CANON 1 of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the

practice of law.
Cynthia Advincula vs. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata. Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but
includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of
The complainant sought for legal advice from the respondent corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful,
regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours, which flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to
the latter failed to settle its accounts with the complainant. Thus, the opinions of respectable members of the community, and an
possibility of filing a case against Queensway Travel and Tours was inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.
discussed by the complainant and responded in their meetings. Guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of
After their first meeting on 10 February 2005, the kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and
respondent gave the complainant a ride home. As the complainant camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of
gets off the car, the respondent allegedly held her arm, kissed her respondent, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him
cheek and embraced her tightly. and kissing her on the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even if
Again, after another meeting on 6 March 2005, the considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly
respondent offered a ride home to the complainant. On the road, the immoral.
complainant felt sleepy for no obvious reason. The respondent The complainant miserably failed to establish the burden of
suddenly stopped the car in the vicinity of San Francisco del Monte, proof required of her. However, her efforts are lauded to stand up for
Quezon City. This time, the respondent forcefully held her face, her honor.
kissed her lips and held her breast. The complainant managed to The complaint for disbarment against the respondent, Atty.
escape from the car and decided to hire another lawyer for her case. Ernesto Macabata, for alleged immorality is dismissed. However, he
They had exchange of messages the following day through SMS, is reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in dealing with his
where the respondent apologized, which is a clear sign of guilt. clients.
The respondent admitted kissing the complainant on the lips,
however countered that there was no harassment, intimidation or Zoilo Antonio Velez vs. Att. Leonard S. De Vera
lewdness instead everything was spontaneous and he had the
approval of the complainant through her actions. In a Complaint dated 11 April 2005, complainant Zoilo
Antonio Velez moved for the suspension or disbarment of
Issue: Whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral, respondent Atty. Leonard de Vera based on the following grounds;
or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his Atty. De Vera alleged misrepresentation in concealing the
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. suspension order rendered against him by the state bar of California,
and that the respondent, in appropriating for his own benefit funds
Held: Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession due his client, was found to have performed an act constituting moral
of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve their turpitude by the Hearing Referee Bill Dozier, Hearing Department -
membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued possession San Francisco, State Bar of California in Administrative Case No.
86-0-18429. Complainant alleged that the respondent has then forced attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
to resign or surrender his license to practice law in the said state in gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
order to evade the recommended three years suspension. reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
Atty. De Vera stated in his reply that the issues raised in any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
above mentioned Complaint were the very issues raised in an earlier admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
administrative case filed by the same complainant against him. In order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
fact, according to him, the said issues were already extensively attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. xxxx
discussed and categorically ruled upon by the Supreme Court in its
decision dated December 11, 2005 in Administrative Case No. 6052. RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED
He prayed that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed. ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G.
Complainant maintained that there is substantial evidence showing KHO, CLERK OF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ORAS,
respondents moral baseness, vileness and depravity, which could be EASTERN SAMAR.
used as a basis for his disbarment. Complainant stressed that the FACTS:
respondent never denied that he used his clients money. Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional
Complainant argued that the respondent failed to present evidence Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, guilty of gross
that the misconduct for her failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary
Supreme Court of California accepted the latters resignation and funds in her custody as required by OCA Circular No. 8A-93. She
even if such was accepted, complainant posited that this should not was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 for her transgression. Since her
absolve the respondent from liability. malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, SC ordered him to show cause why
Issue: Whether Atty. De Vera committed defiance of the law that he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the
amounted to malpractice. court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a timely
remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable; he
Held: Yes. There is a substantial evidence of malpractice by here in maintained his contention that he kept the money in the courts
respondent. The Supreme Court ruled to suspend him for two years. safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit.
Atty. De Vera did not deny that he received a sum of money ISSUE: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01
intended for his client and that he deposited the money in his HELD:
personal account and not in a separate trust account. The respondent Yes. Even though she was in good faith, her action was a
spent that money for personal purposes. He said that he was given breach of her oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
the authority to do such act, which is self-serving and without any duly constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon1, Rule
proof or documents to support his claim. 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides
In the Rule 138 of the Rules of Court it states: Disbarment or that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. A and promote respect for law and for legal processes while Rule 1.01
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. As servants of the law and officers of the court, instigation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan,
lawyers are required to beat the forefront of observing and because respondent refused to act as complainant's witness in the
maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he
exemplars worthy of emulation. The least a lawyer can do in "prepared and notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its
compliance with Canon1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful genuineness and due execution. In a Resolution dated 1 October
conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is 2003, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the
unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of
Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in ISSUE: Whether the respondent is liable for violation of Canon 1
unlawful conduct. Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to
account. Atty. Raquel G. Kho is hereby found GUILTY of unlawful HELD:
conduct in violation of the Attorney's Oath, Section 20(a), Rule 138 Yes. The Court finds respondent liable for violation of
of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
Professional Responsibility. She is ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000 A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any
within ten days from receipt of this resolution. client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to
uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme
PETER T. DONTON vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies
FACTS: disciplinary action against the lawyer.
In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton stated By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S.
that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a citizen, was disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his
public document against Duane O. Stier, Emelyn A. Maggay and motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he caused the
respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent,
Agreement. however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a transferred the title in complainant's name. Respondent had sworn to
counter-charge for perjury against complainant.Complainant averred uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code
that respondent's act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade
knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his
real property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act
deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.
be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of law The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six months.
and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.
In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Atty. Laarni N. Valerio
that complainant filed the disbarment case against him upon the FACTS:
 A-1 Financial Services, Inc. filed a complaint against Atty. Canon 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
Laarni N. Valerio for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and non- land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
payment of debt. Atty. Valerio failed to appear to her arraignment Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
despite due notice. She, moreover, refused to abide in posting bail immoral or deceitful conduct.
after receiving a Warrant of Arrest. The complainant filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Valerio before the Integrated Roberto Soriano v. Atty. Manuel Dizon
Bar of the Philippines which required her to file an answer, but failed FACTS:
to do so. However, respondent's mother, Gorgonia N. Valerio, Roberto Soriano filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty.
explained that her daughter had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, Manuel Dizon with the IBP-CBD resulting from the conviction of
thus, could not respond to the complaint against her. Furthermore, respondent for a crime involving moral turpitude which violates
Mrs. Valerio undertook to personally settle her daughter's obligation. Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
IBP-CBD directed Atty. Valerio to appear before the mandatory constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of
conference but failed to do so. IBP also ordered the parties to submit Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The trial court granted probation
their position papers yet no position paper was submitted by the requested by Atty. Dizon upon the fulfillment of the civil liabilities
respondent. imposed by the court in favor of the offended party, Roberto Soriano.
IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Valerio be suspended Commissioner Herbosa recommended that respondent be disbarred
from the practice of law for a period of 2 years, having found her from the practice of law for having been convicted of a crime
guilty of gross misconduct. The respondent's failure to obey court involving moral turpitude and exhibiting an obvious lack of good
processes showed her lack of respect for authority and, thus, moral character. The Supreme Court received for its final action the
rendered her morally unfit to be a member of the bar. IBP Resolution adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Investigating Commissioner.
and approved with modification the report and recommendation of ISSUE:
the IBP-CBD. Atty. Valerio was instead ordered suspended for the Whether or not the respondent's guilt warrants disbarment.
practice of law for a period of one year. RULING:
ISSUE:Whether or not Atty. Valerio should be held administratively The Court affirms the findings and recommendations of
liable for conviction for violation of BP 22. Commissioner Herbosa. Conviction for a crime involving moral
RULING: turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such
The Court affirms the sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD,i.e., conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold the
Atty. Valerio was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral
years because aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay character. In the instant case, respondent has been found guilty; and
her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBP's and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide. The
Court Orders in the course of the proceedings. respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of
According to Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an
unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.
 Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, Commissioner recommended the suspension from the practice of law
not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly to their for six months of Nazareno. The IBP adopted the findings and but
good moral character. The respondent displayed dishonest and modified it to one month suspension from the practice of law.
duplicitous behavior. No moral qualification for bar membership is
more important than truthfulness. ISSUE:
The Court stress that membership in the legal profession is a Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable
privilege demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only and accordingly suspended for a period of one month.
as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. HELD:
Wherefore, respondent Manuel Dizon is hereby Yes. There is violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Professional Responsibility (Code). Records show that Nazareno,
Roll of Attorneys. acting as Rudexs counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for review
assailing the judgments of default rendered in the first batch of
EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, et al., Complainants, vs. rescission cases without disclosing in the certifications against forum
ATTY. PHILIP Z.A. NAZARENO, Respondent shopping the existence of the ejectment case against Sps. Sioting.
The Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a
FACTS: notary public, considering that he assigned only one document
In 2001, the complainants bought housing units in Patricia number to the certifications against forum shopping complaints for
South Subdivision, from Rudex International Development rescission and ejectment despite the fact that each of them should
Corporation (Rudex). They then filed, in two batches, complaints for have been treated as a separate notarial act. Nazareno is found
rescission of contracts against Rudex. In all of these cases, Rudex GUILTY of making false declarations as well as malpractice as a
was represented by Atty. Nazareno (Nazareno). In the certifications notary public. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
against forum shopping, Rudex through its president, and Nazareno period of one year with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
stated that they have not commenced or has knowledge of any action same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Further, he is
involving the same issues pending before the NLRC, this despite the PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
fact that Rudex filed ejectment cases against the complainants notary public.
therein. Rudex again filed a complaint for rescission of contract with PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL
the HLURB against Melinda Sioting (Sioting). Again, the COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, Complainant, vs.
certification against forum shopping stated that no pending action ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA, Respondent
involving the same issues were pending, which certification was
notarized by Nazareno. The complainants filed a disbarment FACTS:
complaint against Nazareno, alleging that he made false declarations On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S. Dealca (Dealca) entered
in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the several his appearance in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795 (People vs.
complaints filed by Rudex against them. The IBP Investigating Arsenault) presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid (Madrid).
Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar (Judar) who filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. Aside from appearing
as counsel for the accused, Dealca also moved that Criminal Case CANON 2
No. 2006-6795 be re-raffled to another branch of the RTC. Madrid In Re: Luis B. Tagorda (G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929)
denied Dealcas motion. Relative to the motion to withdraw as Facts:
counsel for the accused filed by Judar, same is denied violative of the In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a practicing attorney and a
provisions of Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Also, provincial Board Member of the Municipality of Iligan, Isabela.
appearance of Dealca as new counsel for accused is likewise denied. Before his election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary
public, and that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as
Madrid filed a complaint in the office of the Bar Confidant execution of deeds of sale. As a lawyer, he can help clients collect
citing Dealcas unethical practice of appearing and then moving for debts and he offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the
the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous poor.
incidents between them. Dealca asserted that Madrids issuance of When he won, he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano
the order unlawfully deprived the accused (Arsenault) of the right to and distributed it to their municipality so he could render legal
counsel, due process and fair and impartial trial. service to them. He also wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of
Echague, Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as
ISSUE: a provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants
Whether or not Dealca is guilty of unethical practice in seeking the the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to
inhibition of Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795. receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits
etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge
HELD: of three pesos.
Yes. Dealca violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.03. He should be
reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to Issue:
the parties according to law, not to harass them. He must be mindful Whether or not Luis B. Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of
justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of the Held:
unfounded complaints including his complaint against Madrid Yes. Atty. Luis B. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing
increased the workload of the judiciary. He demonstrated ignorance acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
of the rules of procedure applicable to the court. Court finds and either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
declares respondent Dealca guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 of malpractice. The respondent was suspended for 1 month under the
the Code of Professional Responsibility. We deem appropriate to Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Practice of law
suspend Dealca from the practice of law for a period of one year with is not a trade or a business. It is a profession in which duty to public
stern warning that any similar infraction will be dealt with more service, and not money, is the primary consideration.
severely.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a investors of Multitel would know that she was doing something for
young lawyer, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for them and assured Pacana that there was nothing to worry about.
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but Both parties continued to communicate and exchange information
must be the outcome of character and conduct. It is unprofessional regarding the persistent demands made by Multitel investors against
for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare Pacana. Pacana gave Lopez several amounts, first 900,000; then
cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do 1,000,000 to be used in his case. Even when Pacana went to the
so. states, they continued communicating and he continued sending her
money for the case.
Rolando B. Pacana, Jr. vs. Atty. Maricel Pascual Wary that Lopez may not be able to handle his legal
problems, Pacana was advised by his family to hire another lawyer.
Facts: When Lopez knew about this, she wrote to complainant via e-mail
Pacana was the Operations Director for Multitel asking to trust her.
Communications Corporation (MCC). Multitel was besieged by When he got back to the country, Lopez told Pacana she had
demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure earned P12,500,000.00 as attorneys fees and was willing to give
of its investment schemes. Pacana earned the ire of Multitel investors P2,000,000.00 to him in appreciation for his help. This never
after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of happened though. Lopez also ignored Pacanas repeated requests for
Precedent and after being appointed as trustee of a fund amounting to accounting. She continued to evade him.
Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) deposited at Real Bank. Finally, Pacana filed a case with the IBP for Lopezs disbarment.
Multitel later changed its name to Precedent.
Pacana sought the advice of Lopez who also happened to be a Issue:
member of the Couples for Christ, a religious organization where
Pacana and his wife were also active members. From then on, they Whether Atty. Pacual-Lopez violated Canon 2 on Legal
constantly communicated, with the former disclosing all his Services compatible with integrity.
involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents relation with
Multitel. Lopez gave legal advice to Pacana and even helped him Held:
prepare standard quitclaims for creditors. In sum, Pacana avers that a
lawyer-client relationship was established between him and Lopez Yes. Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez was DISBARRED for
although no formal document was executed by them at that time. representing conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful,
There was an attempt to have a formal retainer agreement signed but dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyers Oath
it didnt push through. and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
After a few weeks, Pacana was surprised to receive a In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
demand letter from Lopez asking for the return and immediate learns all the facts connected with the clients case, including its
settlement of the funds invested by Lopezs clients in Multitel. Lopez weak and strong points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred
explained that she had to send it so that her clients defrauded and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given to him to take
advantage of his client; for if the confidence is abused, the profession revealed that similar advertisements were published in the August
will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves lawyers not only to keep 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star. Thus, petitioner
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of
treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is against Atty. Simbillo for violation of Rule 2.03.A lawyer shall not
paramount in the administration of justice. It is for these reasons that do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
we have described the attorney-client relationship as one of trust and business.
confidence of the highest degree. ISSUE:
Respondent cannot shield herself from the inevitable Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating
consequences of her actions by simply saying that the assistance she Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
rendered to complainant was only in the form of friendly HELD:
accommodations, precisely because at the time she was giving Respondent was found guilty and was suspended from the
assistance to complainant, she was already privy to the cause of the practice of law for a year. The practice of law is not a business but a
opposing parties who had been referred to her by the SEC. public duty. Money will only be a secondary consideration in such
Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which profession. Respondent also referred to himself as an Annulment
respondent should have done was either to advise complainant to of Marriage Specialist which undermined the sanctity of marriage
engage the services of another lawyer since she was already and encourage people to go for marriage dissolutions. This would
representing the opposing parties, or to desist from acting as defeat the purpose of laws protecting marriage bonds. Moreover,
representative of Multitel investors and stand as counsel for there were elements provided that can distinguish the legal
complainant. profession from business. These are the following:
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator (a) A duty of public service; (b) A relation as an officer of
and Chief, Public Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. the court to the administration of justice involving thorough
RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent. [A.C. No. 5299. August sincerity, integrity and reliability; (c) A relation to clients in the
19, 2003.] highest degree of fiduciary; (d) A relation to colleagues at the bar
FACTS: characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
Respondent Atty. Rizalino Simbillo had his legal services current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their
published in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
which reads Annulment of Marriage Specialist. A staff member of
the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court pretended to be ALEX ONG LEX ONG vs. ATTY. UNTO ELPIDIO D.
an interested party and she spoke to Mrs. Simbillo. The latter FACTS:
claimed that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong, a businessman
and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6 months. She also added from Dumaguete City, against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice
that her husband charges a fee of P48, 000 for the said service. of law and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The records show that
Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office the complainant received a demand-letter from the respondent in
connection with the claim of support, in the latter's capacity as legal
counsel of one Nemesia Garganian. Ruel Tuano Y Hernandez v. People of the Philippines
A few days thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. FACTS:
Jose Bueno, an emissary of the complainant. In this letter, the Accused Ruel Tuano y Hernandez was convicted for having
respondent listed down the alleged additional financial demands of in his possesion one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu.
Ms. Garganian against the complainant and discussed the courses of The accused filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Review on
action that he would take against the complainant should the latter Certiorari questioning the Court of Appeals' Resolution. The
fail to comply with his obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her Supreme Court sustained the conviction of accused. The accused
son. The complainant then did not comply with the demands against moved for reconsideration, questioning the Supreme Court's
him. unsigned Resolution and praying for his acquittal. On February 25,
Consequently, respondent filed a complaint against Alex 2015, this Court required respondent People of the Philippines,
Ong, Bella Lim and Albina Ong for alleged violation of Retail Trade through the Office of the Solicitor General, to file a comment on
Nationalization Law and Anti-Dummy Law. Complainant alleged accused's Motion for Reconsideration. Accused, through the Public
that the respondent "manufactured" the criminal and administrative Attorney's Office, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply
cases against him to blackmail him or extort money from him. He dated September 16, 2015 and a Reply on September 22, 2015. On
claimed that the respondent solicited for any information that could June 27, 2016, this Court issued the Resolution reconsidering
be used against him in the aforementioned cases by offering any unsigned Resolution. This Court acquitted accused for failure of the
informer or would-be witness a certain percentage of whatever prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
amounts they could get from him. The complainant branded the Supreme Court received from the Director General of the Bureau of
respondent's tactics as "highly immoral, unprofessional and Corrections a letter informing this Court that the accused died on
unethical, constituting . . . malpractice of law and conduct gravely March 1, 2015, prior to the issuance of the resolution.
unbecoming of a lawyer." ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels of the accused have violated the
ISSUE: Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 2 of RULING:
Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: Yes. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers explicitly states that
to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility "a lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and
in the course of his practice of law. Every lawyer should act and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and
comport himself in such a manner that would promote public effectiveness of the profession."
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent Atty. In the case, counsels for accused have shown inefficiency in
Elpidio D. Unto is hereby declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of the performance of their duties. Relying on their representations in
a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period their pleadings, this Court was led to believe that the criminal action
of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or against accused subsisted. Moreover, had counsels for accused
similar act will be dealt with more severely. informed the Court earlier of the death of their client, the Court
would have not issued a resolution. Likewise, the parties need not advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer
have filed the pleadings calling for the resolution of accused's degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the
Motion fo Reconsideration. practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them
Wherefore, the Court resolves to set aside its resolution and dismiss to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice
the criminal case on account of the death of the accused Ruel Tuano with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the
y Hernandez. temple of Jehovah.
Counsels for accused, however, are directed to show cause, In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., 37, the respondent attorney was
within 5 days of receipt of this Resolution, why no disciplinary suspended from the practice of law for the period of one month for
action should be taken against them for failing to inform this Court advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by
of accused's death. writing circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than
this because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were
more elaborate and insistent.
Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to
repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decides that
The Director of Religious Affairs v. Estanislao R. Bayot the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
FACTS:
The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with
malpractice for having published an advertisement in the Sunday DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA
Tribune. Respondent admitted having caused its publication and
prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not FACTS:
to repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to abide Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him
himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further recover a claim of money against a creditor. Respondent prepared
mitigation he alleged that the said advertisement was published only demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so
once in the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason the former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result,
thereof. petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court should consider the respondent's filing of the case. A couple of months passed but the petitioner has
plea. not yet received any feedback as to the status of his case. Petitioner
RULING: It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a made several follow-ups in the lawyers office but to no avail. The
flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it lawyer, to prove that the case has already been filed even invited
being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of
Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutors
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to
thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day. Suspicious of
the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office of the In 1987, the sisters Ma. Libertad Cantiller and Peregrina
clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case. Petitioner Cantiller lost an ejectment case. The two were later introduced by a
found out that no such case has been filed. Petitioner confronted friend to Atty. Humberto Potenciano. Potenciano said he can help the
Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse that the sisters because the judge handling the case was his close friend.
delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown Potenciano, with the little time he got, immediately filed a petition to
the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint counter the order to vacate issued against the sisters. He asked for
because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own P1,000.00 for his fees from the sisters.
purpose; and to appease petitioners feelings, he offered to reimburse
him by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in But later on, the judge handling the case asked Potenciano to
the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively. inhibit because of the fact that they are friends. Potenciano then
asked an additional P2,000.00 from the sisters. He said he needs to
ISSUE: find another judge who can rule in their favor. He also asked another
Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred. P10,000.00 from the sisters. He said this amount is needed in order
for them to re-acquire their apartment. On top of the P10,000.00, he
HELD: also asked for another P1,000.00 for additional expenses. The sisters
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on were able to pool resources from friends just to raise the amount
Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: It is evident that the P25,000 asked for by Potenciano.
deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the
filing fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of It turned out however that the court never asked P10,000.00
the filing fees, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent from the parties nor was the additional P1,000.00 asked by the court.
was created and that was to file the complaint within the time frame Worse, said amount (P11,000.00) was never deposited in court. The
by his client. Failure of respondent to fulfill due to his misuse of the sisters demanded Potenciano to return the said amount but he failed
filing fees deposited, and his attempts to cover up misuse of clients to do so hence they filed an administrative case against him. In his
funds, which caused additional damage and prejudice, constitutes defense, Potenciano claimed that the sister were merely harassing
highly dishonest conduct on his part. The subsequent reimbursement him.
by the respondent of part of the money deposited by complainant for
filing fees does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation ISSUE:
of said funds. Whether or not Atty. Potenciano should be subjected to disciplinary
actions.
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO V.
POTENCIANO HELD:
Yes. From the records, it appears that Potenciano haphazardly
FACTS: prepared the pleadings he wrote for the sisters. In fact, the cases he
filed for the sisters were all dismissed for lack of cause of action. He
got P11,000.00 from the sisters which he pocketed it for himself.
Potenciano bound himself to provide legal services with diligence Whether or not herein respondents violated Canon 3, Rule
until the conclusion of the case. It is also of no moment that 3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and whether the use
Potenciano had little time to prepare for the pleading. Potenciano of a foreign law office name is allowed.
was suspended indefinitely until he can show to the court that he is Held:
fit to practice law.
Yes, the use of a foreign law office name is misleading
CANON 3 towards the public and the clients. The respondents, being associates
Adriano E. Dacanay vs. Baker & Mckenzie of the firm Baker & Mckenzie are not authorized to use the said
firms name, which may tend to mislead the clients. Respondents' use
Facts: of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that
being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of
A case is filed by complainant Adriano E. Dacanay against the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others
Juan G. Collas Jr. and nine other lawyers engaging the practice of engaged in foreign trade and investment." Being an alien law firm,
law under the firm name Baker & Mckenzie, a foreign partnership cannot practice law in the Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm
established in Chicago, Illinois. In November 16, 1979, one of the name is unethical therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined
respondent lawyers, Vicente A. Torres sent a letter using the Baker from using Baker & McKenzie in their practice of law.
& Mckenzie letterhead to Rosie Clurman, a client of Dacanay,
demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. vs. Jose Antonio Bernas
Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client of Baker & Mckenzie. Complainants Facts:
response to the letter denied any liability of Clurman to respondents
client. He also questioned respondents use of a letterhead belonging On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative
to a different law office. Not receiving a reply, complainant filed the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for
instant case assailing the respondents use of a foreign law office alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and
name. Code of Professional Responsibility. In his complaint-affidavit,
Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm complainant Mr. Cabarrus, alleged that respondent Atty. Bernas, the
Guerrero & Torres; that their law firm is a member of Baker & counsel on record of the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646, is the
McKenzie; that the said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at the NBI for
over the world; that they associated with them in order to make a forgery and respondents themselves conspired and confabulated with
representation that they can render legal services of the highest each other in facilitating and insuring the open, blatant and deliberate
quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code. He further alleged
foreign trade and investment. that respondent should be disbarred for having instigated, abetted and
facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in the verification
Issue: and certification of non-forum shopping which are contrary to Canon
1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the Code of human chains to prevent the mining company to enter Palina. A
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. complaint was led before the National Commission on Indigenous
Issue: People for damages for violation of RA No. 837, respondent
representing the company entered his appearance. Respondent
Whether respondent Atty. Bernas transgressed Circular No. applied a trick so that complainants' lawyer will withdraw.
28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and administrative Circular No. Complainant then sought the services of Molintas and Partners Law
04-94 on forum shopping and whether or not herein respondent Office. Respondent then led a barrage of criminal cases designed to
should be disbarred for violation of Code of Professional intimidate the people. In one pleading submitted by respondent, he
Responsibility. sought the assistance of police and military claiming that the place is
reportedly known to be a New People's Army infested area and the
Held: presence of leftist organization who are backing the opposition
against the mining company. He also file a case for damage in
In this case, there is no forum shopping to speak of Atty. Makati City.
Bernas, as counsel of Mr. Pascual, Jr., merely requested the ISSUE:
assistance of the NBI to investigate the the alleged fraud and forgery Whether Atty. Kito violated Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of Code of
committed by Mr. Jesus Cabarrus.The filing of the civil case for Professional Responsibility and his lawyers oath.
conveyance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig HELD:
City does not preclude respondent to institute a criminal action. The The respondent is the lawyer of the mining company duly
rule allows the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal licensed and authorized under the laws of the Philippines to conduct
case without violating the circulars on forum shopping. drilling operation in the area. He prosecuted those charges and
After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court find the counter-charges, when his client entered the mining area while the
administrative complaint bereft of merit and should be dismissed. people tried to oppose their entry, only upon legal grounds and in
Premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED. good faith, employing only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client. To show their sincerity to complainants, he
JOSE B. GALLANO, ET AL. vs. ATTY. RODRIGO P. KITO, has to withdraw some of the cases Da Gama, client of the
FACTS: respondent, led in Court hoping that this conciliatory moved may
Respondent is the representative and lawyer for DA GAMA result in the better understanding between the mining company and
MINERALS and GAMBAN MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. the herein complainants and their community. There is nothing in the
and he is considered a son of Kibungan. In pursuing the alleged actuation of the respondent in the ling of cases against the
interests of his client, respondent applied highhanded techniques and complainants and his people that merits disciplinary action because
applied "divide and conquer" strategies to make neighbors fight each they were performed in accordance with law and ethics of the law
other. profession. Lawyers should be given ample leeway in the pursuit of
On April 29, 2010, complainants and the people of Palina were defense of their clients and to put them in a bad light for such
surprised when Da Gama brought to Palina. The people formed advocacies, pursuits and defenses, bodes ill for legal practitioners.
The case for consideration therefore cannot prosper in view of the Whether Atty. Principe violated Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of Code
failure of the complainants to substantiate the charges against herein of Professional Responsibility.
respondent. For lack of merit, the case against respondent Atty. HELD:
Rodrigo P. Kito is hereby recommended to be dismissed. No. To assist them in the compromise agreement, the
landowners, through SANDAMA and its president, Danilo Elfa,
JULIAN MALONSO vs. ATTY. PETE PRINCIPE engaged the services of a lawyer in the person of respondent. It is
FACTS: clear that respondent was hired precisely for the negotiation phase of
Julian Malonso claimed that Atty. Pete Principe, without any the case. Records reveals that respondent had grounds to believe that
authority entered his appearance as Malonso's counsel in the he can intervene and claim from the individual landowners.
expropriation proceedings initiated by the National Power Respondent could not have doubted the authority of Elfa to contract
Corporation (NAPOCOR). In addition, he complained that Atty. his firm's services. After all, Elfa was armed with a Board Resolution
Principe, after illegally representing him in the said case, claimed from SANDAMA, and more importantly, individual grants of
forty (40%) of the selling price of his land to the NAPOCOR by way authority from the SANDAMA members. The Court cannot hold
of attorney's fees and, further, in a Motion to Intervene , claimed to respondent guilty of censurable conduct or practice justifying the
be a co-owner of Malonso's property. Respondent replied that the penalty recommended. The case is DISMISSED and considered
services of his law office, Principe Villano Villacorta and Clemente CLOSED. The IBP is enjoined to comply with the procedure
Law Offices, was engaged by Samahan ng mga Dadaanan at outlined in Rule 139-B in all cases involving the disbarment and
Maapektuhan ng NAPOCOR, Inc. (SANDAMA), through its discipline of attorneys.
President, Danilo Elfa, as embodied in the Contract of Legal Services
executed on 01 April 1997. Villatuya v. Tabalingcos
Malonso reiterated that he did not authorize Elfa to act in his FACTS:
behalf since he already had his own lawyer in the person of Atty. Manuel G. Villatuya charges Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos with
Benjamin Mendoza. Atty. Principe commented that the agreement unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of the Code of Professional
entered into by SANDAMA and his law firm is a continuing one and Responsibility for nonpayment of fees to complainant, and gross
hence, Malonso was within the coverage of the contract even if he immorality for marrying two other women while respondent's first
executed the special power of attorney on a later date. Likewise, as a marriage was subsisting.
member of SANDAMA, Malonso is bound to honor the As to the charge of unlawful solicitation, respondent denied
organization's commitments. The Report found that the Contract of committing any. He contended that his law firm had an agreement
Legal Services is between SANDAMA, a corporate being, and with Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., whereby the firm would handle
respondent's law firm. SANDAMA is not a party in all of the the legal aspect of the corporate rehabilitation case; and that the latter
expropriation proceedings instituted by NAPOCOR, neither does it would attend to the financial aspect of the case'.
claim co-ownership of the properties being expropriated. ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility
RULING: Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or
Complainant submitted documentary evidence to prove that assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a
Jesi & Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc. deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
were owned and used as fronts by respondent to advertise the latter's its communications that said partner is deceased.
legal services and to solicit clients. A review of the records reveals Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald
that respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the R. Magat are found in contempt of court for using a disbarred
report to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting lawyer's name in their firm name and are meted a fine of P30,000
to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases. each.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of
prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm the
recommendation to reprimand the latter for illegal advertisement and GERSHON N. DULANG vs. JUDGE MARY JOCELYN G.
solicitation. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
(MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU

