19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides: 4. Civil Case No. 4019
Rule 19.02 A lawyer who has received information that his Respondent handled Civil Case No. 4019 for Rescission of
clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a Contract and Damages against Spouses Hawani. On 20
fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the January 2000, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the
client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate Spouses Hawani to pay the Ballesteros Estate back rentals

including penalties of P852,263.84 plus P30,000 attorney's Respondent failed to file position papers and did not inform
fees. Respondent billed complainant P255,679.15 representing complainant of the dismissal of the ejectment cases
30% contingent fee and P30,000 attorney's fees. Complainant
Respondent's assertion that he submitted the position papers
asserts that the bill does not conform to the terms of the
to complainant for signature is not substantiated by any
Retainer Agreement, which reads: "OBLIGATIONS OF THE
evidence. Respondent's bare allegations do not persuade the
CLIENT
Court. In the present case, the evidence at hand belies
xxx xxx xxx respondent's claim that complainant had knowledge of the
dismissal of the ejectment cases. In the Omnibus Motion to
5. To pay the Attorney by way of contingent fee the following:
Withdraw as Counsel with Prayer to Enter into the Records a
xxx xxx xxx Charging Lien ("Omnibus Motion") 46 respondent filed on 5
March 2002, respondent included the four ejectment cases as
c. Thirty percent (30%) of the total amount or equivalent sum
shown in the records. 47 However, the trial court dismissed the
recovered from MORAL and EXEMPLARY DAMAGES to the
ejectment cases as early as 8 December 1999, making their
exclusion of ACTUAL DAMAGES, paid and received by the
inclusion in the Omnibus Motion clearly unwarranted. HIACac
client thru the execution of any/all judgment rendered in favor
of the client; and by way of an additional incentive, awards for A case in point is Canoy v. Ortiz 51 where the Court ruled that
Attorney's fees and payment relative thereto shall pertain to the lawyer's failure to file the position paper is per se a violation
and exclusively belong to the Attorney; Complainant claims of Rule 18.03 of the Code. There the Court ruled that the
that the award of P852,263.84 corresponds to unpaid rentals, lawyer could not shift the blame to his client for failing to follow
penalties and charges from 16 January 1997 to 15 January up his case because it was the lawyer's duty to inform his client
2000. This amount represents actual damages and not moral of the status of cases. The Court further ruled that the
or exemplary damages. Complainant further claims that for this dereliction of duty to file the position paper, compounded by
case alone, he paid respondent a total of P219,000 consisting the failure for nearly two years to inform the client of the
of fees for consultation, acceptance, court appearances, dismissal of the case, evidently shows the lawyer's negligence.
preparation of pleadings and motions. Complainant refused to
Respondent failed to file a pre-trial brief and failed to attend the
pay respondent. Thus, on 2 April 2002, respondent filed Civil
pre-trial conference in the Quieting of Title case
Case No. 4370-2k2 for Collection of Sum of Money and
Damages with Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. Respondent claims that he did not file a pre-trial brief because
Complainant now seeks the disbarment of respondent for of the possibility of a compromise agreement. The proposed
violating Canons 15, 17, 18, 19 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of compromise agreement was prepared sometime in February
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP's Report and 2001. 52 In the pre-trial conferences held, respondent always
Recommendation manifested that complainant opted not to file any pre-trial brief
in the hope of a compromise agreement. Respondent's failure
The IBP Board of Governors recommended the imposition on
to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable negligence. As
respondent of a penalty of six months suspension from the
the Court held in Moreover, respondent's non-appearance in
practice of law. The Report reads: From the facts obtaining, it
the pre-trial conference held on 5 February 2002 was due to
is evident that respondent had been negligent in legal matters
his assumption that the trial court would grant the Motion for
and actions entrusted to him by his client complainant herein
Postponement filed by counsel for plaintiffs. The Court has
as required by the courts in compliance with Court procedure
repeatedly ruled that motions for postponements are granted
for which remission he should be liable.
only upon meritorious grounds and no party has the right to
ISSUE: assume that such motion would be granted. 55 Respondent's
reason for his non-appearance at the pre-trial conference is
WON Respondent violated the PFR?
faulty and unacceptable.
HELD:
Respondent failed to file a motion for reconsideration in the
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 18, reconveyance of real property case
Rule 18.03, Rule 18.04 and Rule 19.03 of the Code of
Respondent did not act as a mere messenger of Atty. Diokno
Professional Responsibility ("Code").
in filing the Notice of Appeal. Respondent actually handled and
The Code mandates that every "lawyer shall serve his client pursued the case until the promulgation of the decision.
with competence and diligence." 41 The Code further states Therefore, respondent cannot claim that his participation in the
that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, case was merely by special appearance to file the Notice of
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him Appeal. It is a lawyer's sworn duty to present every remedy or
liable." 42 The Code provides that "a lawyer shall keep the defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond cause. Any member of the bar worth his title cannot afford to
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." practice the profession in a lackadaisical manner. 59
43 Furthermore, "a lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate
Respondent's claim for his lawful fees
the procedure in handling the case." 44

The Court leaves the resolution of respondent's claim for On July 2, 1991, the Cortes spouses and Atty. Moya settled
attorney's fees to Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of their differences by agreeing in open court that the former will
Pagadian City where respondent filed Civil Case No. 4370-2k2 pay the latter the amount of P100,000.00 as his attorney’s
for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages. The resolution fees. Pursuant to such agreement, the trial court issued an
of respondent's claim requires a trial on the merits. order:
On the Appropriate Penalty on Respondent “Parties in open Court agreed to movant’s attorney’s fees of
P100,000.00 to be paid out of any check paid by the plaintiff to
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the
defendants.
exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding
facts. 60 The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or Subsequently, the Cortes spouses terminated the services of
other pleading range from reprimand, 61 warning with fine, 62 Atty. Moya and retained the services of another lawyer.
suspension 63 and, in grave cases, disbarment. 64 In the
SPS Cortes filed a notice of appeal in the CA which rendered a
present case, we agree with the penalty recommended by the
decision in favor of Atty Moya upholding the trial court’s order.
IBP Board of Governors since respondent was clearly
negligent in handling a number of cases. ISSUE:
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Manileño N. Apiag “Whether the award of P100,000.00 in favor of private
GUILTY of violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Rule 18.04 and respondent as and by way of attorney’s [fees] for the handling
Rule 19.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. of petitioners’ case before the services of the former was
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Manileño N. legally terminated is tenable under the facts of this case.”
Apiag from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective
RULING: No.
upon finality of this Decision.
The reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded
to private respondent should be properly gauged on the basis
Cortes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121772, of the long-standing rule of quantum meruit, meaning, “as
much as he deserves”. Where a lawyer is employed without
January 13, 2003
agreement as to the amount to be paid for his services, the
(Rule 20.01 guide in fixing attys fees) courts shall fix the amount on quantum meruit basis. In such a
case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
services.[25] In this respect, Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules
of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision of the
of Court provides:
Court of Appeals dated March 17, 1995 where Appelant Sps
were Ordered to pay P100,000.00 plus six percent (6%) per “Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys, agreement as to fees. -
annum legal interest of such amount from July 25, 1992 until An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client
fully paid to Atty. Moya for legal services rendered. no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with
a view to the importance of the subject matter of the
The controversy stemmed from a civil case for specific
controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the
performance with damages filed by F.S. Management and
professional standing of the attorney. x x x”
Development Corporation (FSMDC) against spouses Edmundo
and Elnora Cortes involving the sale of the parcel of land In addition, the following circumstances, codified in Rule 20.1,
owned by the said spouses. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, serves as
a guideline in fixing a reasonable compensation for services
Spouses Cortes retained the professional services of Atty.
rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit:
Felix Moya for the purpose of representing them in said case.
However, they did not agree on the amount of compensation “a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or
for the services to be rendered by Atty. Moya. required;
Before a full-blown trial could be had, defendants spouses “b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
Cortes and plaintiff FSMDC decided to enter into a
“c) The importance of the subject matter;
compromise agreement. On June 4, 1991, defendants spouses
received from plaintiff FSMDC, three checks totaling “d) The skill demanded;
P2,754,340.00 which represents the remaining balance of the
“e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of
purchase price of the subject land.
acceptance of the proffered case;
On June 7, 1991, Atty. Moya filed an “Urgent Motion to Fix
“f) The customary charges for similar services and the
Attorney’s Fees, Etc.” praying that he be paid a sum equivalent
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
to thirty-five percent (35%) of the amount received by the
defendants spouses which the latter opposed contending that “g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
the amount Atty. Moya seeks to recover is utterly excessive resulting to the client from the services;
and is not commensurate to the nature, extent and quality of
“h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
the services he had rendered.