Yu Kimteng v. Young FACTS:

Petitioners ask that Young Revilla Gambol & Magat law The instant case stemmed from an ejectment complaint with
firm, counsel for liquidator, be cited in contempt on the ground that prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed
Revilla, who was already disbarred in 2009, appears under the said as Civil Case No. 212-B, entitled "Spouses Gershon Dulang and
firm name. Respondent stated that the firm opted to retain Revilla's Luzviminda Dulang, represented by Reynaldo Moldez v. Emmanuel
name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred, with the Flores," which was filed before the MCTC on Februrary 2, 2000
retention serving as an act of charity. Judge Calo stated that Atty. (ejectment case). Dulang alleged that on May 4, 2009, he moved for
Young could still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance the resolution of the above-mentioned ejectment case, given that the
was under the Young Law Firm and not under Young Revilla same had been filed as early as year 2000 and had already been
Gambol & Magat. Young Law Firm does not exist. submitted for resolution. Regencia rendered a Judgment dismissing
ISSUE: the ejectment case only on February 18, 2011(February 18, 2011
Whether or not Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Judgment), or more than 11 years since its filing. Dulang accused
Reynald R. Magat should be cited in contempt. Judge Regencia of gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence,
RULING: serious misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty, contending that
In this case, respondents committed acts that are considered by filing his appeal, the latter was already stripped of her (Judge
indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, Regencia) jurisdiction over the case and should not have issued the
respondents disregarded the Code of Professional Responsibility said order. The administrative case was referred to the Executive
when they retained the name of respondent Revilla in their firm Judge of the Toledo City RTC for investigation, report, and
name. recommendation. Executive Judge Hermes B. Montero found Judge
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states: Regencia administratively liable for gross inefficiency, gross
ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, serious misconduct, and and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan
serious dereliction of duty in handling the ejectment case, and presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that
thereby recommended that she be dismissed from service. Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-attorney
relationship with Linsangan. Also he attached respondents calling
ISSUE: card.
Whether or not Regencia may be held administratively liable for
undue delay in rendering a decision. In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing
the printing and circulating of said calling card.
HELD:
Yes. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high ISSUE:
sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services.
administer justice promptly. Civil Case No. 212-B was already
submitted for resolution on October 17, 2008. Being an ejectment HELD:
case, it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03,
clearly sets a period of thirty (30) days from the submission of the 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code. With regard to Canon
last affidavit within which a decision thereon must be issued. 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers
Regencia rendered judgment only about two years and four months should not advertise their talents.
later, or on February 18, 2011. Court finds Judge Regencia of the
MCTC of Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, guilty of undue delay in With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting
rendering a decision. Accordingly, she is ordered to pay a fine of cases for purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. As a
P40,000.00 and is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Linsangan, a lawyers best advertisement is well-merited. Reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character.
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by use of
TOLENTINO simple professional calling cards which may only contain the
following details: (a) lawyers name; (b) name of firm; (c) address;
FACTS: (d) contact number; and (e) special branch of law practiced.
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of
the Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Attty. Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial
Nicomendes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of assistance which was clearly used to entice clients to change
professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help counsels with promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money
of paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers.
representation by promising financial assistance and expeditious
collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted
CANON4
ISSUE:
Case: Jonar Santiago, petitioner vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, Whether or not Atty. Rafanan is guilty in violating the
respondent. Notarial Law.
(A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004)
HELD:
FACTS: Yes. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan violated the Notarial Law for
This is a disbarment case filed by Bureau of Jail not making the proper notation and entering the details of the
Management and Penology (BJMP) employee, Jonas Santiago notarized documents. Notarial Law is explicit on the obligation and
against Atty. Edison Rafanan. Here in, petitioner alleged in his duties of notaries public. These formalities are mandatory and cannot
complaint that the respondent in notarizing several documents on be simply neglected because it is to certify that the parties to every
different dates failed and/or refused to: document acknowledges before them the details to be placed it. As
a) make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax part of the certification, the following details should be presented,
certificate of the affiants; proper residence certificate; its number, place and date issued. They
b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial are also required to keep a Notarial register, where they will enter all
register; and instruments notarized by them.
c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP As to Atty. Rafanans last defense that it is a common
numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the practice in Nueva Ecija to not indicate affiants residence certificates
notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. on documents they notarized, the Supreme Court ruled that, it is
Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in appalling and inexcusable that he did away with the basic notarial
favor of his client and offered it as evidence (defendant stood as procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by
counsel and as witness of his client) and Rafanan, as alleged by the bad example of others is not an acceptable justification for
Santiago, waited for him together with his men and disarmed breaking the law.
Santiago and uttered insulting words at him. -
Even after admitting to have administered the oath to the
affiants, the respondent contend that the non-notation of their Case: Maribeth and Christopher Cordova, petitioner vs. Hon. Emma
Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits were C. Labayen, respondent.
allowed because: (A.C. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
a. Notation of residence certificates applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public, and FACTS:
b. It was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before On March 5, 1993, the Municipal Trial Court (branch II) of
courts and other government offices. Batangas City rendered judgment for petitioners with respect to four
c. Older practitioners in Nueva Ecija do not indicate affiants ordering the ejectment of private respondents and ordering them to
residence certificates on documents they notarized. pay monthly rentals of P50,000.00 starting April 7, 1992 until they
shall have vacated the lots and surrendered their possession to filing thereof came only as a dilatory afterthought on the part of
petitioners and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. defendants and their counsel. In a vain attempt to remedy the
On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved for the execution of situation, Atty. Sabio filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
the decision in their favor, alleging that although private respondents granting execution, but the same necessarily had to fail for being
had filed a notice of appeal, the latter had not filed a supersedeas frivolous.
bond nor make a deposit every month of the reasonable value of the It will be observed that no supersedeas bond was filed after
use and occupation of the properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8. the rendition of the decision either in the court of origin or in the
Private respondents opposed the motion, claiming that they appellate court. The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond
are co-owners of the lots from which they were ordered to be ejected is mandatory. Defendants in the ejectment case appealed to the latter
and that to grant immediate execution of the decision would render court without filing a supersedeas bond. Such failure is a ground for
their appeal moot and academic. outright execution of the judgment of the municipal trial court, the
duty of the appellate court to order the execution of the appealed
ISSUE: decision being thereby ministerial and imperative.
Whether there was a late filing of Supersedeas Bond. -

HELD: Case: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

The petition is not meritorious. As a general rule, a judgment ROSCOE DABAN y GANZON, defendant-appellant, SIXTO P.
in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, DEMAISIP, respondent. (G.R. No. L-31429 January 31, 1972)
in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of
possession of the property in question. The motion for execution was FACTS:
filed eighteen days from the date the petitioners received a copy of Respondent, Attorney Sixto P. Demaisip, started as counsel
the MTC's decision, after the appeal had already been perfected. de parte of appellant. On October 24, 1970, he filed a motion for
Because no supersedeas bond had been filed within the period for extension of time of 30 days within which to file appellant's brief. It
appeal, a writ of execution should have been issued as a matter of was granted. So were subsequent motions for extension. On May 25,
right. Petitioners manifestly failed to adduce a compelling reason to 1971, after having obtained 13 extensions in all, he filed a motion
justify a departure from therefore cited rule. asking that in view of the father of appellant being unable to raise
The bond should have been filed forthwith after the money for printing expenses, he be allowed to retire as counsel de
municipal trial court had rendered judgment against complainants, parte and be appointed as counsel de oficio instead to enable him to
which judgment was immediately executory, without prejudice to the file a typewritten brief, a draft of which, according to him, he had by
right of appeal. As the records readily reveal, the purported bond was then finished. This Court, in a resolution of June 2, 1971, granted his
belatedly filed on September 29, 1992, more than five months later, prayer to be appointed counsel de oficio, but required him to file a
and only after the aforementioned Regional Trial Court had already mimeographed rather than a typewritten brief. In the light of his own
issued an order granting the motion for execution pending appeal. representation, there was reason to expect that such a brief would be
We cannot, therefore, elude the impression thus created that the duly forthcoming. It did not turn out to be the case at all, for
respondent Demaisip, this time as counsel de oficio, kept on filing high degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live; certainly he
motions for postponement, four in number, likewise granted by this cannot afford either to neglect his paying cases. Nonetheless, what
Tribunal in a spirit of generosity. All in all, he had seventeen is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio must be fulfilled. If for
extensions. Still there was no appellant's brief. any reason, he fails to do so a matter which may be susceptible of
It was only then that on October 11, 1971 this Court issued a explanation but not of justification he should know that he is to be
resolution requiring Atty. Sixto P. Demaisip to explain, within ten held accountable. He is entitled to be heard in his defense, it goes
(10) days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. without saying. Where he is unable to do so, because what is alleged
What passed for an explanation for appellant's persistent failure to by him to ward off disciplinary action is bereft of support in law, he
file days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. certainly cannot expect to be let off lightly. That is the fate in store
What passed for an explanation for appellant's persistent failure to for respondent Sixto P. Demaisip, counsel de oficio of appellant
file undersigned counsel de oficio, unto this Honorable Supreme Roscoe Daban.
Court most respectfully manifests and explains that, in the opinion of WHEREFORE, until further orders of this Court, respondent
the undersigned lawyer, grounded on settled jurisprudence, the Sixto P. Demaisip is hereby suspended from the practice of the law
escape of the prisoner automatically makes the appeal useless in all courts of the Philippines, except for the sole purpose of filing
and unnecessary because it is considered abandoned." It is his prayer, the brief for appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon with this Court
therefore, that the above be considered a satisfactory explanation. within a period of twenty days from receipt of this resolution. Let a
copy of this resolution be spread upon his record.
ISSUE: -
Whether or not Atty. Demaisip acts constitutes gross neglect
of duty. Case: ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA, respondent.
HELD: (A.C. No. 6296. November 22, 2005)
There is need anew in this disciplinary proceeding to lay
stress on the fundamental postulate that membership in the bar
carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting standard. The FACTS:
law is a profession, not a trade or a craft. Those enrolled in its ranks Atty. Evelyn J. Magno had a disagreement with her uncle,
are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the basic Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract which gave rise to this
purposes of the State, the administration of justice. To avoid any disciplinary case. Complainant addressed a sumbong to the
frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a barangay for the settlement of the problem and at the confrontation
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his proceedings Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared for Inos, on the
services are rendered without remuneration should not occasion a strength of a Special Power of the Attorney. This led to the
diminution in his zeal. Rather the contrary. This is not, of course, to complainants objection of Jacobas appearance in which the latter
ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his attention. After defended that she was only an attorney-in-fact.
all, he has his practice to attend to. That circumstance possesses a
 Evidence then showed by the complainant showed how Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital
respondent acted as Lorenzos counsel throughout the proceedings punishment. Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebias counsel de
which led to charges against Jacoba in violation of section 415 of the oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review.
Local Government Code(1991) and Canon 4 of the Code of Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days
Professional Responsibility. from notice. On January 19,1967, Adriano sought a 30-day extention
to file appellants brief in mimeograph form. On February 18,
ISSUE: Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. A third extensionwas
Whether or not Atty. Jacoba is guilty for violating the Code filed on March 8 for 15 days. On March 27 Adriano filed for another
of Professional Responsibility. 15-day extension and on April 11 he moved for a last extension of
ten days. However, on April 21 he sought a special extension of five
HELD: days. All of these motions for extension were granted by the Court
Jacoba insisted that that the prohibition against a lawyer and the brief was due on April 26, 1967. However, no brief was
appearing to assist a client in katarungan pambarangay proceedings does filed. For failing to comply, the Supreme Court resolved to impose
not apply for the complaint was filed with the Office of the Punong upon Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic
Barangay instead of before the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The reason disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further non-
behind the personal appearance requirement in the LGC is to enable compliance. On December 5, 1968, Adriano was ordered to show
the cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
Lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the case with gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney. A
the exception of minors and incompetent parties. resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968
however Adriano ignored the said resolution.
The Supreme Court was determined in enjoining with the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline that the respondent transgressed the prohibition ISSUE:
prescribed in Section 415 of the LGC and on the instance on how the respondent Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. Adriano as
continuously ignored the complainants prestation by appearing in the conciliation member of the bar deserve disciplinary action.
proceedings.
HELD:
- Yes, by specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney
to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case
Case: IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE E. ADRIAN, MEMBER who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is
OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required
complainant, vs. REMEGIO ESTEBIA, respondent. service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent
prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always
FACTS: exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at all has
Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. And yet,
between December 20, 1966, when he received notice of his ISSUE:
appointment, and December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order Whether or not the request has merits.
was issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was afforded
counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. In the face of the fact HELD:
that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements in his motions The Court recognizes the right of access to justice as the
for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless most important pillar of legal empowerment of the marginalized
words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity. Adrianos pattern of sectors of our society. Among others, it has exercised its power to
conduct reveals a propensity to benumb appreciation of his "promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that constitutional rights" to open the doors of justice to the
should be accorded this Court. For the reasons given Attorney Lope underprivileged and to allow to them to step inside the courts to be
E. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law throughout the heard of their plaints.
Philippines for a period of one (1) year. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Ubi
- jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. The
remedy must not only be effective and efficient, but also readily
RE: REQUEST OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID accessible. For a remedy that is inaccessible is no remedy at all.
TO EXEMPT LEGAL AID CLIENTS FROM PAYING FILING, Wherefore, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP is
DOCKET AND OTHER FEES hereby COMMENDED for helping increase the access to justice by
the poor. The request of the said chapter for the exemption from the
FACTS: payment of filing, docket and other fees of the clients of the legal aid
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the offices of the various IBP chapters is GRANTED.
Philippines (IBP) promulgated Resolution No. 24, series of 2008. -
The resolution requested the IBP's National Committee on Legal Aid
(NCLA) to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing, docket Case: JUAN DULALIA JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. PABLO C.
and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP CRUZ, respondent.
chapters. (A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007)
In a Comment, IBP stated that they laud Misamis Oriental
Chapter for its effort to help improve the administration of justice,
particularly, the access to justice by the poor. In promulgating FACTS:
Resolution No. 24, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has Susan Soriano Dulalia, wife of Juan, applied for a permit in
effectively performed its duty to "participate in the development of the Municipal Government to build a high-rise building in Bulacan.
the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and
in the administration of justice" as provided in Canon 4 of the Code Complainant maintains that respondent used his influence as
of Professional Responsibility. the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan to oppose his wifes
application for building permit, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code processes. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-
of Professional Responsibility. informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative
Complainant further claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
with a woman while still married is in violation of the Code of faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge
Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar.
have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family
Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there Anent the allegation that the respondent used his position to
is a qualification thereunder that it should not prejudice or impair oppose the building permanent application of the complainant, the
vested or acquired rights. pertinent portion of the July 29, 2005 Joint Resolution of the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissing complainants
ISSUE: complaint for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 and Section 4 (a)
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of and (c) of RA 6713 reads:
Professional Responsibility.
x x x A perusal of the questioned letter dated September 13,
HELD: 2004 of herein respondent Atty. Pablo Cruz addressed to the
Yes, the Court finds respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 Building official appears to be not an opposition for the
and Canon 5 of the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law issuance of complainants building permit, but rather
for one year. to redress a wrong and an inquiry as to whether compliance
with the requirements for the construction of an edifice has
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal been met. In fact, the Office of the Building Official after
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, conducting an investigation found out that there was [a]
support effrts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in violation of the Building Code for constructing without a
the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating building permit committed by herein complainants wife
information regarding the law and jurisprudence. Susan Dulalia. Hence, a Work Stoppage Order was issued.
Records disclose fu[r]ther [that] it was only after the said
Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family Code violation had been committed that Susan Dulalia applied for
already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States a building permit. As correctly pointed out by respondent,
from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines the same is being processed pending approval by the
together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as Building Official and not of the Municipal Zoning
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Administrator as alleged by complainant.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
 The complaint failed to prove that respondent used his A statement dated July 27, 2010, entitled "Restoring
position as Municipal Legal Officer to advance his own personal Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the
interest against complainant and his wife. As for respondents letter, Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
there is nothing to show that he opposed the application for building Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" (the Statement), was posted
permit. He just inquired whether complainants wife fully complied in Newsbreaks website and on Atty. Roques blog. A report
with the requirements provided for by the National Building Code, regarding the statement also appeared on various on-line news sites,
on top of expressing his concerns about the danger and damages to such as the GMA News TV and the Sun Star sites, on the same date.
their properties, health and safety occasioned by the construction of The statement was likewise posted at the University of the
the building. The respondent merely fulfils his responsibility in Philippines College of Laws bulletin board allegedly on August 10,
supporting the improvement of the administration of justice 2010 and at said colleges website. On August 11, 2010, Dean
according to Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Leonen submitted a copy of the Statement of the University of the
which states: Philippines College of Law Faculty to the Court, through Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona. Thereafter, various authors wrote the
CANON 4 A lawyer shall participate in the development Court regarding the alleged plagiarism of their works.
of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform
and in the improvement of the administration of justice. ISSUE:
- W/N the professors violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility Whether lawyers who are also law professors can
Case: Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: invoke academic freedom as a defense in an administrative
A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines proceeding for intemperate statements tending to pressure the Court
College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and or influence the outcome of a case or degrade the courts.
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC,
March 8, 2011) HELD:
Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions
FACTS: of the Statement exceeded the limits of fair comment and cannot be
Counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. deemed as protected free speech.
and Romel Regalado Bagares, filed a Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration where they posited their charge of plagiarism as one Applying the Courts past treatment of the "free speech"
of the grounds for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision. They also defense in other bar discipline cases, academic freedom cannot be
claimed that "In this controversy, the evidence bears out the fact not successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The implicit ruling
only of extensive plagiarism but of also of twisting the true intents of in jurisprudence is that the constitutional right to freedom of
the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of the expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their
assailed Judgment for denying the Petition." ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to
uphold the publics faith in the legal profession and the justice
system. The reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited the Court, and a Dean and professor of law, to observe full candor
in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic and honesty in his dealings with the Court and warned that the same
freedom of law professors. or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. (4) Prof.
Lynch, who is not a member of the Philippine bar, is excused from
Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents these proceedings. However, he is reminded that while he is engaged
proposition in the Common Compliance that their issuance of the as a professor in a Philippine law school he should strive to be a
Statement was in keeping with their duty to "participate in the model of responsible and professional conduct to his students even
development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in without the threat of sanction from this Court. (5) Finally,
law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice" respondents requests for a hearing and for access to the records of
under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we cannot A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are denied for lack of merit.
agree that they have fulfilled that same duty in keeping with the -
demands of Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give due respect to legal
processes and the courts, and to avoid conduct that tends to influence CANON5
the courts. Members of the Bar cannot be selective regarding which
canons to abide by given particular situations. With more reason that Case: ARCELY Y. SANTOS vs. JUDGE UBALDINO A.
law professors are not allowed this indulgence, since they are LACUROM
expected to provide their students exemplars of the Code of (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823; August 28, 2006)
Professional Responsibility as a whole and not just their preferred
portions thereof. FACTS:
The complaint stemmed from respondent judges alleged bias
WHEREFORE, this administrative matter is decided as follows: (1) and partiality in favor of one Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. (Santos), who
With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his submission, had three pending cases before respondent judges sala. Respondent
the Court finds his Compliance to be satisfactory. (2) The Common judge allowed Santos, a non-lawyer, to appear in court and litigate
Compliance of 35 respondents, is found UNSATISFACTORY. personally the three cases. Complainants had been questioning the
These 35 respondent law professors are reminded of their lawyerly appearance of Santos as counsel during the proceedings in court.
duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from Respondent judge always granted, with dispatch, all the
intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on pleadings of Santos. He also unduly delayed the execution of the 28
pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of April 2000 Court of Appeals decision against Santos in Cadastral
justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be Case No. 384-AF. Respondent judge refused to inhibit himself from
dealt with more severely. (3) The separate Compliance of Dean the cases to avoid suspicion of bias, prejudice, conflict of interest and
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding the charge of violation of Canon partiality. Complainant alleged that respondent judge used his office
10 is found UNSATISFACTORY. He is further ADMONISHED to to advance and protect the interests of Santos, respondent judges
be more mindful of his duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of
close friend, to the prejudice of complainant and in violation of
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Code). On respondent judges admission that Dr. Lacurom received
a favor from the officers of Faberns Inc., respondent judge violated
Complainant explained that all three cases involved Rule 5.04 of the Code. Faberns Inc. is the petitioner in Cadastral
properties in the Villa Benita Subdivision and that respondent judge Case No. 384-AF, which was then pending before respondent
is an incorporator, a director, an officer and a legal adviser of Villa judges sala. Respondent judge should have advised Dr. Lacurom not
Benita Homeowners Association (VBHA). VBHA allegedly filed to accept any favor from Faberns Inc. or from any of its officers or
several cases before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board principal stockholders. Judges, as occupants of exalted positions in
(HLURB) against Faberns Inc. and complainant. Complainant the administration of justice, must pay a high price for the honor
asserted that respondent judge had personal knowledge of the facts of bestowed on them. Their private, as well as their official conduct,
the HLURB cases. Complainant added that in refusing to inhibit must always be free from the appearance of impropriety.
himself, respondent judge violated Rule 3.12 (a) and Canon 5 of the
Code. Respondent judges actuations constitute simple misconduct,
a less serious charge punishable with suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for a period of not less than one month but
ISSUE: not more than three months, or a fine of more than PhP 10,000 but
Whether or not the party (Santos) has the right to self- not exceeding PhP 20,000.
representation; Whether or not Judge Rojo violated the Code of -
Judicial Conduct for acting inappropriately and for not inhibiting
himself from the case.
Case: Rex M. Tupal vs Judge Remegio V. Rojo
(A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842 February 24, 2014)
HELD:
The Rules recognize the right of an individual to represent FACTS:
himself in any case in which he is a party. The Rules state that a Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without the
party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, required marriage license. He instead notarized affidavits of
and that his appearance must be either personal or by a duly cohabitation and issued them to the contracting parties. He notarized
authorized member of the Bar. these affidavits on the day of the parties marriage. These "package
marriages" are allegedly common in Bacolod City.
The Court affirms that respondent judges inhibition from Judge Rojo also allegedly violated the 2004 Rules on
the cases was discretionary. The three cases do not fall under the Notarial Practice as he notarized affidavits of cohabitation without
instances covered by the rule on the mandatory disqualification of affixing his judicial seal on the affidavits. He also did not require the
judges and the issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of parties to present their competent pieces of evidence of identity as
conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. required by law.
 Responded Judge did not deny notarizing the affidavits of Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were
cohabitation. He argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was documents not connected with the exercise of his official functions
connected with his official functions and duties as a judge. The and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of
Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public were
Judiciary does not prohibit judges from notarizing affidavits of lacking in his courts territorial jurisdiction. Before performing the
cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. He also marriage ceremony, the judge must personally interview the
argued that he did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. contracting parties and examine the requirements they submitted.
He is a judge, not a notary public. Thus, he was not required to affix The parties must have complied with all the essential and formal
a notarial seal on the affidavits he notarized. requisites of marriage. Among these formal requisites is a marriage
He further argued that he need not notarize the affidavits license.
with the parties presenting their competent pieces of evidence of
identity. Since he interviewed the parties as to the contents of their This court does not condone violations of law. Judges have
affidavits, he personally knew them to be the same persons who been dismissed from the service for gross ignorance of the law.
executed the affidavit. The parties identities are "unquestionable." However, Judge Rojo may have been misled by other judges
practice of notarizing affidavits of cohabitation in Bacolod City and
ISSUE: Talisay City. Thus, this court finds suspension from office without
Whether or not judges are authorized to notarize affidavits of salary and other benefits for six (6) months sufficient sanction.
cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize; Whether -
or not Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Case: LEA P. PAYOD, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA,
Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law. respondent. (A.C. No. 3944. July 27, 2007.)

HELD:
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio FACTS:
in the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of Lea Payod charged Atty. Metila with "willful neglect and
their official functions and duties. They may not, as notaries public gross misconduct" regarding the latters failure to comply with the
ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private submission of required documents to the Supreme Court with regards
documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no to the case of Payod and because of his unreasonable excuses for
direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The non-performance despite the petitioners persistent follow-ups. Atty.
1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate Metila denied charges and stated that there was no attorney-client
their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict relationship between him and Lea, there being no Special Power of
with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in Attorney authorizing her mother to hire him as a lawyer in her
the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07). behalf. Still the IBP Board of Directors found respondent guilty of
simple negligence and recommended that he be seriously
admonished.
 Criminal Procedure, respondent explained that as counsel of the
ISSUE: affiants, he had the option to comply or not with the certification.
Whether or not respondents failure to comply with said
submission of documents constitute to negligence. ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Section 27 of Rule 138
HELD: 22 of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03
In failing to comply with the requirements in initiating 33 , Canon 5 44 , and Canons 12.07 55 and 12.08 of the Code of
complainant's appeal before this Court respondent fell short of the Professional Responsibility (CPR).
standards required in the Canon of Professional Responsibility for a
lawyer to "keep abreast of legal developments" and "serve his client HELD:
with competence and diligence." The circumstances attendant to The IBP Board of Governors rejected the excuse set by the
respondents initial handle of Leas case does not warrant a finding respondent and still charged him for his offense and also dismissed
of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort on his part to the other charges - violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
defend her cause. Neither do the circumstances warrant a finding that of Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR for
respondent was motivated by ill-will. In the absence of proof to the lack of sufficient evidence. It must be emphasized that the primary
contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith in his favor. duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
- for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the
Case: JONAR SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDISON V. forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This
RAFANAN, respondent. duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing
(A.C. No. 6252. October 5, 2004.) laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments
and jurisprudence(canon 5). It is imperative that they be conversant
with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such
FACTS: duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently
their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail susceptible to committing mistakes.
Management and Penology (BJMP), filed a complaint for the -
disbarment of respondent Atty. Rafanan for having violated specific
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, Case: DR. EDNA S.V. OGKA BENITO, complainant, vs. JUDGE
the entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the RASAD G. BALINDONG, respondent.
indication of the affiant's residence certificate. Rafanan admitted (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2103. Feb 23, 2009.)
having administered the oaths, however insisted that the non-notation
of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the Counter- FACTS:
affidavits was allowed. As to his alleged failure to comply with the Complainant, then acting mayor of the Municipality of
certification required by Section 3 of Rule 112 99 of the Rules of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, charged respondent Judge Rasad G.
Balindong of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabang, Lanao
del Sur, Branch 12, with gross ignorance of the law. Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON.
Complainant alleged that she filed administrative and EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 47,
criminal complaints against Mamarinta G. Macabato, then municipal Puerto Princesa City, ARNE STROM and GRACE REYES,
treasurer of Balabagan, and former Mayor Hadji Amer R. Sampiano respondents.
as co-respondent, for grave misconduct in the Office of the (G.R. No. 116049. March 20, 1995.)
Ombudsman-Mindanao. The Ombudsman rendered judgment in that
case finding Macabato and Sampiano therein guilty of conduct FACTS:
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposing on them A complaint for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A.
the penalty of suspension from office without pay for a period of No. 108) was filed by Asst. City Prosecutor Perfecto E. Pe against
nine months. Respondents in the said case, filed a petition for respondents Strom and Reyes. The accused filed a Motion to
certiorari and prohibition in the RTC of Malabang. Thus, they prayed Quash/Dismiss the criminal case claiming that since the power to
to annul and set aside the judgment of the Ombudsman and prohibit prosecute is vested exclusively in the Anti-Dummy Board under
its implementation. Republic Act No. 1130, the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa has
Respondent Judge Balindong issued an order granting a no authority to file the same. The prosecution filed an opposition
temporary restraining order directing to cease, desist and refrain from pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board has already been abolished
implementing the decision of the Ombudsman. by Letter of Implementation (LOI) No. 2, Series of 1972. Despite
such opposition, however, respondent judge granted the motion
ISSUE: supporting the position that the Letter Of Implementation relied upon
Whether or not respondent judge has jurisdiction to take by the City Fiscal is not the law contemplated in Article 7 of the
cognizance of the petition and issue subsequent orders. New Civil Code which can repeal another law such as R.A. 1130.
Thus, respondent judge in the assailed order of March 18, 1994 held
HELD: that the City Prosecutor has no power or authority to file and
The CA held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the prosecute the case and ordered that the case be quashed/dismissed.
petition filed by the respondents (Macabato and Sampiano) pursuant
to Sections 14 and 27 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6770 (Ombudsman ISSUE:
Act of 1989) and Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Whether or not respondent judge in granting the Motion to
Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17-03. Quash gravely abused his discretion as to warrant the issuance of a
Respondent's gross ignorance of the law also runs counter to Canon 5 writ of certiorari.
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, Judges should be
well-informed of existing laws, recent amendments and current HELD:
jurisprudence, in keeping with their sworn duty as members of the Yes. The error committed by respondent judge in
bar (and bench) to keep abreast of legal developments. dismissing the case is quite obvious in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI
- No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275 aforementioned. The intent to abolish the
Anti-Dummy Board could not have been expressed more clearly than Philippines (IBP) asking for disbarment of respondent on the
in the aforequoted LOI. Furthermore, Section 3, Article XVII of the following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct.
Constitution explicitly ordains: All existing laws, decrees, executive Complainant also prays for moral damages amounting to P350,000.
orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive After an order by the Director of Bar Discipline, respondent gave his
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain answer and prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint.
operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
- In his explanation, respondent said that he never had
personal transaction with complainant and that complainants
Case: EMILIA HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. husband was the one who told respondent to file the Memorandum
VENANCIO T. PADILLA, respondent. on Appeal so not to miss the period given by CA. Respondent claims
(A.C. No. 9387) complainant even gave approval of his advice to settle the case and
that he was surprised as well of the CAs Resolution because he
thought the complainant already settled the case as advised.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Complainant Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice, deceit,
respondents in an ejectment case filed by the Regional Trial Court of and grave misconduct.
Manila (RTC). The RTC ordered the Deed of Sale be cancelled and
that they pay Elisa Duigan attorneys fees and moral damages. The HELD:
complainant then filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The The Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the IBP
complainant chose Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent) of the board of governors to reduce penalty to one month suspension and
Padilla Padilla Bautista Law to represent them. He filed a affirms that the original 6-month suspension be followed, adopting
Memorandum on Appeal and not an Appellants Brief as ordered then the factual findings of the IBP.
by CA. Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the CA
granted in a Resolution which became final and executory on 8 Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
January 2004. relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
Lawyers who accept a case must serve their clients with utmost
Complainant claims that they did not file a Motion for competence and diligence which respondent failed to do so. It is his
Reconsideration (MR) because respondent ignored the Resolution, responsibility as a lawyer to be knowledgeable of the proper pleading
did not inform them of the MR despite several inquiries and acted to be filed regarding appeals from RTC decisions. Respondent is
with deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law. expected to know that when complainant filed a Notice of Appeal,
Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure would apply which requires
An Affidavit of Complaint was filed by the complainant that an appellants brief be filed. Respondent, a litigator, was
with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the expected to have known this and as Canon 5 of the Code says:
 CANON 5 A lawyer shall Complainant alleged that respondent acted in malicious
keep abreast of legal violation of the rules governing the practice of law by citing outdated
developments, participate in material in his complaint-affidavit and counter-affidavit.
continuing legal education
programs, support efforts to A mandatory hearing was scheduled by the Integrated Bar of
achieve high standards in law the Philippines (IBP) however, only the respondent appeared. The
schools as well as in the parties then gave their position papers. Complainant claimed that
practical training of law respondent used outdated material and fabricated cases against the
students and assist in former. While respondent claimed that Marisa Williams lost her
disseminating information citizenship when she married an American and that she no longer
regarding the law and was entitled to own land in the Philippines.
jurisprudence.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 5 of
Respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules the code of professional responsibility.
18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX HELD:
(6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the The Court agrees with the IBP Commission on Bar
same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Discipline that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
-
The cases cited by the respondent cannot be applied in the
Case: SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, complainant, case at bar as there was no evidence that complainant has renounced
v. ATTY. ENRIQUEZ, respondent. her citizenship and that she has automatically acquired her American
[A.C. No. 6353 February 27, 2006] husbands citizenship. Thus, she is still qualified to acquire lands in
the Philippines.
FACTS:
Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez (respondent) is the counsel of record The Investigating Commissioner specified that lawyers must
of plaintiffs in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court always be updated with the latest laws and jurisprudence.
Dumaguete (RTC) where spouses David and Marisa Williams Indeed, when the law is so
(complainant) are defendants. The civil case was regarding a lot elementary, not to know it or to act as
bought by Marisa Williams where a Transfer Certificate of Title was if one does not know it constitutes
issued to her, which states that she is a Filipino married to an gross ignorance of the law. . . . In this
American citizen. case, the law he apparently
 misconstrued is no less than the The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners
Constitution, the most basic law of the collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of
land. Implicit in a lawyers mandate to private respondents, resulting in injuries to private respondents and
protect a clients interest to the best of the death of Marissa Bernal. Private respondents had been warned by
his/her ability and with utmost petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the
diligence is the duty to keep abreast of weakened wall but the former failed to do so.
the law and legal developments, and
participate in continuing legal On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Regional Trial Court
education programs. Thus, in found petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages
championing the interest of clients and to private respondents. On appeal, the decision was affirmed by the
defending cases, a lawyer must not Court of Appeals which was received by petitioners on August 25,
only be guided by the strict standards 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to
imposed by the lawyers oath, but file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file
should likewise espouse legally sound a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate
arguments for clients, lest the latters court.
cause be dismissed on a technical
ground. Ignorance encompasses both ISSUE:
substantive and procedural laws. Whether or not the Court of Appeals commit a grave abuse
of discretion when it denied petitioners motion for extension of time
to file a motion for reconsideration.
Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to
carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. He HELD:
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be No. The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not
dealt with more severely. commit a grave abuse of discretion. It correctly applied the rule laid
- down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, that the fifteen-day
period for appealing or for a filing a motion for reconsideration
Case: FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs. cannot be extended. In its resolution, the Supreme Court restated and
COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA clarified the rule, to wit:
BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF MARISSA BERNAL,
namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL, Beginning one month after the promulgation of this
SR., respondents. resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for
(G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988) extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed
with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial
FACTS: Courts, and the Intermediate Appelate Court. Such a motion may be
filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of voluntary surrender and lack of intent to kill. Abad, not satisfied with
last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the Blezas decisions filed an administrative case against Bleza,
extension requested.
In the case at bar, petitioners herein filed their motion for In the second case, Pacifico Ocampo alleged in the damage
extension on September 9, 1987, more than a year after the rule was suit that on April 16, 1984, he filed with the Manila International
promulgated. Considering the length of time from the expiration of Airport Authority (MIAA) an administrative complaint against a
the grace period to the promulgation of the decision of the Court of certain Ricardo F. Ortiz; that complainant Cruz persuaded Him to
Appeals on August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the withdraw the complaint with a threat that if he would not withdraw
ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a the same, Cruz will cause his dismissal from the Fire and Rescue
motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Division of the MIAA; that because he did not accede to Cruz'
According to Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, it demand, the latter filed against him an administrative case for
is the bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to inefficiency and serious neglect of duty, insubordination,
keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where absenteeism, and habitual tardiness; that because of that baseless
issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated and published in complaint, he has suffered embarrassment, mental shock, anxieties,
the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such sleepless nights, and loss of appetite. In his answer, Cruz denied
publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated and law knowledge of the administrative case between Pacifico Ocampo and
journals. Ricardo Ortiz and averred that Ocampo's inefficiency, absenteeism,
- and tardiness are substantiated by company records.