“i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or belonging to the latter situated in Antipolo, Rizal. This case
established; and was lodged before RTC-Makati, but was later archived. Before
the case was ordered archived, the Zuzuarreguis engaged the
“j) The professional standing of the lawyer.”
legal services of Attys. Romeo Roxas and Santiago Pastor to
In the present case, aside from invoking his professional represent them in the Civil Case. The parties agreed that Attys.
standing, private respondent claims that he was the one Roxas and Pastor “shall endeavor to secure just compensation
responsible in forging the initial compromise agreement with the NHA at a price of P11 or more per square meter. Any
wherein FSMDC agreed to pay P2,754,380.00. The fact lower amount shall not entitle the Attys. to any attorney’s fees.
remains, however, that such agreement was not consummated At such price of P11 per square meter or more, the contingent
because the checks given by FSMDC were all dishonored. It fee is 30% of the just compensation.”
was not the private respondent who was responsible in
Later, Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a motion, praying that the
bringing into fruition the subsequent compromise agreement
case be revived and be set for hearing. The appropriate
between petitioners and FSMDC.
proceedings thereafter ensued, and a Partial Decision was
Nonetheless, it is undisputed that private respondent has rendered, fixing the just compensation to be paid to the
rendered services as counsel for the petitioners. He prepared Zuzuarreguis at P30 per square meter. The NHA filed a Motion
petitioners’ Answer and Pre- Trial Brief, appeared at the Pre- for Reconsideration, praying that a new decision be rendered
Trial Conference, attended a hearing held on July 13, 1990, lowering the amount of just compensation.
cross-examined the witness of FSMDC, and was present in the
On December 10, 1985, a Letter-Agreement was executed
conference at the Manila Hotel between the parties and their
between the Zuzuarreguis on the one hand, and Attys. Roxas
respective counsels. All these services were rendered in the
and Pastor, on the other. The said Letter-Agreement amends
years 1990 and 1991 where the value of a peso is higher.
the earlier agreement regarding Attys. Roxas and Pastor’s
Thus, we find the sum of P100,000.00 awarded to private
attorney’s fees. It was stated that the Zuzuarreguis are willing
respondent as his attorney’s fees to be disproportionate to the
to accept as settlement for the land expropriated by NHA a
services rendered by him to petitioners.
price of P17 per square meter, for a total of P30.4 million, all
The amount of P50,000.00 as compensation for the services payable in NHA Bonds. The Zuzuaregguis also agreed that in
rendered by Atty. Moya is just and reasonable. consideration of Atty. Roxas and Pastor’s services in the
expropriation case, they would “receive as contingent
Besides, the imposition of legal interest on the amount payable
attorney’s fees any and all amount in excess of the P17 per
to private respondent is unwarranted. Article 2209 of the Civil
square meter payable in NHA bonds.”
Code invoked by Atty. Moya and cited by the appellate court,
finds no application in the present case. It is a provision of law NHA issued Resolution No. 1174, stating that the Zuzuarregui
governing ordinary obligations and contracts. Contracts for property would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 per square
attorney’s services in this jurisdiction stand upon an entirely meter, that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid in NHA Bonds, and
different footing from contracts for the payment of that the yield1 on the bonds to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis
compensation for any other services. shall be based on the Central Bank rate at the time of
payment. As a result of the aforesaid NHA Resolution, a
We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture
Compromise Agreement was executed between the
and lawyers are not merchants.
Zuzuarreguis and the NHA. The RTC approved the
Thus, a lawyer’s compensation for professional services compromise agreement submitted by the parties.
rendered are subject to the supervision of the court, not just to
Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the 1,790,570.36
guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain
square meters property of the Zuzuarreguis was expropriated
reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered, but
at a total price of P34,916,122. The total amount released by
also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession
the NHA was P54.5 million. The difference of P19,583,878 is
to which he belongs.[30]
the yield on the bonds.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED
The NHA Legal Department released to Atty. Roxas, in behalf
WITH MODIFICATIONS to the effect that the attorney’s fees
of the Zuzuarreguis, a total of P54.5 million in NHA Bearer
awarded to private respondent Felix Moya is REDUCED to
Bonds as payment for the parcels of land. Out of this amount,
P50,000.00 and the legal interest of 6% per annum imposed by
the records show that the amount turned over to the
the Court of Appeals on the amount due to respondent Moya is
Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to P30,520,000 in NHA
DELETED.
bonds. Thus, the Zuzuarreguis filed a civil action for Sum of
Money and Damages before RTC-Quezon City, against the
NHA, Atty. Jose Pedrosa, Atty. Romeo Roxas and Atty.
Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. 152072/ G.R. Santiago Pastor. The Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield on
No. 152104, July 12, 2007 the NHA bonds be turned over to them.
In 1977, the National Housing Authority filed expropriation ATTYS. ROXAS AND PASTOR contend that the Zuzuarreguis
proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land are only entitled to the amount of P17 per square meter for the