Case: GREGORIO R. ABAD, complainant, vs. ILDEFONSO After trial, the respondent judge ruled in favor of Pacifico
BLEZA, respondent. (A.M. No. 227-RTJ, October 13, 1986) Ocampo. He ordered complainant Cruz to pay Ocampo for moral
damages, examplary damages and for attorney's fees. The
FACTS: administrative complaint filed by Cruz alleged that the respondent
There are two administrative cases against Judge Ildefonso judge disregarded the defendant's incontrovertible evidence and
Bleza here. knowingly rendered a wrong judgment against him.

First in 1981, a shooting incident in a cockpit occurred ISSUE:

where Gregorio Abad, a colonel escaped death. In that incident, Whether or not respondent should be disciplined.
Abad had an argument with one Potenciano Ponce and the latters
bodyguard, Francisco Sabater Jr. Sabater shot Abad and due to HELD:
medical intervention, Abad survived. Abad filed two The respondent should not be disciplined in both cases. In
separate criminal cases against Ponce and Sabater. Ponce was the first case, Bleza erred in appreciating the mitigating circumstance
acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence while Sabater was found of lack of intent to kill in favor of Sabater but such error does not
guilty of frustrated homicide but with mitigating circumstances of hold him administratively liable.
 Case: Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) vs
As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, Sandiganbayan
dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity (G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005)
are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are
erroneous. Even on the assumption that the judicial officer has erred FACTS:
in the appraisal of the evidence, he cannot be held administratively or
civilly liable for his judicial action. However, while judges should The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK
not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its depositors,
mistakes or errors of judgment, it is highly imperative that they creditors and the general public, and ordering its liquidation. A
should be conversant with basic legal principles (Ubongon v. Mayo, public bidding of GENBANKs assets was held where Lucio Tan
99 SCRA 30) They are called upon to exhibit more than just a group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza
cursory acquaintance with statutes (Aducayen v. Flores, 51 SCRA filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and
78) and to keep themselves abreast of the latest laws, rulings and supervision of the court in GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by
jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction (Vasquez v. Malvar, 85 RA 265.
SCRA 10). Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states: After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG
to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with
developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance,
support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several
the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating the writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by them by
law and jurisprudence. taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with
former Pres. Marcos.
In the second case, the Supreme Court took notice of the fact
that it is on appeal before the Court of Appeals hence it is premature The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented
to decide upon it. Only after the appellate court holds in a final as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed
judgment that a trial judges alleged errors were committed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
deliberately and in bad faith may a charge of knowingly rendering an respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
unjust decision be leveled against him. Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively
- intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became
CANON 6 Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits
former government lawyers from accepting engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in which he intervened
intervened while in the said service. as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction
specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office. A
ISSUE: plain reading shows that the interdiction: 1. Applies to a lawyer who
once served in the government and 2. Relates to his accepting
Whether or not Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. which he had intervened while in the service.
-
HELD:
The case at bar does not involve the adverse interest aspect Case: ATTY. JULITO D. VILTRIOLO vs. ATTY. FELINA DASIG
of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse (A.C. No. 4984; April 1, 2003)
interest problem when he acted as Solicitor General and later as
counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. Beyond FACTS:
doubt that the matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking
involved in the case at bar is advising the Central Bank, on how officers of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the Complainants alleged that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal
petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court held that the Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for
advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Particularly, complainants alleged that the respondent during
Code of Professional Responsibility. the effectivity of her designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal
Affairs Service of CHED demanded from different people, on
Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of separate instances, certain amounts of money for the facilitation of
the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate application for correction of name then pending before the Legal
in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the Affairs Service office in which she was the head.
liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and
and liquidation of banks. unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City, which were subsequently dismissed. Further, complainants
Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his 365 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just
alleged intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter debts, as well as for instigating the commission of a crime against
different from the matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. certain individuals.
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and
position as a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report,
which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule
eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the
preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of
appointment for herself dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal Services,
CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three
ISSUE: years suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice
Whether or not the respondent committed an act of of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright
dishonesty and gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon
government official and should be disciplined as member of the bar finality of this decision.
in violation of his oath as a lawyer. -

HELD: Case: ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON, complainant, vs. ATTY.

The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and MARICHU C. LAMBINO, respondent.
duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for (A.C. No. 6968. August 9, 2006.)
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action.
A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not FACTS:
shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional A killing was done at the University of the Philippines where
Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to in there were two suspects, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo
govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers Narag, were requested by Atty. Dizon to be taken into his custody in
including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of which Atty. Lambino is against. It is claimed by Lambino that Dizon
said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the is not armed with a warrant for their arrest but on the other hand
utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more Dizon claims that under its Charter the NBI was authorized to make
sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their warrantless arrests. The students were eventually allowed to return to
conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public. their dormitories and were later indicated by the court.
Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the
applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Canon 1
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty. Atty
prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 1, Rule
a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03; Canon 6, Rules 6.01 and 6.02; and Canon 8,
service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private Rule 8.01.
interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in
any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be ISSUE:
affected by the functions of his office.
 Whether or not Atty. Dizon and Atty. Lambino violated the he unduly interfered with the complainant's sales application because
Code of Responsibility. of his personal interest over the subject land. The second charge
involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas
HELD: belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainant's brother. Respondent
A Report has been submitted to the Board of Governors of denied the complainants allegations and that he cannot be held liable
the IBP. Siegfrid B. Mison recommended the dismissal of the under Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since he
complaint against Atty. Lambino after having been found that she did not intervene in the disposition of the conflicting applications of
acted within her official duties as she safeguarded the rights of the the complainant and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez because the
students in accordance with the schools substitute parental authority applications were not submitted to the Committee on Awards when
and within the bounds of the law as the NBI agents had no warrants he was still a member.
of arrest. With respect to the complaint against Atty. Dizon, the
Commissioner recommended to reprimand him for violating the ISSUE:
Code of Professional Responsibility in "recklessly trying to arrest" Whether or not the respondent violated violating Rule 6.02,
the suspects without warrant. Indeed, Atty. Lambino was legally 11 Rule 6.03 22 and Rule 1.01 33 of the Code of Professional
justified in advising against the turnover of the suspects to Atty. Responsibility
Dizon, there being no basis for him to affect a warrantless arrest.
Atty. Dizon's administrative complaint against her must then be HELD:
dismissed. By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected The case was dismissed by the court for a lawyer who holds
students without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
- official. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed
Case: JOVITO S. OLAZO, complainant, vs. JUSTICE DANTE O. by government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. Since
TINGA (Ret.), respondent. public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon
(A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC. December 7, 2010.) lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the
standards for those in private practice. Also the records do not clearly
FACTS: show if the complainant's sales application was ever brought before
This is a case with regards to the sales application filed by the Committee on Awards and the complainant's allegation that the
the complainant over a parcel of land in Taguig. A proclamation was respondent "orchestrated" the efforts to get the subject land does not
implemented which led to the creation of the Committee on Awards specify how the orchestration was undertaken.
whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation on -
the applications to purchase the lands declared open for disposition.
The complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Case: EDILBERTO M. CUENCA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
 (G.R. No. 109870. December 1, 1995.) The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish the
genuineness and due execution of his brother's affidavit in the
interest of justice and fair play. Under Canon 6 of the Code of
FACTS: Professional Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the People of
The case is about the petitioner filing a pleading entitled the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek
"SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done.
TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, after his petition for review -
of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction for
violation of the "Trust Receipts Law" (Presidential Decree No.115) Case: ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, complainant, vs.
was denied by this Court in a Resolution. The Court in its PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAEZ, respondent.
Resolution, among other things, granted the substitution but denied (Adm. Case CBD No. 167, 9 March 1999)
the motion for leave to file motion for new trial. Notwithstanding,
petitioner then filed a "MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED FACTS:
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL", and a "MANIFESTATION AND Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, sister-in-law of
SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT". The Court thereafter required the herein complainant, was sued for non-remittance of SSS premiums
Solicitor General to comment on said motion and manifestation. The which complaint was assigned to respondent Prosecutor Ibaez for
Solicitor General himself recommends that petitioner be entitled to a preliminary investigation. In the course of the investigation,
new trial, proceeding from the same impression that a certain Encarnacion gave the amount of P1,804.00 to respondent as payment
Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an of her SSS contribution in arrears. Respondent did not pay the SSS,
admission against interest, which may ultimately exonerate petitioner hence on Nov. 16 1990, a complaint was filed against the respondent
from criminal liability. for professional misconduct in allegedly misappropriating the
amount. On 23 November 1990, the respondent paid SSS the amount
ISSUE: of P1,804.00 on behalf of Encarnacion. Respondent disclaimed
Whether or not the petitioner shall be granted of a new trial. liability on the ground that the acts complained were not done by him
in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account of his office as a
HELD: prosecutor.
The Court held that petitioner's Motion For New Trial should
be granted and ordered the case be re-opened and remanded to the ISSUE:
court of origin for reception of petitioner's evidence. The Solicitor Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and have
General opined that the sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a violated canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
declaration against his own interests under Section 38, Rule 130,
Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on the culpability of his HELD:
brother Edilberto Cuenca. Hence, the alleged confession of guilt It is glaringly clear that respondents non-remittance for over
should be given a hard look by the Court. one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion is gross violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The belated He alleges that respondents tampered with the votes he received
payment does not excuse his misconduct. So would his defense that through illegal padding. He said that by signing the Statement of
the acts complained of were not done by him in his office as a Votes (SoV) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despite knowing that
prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion there were errors shows that they committed a serious breach of
may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules public trust and of their lawyers oath. However, respondents claim
relating to a lawyers handling of funds of a client is applicable. that this was an honest mistake or due to fatigue.
Respondents claim that he may not be held liable because he
committed such acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the
prosecutor is unavailing. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional dismissal of the complaint due to lack of merit. The Motion for
Responsibility provides that These canons shall apply to lawyers in Reconsideration filed by complainant was also denied. Thus,
government service in the discharge of their official tasks. complainant filed petition before the Court.
Respondents failure to immediately remit the amount gives rise to
the presumption of misappropriation. That is in gross violation of ISSUE/S:
general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public
confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. The Whether or not respondents were guilty of misconduct and
Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense violation of lawyers oath.
of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of
every member of the Bar. The respondent was reprimanded with HELD:
stern warning. Yes.
-
The main issue here is not the case of mathematical error in the
Case: AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., complainant, vs. ATTYS. tabulation of votes in the CoC and SoV vis--vis the election returns
ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P. but the systematic scheme to illegally pad the votes of some
SALAYON, respondents. senatorial candidates to the prejudice of complainant and other
(A.C. No. 4680. August 29, 2000) candidates. Despite knowing that the tabulation of votes had errors,
respondents still signed the SoV and CoC as true and correct. Court
FACTS: views this as an act of misconduct.
Complainant Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed a complaint for Respondents as lawyers holding a government position may not be
disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of
Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation his duties as a government official. But, if the misconduct is an
of the lawyers oath in relation to their duties as members of the Pasig evident violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the
City Board of Canvassers for the 1995 Senatorial elections. lawyers oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or shows moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.
 However, respondent claimed that he did not participate in
The respondents in the case committed a violation of Rule 1.01 of the litigation of the case before the trial court for Mrs. Ong Siys
the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, case. Moreover, he alleged that he never appeared as counsel for the
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 6 is applicable to Almeda spouses. He stated that the case was handled by Atty. Pedro
lawyers in government service. Ferrer of the law firm and that their law firm handles their own cases
independently and individually receives fees.
The Court finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P.
Salayon GUILTY of misconduct and imposes on each of them a
FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 with a WARNING that ISSUE:
commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
- Whether or not Atty. Cedo was guilty of violating Canon 6.

Case: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, vs. ATTY. HELD:

TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent.
(A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995) Yes. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had an
investigation, report, and recommendation and found out that
FACTS: respondent was earlier fined by the Court for forum shopping for
Complainant Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged appearing as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy. Furthermore, IBP found that
respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Assistant Vice-President the charges against respondent were true because although he did not
of the Asset Management Group of PNB with violation of Canon 6, participate directly in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses, he
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for appearing as was dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court.
counsel of Milagros Ong Siy in a case against PNB.
IBP also stated there is a violation of Rule 15.02 of the Code
Complainant stated that when respondent was still with of Professional Responsibility since the firm was risking the clients
PNB, he participated in transactions with Mrs. Ong Siy. Respondent confidential records by exposing the to other lawyers who are not
also appeared as counsel for Emmanuel Elefan, his former involved in the handling of the case.
subordinate, in an administrative case but this was disqualified by the
Civil Service Commission. Complainant also claimed that espondent The Supreme Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY.
appeared as counsel of Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda, whose loan TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3)
account was handled by respondent, against complainant as the YEARS, effective immediately.
spouses were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo -
and Associates, where respondent is a Senior Partner.
Case: FRANCISCO LORENZANA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
CESAR G. FAJARDO, respondent.
 (A.C. No. 5712, June 29, 2005) any other office or employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
FACTS:
Complainant, charges respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo On respondents appointment as a member of the Lupong
with violation of the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Tagapamayapa while serving as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban
Professional Responsibility and seeks his disbarment from the Settlements Office, we agree with the IBP Investigating
practice of the law profession. Commissioner that the same is in order, being allowed by law.

Complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as The practice of law by attorneys employed in the
Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his government, to fall within the prohibition of statutes has been
retirement, was a member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board interpreted as customarily habitually holding ones self out to the
(PLEB). He was also a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa. public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. In the
Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private case at bar, respondents appearance as counsel is not merely
practice of law. isolated. Evidence presented by complainant shows that he had an
extensive practice of law. While employed as a Legal Officer in the
ISSUE: Urban Resettlement Office of Manila, he maintained a law office.
Whether or not the respondent violated the Civil Service
Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent cannot justify his practice of law by claiming
that his office is not really strict when it comes to appearing in some
HELD: private cases as they were sometimes called to render service even
The respondent violated the Civil Service Law and Code of on holidays without additional compensation. At most, he should
Professional Responsibility having accepted the employment as a have asked written permission from his chief as required by Section
member of the PLEB of Quezon City while concurrently employed 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules that no officer or
as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement Office. Contrary employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation or
to the charge of the complainant to the respondent, Atty. Fajardo is profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural
not found violating Canon 6 of the CPR specifically but his or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head
employment, being contra leges, runs in violation of the CPR. of the Department.

The prohibition against government officials and employees, In violation of the Constitution and the statutes, which in
whether elected or appointed, from concurrently holding any other turn contravene his Attorneys Oath and Code of Professional
office or position in the government is contained in Section 7, Article Responsibility; and by engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty.
IX-B of the Constitution. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the Cesar G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold for a period of six (6) months.
- report and recommendation on the incident. The OCAT submitted a
Memorandum to the Chief Justice opining that the retired Justice
Case: RE: Resolution of the Court Dated 1 June 2004 In G.R. No. may be administratively charged, as a lawyer and member of the bar,
72954 Against Atty. Victor C. Avecilla for taking out the rollo of G.R. No. 72954.
(A.C. No. 6683, June 21, 2011)
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not the retired Justice be administratively
On 14 July 2003, Atty. Victor C. Avecilla and Mr. Louis C. charged for taking out the rollo of G.R. No. 72954.
Biraogo requested documents related to the expenditure of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) from then Chief Justice, HELD:
Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Yes, the retired Justice Gancayco can be fully accountable
for taking out the rollo of G.R. No. 72954. The Court is convinced
Following this request, Chief Justice Davide instructed Atty. that it was the respondent who is responsible for taking out the
Teresita Dimaisip, then Chief of the Judicial Records Office to subject rollo as evidenced by the tracer card which bears the name of
forward the rollo of G.R. No. 72954, a petition impugning the the respondent and the signature of Atty. Banzn to borrow the subject
constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883, i.e. the law that called rollo on his behalf. In addition, there was no plausible explanation to
for the holding of a presidential snap election on 7 February 1986, to support the claim of the respondent that he never authorized Atty.
verify the claim of Atty. Avecilla and Mr. Biraogo that they made Banzon to borrow the subject rollo on his behalf.
contributions to the JDF and show that they have interest in the JDF
enough to be informed of how it was being spent. In determining his administrative culpability, the Court
found that there are sufficient grounds to hold respondent liable, to
On 30 July 2003, Atty. Dimaisip apprised Chief Justice wit: the respondent having been retired as of 20 April 1991, was
Davide that the subject rollo could not be found in the archives. already nearing the expiration of his extended tenure when he
Resorting to the tracer card of G.R. No. 72954, Atty. Dimaisip borrowed the rollo on 13 September 1991 hence, it may be
discovered that the subject rollo had been borrowed by retired Justice concluded that he borrowed the rollo not for any official reason
Emilio A. Gancayco acting through Atty. Salvador Banzon on the 13 related to the adjudication of pending case; and the respondents
September 1991, but was never returned. unjustified retention of the subject rollo for a considerable length of
time (12 years) confirms his illicit motive.
Justice Gancayco acknowledged having borrowed the rollo
of G.R. No. 72954 through Atty. Banzon. On 18 August 2003, the As a lawyer then employed with the government, the
rollo of G.R. No. 72954 was turned over to the JRO. respondent violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:
On 22 September 2003, Chief Justice Davide directed to the
Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) of this Court, to make a study,
 Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated
his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named
respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father. In his
WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby SUSPENDED answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an
from the practice of law for six (6) months. The respondent is also adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar offense in the their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate
future will be dealt with more severely. members of their respective families. He also said that his special
relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
CANON 7 tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for
disbarment.
Case: JOSELANO GUEVARRA vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL
EALA ISSUE:
(A.C. No. 7136; August 1, 2007) Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.

FACTS: HELD:
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when
his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced YES. While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of
respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster, to him as her sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to
friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so
three children. with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law,
had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of
you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and affirmed by our laws.
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so, admission to practice law. Furthermore, respondent violated Rule
complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral
which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that
a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
 would come to an end. However, complainant again discovered that
As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent
deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her
proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. husband had a second child. The illicit relationship persisted and
In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, employed by her husband in his company.
and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect
for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his ISSUE:
unfitness to be a lawyer. Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio should be barred from the
- practice of law on the ground of immoral conduct.

Case: LESLIE UI vs ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO HELD:

(ADM. CASE No. 3319; June 8, 2000) Iris Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs.
However the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos, clothed
FACTS: as it was with what she believed as a valid marriage, cannot be
An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows
Atty. Iris Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good
carrying an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, complainants and respectable members of the community. For such conduct to
husband. warrant disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral, it must be
On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or unprincipled as
L. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City1 and had to be reprehensible to a high degree.
four (4) children. Sometime in December 1987, however,
complainant found out that her husband Carlos Ui, was carrying on We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is
an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but
he begot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
together. creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." The
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the burden of proof regarding violation of such moral standards rests
respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary
later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
Carlos Ui. Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a satisfactory evidence. This, herein complainant miserably failed to
child with Carlos Ui and alleged, however; that everything was over do.
between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed the representations On the matter of the falsified marriage certificate, it is contrary to
of respondent and thought things would turn out well from then on human experience and highly improbable that she did not know the
and that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent year of her marriage or she failed to check that the information on
the document she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos
called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
and acts of malpractice. Professional Responsibility.
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free
from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted HELD:
positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 has been enacted in order to
degree of morality. Complaint for disbarment against complainant is safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public
dismissed, however, she is hereby reprimanded and given a stern checking account users such as prohibiting practice of issuing checks
warning. with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is
- deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.
Atty. Delos Santos didnt just violated B.P. Blg. 22 but also Canon 7
Case: BENJAMIN Q. ONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. WILLIAM F. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His being a
DELOS SANTOS, respondent. lawyer invested him whether he was acting as such or in a non-
(A.C. No. 10179. March 4, 2014.) professional capacity with the obligation to exhibit good faith,
fairness and candor in his relationship with others. Moreover, in
FACTS: issuing the dishonored check, Atty. Delos Santos put into serious
Atty. Delos Santos asked Benjamin Ong to encash his question not only his personal integrity but also the integrity of the
postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash and entire Integrated Bar. It cannot be denied that Ong acceded to Atty.
promised Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Delos Delos Santos' request for encashment of the check because of his
Santos even bragged about his lucrative practice and his good paying complete reliance on the nobility of the Legal Profession. His
clients for assurance of payment. However, the check was assuring Ong that he was in good financial standing because of his
dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was lucrative law practice when the contrary was true manifested his
closed. Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, intent to mislead the latter into giving a substantial amount in
and demanded immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. exchange for his worthless postdated check. Such actuation did not
IBP Bar Commissioner Jose I. dela Rama, Jr. recommended that speak well of him as a member of the Bar.
Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 -
and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
and that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two Case: QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE,
years, plus the return of the amount of P100,000.00 to the FORMER Clerk of Court BRANCH 81, ROMBLON,
complainant ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION Court BRANCH 81,
ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM
ISSUE: ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW
(A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC. August 19, 2009.)
FACTS: Buffe's letter-query may really reflect a misapprehension of the
Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe or Atty. Buffe is engaged the parameters of the prohibition on the practice of the law profession
private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several under Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A. No. 6713.
cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon and was a former Clerk of -
Court VI of the Regional Trial Court ( R T C ) , Branch 81 of
Romblon. Atty. Buffe started a letter-query alleging that Section 7 Case: JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., complainant, vs. ATTYS. ARSENIO
(b) (2) of R.A. No. 6713 gives preferential treatment to an incumbent C. VILLALON, JR. and CRISPULO DUCUSIN, respondents.
public employee, who may engage in the private practice of his (A.C. No. 3910. June 28, 2001)
profession so long as this practice does not conflict with his official
functions. In contrast, a public official or employee who has retired, FACTS:
resigned, or has been separated from government service like her, is The case is about a parcel of land, with an area of five (5)
prohibited from engaging in private practice on any matter before the hectares is owned by and registered in the name of complainant
office where she used to work, for a period of one (1) year from the herein, Jose Ducat, Jr.
date of her separation from government employment Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless that the property
was orally given to him by complainant's father, Jose Ducat, Sr.,
ISSUE: allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that the subject
Whether or not Atty. Karen Silverio-Buffe may appear as property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however,
private counsel before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon within the 1 year that conveyance or transfer of any titled real property must be in
prohibition. writing, signed by the registered owner or at least by his attorney-in-
fact by virtue of a proper special power of attorney and duly
HELD: notarized.
A distinctive feature of this administrative matter is Atty. Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer is presumed to know, or
Buffe's admission that she immediately engaged in private practice ought to know, this process. Worse, when respondent Villalon knew
of law within the one-year period of prohibition stated in Section 7 that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the Deed of Sale of Parcel of
(b) (2) of R.A. No. 6713. Atty. Buffe apparently misread the law she Land without any Special Power of Attorney from the registered
interprets Section 7 (b) (2) as a blanket authority for her to practice owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it
law andthat Atty. Buffe also failed to live up to her lawyer's oath and for his wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word "Conforme". As regards
thereby violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated
when she blatantly and unlawfully practiced law within the covering the same property, respondent Villalon admitted that there
prohibited period by appearing before the RTC Branch she had just was in fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was
left. The principle of res ipsa loquitur finds application, making her placed in that document only to make it appear that the conveyance
administratively liable for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and was for a consideration.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We cannot
discern any mitigating factors saving OCAT's observation that Atty. ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent is guilty for gross misconduct. trial court and (2) the alleged usurious interests rate they were
charged on the contract of loan as evidenced by the promissory note
HELD: has been disposed of by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Yes. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Thus, the findings of fact are binding on the Court.
mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the ISSUE:
Integrated Bar." Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded Whether or not the attorneys fees claimed by the respondent
by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. is being gargantuan, exorbitant and unconscionable.
Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner
that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal HELD:
profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the Yes. A lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of legal profession and one who acts like a middleman always out on
Professional Responsibility inasmuch as the relationship between an grabs for what he can get certainly lessens the dignity of the legal
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands profession.
utmost fidelity and good faith. The Court found that, twenty-five (25%) percent of the
- balance of the Promissory Note due which the trial court pegged at
P579,576.13 is P579.576.13 x 0.25 = P144,894.03, which amount
Case: ERNESTO F. ROLDAN and MARIETTA would be due the private respondent NOT its counsel as
A. ROLDAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and attorney's fees. It is clear that the liquidated damages and other
COMMERCIAL CREDIT charges are not to be included for computation of the attorney's fees.
CORPORATION OF DAVAO, respondents. The reason why respondent's counsel came up with his attorney's
(G.R. No. 97006. February 9, 1993.) fees of P577,320.20 is that he erroneously added the liquidated
damages and other charges and interests due to the balance of the
FACTS: promissory note to get the total due to which he applied the 25%
Petitioners spouses Ernesto and Marietta Roldan claim that stipulated fee.
the attorney's fees claimed by the private respondent, Commercial -
Credit Corporation of Davao City, being gargantuan, exorbitant and
unconscionable, should be proportionately reduced on the Case: EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
basis of quantum meruit. Private respondent Commercial Credit TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent.
Corporation of Davao demurs and states that the amount is (A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992)
reasonable or conscionable considering the difficulty it has
encountered in collecting from the petitioners. The issues raised by FACTS:
petitioners on (1) the alleged lack of basis for liquidated damages Complainant Evangeline Leda filed two complaints against
imposed as a penalty for litigation as determined by the respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang, one docketed as Bar Matter No.
78 and the present Administrative case No. 2505, which is a Petition Yes. The Court held that his declaration in his application for
for Disbarment. the Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
Complainant and respondent had an agreement to keep their misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which
marriage a secret until after respondent has finished his law studies he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the
and has taken the Bar examinations. Complainant also mentioned in Code of Professional Responsibility states: "A lawyer shall be
her letter-complaint that they had not lived together as husband and answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of
wife. a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the
When respondent took the Bar, he wrote in his application bar." Respondent would have been disqualified from taking the Bar
single as his civil status. He passed the examinations but Examinations had this information been known because he was
complainant blocked him from taking the lawyers Oath saying that evidently exhibiting lack of good moral character.
he acted fraudulently when he lied in his application form and was Respondent is found unfit and unworthy to continue to carry
unworthy to take the Oath because of lack of good moral character the title and duties and responsibilities of a lawyer and is hereby
(Bar Matter No. 78). She also claimed that respondent abandoned her suspended from practice of law until further orders.
during their marriage. -
Respondent filed his Explanation claiming that he has yet
to declare their marriage publicly that was why he used single as Case: JOSEPH SAMALA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTONUITTI
his civil status. He filed a Motion to Dismiss with an attached K. PALAA, respondent.
Affidavit of Desistance by complainant stating that she was (ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005)
refraining from her complaint. He was allowed to take his Oath after
the Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78. FACTS:
However, complainant filed this Administrative Case This is a complaint filed by Joseph Samala against
praying for respondents disbarment on the following grounds: respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa for alleged fraudulent activities
Respondent used his legal knowledge to contract an invalid that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Samala was
marriage; misrepresented himself as single; lack of good moral introduced to First Imperial Resources, Inc. (FIRI) Manager Jun
character; guilty of deception. Complainant claims that respondent Agustin, Chief Trader Diosdado Bernal, and Legal Officer Palaa to
sent a letter stating that the latter said that their marriage has been whom he expressed his concern on fraudulent businesses in the
void from the start. Despite denial by the respondent, the Bar Philippines. Samala was convinced by FIRI to put his investment
Confidants undated report recommended for his suspension. with the company after presenting their company profile and
documents and assuring him that respondent, through FIRI, would
ISSUE: directly put his investment with Easter Vanguard Forex Limited.
Whether or not Atty. Trebonian Tabang violated Rule 7.01 However, complainant decided to pull out his investment
of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. and gave FIRI only 10 days to prepare and give his money back.
Agustin told complainant that his money was with Thomas Yiu of
HELD: Eastern Vanguard but Yiu said it was not with him. Agustin then sent
complainant with a check amounting to the peso equivalent of public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
complainants investment, but the check was dishonored due to Respondent failed to uphold the dignity and integrity of the
insufficient funds. profession when he made false claims regarding the check and gave
Respondent gave complainant P250,000 in cash and a check a name of a non-existent person to try to deceive the complainant. He
in the amount of P329,045.09. Respondent claimed that the check caused material damage to the complainant with his false
was signed in his presence by FIRI President Paul Desiderio. representation as legal officer of FIRI.
However, the check was still dishonored due to insufficient funds. Respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of
Charges were filed and warrant of arrest were issued against violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Desiderio. But it was found out that no such person exists. hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three
Complainant allgeged that such acts of respondent were (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with
violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Complainant a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for dealt with more severely.
investigation but respondent did not send his answer and did not -
attend the hearing.
Case: VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ISSUE: VIRGILIO R. GARCIA, respondent.
Whether or not Atty. Palaa was guilty of violating Canon 7 (A.C. No. 4738, June 10, 2003)

HELD: FACTS:
Yes. Respondent was guilty of violating Canon 7, Rule 7.03 This case refers to the motion for reconsideration of the
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states: respondent for the Resolution dated Feb. 6, 2002, finding the
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not respondent guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of
engage in conduct that continuing membership in the legal profession and ordering his
adversely reflects on his disbarment. The respondent reiterates his innocence by denying the
fitness to practice law, nor authorship and participation in the falsification of the subject deed of
shall he, whether in public or donation. He however admits his negligence and expresses remorse
private life, behave in a for his failure to diligently perform his duties as notary public. In the
scandalous manner to the preceding case, the subject Deed was notarized by respondent Atty.
discredit of the legal Garcia however he did not submit a copy of the notarized deed of
profession. donation to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasig City, as
The Court agrees with IBP Board of Governors that required. He explained that his "secretary at the time could have
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for three misplaced it inadvertently as it was she who has the responsibility of
(3) years. A lawyer should always uphold integrity and dignity of his reporting notarial documents, or father-in-law could have kept all the
profession and avoid acts which may lessen the confidence of the copies forgetting to give a copy.
 Aside from the guilt of being remiss on the performance of However, the totality of the acts of misconduct committed by
his duties, he was also found guilty of harassing the occupants of the the respondent, his admission of negligence, plea for compassion and
property subject of the donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its that the fact that this is his first offense, the Court finds it proper to
services to the property and by posting security guards to intimidate reinstate him as a member of the bar and suspend him to the practice
the said occupants. of law and from his commission as a notary public for three years.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found no proof as to Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
the participation of the respondent on the falsification of the Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
signature of Cesar Flores on the document. The criminal case filed adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
by the complainant found no reason to indict the respondent as well. whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession. By engaging in acts that
ISSUE: undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes, respondent
clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects in his fitness to be
Do the actions of Atty. Garcia reflect adversely on this a member of the legal profession.
fitness to practice law and transgressed Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the -
Code of Professional Responsibility?
Case: ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, complainant, vs. ATTY.
HELD: ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, respondent.
Yes. Without a doubt, a violation of the high moral standards (A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014)
of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
penalty, including suspension and disbarment. As a notary public, he FACTS:
is required to keep a copy of the documents he notarized and he Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and
cannot impose this obligation to his subordinates, much less to his Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of marriage.
clients. However, notwithstanding respondents marriage with Bunagan,
"Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility respondent contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz
is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate
laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any." In the of marriage. Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent
case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath as a lawyer not to and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal existence when he
engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct. He maintained contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage
that the signature of the donor was a genuine despite the finding of had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.
experts to the contrary. He also tried to make a mockery of the legal
profession by advancing the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a Bansig alleged that respondents act of contracting marriage
copy of the document to the Clerk of Court was his secretary's fault. with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly
A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which
destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not respondent is still fit to continue as a member Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was
of the Bar. Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative,
Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board of
HELD: Directors (the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar Paguinto and
No. The Marriage Certificates bearing the name of his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the
respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he pump-houses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed
committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member a complaint for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well
of the Bar. as other members of the Board and a complaint against respondent
for disbarment alleging that respondent had violated the Code of
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Professional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 8
for failing to conduct herself with courtesy, fairness and candor
CANON 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity towards his professional colleagues. Moreover, respondent caused
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant.
Integrated Bar.
ISSUE:
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation of the
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to Canon 8.
the discredit of the legal profession.
HELD:
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of In her Report and Recommendation, Investigating Commissioner
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. Also, bigamy Lolita A. Quisumbing found respondent guilty of violating the
constitutes grossly immoral conduct and is a ground for disbarment Lawyers Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Code of Professional Responsibility.
When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints
against complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer
shall "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
CANON 8 or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same."
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
Case: ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA vs. ATTY. respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful
OSCAR PAGUINTO disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
[A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010] contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another
integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots.
The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from In the aforecited case, although the Court held that the
the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of privilege speech of the combative lady senator was not actionable
Professional Responsibility, he having been found to have received criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court, it
an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had however expressed its deep concern about the language Senator
filed a case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this the administration of justice.
time is thus called for.
- ISSUE:
Whether or not Senator Miriam Santiago should be disciplined on the
Case: ANTERO J. POBRE vs. Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR- basis of her unparliamentary remarks against the Supreme Court.
SANTIAGO
(A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009) HELD:
Although the Court held that the privilege speech of the
FACTS: combative lady senator was not actionable criminally or in a
In the recent administrative case of ANTERO J. POBRE vs. disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court, it felt, however,
Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR- SANTIAGO, A.C. No. 7399, August expressed its deep concern about the language Senator Santiago, a
25, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the letter- member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the
complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor- administration of justice. To the Court, the lady senator has
Santiago, conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, but undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional
castigated, so to speak, the feisty and aggressive, if not foul-mouth, conduct.
respondent lady senator for using what I would call intemperate and No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due
hate-filled language in a privilege speech she had delivered before to the courts should be allowed to erode the peoples faith in the
the Philippine Senate which was directed against the Philippine judiciary. The Court stated that in this case, the lady senator clearly
Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Judicial violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
and Bar Council (JBC): Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide:
I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am "Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his
homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to offensive or otherwise improper.
be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am "Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no should insist on similar conduct by others."
longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to
 The Court in a subtle way criticized the Senate itself for office on separate dates. Adopting a first-in-first-out policy, the libel
neglecting its duty to discipline the respondent senator for her case, which was raffled first was resolved earlier than the
offensive language. The Rules of the Senate itself contains a falsification case. Moreover, she did not sit on the falsification case
provision on Unparliamentary Acts and Language that enjoins a or act with undue haste in the libel case, but merely followed the
Senator from using, under any circumstance, offensive or improper procedure in resolving cases at the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office. In
language against another Senator or against any public institution. her Rejoinder, respondent claimed that complainant's undue haste
But as to Senator Santiagos unparliamentary remarks, the Senate and grave irregularity in handling the case is evident from the
President had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the Resolution and Information which she prepared and signed on the
matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary same day, November 20, 2007.
action, as the Rules dictates under such circumstance. The lady
senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It is ISSUE:
unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code
their own rules on her. of Professional Responsibility.
-
HELD:
Case: Bacatan v. Dadula.
(A.C. No. 10565. September 7, 2016) Yes. Respondent failed to substantiate her bare allegations
and sweeping conclusion of irregularity and charge of bribery, basing
FACTS: her charges purely on her flimsy gut feeling. It is unethical for a
Between September and October 2007, libel and falsification lawyer to accuse another lawyer wantonly and maliciously of a
cases were raffled to complaint for preliminary investigation by Dr. serious misconduct in the absence of a reasonable cause. Further, the
Carlito Impas Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez. The respondent attack on the character of the complainant is also completely
herein was the counsel of Dr. Impas. In her pleadings, the respondent unnecessary in the motion for determination of probable cause on the
accused the complainant of manifest partiality and bias against her libel case. Contrary to respondent's contention, her misconduct is not
client. Dadula perceived an obvious disparity in Prosecutor cured nor justified by the eventual acquittal of her client.
Bacatans treatment of these two cases and further noticing the While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's
swiftness of her Resolution and Order in this libel case which is cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal
utterly adverse against the accused despite the glaring fact that no or enthusiasm is disfavoured. When without proof nor enough basis
probably cause exists to hold him for libel. Respondent then on record, respondent swiftly concluded, based only on gut feeling,
concluded that these adverse actions of Prosecutor Bacatan must that the complainant has been bribed or had acted for a valuable
have been bribed. consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds of courtesy,
Complainant denied the charges of undue haste on fairness and candor.
the libel case and undue delay on the falsification case. According to -
her, the two cases were raffled on different dates and received by her
Case: Alcantara v. Pefianco . Yes. Respondent's meddling in a matter in which he had no
(A.C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002) right to do so caused the untoward incident. He had no right to
demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case of the
FACTS: woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his
incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney's Office in view about the case. Respondent said he was moved by the plight of
San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while Atty. the woman whose husband had been murdered as she was pleading
Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. Be that
Attorneys Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, as it may, respondent should realize that what he thought was
a woman approached them. Complainant saw the woman in tears, righteous did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and
whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk his client, apparently the accused in the criminal case, settle the case
with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. At with the widow. Even when he was being pacified, respondent did
this point, respondent Atty. Mariano Peanco, who was sitting nearby, not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those who tried to calm
stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying, "Why do him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert
you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will Minguez, who went to the Public Attorney's Office because they
realize his mistake. Complainant said he was surprised at heard the commotion, and two guards at the Hall of Justice, who had
respondent Pefianco's outburst and asked him to cool off, but been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal rampage.
respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani. Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior
Respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and
woman, whose husband had been murdered, moved him and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent
prompted him to take up her defense. He said that he resented the had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation. An
fact that complainant had ordered an employee to put a sign outside injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
prohibiting "standbys" from hanging round in the Public Attorney's -
Office. Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Salvani
concerning the woman's case, complainant, with his bodyguard, Case: ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., complainant, vs.
arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorney's Office. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., respondent.
He claimed that two security guards also came, and complainant (A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010.)
ordered them to take respondent out of the office.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Complainant filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 of the CPR. Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or
HELD: imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent for
filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained
abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. -
Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said document
purported to be a notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Case: JUAN DE LA CRUZ (CONCERNED CITIZEN OF
Barandon was not yet a lawyer. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer, evidently LEGAZPI CITY), complainant, vs. JUDGE RUBEN B.
drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, CARRETAS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City,
patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Branch 9, respondent.
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043. September 5, 2007.)
IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the
suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The IBP Board of FACTS:
Governors passed Resolution adopting and approving the This administrative case stems from an anonymous
Investigating Commissioners recommendation but reduced the complaint by "Juan de la Cruz," a concerned citizen of Legazpi City,
penalty of suspension to only one year. against respondent Judge Ruben B. Carretas for acts of conduct
unbecoming of a judge. Respondent judge denied the accusation and
ISSUE: claimed that he had not insulted anyone. Respondent stated that he
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP never encountered these mistakes "in all his years of law practice in
Investigating Commissioner erred in finding respondent guilty of the Manila." Thus, he was shocked because he thought that these things
charges against him and if the penalty imposed was justified. "happened only in anecdotes." Respondent judge observed that due
to their familiarity with each other, lawyers appearing in his sala
HELD: hardly objected even to obviously objectionable questions. In such
The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and instances, he called the attention of counsels because, to his mind,
finds no reason to disagree with the findings and recommendation of they were making a "moro-moro" out of the proceedings.
the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent judge also stated that, while he may have used harsh
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility word sometimes, they were made out of exasperation and with the
commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness intention merely to right the wrong committed in his presence, not to
and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics insult anyone. Nonetheless, he apologized to those who may have
against opposing counsel. been offended by his remarks.
Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon. The
evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of ISSUE:
an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed been Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of conduct
falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of unbecoming of a judge.
falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and
abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly HELD:
reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite Yes. Certainly, a judge who falls short of the ethics of the
the adversarial nature of our legal system. judicial office tends to diminish the people's respect for the law and
legal processes. He also fails to observe and maintain the esteem due Whether or not Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code
to the courts and to judicial officers. Respondent judge also of Professional Responsibility.
transgressed Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he humiliated, insulted or embarrassed lawyers HELD:
appearing in his sala. Instead of establishing a cordial and Yes. There was no reason to implead complainant Atty.
collaborative atmosphere with lawyers, respondent judge alienated Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga because they never participated in the
them and effectively disregarded their significant role in the business transactions between Pan and Xu. Respondent showed
administration of justice. disrespect and harrassment by using the suit to obtain leverage
- against the estafa case filed by the complainant.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to
Case: ATTY. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties,
VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR., respondent. responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003) Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that [a]
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
FACTS: towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
Complainant Atty. Reyes was hired by Zonggi Xu for a against opposing counsel.
business venture that went wrong. Xu invested in a seafood product -
factory set up by Chia Hsien Pan but found out that the factory does
not exist. Complainant filed estafa and against Pan, represented by Case: ROSALIE DALONG-GALLICINAO, complainant, v. ATTY.
respondent Atty. Chiong, but the Pan did not appear for the VIRGIL R. CASTRO, Respondent.
scheduled hearings. Pan was issued a Warrant of Arrest to which he (474 SCRA 1, Oct 25, 2005)
responded by filing an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of
Arrest. Respondent also filed a civil complaint for the collection of a FACTS:
sum of money, damages, and for the dissolution of the business Complainant is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
venture against Xu and Prosecutor Salanga. Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed
Atty. Reyes and Atty. Chiong failed to come to an agreement with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) a Complaint-Affidavit
to settle the case. Respondent claims that he showed no disrespect against respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional
impleading complainant as co-defendant in the civil case and that Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and
there was no basis that the suit was groundless. Respondent argues Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge in
that he impleaded Prosecutor Salanga because there were the complaint includes the shouting by the respondent against the
irregularities in the investigation and in filing the estafa. complainant due to the complainants refusal to inform him about the
records of the case since he was not a proper party nor the counsel of
ISSUE: either parties and the banging of the doors which was heard in the
nearby courtroom on which a hearing is ongoing.
 Respondent, through his manifestation, expressed his public
apology to the complainant. The complainant accepted his personal FACTS:
apology. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of
respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and
The IBP submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and expeditious collection on their claims.
approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/ac_6672_2009.ht
ml - fnt4To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
ISSUE: them and sent them text messages.
Whether or not respondent is guilty in violation Canon 8 and To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail
upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and
HELD: utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan
Yes. On Rule 8.02, it states that a lawyer shall not, directly of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondents" calling card.
or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, the printing and circulation of the said calling card.
to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel. The acts of the respondent by ISSUE:
checking the transmittal of the records of the case is a clear Whether or Not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached
encroachment in violation of the rules. upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
On Canon 8, it states that a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and HELD:
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. In the course Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD,
of his activities related above, respondent acted rudely towards an in its report and recommendation, found that respondent had
officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating
uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill- Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional
mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
woman and in front of her subordinates. soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers
Respondent fined and warned. as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the
- CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern
warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
Case: (A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009) PEDRO L. With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR,
LINSANGAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers
TOLENTINO, Respondent. (A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009) client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Again the Court Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of the decision. Atty.
notes that respondent never denied having these seafarers in his Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of
client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos "referrals." Execution and Demolition which he signed as "Counsel for the
Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his Plaintiff Efren Babela". Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging
office. Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions since he
anothers legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record.
of the CPR. Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized Atty.
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had already been
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty. Caracols real client
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby suspended from was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same
the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately parcel of land.
from receipt of this resolution. Atty. Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto authorized him
- to appear as "additional counsel". He said that he had consulted Atty.
Aquino who advised him to go ahead with the filing. Moreover, he
Case: DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, stated that he was not aware that there was a waiver of rights
SR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL, Respondent. executed in Ernesto Aguirres favor. In its Report and
(A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015) Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission
on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed
FACTS: deceitful acts and misconduct.
OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael
Babela who had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian ISSUE:
reform law was enacted, emancipation patents and titles were issued Whether or Not Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross
to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, misconduct and violation of oath.
who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainants spouse,
Raymunda Villahermosa. A deed of absolute sale was executed in HELD:
favor of Raymunda. Yes. Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he
(DARAB) issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the appear in court without being employed unless by leave of court. If
emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating an attorney appears on a clients behalf without a retainer or the
that it was not covered by the agrarian reform law. This decision was requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent
appealed to and affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the nor the adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance
Court of Appeals. unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed
Atty. Caracol, as "Addl Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant," authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for
filed a motion for execution with the DARAB, Malaybalay, a party to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished
for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his A Complaint was filed against Tapay and Rustia for
official transaction. usurpation of authority, flasification of public document, and graft
Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at and corrupt practices, signed by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the
the time he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Jarder Bancolo Law Office on behalf of Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr.,
Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration. Atty.
lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his clients passing and Bancolo declared that he does not represent Divinagracia.
presented authority that he was retained by the clients successors-in- Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated 1 August 2005
interest and thus the parties may have been substituted. by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the
While this observation does not serve to exacerbate Atty. Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia's case and that the
Caracols liability under the present circumstances, we would like to Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by
highlight the important role of an attorney in our judicial system. the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions.
Because of the particular nature of an attorneys function it is
essential that they should act with fairness, honesty and candor ISSUE:
towards the courts and his clients. Under Rule 8 of the Code of Whether Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01, Canon
Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall conduct himself with 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, HELD:
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for
This flows out from the lawyer's oath which each lawyer a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in
solemnly swears to uphold the law and court processes in the pursuit his name by a secretary of his law office.
of justice. Thus, a lawyer must be more circumspect in his demeanor CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
and attitude towards the public in general as agents of the judicial INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
system. OF LAW.
The also observe that he has used underhanded means to attain his Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
purpose. Atty. Caracol's blatant disregard of his duties as a lawyer person the performance of any task which by law may only be
cannot be countenanced. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol was found guilty performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
and was suspend from the practice of law for one year. Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of some
- minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay
and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance.
CASE: RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA vs. Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.
JARDER|||
(A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013) We find respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively liable
for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
FACTS: Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one year effective upon finality of this Decision. He is warned WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is found
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt administratively liable for misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the
with more severely. practice of law for one year. Further, his notarial commission, if any,
- is REVOKED and he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two years, with a stern warning that repetition
CASE: CARLITO ANG vs. ATTY JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA||| of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more
(A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014) severely.
-
FACTS:
A lot was given to Carlito Ang. However, when he tried to Case: Lijauco v. Terrado .
secure a TCT in his name, he found out that the old TCT has been (A.C. No. 6317. August 28, 2001)
cancelled and new ones had been issued in the names of William
Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque,
Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero. Carlito Ang filed a FACTS:
Complaint against respondent for the commission of forgeries and Complainant Lijauco engaged the services of the respondent
falsifications due to the fact that the Respondent was the one who sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her
prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute deposit with Planters Development Bank (Makati Branch) in the
Sale that led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and
lot located in Calamba, Laguna registered in the name of the said
ISSUE: bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of
Whether respondent failed to act with due care and diligence possession then pending before the RTC of Binan, Laguna. Lijauco
in stamping fiat on the questioned documents. alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the
HELD: hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect
Yes. Respondent is mandated to observe with utmost care her interests in the Compromise Agreement.
the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred
and to ascertain that the persons who signed the documents are the that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him legal services for the recovery of the deposit with the PDB and did
to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. In merely not include the case pending before the RTC.
relying on his clerical staff to determine the completeness of
documents brought to him for notarization, limiting his participation ISSUE:
in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 1 and Canon 9
the persons appearing before him, and in notarizing an affidavit of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct.
HELD:
 Yes. Atty. Terrado;s admission that he divided the legal fees FACTS:
with two other people as a referral fee does not release him from the Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the
liability. Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to counsel for Irene Bides, while Busmente was the counsel for the
the recovery of the complainants savings deposit from PDB cannot defendant Imelda Ulaso. Respondent Busmente appeared as counsel
be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in for Civil Case No. 9284 and for falsification case filed against Ulaso.
the drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Dela Rosa would accompany
bank. Atty. Terrado admitted that he explained the contents of the Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating
agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature. counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court proceedings in
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of the said case 9 times from November - February 2005.
P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit is Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and
unreasonable. was his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that
Respondent's disregard for his client's interests is evident in Dela Rosas employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was
the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of
complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; Macasieb, respondents former secretary. Busmente alleged that he
that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating did not represent Ulaso in the civil case and that his signature
ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it. As presented in the Answer was forged.
found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to
these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she ISSUE:
could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. Whether or not Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly
The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client's interests commences assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that warrants his
from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final suspension from the practice of law. Hence, violating Canon 9 of the
disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money Code of Professional Responsibility.
from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise
to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. The canons of the legal HELD:
profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he Yes. It has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a
should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmentes
- collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. Busmente alleged that
Dela Rosas employment in his office ended in 2000 and that Dela
CANON 9 Rosa was able to continue with her illegal practice of law through
connivance with Macasieb. However, pleadings and court notices
Case: Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente .(A.C. No. 7056. February 11, were still sent to Busmentes office until 2005, including notices for
2009) the civil case stated. Further, respondent claimed that he was totally
unaware of the civil case and he only came to know about the case
when Ulaso went to his office to inquire about its status. Busmentes
allegation contradicted the Joint Counter-Affidavit submitted by
Ulaso and Bides that cleary showed that Busmente was the legal HELD:
counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to The court held that that complainants successfully
give legal assistance to Ulaso. substantiated their claim that respondent, who held himself out as a
- law partner of the KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and Associates,
- was rendering legal services together with persons not licensed to
practice law. His silence on this accusation is deemed an admission,
Case: PLUS BUILDERS, INC. and EDGARDO C. GARCIA, especially because he had every chance to deny it. This directly
complainants, vs. Atty. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., contravenes Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 which provides that:
respondent.
A.C. No. 7056, (September 13, 2006) Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
FACTS:
The administrative case against Atty. Anastacio Revilla was Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any
filed by the petitioners claiming that respondent had committed unqualified person the performance of any task
willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing court which by law may only be performed by a member
procedure to delay the execution of judgement and corroborating of the Bar in good standing.
with non-lawyers in the practice of law.
Atty. Revilla allegedly committed the acts implicated against Thus respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and was
him by filing several petitions after the Provincial Adjudicator of suspended for two years from the practice of law.
Cavite rendered a decision against the tenants claiming the -
ownership of the property in question. Subsequently, the court
rendered a final judgement against respondent, thus he filed a Case: REPUBLIC, petitioner, vs. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT
pleading under the group of non-lawyers joining him in the practice CORP., respondent.
of law as KDL Legal Services. (G.R. No. 149576, AUG. 8, 2006)