1,790,570.36 square meters expropriated by the government. and Pastor were not shortchanged for their efforts for they
This was embodied in the December 10, 1985 Letter- would still be earning or actually earned attorney’s fees in the
Agreement wherein the Zuzuarreguis agreed to accept the amount of P6,987,078.75 (P4,476,425.59 + P2,510,653.16).
price of P17 per square meter, for a total of P30.4 million. In The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be returned by
fact, the Zuzuarreguis have already received P30,520,000. Attys. Roxas and Pastor to the Zuzuarreguis.
Since the Letter-Agreement already fixed the amount that
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
would go to the Zuzuarreguis, then it should be so.
AFFIRMED but with the MODIFICATION that Attys. Romeo
ISSUE: Roxas and Santiago Pastor are hereby ordered to return to the
Zuzuarreguis the amount of P17,073,224.84.
W/N the letter-agreement dated December 10, 1985, executed
by the Zuzuarreguis and Attys. Roxas and Pastor, should
stand as law between the parties.
Vinson B. Pineda v. Atty. Clodualdo C. De
HELD: NO.
Jesus, et.al. G.R. No. 155224, August 23, 2006
It is basic that a contract is the law between the
Applicable Canon/Rule: Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law
Responsibility
between the contracting parties and should be complied with in
good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to Facts: An action for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the by Aurora Pineda against petitioner Vinson Pineda before the
same are binding as between the parties. RTC of Pasig City who was represented by respondent
lawyers. A settlement regarding visitation rights over their
Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to
minor child and separation of their property was proposed by
receive contingent fees for their professional services.
Aurora and was subsequently accepted by petitioner. The RTC
Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. They are
granted the parties’ motion for approval of their agreement
sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
ultimately rendering their marriage null and void.
and Canon 202, Rule 20.013 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. However, in cases where contingent fees are The respondent counsels were well-compensated throughout
sanctioned by law, the same should be reasonable under all the proceedings. They, including their relatives and friends,
the circumstances of the case, and subject to the supervision even availed of free products and treatments from petitioner’s
of a court, as to its reasonableness. Indubitably entwined with dermatology clinic. Notwithstanding, additional fees were billed
the lawyer’s duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power by respondents amounting to P16.5 million which was refused
of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees if the by the petitioner. Instead, petitioner issued a total amount of
same is excessive and unconscionable. P1.12 million in checks as full payment.
Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s sense Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial court a
of justice, decency or reasonableness. In the instant case, motion for payment of lawyer’s fees for P 50 million (equivalent
Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to 10% of the value of the properties awarded to petitioner in
to 44% of the just compensation paid. Considering that there the civil case) which was reduced by the trial court and further
was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case, ending as diminished by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably,
Issue: Whether or not respondents were entitled to additional
unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its
legal fees.
reduction is, therefore, in order.
Ruling: Professional engagement between petitioners and
It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys.
respondents was governed by the principle of quantum meruit
Roxas and Pastor must be equitably reduced. The yield on the
which means as much as the lawyer deserves. Recovery of
NHA bonds amounted to P19,583,878.00. This amount must
attorney’s fees on this basis is permitted where there is no
divided between the Zuzuarreguis, on the one hand, and Attys.
express agreement for the payment of attorney’s fees. It is a
Roxas and Pastor, on the other. The division must be pro rata.
legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from
The amount of P17 that should go to the Zuzuarreguis
running away with the fruits of the legal services of the counsel
represents 87.18% of the P19.50 per square meter just
without paying for it and avoids unjust enrichment on the part
compensation, The P2.50 per square meter that was to go to
of the lawyer himself.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other hand, represents
12.82%. The claim for additional legal fees was not justified. They could
not charge petitioner for a fee based on percentage absent an
The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of
express agreement to that effect. Demanding P 50 million on
the P19,583,878.00, while Attys. Roxas and Pastor are entitled
top of the generous sums and perks already given to them was
to 12.82% of said amount. The amount corresponding to
an act of unconscionable greed which is shocking to this Court.
87.17% of P19,583,878.00 is P17,073,224.84. This is the yield
The payments to them in cash, checks, free products and
that the Zuzuarreguis are entitled to. Attys. Roxas and Pastor,
services from petitioner’s business more than suffice for the
on the other hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16. Attys. Roxas
work they did.
The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The b) When required by law;
practice of law is a decent profession and not a money making
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident.
employees or associates or by judicial action.
The power of this Court to reduce or even delete the award of
Rule 21.02. — A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his
attorney’s fees cannot be denied.
client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
Suntay v. Suntay, A.C. No. 1890. August 7, 2002 circumstances consents thereto.
Federico C. Suntay (Federico) filed a complaint for disbarment Atty. Rafael acted as counsel for clients in cases involving
against his nephew/ former legal counsel, adviser and subject matters regarding which he had either been previously
confidant Atty. Rafael G. Suntay (Atty. Rafael). Since they consulted by complainant or which he had previously helped
parted ways because of politics in 1964, Atty. Rafael had been complainant to administer as the latter's counsel and confidant
filing complaints and cases against Federico, making use of from 1956 to 1964.
confidential information gained while their attorney-client
relationship existed. The case was referred to the Office of the Although Atty. Rafael denied that there was ever such a
Solicitor General. demand made by Dinglasan, the point is that his word on the
matter, i.e., whether there was in fact such a demand, would
After almost four (4) years, the OSG submitted the following carry much weight against complainant considering that he
findings: was the latter's counsel in 1957 or 1958 when the alleged
1) In 1957 or 1958, Federico asked his then counsel Atty. demand was made. In addition, respondent initiated the
Rafael about a demand made by Magno Dinglasan, a former prosecution of complainant for violation of P.D. No. 296 for the
BIR official. Dinglasan demanded P150, 000 (and later disappearance of the two (2) creeks by using information
reduced to P50, 000) as consideration for the destruction of obtained while he was in possession of the certificate of title
Federico’s record in the BIR, to which the latter declined as per and the blueprint plan of the property.