In his defense Atty. Revilla claims that he had only he had FACTS:
merely wanted to protect the rights and interests of his clients. The case is a petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines
According to him, they sincerely and honestly believed that their challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals and prays that the
possession of the litigated land had already ripened into ownership. decision of the Trial Court be upheld.
The issue involves parcels of land behind the Civil Aviation
ISSUE: Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) wherein
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 9 of the code respondent Kenrick Development Corp. constructed a perimeter
of professional responsibility. fence claiming ownership thereof. To support the respondents claim,
they presented a Transfer Certificate Title (TCT), which they The Supreme Court ruled that Contrary to respondent's
claimed was from a TCT under the name of Alfonso Conception. position, a signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party
Unfornately, the said titles presented by the respondent were found himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 requires that a pleading
to be fake after it was concluded that there were no records of the must be signed by the party or counsel representing him.
TCTs in the Land Registration Authority. Because of these findings, Counsel's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal
the Solicitor General filed a complaint for the revocation, annulment to him. He may not delegate it to just any person.
and cancellation of certificates of title in behalf of the Republic of The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal
the Philippines against respondent and Alfonso Concepcion. The work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the
respondent filed their answer which was purportedly signed by Atty. members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing
Onofre Garlitos. of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who
During the pendency of the case, a Senate Blue Ribbon is not. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Committee was created wherein Atty. Garlitos testified that he did Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any
not sign the answer filed by the respondents nor did he authorize unqualified person the performance of any task
anyone to sign the document for him. Thus the Republic filed an which by law may only be performed by a member
urgent motion to declare the respondents in default. The republic of the Bar in good standing.
argues that since the person who signed the answer was neither Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to
authorized by Atty. Garlitos nor even known to him, the answer was signing by unqualified persons, 18 something the law strongly
effectively an unsigned pleading. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 7 of the proscribes. Therefore, the blanket authority respondent claims
Rules of Court, it was a mere scrap of paper and produced no legal Atty. Garlitos entrusted to just anyone was void. Any act taken
effect. pursuant to that authority was likewise void. There was no way it
The petition was granted by the Trial Court and decided in could have been cured or ratified by Atty. Garlitos' subsequent
favor of the Republic. The same decision was later reversed by the acts.
Court of Appeals (CA). In their decision the CA ruled that the Thus, the resolution of the Trial Court of Pasay City
findings in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was unreliable declaring respondent in default is hereby REINSTATED.
because there was no cross-examination, and that the acts of Atty. -
Garlitos show that he concluded with the signing of the petition
which cured the defect that the answer may have had. Hence this Case: ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANA
petition. LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, Respondent
(434 SCRA 288, July. 14, 2004)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the signature of Atty. Garlitos is a defect that FACTS:
will amount to an unsigned pleading. Complainant is a former employee of the respondent. She charged
the latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other
HELD: gross misconduct in office. On deceit, the complainant alleged that the
respondent has been falsely representing herself to be married to Felicisimo Canon 9 states that a lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in
R. Tenorio, Jr. On grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that the the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 9.01 states that a lawyer shall not
respondent caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law
derogatory to a city councilor in Makati. The respondent would often openly may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. Holding
and sarcastically declare to the complainant and her co-employees the one's self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose
alleged immorality of that councilor. On malpractice or other gross like identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a
misconduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent (1) cooperated in client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general
the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the practice of law. Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
Philippine Bar; (2) converted her client's money to her own use and benefit, Her husband is not a lawyer but he holds himself out as one.
which led to the filing of an estafa case against her; and (3) threatened the Respondent abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal
complainant and her and her family to deter them from divulging profession. The placement of names of her husband and other members as
respondent's illegal activities and transactions. senior partners listed in the letterhead of her law office because they have
In her answer, the respondent denied all the allegations against her. investments in her law office is a blatant misrepresentation.
She declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. She The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
alleged that it was Councilor Jacome who caused the execution of said unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public
document, and that the complainant and her cohorts are the rumormongers policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
who went around the city of Makati on the pretext of conducting a survey duly qualified in education and character.
but did so to besmirch respondent's good name and reputation. And on Respondent suspended for six months.
malpractice, she claimed that (1) her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is registered -
with the Department of Trade and Industry as a single proprietorship, that
her husband and other persons named were merely paralegals and investors; Case: ROGELIO A. TAN, Petitioner, v. BENEDICTO M.
(2) that the estafa case had been dropped; and (3) that she denied that she BALAJADIA, Respondent.
threatened the complainant. The IBP found the respondent guilty of the (484 SCRA 659, March 14, 2006)
charge of cooperating in the illegal practice of law by her husband, in
violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional FACTS:
Responsibility and recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. On May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against
them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for
ISSUE: usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax
Whether or not respondent is guilty in violating Canon 9 and Rule ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by
9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. petitioners from respondent. It is also included in the complaint that
respondent asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio
HELD: City with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building,
Yes. Respondent is guilty. Session Road, Baguio City." However, the Office of the Bar
Confidant and the IBP showed that respondent has never been
admitted to the Philippine Bar. Petitioners then claim that respondent Case: ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant, vs. ATTY.
is liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.
lawyer. (A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012)
Respondent avers that the allegation in the complaint-
affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He FACTS:
claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the In this Complaint, complainant narrated that respondent
subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the
complaint-affidavit; that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses
complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same subject Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an
matter; and that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the same action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. Their
secretary. The secretary admitted the mistake in preparation of the agreement was reflected in a letter. However, respondent failed to
complaint-affidavit. pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney's
fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about P 40 million.
ISSUE: Instead, he was informed through a letter that Sps. Yap assumed to
Whether or not respondent is liable for indirect contempt. pay the same after respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's
fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his
HELD: commission which respondent ignored.
No. Respondent is not liable for indirect contempt. Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up
The records supports respondents claim that he never to the high moral standards required of his profession for having
intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two
inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The children, and cohabited with Mae FlorGalido, with whom he has four
affidavit of the secretary attesting to the circumstances that gave rise children. He also accused respondent of engaging in money-lending
to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to business without the required authorization from the Bangko
the documentary evidence on record. No evidence was presented to Sentralng Pilipinas.
show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted Sps.
practice law. Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect Yap's case on a 25% contingent fee basis, and advanced all the
contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally practice law. expenses. He disputed the letter for being a forgery and claimed that
Although unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an Sps. Yap assumed to pay complainant's commission which he
attorney and acting as such without authority constitutes indirect clarified in his letter. He, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the
contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Such complaint and for the corresponding sanction against complainant's
is not applicable in the instant case. counsel, Atty. Florencio B. Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint.
Petition dismissed.
- ISSUE:
 Whether or Not Atty. Pefianco guilty of gross misconduct year's bar examinations. He took the Attorneys Oath at the
and violation of oath. Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) together with the
successful bar examinees. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of
HELD: Attorneys, but he failed to do so, because he had misplaced the
Yes. In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he
had attended the execution of the letter was belied by his letter went home to his province for a vacation.
admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant's Several years later, while rummaging through his old college
commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was
respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what
prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in attendance record.
certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. By the time Medado found the notice, he was already
The court find the charge of engaging in illegal money working. He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation
lending not to have been sufficiently established.1wphi1 A work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation practice.
"business" requires some form of investment and a sufficient number Thus, he operated "under the mistaken belief that since he had
of customers to whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not
basis. The lending of money to a single person without showing that as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer"; and "the matter of
such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and
cannot be construed asindicia that respondent is engaged in the was subsequently forgotten."
business of lending. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a
Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco is found guilty of violation of the clarificatory conference on the matter and submitted a Report and
Lawyers Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Recommendation to the Court. The OBC recommended that the
Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the same Code instant petition be denied for petitioners gross negligence, gross
and suspended from the active practice of law one (1) year effective misconduct and utter lack of merit. It explained that, based on his
upon notice hereof. answers during the clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no
- valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of
Attorneys.
Case: IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner. ISSUE:
(B.M. No. 2540 September 24, 2013) Whether or Not the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll
of attorneys?
FACTS:
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines HELD:
with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the same
 While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a petitioner is likewise ordered to pay a fine of p32,000 for his
person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or unauthorized practice of law. During the one year period, petitioner
evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful is not allowed to practice law.
justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its -
consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem
excusat. CANON 10
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake
of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance CASE: PORAC TRUCKING, INC. vs. HONORABLE COURT OF
before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, APPEALS (FIFTEENTH DIVISION), and EMERENCIANA
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an GUEVARRA
attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact (G.R. No. 81093 (Resolution),October 15, 1991)
as a valid justification. At that point, Medado should have known
that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar because FACTS:
of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of Maria Adelaida C. Dizon, Vice-President of defendant Porac
signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this Trucking, Inc., testified on December 28, 1990 that Porac Trucking
knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the Inc. never retained the services of Atty. Rodolfo Macalino to
necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the represent it in Civil Case No. 84-0039-M. Atty. Macalino is under
Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. aministrative investigation for the "unsolicited appearance".
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law
likewise transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional ISSUE:
Responsibility, which provides: Whether Atty. Rodolfo Macalino is guilty of willfully
CANON 9 -A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the appearing as an attorney without authority to do so.
unauthorized practice of law.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit HELD:
lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the Atty. Rodolfo Macalino is not only guilty of falsehood but
unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed had misled the trial court as well when he represented himself as
under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's "counsel" of Porac Trucking, Inc. when in fact there was no such
duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise client-lawyer relationship in the first place. And he transgressed his
applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of oath as an attorney. For Canon 10.01 of the Code of Professional
the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with Responsibility is clear.
the ethical standards of the legal profession. CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
hereby granted. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is allowed to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Resolution.
 Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor have maliciously disguised their complaint as an action for specific
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow performance and injunction so as to evade the payment of the proper
the Court to be misled by any artifice. docket fees.
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Rodolfo Macalino is suspended from the The record of the case do not show that the respondents had
practice of law for a period of six months. committed misconduct, dishonesty, falsehood, or had misused the
- rules of procedure. In the absence of such proof, the presumption of
innocence of the lawyer remains and the complaint against him must
CASE: ATTY. ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR. vs. ATTYS. E. be dismissed.|||
HANS A. SANTOS and AGNES H. MARANAN|||
(A.C. No. 9868, [April 22, 2015]) WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the present petition
for review for lack of merit.
FACTS: -
The complainant related that the respondents initiated Civil
Case No. 70251 for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court Case: Zaballero v. Atty. Mario J. Montalvan .
of Pasig City (RTC Pasig) and used a deceptive ploy to prevent the (A.C. No. 4370. May 25, 2004)
payment of the proper docket fees. Knowing that the complaint was
actually one for damages, the respondents allegedly disguised the FACTS:
complaint as an action for specific performance and injunction Complainant alleges that respondent notarised 3 documents
(where the amount involved is incapable of pecuniary estimation) sometime from 1989 to 1992, purportedly executed, wither as a
and deliberately omitted to specify the damages prayed for vendor or a donor, by complainants father Eulalio Zaballero. These
amounting to P68,000,000.00 in the prayer of the complaint in order documents were notarized on February 26, 1990 with James
to avoid paying the proper docket fees. Zaballero, as vendee. Complainant faults respondent for notarising
said documents despite the fact that they were falsified. Douglas
ISSUE: Zaballero asserts that Eulalio Zaballero could not have appeared
Whether the respondents' omission of the specification of the before the respondent because he was already very sick and suffering
amount of damages in the prayer of the complaint is unethical, and from a serious eye defect and significantly died on May 31, 1992.
thereby violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he could not have appeared to acknowledge the deed on June
9, 1992.
HELD: Respondent was initially asked to notarize the subject
No. Contrary to the complainant's allegation that the document on October 17, 1991. He alleged that the act was not
respondents had defrauded the court, the element of "deceitful completed for failure of Eulalio Zaballero to present his residence
conduct" or "deceit" was not present in this case. There is no clear certificate. Eight (8) months after, the same document was presented
showing that the respondents defrauded or misled the RTC Pasig to him, this time without Eulalio Zaballero. Knowing that it was the
Clerk of Court. Neither was there any proof that the respondents
same document, Atty. Montalvan notarized it. No one informed loan application with AMWSLAI and thereafter, receive its
respondent that Eulalio Zaballero had already passed away. proceeds. However, Sappayani denied executing said documents,
claiming that his signature found on the SPA was forged as he did
ISSUE: not know Maravillas. He added that it was physically impossible for
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of him to personally appear before respondent Gasmen and execute the
Professional Responsibility. documents, as he was then training as a new recruit at General
Santos City.
Atty. Gasmen claimed that before the SPA and loan
HELD: application were notarized, the proceeds were already released to
Yes. As culled from the evidence, Eulalio Zaballero died on NGC by AMWSLAI, thus, dispensing with the need for notarization.
May 31, 1992. However, respondent notarized the document in Moreover, he insisted that the notarisation of said documents was
question which purportedly contains the signature of Eulalio merely done on a ministerial basis, with proper safeguards, and that
Zaballero on June 9, 1992, or a little more than a week after his it cannot be expected of him to require the personal appearance of
death. Part of the document is a notarial acknowledgment where every loan applicant considering the hundreds of loan applications
respondent declared that Eulalio Zaballero appeared before him and brought to him for signing.
acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act, but
the fact was that he was already dead at that time. Clearly, ISSUE:
respondent "made an untruthful statement, thus violating Rule 10.01 Whether or not the IBP correctly found Atty. Gasmen liable
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer, for violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional
which unconditionally requires him not to do or declare any Responsibility.
falsehood. Atty. Montalvan rationalization of the events reflects his
utter disregard of his duties, as a notary public, to comply with the HELD:
required legal formalities in the execution of documents. Yes. Commissioner Sordan found that the signature of
- Sappayani on the SPA was forged, and that Atty. Gasmen failed to
exercise reasonable diligence or that degree of vigilance expected of
Case: Sappayani v. Gasmen.(A.C. No. 7073. September 1, 2015) a bonus pater familias. Thus, when he notarized a forged SPA and
untruthfully certified that Sappayani was the very same person who
FACTS: personally appeared before him, Atty Gasmen violated the Notarial
Sappayani alleged that Atty. Gasmen notarized documents Rues and the CPR.
which here purportedly executed, particuarly, a Special Power of -
Attorney (SPA) in favour of Newtrade Goodwill Corporation
through Romeo Maravillas and an Application for Loan with Case: CONRADO QUE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO
AMWSLAI. The SPA, which was notarized by the respondent on REVILLA, JR., respondent.
March 29, 2000, authorized NGC through Maravillas to complete the A.C. No. 7054, (December 4, 2009)
 and efficient administration of justice, resulting in prejudice to the
FACTS: winning parties in that case.
The disbarment complaint against Atty. Anastacio Revilla In this case, the court disbarred respondent for the multiple
was filed by Conrado Que based claims that Atty. Revilla had violations, his past record, and the nature of the violations shows the
committed acts of forum shopping by filing numerous petitions with readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the
an intention to impede, obstruct and delay the efficient orderly administration of justice. The court held that the appropriate
administration of justice. action is to disbar the respondent to keep him away from the law
These violations were allegedly committed by respondent profession and from any significant role in the administration of
when he persistently filed numerous applications for injunctive relief justice which he has disgraced.
in the four petitions he had filed in several courts the petition for -
certiorari, the petition for annulment of judgment, the second Case: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.
petition for annulment of complainants title and the petition for ATTY. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, respondent, A.C. No. 5355,
declaratory relief reveal the respondents persistence in preventing (December 13, 2011)
and avoiding the execution of the final decisions of the MeTC and
RTC against his clients in the unlawful detainer case. FACTS:
The disbarment case against Atty. Daniel B. Liangco was
ISSUE: due to the issue regarding his decision during his tenure as a Judge.
Whether or not the acts of the respondent is a violation of The same was regarding the residential lot owned by Mr.
Canon 10 of the code of professional responsibility. Hermogenes T. Gozun which was subject to Resolution No. 34-96
ordered by the Mayor of San Luis, Pampanga. The said resolution
HELD: provided that the said property was the owned by the Municipal
The court found that the actions of the Atty. Revilla violated government, that the Gozuns were illegally occupying the property
Canon 10 of the code of professional responsibility. and that the site will become the new rural health center.
In the decision of the court they held that he respondents Subsequently, a petition for declaratory relief was filed by
repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by the Sangguniang Bayan praying that Mr. Gozun vacate the premises
professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. of the said property. Thereafter, the respondent acted upon the
These are already uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of petition on the same day and issued a decision upholding the validity
final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. of Resolution No. 34-96. The Mayor thereafter issued an Executive
In these attempts, the respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon Order commanding the PNP to implement the Resolution. This
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it resulted to the demotion of Mr. Gozuns residence who was not
obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and. . . not served with summons or given any notice regarding the petition for
[to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. By his actions, the declaratory relief.
respondent used procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy Because of this, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) filed a petition praying that the respondent be dismissed as a
judge which was sustained by the court. Finally, this disbarment case quickly disposed of the matter by issuing a Resolution all on the
was also filed by OCA assailing that the respondent has exhibited same day that the Petition was filed without notice and hearing.
lapses and ignorance to well-established rules and procedures. The undue haste with which respondent acted on the Petition
negates good faith on his part. Moreover, the testimonial evidence on
ISSUE: record indicates that he maintained close relations with the municipal
Whether or not the acts of the respondent would warrant his vice-mayor of San Luis, Pampanga, and a party-litigant who had an
disbarment from the bar. obvious interest in the outcome of the case. Furthermore the court
said that judges do not, and are not allowed, to issue legal opinions.
HELD: Their opinions are always in the context of judicial decisions, or
After a series of hearings conducted by the Integrated Bar of concurring and dissenting opinions in the case of collegiate courts,
the Philippines, the court resolved to disbar herein respondent for and always in the context of contested proceedings.
gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of the law. Thus, the court resolves that the respondent be disbarred for
The decision provides that the respondent acted upon the gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of the law.
Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by the Sangguniang Bayan of -
San Luis without considering that as judge of a first-level court,
respondent is expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to Case: ROBERTO BERNARDINO, Complainant, vs. ATTY
entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is presumed VICTOR REY SANTOS, Respondent
to know that in his capacity as judge, he cannot render a legal (A.C. No. 10583, Feb. 18, 2015)
opinion in the absence of a justiciable question. Displaying an utter
lack of familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the public's FACTS:
confidence in the competence of our courts. Moreover, he Complainant Bernardinos aunt Rufina Turla died in 1990.
demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility that Complainant alleges that respondent falsified the death certificate
attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a modifying the date to 1992 and used the falsified death certificate to
member of the bar should know. support the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by the spouse of
the deceased. The affidavit states that the Mariano Turla, the
This contravenes Canon 10, Rule 10.03, respondent as lawyer surviving spouse, is the sole legal heir entitled to inherit the estate of
is mandated to observe the Rules of Procedure and not to misuse the deceased. Respondent later on represented the daughter of the
them to defeat the ends of justice. In this case, however, the opposite deceased in a complaint alleging that she is an heir of Mariano Turla,
happened. Respondent recklessly used the powers of the court to allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication drafted by
inflict injustice.||| Respondent.
Moreover, the decision was rendered without the mandatory Complainant Atty. Caringal alleges that respondent allegedly
notice to Gozun who would be affected by the action. The records violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
show that respondent, upon receipt of the Petition, had it docketed in Responsibility when he drafted drafted Mariano Turlas Affidavit of
his court, designated Gozun as respondent in the case title, and Self-Adjudication. The Affidavit states that Mariano Turla is the sole
heir of Rufina Turla, but Atty. Santos knew this to be false. The
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Case: SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC., Petitioner, vs. ATTY
Philippines recommended that Atty. Santos be suspended for three NONNATUS P. CHUA, Respondent
(3) months. (A.C. No. 6942, July 17, 2013)

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of Complainant is a corporation doing business as a
the Code of Professional Responsibility. manufacturer and distributor of coated metal sheets. Respondent is
the Vice-President, Corporate Legal Counsel and Assistant Corporate
HELD: Secretary of Steel Corporation (STEELCORP). The controversy
Yes. Respondent violated the aforementioned provision of arose when, on September 5, 2005, STEELCORP applied for and
the Code. was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City,
Canon 10 states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to Branch 17, a Search Warrant directed against complainant.
the court. Rule 10.01 states that he shall not do any falsehood, nor Complainant alleges that respondent deliberately misled the court as
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the well as the Department of Justice in stating that STEELCORP is the
court to be mislead by any artifice. exclusive licensee of Philippine Patent No. 16269, because Letters
As explained by the Commission, it finds, by virtue of Patent No. 16269 have already lapsed, making it part of the public
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that the respondents act of failing to domain; and that respondent intentionally deceived the RTC of
thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the Affidavit of Cavite City Branch 17 in refusing to provide a copy of the patent.
Adjudication despite his knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla Respondent counters that he never made an allegation or
as a possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla, the respondent failed reservation that STEELCORP owned Philippine Patent No. 16269;
to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar to be the stewards of asserts that he merely reserved the right to present the trademark
justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing license exclusively licensed to STEELCORP by BIEC International,
to do his duty and acting dishonestly, not only was he in Inc.; and avers that the Complaint-Affidavit filed before the
contravention of the Lawyers Oath but was also in violation of Department of Justice did not categorically claim that STEELCORP
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. is the owner of the patent, but simply that STEELCORP is the
As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the exclusive licensee of the process by which GALVALUME is
rule of law. In doing so, lawyers are expected to be honest in all their produced. The CBD recommended 3 months suspension. The IBP
dealings. Unfortunately, respondent was far from being honest. With recommended 6 months suspension.
full knowledge that Rufina Turla had another heir, he acceded to
Mariano Turlas request to prepare the Affidavit of Self- ISSUE:
Adjudication. Did the respondent violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the
Respondent suspended for 1 year. Code of Professional Responsibility?
-
HELD: Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a
Yes. Respondent violated the said provisions. public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas River
Canon 10 states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and shoreline.
good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 states that a lawyer shall do no De Leon, having joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he voluntary intervenor two years later, now accuses the respondent, the
mislead or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice. In counsel of record of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN, with
respondents words and crafted explanation, he claimed that the serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification
STEELCORP had rights as a licensee of the process, consisting of a warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The
combination of the Technical Information and the Patent. However, respondents sin was allegedly committed by his filing for
from the time that STEELCORP applied for a search warrant over defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various pleadings
SONIC STEELs premises, Patent No. 16269 had long expired. The despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of filing.
expiration of the patent effectively negated and rendered irrelevant Castelo claims that he prepared the initial pleadings based on
respondents defense of subsistence of the contract between his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were then
STEELCORP and BIEC International, Inc. during the filing of the still living. Had he known that they were already deceased, he would
application for search warrant and filing of respondents affidavit have most welcomed the information and would have moved to
before the Department of justice. There is basis, therefore, to the substitute Leonardo and William Lim as defendants for that reason.
claim that respondent has not been "candid enough" in his actuations.
Respondent also interrupted the court and manifest his ISSUE:
clients reservation to present the trademark license. Respondent was Whether or Not Castelo committed falsehood or falsification
equally swift to end Judge Sadangs inquiry over the patent by in his pleadings.
reserving the right to present the same at another time. This is
contrary to the exacting standards of conduct required from a RULING:
member of the Bar. NO.
Respondent suspended for 6 months. Canon 10 - a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
- court.
Good faith must always motivate any complaint against a
Case: JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO Member of the Bar. A plain reading indicates that the respondent did
G. CASTELO, Respondent. not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still
(A.C. No. 8620 January 12, 2011) living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer
to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim,
FACTS: supra, and in the clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses
The Government brought suit for the purpose of correcting Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.
the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the
located in Malabon City then registered in the names of defendants respondents pleadings might have created any impression that the
Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, we still cannot data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060"
hold the respondent guilty of any dishonesty or falsification. For one, but he has been using this for at least three years already, as shown
the respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the by the following attached sample pleadings in various courts.
properties when he filed the answer with counterclaim and cross- Respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law
claim. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not practice without having paid his IBP dues. He likewise admits that,
occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, having as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court,
made clear at the start that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in court, at
were no longer the actual owners of the affected properties due to the least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that
transfer of ownership even prior to the institution of the action, and such was his IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the
that the actual owners needed to be substituted in lieu of said years in which those pleadings were filed. He claims, however, that
spouses, whether the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still he is only engaged in a "limited" practice and that he believes in
living or already deceased as of the filing of the pleadings became good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such as
immaterial. And, lastly, De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, 4 as a senior citizen since 1992.
the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His
joining in the action as a voluntary intervenor charged him with ISSUE:
notice of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also had Whether or not Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating the Code
an actual awareness of such other persons, as his own complaint in of Professional Responsibility.
intervention, supra, bear out in its specific allegations against
Leonardo Lim and William Lim, and their respective spouses. Thus, RULING:
he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any YES. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and
dishonesty or falsification in relation to him or to any other party. thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid
The Court dismisses the complaint for disbarment or his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating
suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for utter lack of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01
merit. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
- deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which
provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
Case: SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, respondent. any artifice.
(Adm. Case No. 4749 January 20, 2000) Even if he had limited practice of law, it does not relieve
him of the duties such as payment of IBP dues. Rule 139-A provides:
FACTS: Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. Subject to the
In a letter-complaint to the Court, complainant Soliman M. provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of
Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Francisco annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership
R. Llamas has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall
be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
from the Roll of Attorneys. illuminating but not offensive.
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is suspended from the practice of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves
law for one (1) year, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is to ADOPT the recommended penalty of the Board of Governors of
later. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide is
- found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and
for using intemperate, offensive and, abusive language in violation
CANON 11 of Rule 8.01,Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission, if existing, is
CASE: JOY A. GIMENO vs. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE hereby REVOKED, and he is declared DISQUALIFIED from being
(A.C. No. 10303. April 22, 2015) commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is
also SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.|||
FACTS: -
Joy A. Gimeno, complainant, contended that Atty. Paul
Centillas Zaide called her a "notorious extortionist" in the CASE: JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR. vs. ATTY.
administrative complaint that Somontan filed against her in which ELLY L. PAMATONG
Atty. Zaide violated the prohibition against the representation of (A.C. No. 7330. June 14, 2016)
conflicting clients' interests because he had previous lawyer-client
relationship with Gimeno. Atty. Zaide also referred to his opposing FACTS:
counsel as someone suffering from "serious mental incompetence" in Pantanosas filed a Complaint for Disbarment againts
one of his pleadings, he denied that he used any intemperate, respondent Pamatong for the violation of Canon 1 and 11 of the CPR
offensive, and abusive language in his pleadings. for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct by supposedly
causing the publication of an alleged bribe in a local newspaper and
ISSUE: maliciously imputing motives to complainant Pantanosas, thereby
Whether or not Atty. Zaide is guilty of using scandalous, casting dishonor to and distrust in the judicial system. It is not
offensive, and menacing language or behavior before the Courts. disputed that the Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent Pamatong
contained blatant accusations of corruption against complainant
HELD: Pantanosas. The records disclose that a news article detailing the
Yes. In Atty. Zaide's comment against his opposing counsel, events that precipitated the bribery charge against complainant
it confirms his lack of restraint in the use and choice of words. While Pantanosas was published on September 15, 2006 with the
a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such participation of respondent Pamatong.
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to ISSUE:
 Whether or not the actions of Atty. Pamatong constitute as a magistrate. The case was transferred to the court presided by Judge
violation of the Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the CPR. Jose Manuel Tan who favorably resolved the motion to fix bail in
favor of the defense.
HELD: The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was
Yes. It cannot be overemphasized that it is the sworn duty of denied by Judge Tan. Due to this, the respondent caused the
a lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, "not for publication of an article entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao
the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out in the newspaper
maintenance of its supreme importance." Even granting that the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The respondent also expressed several
bribery charges were true, such personal attacks against the person of derogatory remarks against the judge in a few radio programs. Due to
complainant Pantanosas should have been reserved for a different his actions, several indirect and direct contempt charges were filed
forum and certainly not included in a motion filed before a court of against respondent.
law. Pamatong had no reason to divulge his grievances before the The trial court rendered their judgement finding the
public as he had already lodged a complaint against complainant respondent guilty of indirect contempt and also suspended him for
Pantanosas with the Office of the Court Administrator on September grossly violating the Canons of the legal profession and [is] guilty of
12, 2006. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer "shall submit grave professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to continue to be
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only." The duty entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office
of a lawyer to his client's success is wholly subordinate to the of an attorney.
administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Elly L. Pamatong from ISSUE:
the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this Whether or not the acts of the respondent would warrant his
Decision. We STERNLY WARN the respondent that a repetition of suspension from the legal profession.
the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.
- HELD:
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are
Case: RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as
(A.C. No. 7006. October 9, 2007) a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS: mandates a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the
The complaint against Atty. Rogelio Bagabugo stemmed courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar
from the criminal case where the respondent acted as the prosecutor. conduct by others." Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer
The murder case was originally under the jurisdiction of Judge "shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities
Buyser who later inhibited himself after he found and expressed that only."
Senior Prosecutor. Bagabuyo lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial
 Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he The complaint was based on the findings during the judicial
admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made audit of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental, presided by respondent
accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail. Judge Priscilla Hernandez.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that The audit found that Judge Hernandez failed to take action
Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled, on numerous cases filed in her court. To rectify this, resolution was
Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder rendered requesting that the respondent explain the matter and to
suspect to bail out, which appeared in the issue of the Mindanao take appropriate action upon the cases pending in her court.
Gold Star Daily. Respondent's statements in the article, which were The resolution was ignored which prompted the Office of the
made while the criminal case was still pending in court, also violated Court Administrator to issue a memorandum directing respondent to
Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer shall not make comply with the same. Meanwhile, a second audit was conducted on
public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to the same court as well as the MCTC of Clarin-Tudela where
arouse public opinion for or against a party." respondent was the acting judge. The audit found that respondent has
In regard to the radio interview given by the respondent an alarming number of cases which required her appropriate action.
violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional The audit concluded that respondent, instead of acting on the cases
Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for subject of the adverse findings of the first audit, continuously added
redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also unacted cases to her file.
violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when Finally, the OCA has recommended that respondent be
he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong dismissed on grounds of gross incompetence, inefficiency,
aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, negligence and dereliction of duty and that her designation as Acting
and that he was a liar. Presiding Judge of the 5th MCTC of Clarin-Tudela be revoked. This
Thus, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law resulted to the revocation of respondents designation.
for one year with a stern warning that the repetition of the same acts Despite a long interregnum, respondent still did not comply
shall be dealt with more sternly. with the Court's directives. Because of such inaction, the OCA, in its
- memorandum, not only reiterated its earlier recommendation for
respondent's dismissal but also recommended her immediate
Case: RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN suspension pending the resolution of this administrative matter. As a
THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, JIMENEZ- result, the Court suspended respondent.
SINACABAN, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL/JUDGE PRISCILLA Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration dated where
HERNANDEZ she admitted her culpability in the delay of the disposition of cases
(A.M. No. 03-7-170-MCTC. July 14, 2009) but claimed as contributory factors the volume of her work and
designations in other courts. She begged for the Court's compassion
FACTS: in the resolution of her motion.
ISSUE: Thus the respondent was fined for violations of the canons
Whether or not the acts of the respondent is a violation of code of and was has sternly warned that commission of the same or similar
professional responsibility. acts shall be dealt with more severely.
-
HELD:
The court held that the gravity of respondent's omissions and Case: Guerrero v. Villamor
the absence of any explanation on her part, her dismissal from the (A.M. No. RTJ-90-483 September 25, 1998)
service is called for. The administration of justice demands that those
who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the FACTS:
task set before them. In this regard, respondent miserably failed. The Atty. Guerrero filed instant administrative complaints
wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent is allowed to against Judge Villamor for serious misconduct, ignorance of the law,
continue working in the judiciary. Therefore, as recommended by the knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, misfeasance, malfeasance
OCA, after a thorough judicial audit, and considering the unrebutted and neglect of duty for issuing an order declaring both George Carlos
audit reports on record, the penalty of dismissal from the service is in and Atty. Guerrero. However, in the pleadings before the CA, they
order. used abusive language in describing the respondents acts, hence,
Pursuant to law this administrative case against respondent respondent judge cited them for direct contempt, which was later set
as a judge based on grounds which are also grounds for the aside by the Supreme Court.
disciplinary action against members of the Bar, shall be considered
as disciplinary proceedings against such judge as a member of the ISSUE:
Bar. Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct Responsibility.
embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes a breach of
Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: HELD:
Canon 1 a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of No. The Court concurs with the findings of the investigating
the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. Justice that the acts or omission allegedly constituting any of these
Canon 11 a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to offenses have either not been spelled out with definite specificity, or
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar the causal connection between the given act/omission and the
conduct by others. resulting offense/s not logically demonstrated. Respondent, in
Certainly, a judge who falls short of the ethics of the judicial issuing his erroneous contempt order, was not moved by ill-will or
office tends to diminish the people's respect for the law and legal by an impulse to do an injustice. Complainants have not presented
processes. She also fails to observe and maintain the esteem due to evidence or offered logical arguments tending to show that bad faith
the courts and judicial officers. Respondent must always bear in accompanied the issuance of the contempt order. Bad faith is not
mind that it is a magistrate's duty to uphold the integrity of the presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it.
judiciary at all times. Complainants have not discharged that burden of proof sufficiently. I
 Conversely, a charge for either ignorance of the law or Whether or not the respondent violated the Canon 11 of The Code of
rendering an unjust judgment will not prosper against a judge acting Professional Responsibility.
in good faith. Absent the element of bad faith, an erroneous
judgment cannot be the basis of a charge for said offenses, mere HELD:
error of judgment not being a ground for disciplinary proceedings. Yes. The Court agreed with the IBPs finding that the
- respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi
Case: Baculi v. Battung by shouting at him inside the courtroom during court proceedings in
(A.C. No. 8920. September 28, 2011) the presence of litigants and their counsels, and court personnel. The
respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in
FACTS: front of many witnesses, cannot be allowed.
Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely
hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502, disregards the latter's role, stature and position in our justice system.
the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge
advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the respondent Baculi that he would le a case for gross ignorance of the law against
shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to
for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!" Judge erode the public condence in Judge Baculi's competence and in his
Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true,
The respondent then left. While other cases were being heard, the must be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, "Judge, I will file Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a
gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!" Judge Baculi manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system
ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the courtroom and into disrepute.
cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time. After his -
hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the respondent at the hall of
the courthouse, apparently waiting for him. The respondent again Case: JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES vs. ATTY. JUDE JOSUE
shouted in a threatening tone, "Judge, I will le gross ignorance L. SABIO
against you! I am not afraid of you! He kept on shouting, "I am not (A.C. No. 7828, Aug. 11, 2008)
afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building. Judge Baculi also learned that after FACTS:
the respondent left the courtroom, he continued shouting and Complainant was the presiding judge of the MTC of
punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Cabuyao, Laguna until his optional retirement on November 23,
2005. Respondent filed an Affidavit-Complaint against petitioner and
ISSUE: sought the investigation of complainant for bribery, alleging that
orders and decisions of complainant were not generated from the
typewriter of the court but from a computer which the court did not
have, it having acquired one only on May 2, 2005; that there had Case: PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID vs. ATTY. JUAN S.
been many times that a certain Alex of EDC would go to the court DEALCA
bearing certain papers for the signature of complainant; that he came (A.C. No. 7828. August. 11, 2008)
to learn that a consideration of P500.00 would be given for every
order or decision released by complainant in favor of EDC; and that FACTS:
he also came to know that attempts at postponing the hearings of the On February 7, 2007, Respondent entered his appearance as
complaints filed by EDC were thwarted by complainant as he wanted a counsel in a criminal case then pending in the RTC Branch
to expedite the disposition thereof. The Court dismissed the presided by Complainant. Respondent sought to replace Atty. Judar
complaint being unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. But
suspicion, and for having been filed after the effectivity of his aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused,
optional retirement. Respondent moved that the case should be re-raffled to another
Complainant filed a letter-complaint against respondent for Branch of the RTC on the basis that considering the adverse
disbarment. The IBP found out that respondent violated Canons 10, incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the
11, and 12 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional undersigned," where" he does not appear before the incumbent
Responsibility. Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by
the undersigned. Complainant denied the Respondents motion.
ISSUE: Complainant then filed a complaint against respondent.
Is the respondent guilty? The IBP-Sorsogon Chapter found that Respondent filed
multiple cases against judges and personnel in Sorsogon. All the
HELD: cases are precipitated by the adverse ruling rendered by the court
Yes. The Court adopts the conclusion of the Investigating against the clients of the respondent that instead of resorting to the
Commissioner stating that while the evidence on record is sufficient remedies available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent assisted
to show that the allegations in respondents affidavit-complaint his clients in filing administrative and criminal case against the
against herein complainant were false, the evidence nonetheless judges and personnel of the court and recommended 6 months
shows that respondent had knowingly and maliciously instituted a suspension. The IBP commissioner found him guilty. The IBP Board
groundless suit, based simply on his unfounded suspicions against of governors modified the recommendation and dismissed the
complainant. administrative complaint for lack of merit.
If a court official or employee or a lawyer is to be
disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, ISSUE:
competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere Did respondent violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the
allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay. Code of Professional Responsibility?
Respondent fined.
- HELD:
 Yes. Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and (A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015)
maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.04 states that he FACTS:
shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or PO1 Jose B. Caspe filed a disbarment case against Atty.
have no materiality of the case. All lawyers are bound to uphold the Aquilino A. Mejica for violating canons 1, 10 and 11 of the Coded of
dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the Professional Responsibility. The conflict started when the respondent
fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that lawyers served as the counsel for the petitioner as he filed a murder
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the case against Antonio Rodriguez. When Rodriguez filed his counter-
institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. affidavit, Atty. Mejica also served as his counsel. Petitioner felt that
Respondents averment that Complainant did not hear cases there was a conflict of interest since his lawyer was representing both
being handled by him directly insinuated that judges could choose him and his opponent.
the cases they heard, and could refuse to hear the cases in which Petitioner filed a separate case for damages and a case for
hostility existed between the judges and the litigants or their counsel. disbarment. Atty. Mejica allegedly threatened the petitioner that he
Such averment, if true at all, should have been assiduously will help file cases against the complainant until he kneels before
substantiated by him because it put in bad light not only Judge him.
Madrid but all judges in general. Yet, he did not even include any When the court issued subpoenas and notices to the
particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did he attach respondent, Atty. Mejica tried his best to avoid the hearings through
any document to support it. several excuses. Due to his failure to attend, the case was submitted
for decision. The IBP CBD found the respondent guilty of the
The right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification charges filed against him and is to be suspended for three months
of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, from the practice of law.
impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced
with the latters sacred duty to decide cases without fear of ISSUE:
repression. The respondents bare allegations of Complainants Whether or not the respondent violated canon 11 of the Code of
partiality or hostility did not suffice, because the presumption that Professional Responsibility by not attending the hearings despite the
Complainant would undertake his noble role to dispense justice notices?
according to law and the evidence and without fear or favor should
only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. RULING:
As such, Respondent clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as The Court held the respondent guilty of violating Canon 11
expressly stated in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04. of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not appearing in court.
Respondent Suspended. It is considered disrespectful when a lawyer disregards the subpoenas
- and orders of the court. Canon 11 calls for lawyers to respect the
courts and its offices to which, the respondent violated. It was held
Case: Caspe vs. Mejica
that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for period
of two years. Ruling:
- The court held that the respondent is guilty of violating
Canon 11 due to her non-appearance in the hearings. Her non
Case: Heenan vs. Espejo appearance is equivalent to disrespecting the courts and judicial
(A.C No.10050. December 3, 2013) offices as provided for by the canon. As a lawyer, maintaining
respect due to the courts and its officers is a must and should always
FACTS: be followed.
Petitioner Victorino Heenan filed a disbarment case against The court held that Atty. Espejo be suspended for a period of
the respondent Atty. Erlinda Espejo for violating the lawyers oath two (2) years and is ordered to pay the amount she borrowed from
and canons 1, 10 and 11.The two met through the godmother of the the petitioner.
petitioner who introduced the respondent as her lawyer in need of -
money. Petitioner agreed to lend an amount of P250,000.00 to
respondent due to the fact that she found no grounds to distrust the CANON 12
lawyer. Shortly after their meeting, respondent issued a check that
covers the amount she loaned as well as the interest covering the CASE: Spouses Lopez v. Limos.
loan. (A.C. No. 7618. February 2, 2016)
Despite the pre-dated check issued and some checks which
bounced due to being unfunded, respondent continuously asked the FACTS:
petitioner to delay the deposit of the check. Petitioner felt the need to Complainant spouses secured the services of the respondent
file a case against the lawyer to be able to recover the money for the purpose of adopting a child. In consideration, they paid
borrowed. P75,000.00 which was duly received by Atty. Limos. Despite
After several notices and a subpoena from the court, Atty. payment and submission of all the required documents, no petition
Espejo did not appear in court. The petitioner then filed an was filed. The spouses withdrew their documents, hired another
administrative order against the respondent through the Commission lawyer and demanded the return of the payment of P75,000.00.
for Bar Discipline (CBD). In the mandatory conference, only the However, Atty. Limos claims as standard operating procedure that
Heenan appeared thus, declaring the petitioner in default. she does not return acceptance fees.
The Board of Governors passed a resolution ordering the
respondent to return the P250,000.00 borrowed and is to be ISSUE:
suspended from the practice of law for a period of 5 years. Whether or not respondent is guilty of causing undue delay
to the administration of justice.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Espejo violated Canon 11 of the Code HELD:
of Professional Responsibility?
 Yes. The Court notes that it repeatedly required her to was unable to attend. The case was dismissed and MTCC issued a
comment on complainants' petition, but respondent ignored such Decision ordering complainant to pay Du for costs. Complainant
commands. When the instant case was referred to the IBP for appealed the MTCC Decision to the RTC then disbursed to Landero
investigation, report, and recommendation, respondent again a docket fee so that he may file a petition for review before the CA.
disregarded the directives of the Investigating Commissioner to Landero failed to file the same notwithstanding granted by the CA an
attend the mandatory conference and to submit a position paper, extension of 15 days, hence, this complaint for disbarment in
which caused undue delay in the resolution of the instant violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of CPR.
administrative case.
Undoubtedly, "[t]he Court's patience has been tested to the ISSUE:
limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyer's impudence and Whether or not Atty. Johnny Landero violated Rule 12.03,
disrespectful bent. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity Canon 12 of The Code of Professional Responsibility.
owe courts of justice respect, courtesy, and such other becoming
conduct essential in the promotion of orderly, impartial, and speedy HELD:
justice." Yes. The court ordered that respondent be suspended from
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar E. Limos is practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately for
found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, Rule displaying unprofessional behavior and misconduct and for
12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule violations of the CPR, which states:
18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider
Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
for a period of three (3) years, effective upon the finality of this of justice
Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar xxx xxx xxx
acts will be dealt with more severely.||| Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
- extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
CASE: DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., vs. ATTY. same offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
JOHNNY LANDERO Respondent failed to attend on the scheduled pre-trial
(A.C. No. 5116. April 13, 2015) conference despite notice and that he did not file petition for review
after receiving from his client the payment for docket fees being
FACTS: granted by the CA an extension of time to file the same. A lawyer is
Davao Import Distibutors, Inc. engaged the services of Atty. first and foremost an officer in court. Thus, while he owes his entire
Johnny Landero (Landero) to file a complaint against Angelita devotion to the interest and causes of his client, he must ensure that
Librando and Juanito Du for the recovery of one split-type-air- he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense, always
conditioner. Landero failed to appear on the date of the scheduled aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice.
pre-trial and also failed to inform the complainant as to why he too -
 directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or
Case: ENCINAS v NATIONAL BOOKSTORE, INC. July 28, 2005 a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act. The Court cannot accept
G.R. No. 162704 counsels declarations of good faith and honest mistake since, as a
member of the Bar and an officer of the court, he is presumed to
FACTS: know better. He is required to thoroughly prepare himself on the law
In the Resolution dated 6 April 2005, the Court required Atty. and facts of his case and the evidence he will adduce. The minimum
Calimag to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of he could have done was to verify with the appropriate authorities the
court for his participation in the submission of a fake judicial documents upon which his clients based their claims, and not have
decision to this Court. He explains that he filed the Motion for relied on his clients assertions.
Intervention with Leave of Court and Petition-In-Intervention (to Counsels actuations may even constitute a violation of the lawyers
which was appended a copy of the fake decision) on behalf of his oath. He is reminded of his basic duties to observe and maintain the
clients to seek the truth in order that justice will prevail. He reasons respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, to do no
that he was misled in the appreciation of the evidence made available falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or
to him at the time of submission of the Motion and Petition-In- allow the Court to be misled by any artifice, and to assist in the
Intervention. At the same time, he asserts that there was an honest speedy and efficient administration of justice. Counsels act of filing
mistake in the appreciation of the documents and that there was the Motion and Petition-In-Intervention based on a spurious judicial
never any malice intended in the submission of the questioned decision constitutes direct contempt of court.
documents. -
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Atty. Ricardo T. Camilag is
CITED in DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT and ordered to PAY a Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. LEONARDO
FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) within ten (10) NUGUID, Appellant.
days form notice, or to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days in case (G.R. No. 148991. January 21, 2004)
he fails to pay the fine.
FACTS:
ISSUE: The trial court found Leonardo Nuguid guilty of the crime of serious
Whether or not there was contempt of court for his participation in illegal detention with rape and imposed on him the death penalty.
the submission of a fake judicial decision to this Court. The said accused, being then a private individual and without
HELD: authority of law, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and illegally
Counsels explanation is insufficient and unsatisfactory. The Court detain Rowena Rianzares by then and there taking and locking her
cites counsel in direct contempt of court. Direct contempt, or and preventing her from going out of said room for a period of three
contempt in facie curiae, is misbehavior committed in the presence (3) hours, more or less, thereby depriving her of her liberty and
of or so near a court or judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the during the said period of time, said accused by means of force,
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, violence and intimidation.
and can be punished summarily without hearing. It is conduct
The trial court considered the testimonies of Rowena and the other restrain the victim because what constitutes the offense is taking
prosecution witnesses to be straightforward and credible. The coupled with intent to restrain.
physical injuries Rowena suffered, confirmed by the examining The sweetheart defense employed by appellant also deserves scant
physician and observed by the trial court, corroborated her version of consideration. Aside from being inherently weak, it was
the events. The accuseds sweetheart defense is of doubtful nature uncorroborated by any evidence other than the self-serving testimony
and undeserving of credence. of appellant. Appellant admitted that he had no notes, letters, gifts or
The trial court ruled that the acts of the appellant in locking up any other item to show for an affair that had allegedly been ongoing
Rowena against her will in his room for three hours, threatening to since 1998.
kill her and then sexually assaulting her, constituted the crime of -
serious illegal detention with rape.
Case: ROLANDO SAA vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
ISSUE: PHILIPPINES, COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE, BOARD
Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the appellants OF GOVERNORS, PASIG CITY and ATTY. FREDDIE A.
sweetheart defense, which was not unlikely since he spent most of VENIDA.
his time with Rowena (G.R. No. 132826 September 3, 2009)