Atty. Rafael’s advice. In 1976, during a testimony in a civil As his defense to the charges, respondent averred that
case, Federico was asked why Dinglasan had testified against complainant failed to specify the alleged confidential
him, to which the former related the incident in 1957-1958. information used against him. Such a defense is unavailing to
Dinglasan, represented by Atty. Rafael, then charged Federico help respondent's cause for as succinctly explained in Hilado v.
with false testimony and grave oral defamation. The OSG David —
found that Atty. Rafael committed malpractice in this case.
Communications between attorney and client are, in a
2) Federico owned several fishponds in Bulacan, among them great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of
was a fishpond which was previously traversed by two creeks, entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well known facts.
Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang. The existence of the
creeks is shown by the certificate of title and the blue print plan xxx
of the fishpond. In 1973, Atty. Rafael reported the To make the passing of confidential communication a condition
disappearance of the two creeks to the authorities. After a precedent, i.e., to make the employment conditioned on the
relocation survey, the Ministry of Public Works confirmed the scope and character of the knowledge acquired by an attorney
disappearance. Atty. Rafael was requested to file a formal in determining his right to change sides, would not enhance the
complaint against Federico for violation of Presidential freedom of litigants, which is to be sedulously fostered, to
Decree No. 296. The OSG found that Atty. Rafael violated the consult with lawyers upon what they believe are their rights in
confidentiality of information obtained out of a client-lawyer litigation.. xxxx
relationship.
Hence, the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare
ISSUE: relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing
WON Atty. Suntay violated Rules 21.01 and 21.02 on incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not
confidentiality of information alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from
HELD: unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice . . . It is
Yes. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of founded on principles of public policy, on good taste . . . xxxxx
his clients even after termination of the attorney-client relation. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship and
As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: for unethical conduct, respondent Atty. Rafael G. Suntay is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Rule 21.01. — A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or
secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the ELISA V. VENTEREZ, GENARO DE VERA,
consequences of the disclosure; INOCENCIA V. RAMIREZ, PACITA V. MILLS,
ANTONINA V. PALMA and RAMON DE VERA, a. Denied that he was directed to file an appeal or MR by
complainants, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME, complainants after Decision rendered by MTC
respondent. A. C. No. 742, October 10, 2007 b. Salvador Ramirez (Son of Inocencia Ramirez) informed him
that he was withdrawing the case from respondent because
MAIN: ATTY. COSME CHARGED WITH ABANDONMENT, had already sought another lawyer to take over, respondent
GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND DERELICTION OF DUTY gave the records to him thus ceasing his services as their
DOCTRINE: CANON 22 – A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW counsel upon turn over of records.
HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON c. Alleged that MR was prepared by another lawyer engaged
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES by Venterez
RULE 22.01 – A lawyer may WITHDRAW his services in any d. Denied that he received a copy of the MR (that was
of the following cases: prepared by another lawyer) and that he was served with a
A) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of copy of denial of said MR.
conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; e. Respondent also clarified that last day of appeal is on Mar.
B) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct 19, 2004
violative of these canons and rules; f. Respondent notified immediately Ramirez about Motion but
C) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote Ramirez came to see respondent on May 3, 2005 when he
the best interest of the client; was asked to sign Notice of Retirement of Counsel which he
(respondent) immediately filed in court
D) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders
it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; IBP INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATION – GUILTY OF
GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND SHOULD BE GIVEN PENALTY
E) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
OF 3 MONTHS SUSPENSION
services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS – Adopted and approved the
F) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and report and recommendation of Investigation Commissioner
G) Other similar cases. SC – Sustain the findings and recommendation of IBP-BOG
FACTS: ISSUE:
1. Complainants contracted legal services of respondent for Whether respondent committed culpable negligence in
Declaration of Ownership with Damages before MTC of
handling complainants’ case, as would warrant disciplinary
Calasiao Pangasinan action
2. Respondent represented complainants, who were
HELD:
defendants in the said case, until Decision of the MTC, which
ruled against complainants on Feb. 25, 2005. Respondent Yes. The law provides that the client has the absolute right to
received a copy of the Decision on Mar. 3, 2004 terminate the services of a lawyer with or without just cause.
3. Complainants directed respondent to file an MR or a Notice Sec. 26, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court - The rule in this
of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so. (expired jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate
na daw ung 15-day period on Mar. 18) the attorney- client relation at any time with or without cause.
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
4. Complainant Venterez was constrained to contract another other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably
lawyer to prepare MR which was filed on Mar. 19, 2004. MR restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
was sighed by complainant Venterez herself and lawyer did not principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action
enter his appearance. impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at
5. Subsequently, MR was denied by MTC. Respondent was liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer's right
not furnished a copy of denial. to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only
from the client's written consent or from a good cause.
6. A Motion of Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed by
plaintiffs but respondent never bothered to file an opposition to What constitute good cause for the withdrawal of services by
or any comment on the said motion despite receipt and the counsel are identified under Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the
subsequently Entry of Judgment was made. Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
7. Respondent filed Notice of Retirement of Counsel. CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE
8. Complainants feeling aggrieved by respondent’s actuations,
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
filed the instant administrative case against him
Rule 22.01 — A lawyer may WITHDRAW his services in any of
9. Respondent’s defenses in his Answer:
the following cases:

a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of
conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct
violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote
the best interest of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders
it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds
aforementioned. Neither can the circumstances of this case be
considered analogous to the grounds thus explicitly
enumerated. Contrary to respondent's contention, his
professional relations as a lawyer with his clients are not
terminated by the simple turnover of the records of the case to
his clients. Respondent's defense completely crumbles in face
of the fact that Salvador Ramirez is not even a party in Civil
Case and, hence, had no authority to withdraw the records of
the said case from respondent or to terminate the latter's
services.
Respondent also violated CANON 18, RULE 18.03 - "a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE
(3) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.

Pale Compiled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale Compiled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale Compiled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Week 1 litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other

“There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a SECRET MARRIAGE?

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 1

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 2

Whether or not the act of concealing constitutes dishonesty

IN THE MATTER OF THE

BARREDO, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 6

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 7

Issue: Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an

A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country Issue:

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 9

Week 2 On December 5, 2013, Verlita and Raymond again went to

IBP: respondent to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of

Bengco v. Bernardo 2. He had not deceived both complainants

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 17

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 18

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 21

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 22

HELD: The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like

Week 3 the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's

By complaint, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad

On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a Held:

Dissenting Opinion: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I

The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing RULING: NO.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 32

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 33

In due course, IBP Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 36

While maintaining the validity of the compromise agreement,

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 42

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 45

We consider respondents act of ordering the detention of

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 51

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 52

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 53

On June 22, 2004, Cordero purportedly bought from a grocery ISSUE:

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 59

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 64

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 69

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 71

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 73

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 75

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 76

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 77

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 78

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 81

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics | 82

You might also like