HELD: FACTS:
When a person kidnapped or illegally detained is raped, the offense
committed is the special complex crime of serious illegal detention Petitioner Atty. Rolando Saa filed a disbarment case against
or kidnapping with rape, punishable with the maximum penalty of Atty. Freddie Venida. In his complaint, Atty. Saa alleged that the
death. The last paragraph of Article 267 applies only to instances petitions of Atty. Venida praying for his disbarment was oppressive
where the person illegally detained or kidnapped is raped. It does not and constituted unethical practice.
provide for a complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Because of this, the court required Atty. Venida to comment
There is no complex crime of illegal detention with rape under on the complaint against him which he not able to file within 10 days
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. There is also no complex as required in the resolution. Thus, the court required Atty. Venida to
crime of kidnapping with attempted rape under Article 48 because answer why he should not be disciplinary dealt with but the same
there is no single act which results in two or more grave or less grave was answered by a mere reiteration of the answer he filed before.
felonies. Neither is illegal detention a necessary means for Meanwhile the petition against him was decided by the
committing rape. Commissioner who dismissed the same for lack of merit. The board
The essence of illegal detention is the deprivation of the victims of governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the
liberty. The prosecution must prove actual confinement or restriction findings for the Commissioner. Thus, this petition.
of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the
appellant. The accused must have acted purposely or knowingly to
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the acts of the respondent would warrant his
disbarment from the legal profession. Case: RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF
ATTY. MARILYN B. JOYAS, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial
HELD: Court of Manila, Branch 16
The ruled strongly disapprove of Atty. Venida's blatant (A.M. No. 06-5-286-RTC. August 2, 2007)
refusal to comply with various court directives. As a lawyer, he had
the responsibility to follow legal orders and processes. Yet, he FACTS:
disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when he filed The administrative case involves Atty. Marilyn Joyas who
only a partial comment 11 months after being directed to do so. was the clerk of court in the Regional Trail Court of Manila. Atty.
Worse, he filed his complete comment only a little over three years Joyas was allegedly on an unauthorized leave from November 15 the
after due date. In both instances, he managed to delay the resolution 30th of the same month. Because the Office of the Court
of the case, a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 Administrator required Atty. Joyas to submit her daily time records
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. which was unheeded. After the OCA sent a letter to Atty. Joyas, she
Yet again, Atty. Venida failed to file a memorandum within informed the same that she had already applied for a retirement
the period required in resolution. Despite the 30-day deadline to file effective on November 15.
his memorandum, he still did not comply. As if taunting authority, he However, the Employees Welfare and Benefits Division
continually ignored our directives for him to show cause and comply informed OCA that Atty. Joyas did not comply with all the
with the May 17, 2004 resolution. requirements in support for her application. Thus, OCA
Atty. Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial recommended that Atty. Joya be dropped from the rolls and her
and full comments. But tried to exculpate himself by saying he position be declared vacant.
inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a heavy workload (for
his partial comment). He even had the temerity to blame a strong ISSUE:
typhoon for the loss of all his files, the complaint included (for his Whether or not the acts of the respondent contravenes the
full comment). His excuses tax the imagination. Nevertheless, his Canon of Professional Conduct.
apologies notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly unacceptable
for a member of the legal profession. He must not be allowed to HELD:
evade accountability for his omissions. The court approved the recommendation of OCA. The court
Thus, the court partially granted the petition and suspended upheld that under civil service rules, Atty. Joyas should be separated
Atty. Venida violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and 12.04 from the service or dropped from the rolls on account of her
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyer's continued unauthorized absence since November 15.
oath. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year. He is A court employee who goes on absence without leave
further sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense (AWOL) for a prolonged period of time disrupts the normal function
shall be dealt with more severely. of the organization. His or her conduct is prejudicial to the best
- interest of public service. It contravenes a public servant's duty to
serve the public with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, P763,060.00" against Atty. Pepito C. Presquito. Mr. Espino and the
loyalty and efficiency. respondent entered into an agreement for a purchase of land by the
Furthermore, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the latter from the former. The price of the land was P1,437,410.00,
administrative case against Atty. Joyas as a court personnel shall also payable on a staggered basis and by installments. Respondent issues
be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against her as a member post-dated checks as payment. Respondent then entered into a joint
of the bar.|||Her conduct runs counter to Canon 12 of the Code of venture or partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the
Professional Responsibility which provides: subdivision of the land into home-size lots and its development, with
CANON 12 A LAWYER SHALL EXERT a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own use. The
EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares,
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND and subdivided into 35 to 36 lots.
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The 8 post-dated checks issued by respondent were all
A lawyer is an officer of the court. It is his duty to promote dishonored. Mr. Espino made repeated demands for payment from
the objectives of courts the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct respondent but the latter refused. Mr. Espino died in December 1996.
and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of His widow, complainant, then tried to collect from respondent the
final judgments. He should not only help achieve these ends but value of the eight checks. When complainants numerous pleas
should also avoid any unethical or improper practice that will remained unheeded, she filed the complaint in June 1997.
impede, obstruct or prevent their realization as he is charged with the Respondent denied any wrongdoing, and said that the
primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient dispensation of allegations that he had employed "fraud, trickery and dishonest
justice. This Atty. Joyas failed to do when she went on prolonged means" with the late Mr. Espino were totally false and baseless.
unauthorized leave and effectively abandoned her office. Respondents claim that he and Mr. Espino, agreed that Mr
Thus, along with her separation from service, Atty. Joyas is Espino will not encash the checks until the right of way problem has
also ordered to pay the fine of P5, 000 for her unprofessional conduct been resolved. In addition, respondent claims that the balance would
as a member of the bar. be offset with the cost he incurred when he defended Mr. Espinos
- son in a criminal case.

Case: DE ESPINO VS ATTY. PRESQUITO. ISSUE:

(A.C. No. 4762, June 28 2004) Whether or not the respondent failed to act with candor and
fairness towards the complainant.

FACTS: HELD:
Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint with the Complainants testimony and exhibits have clearly
Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo for "having employed fraud, established that: (1) there was an agreement between respondent and
trickery and dishonest means in refusing to honor and pay her late complainants late husband for the sale of the latters land; (2)
husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum of respondent had issued the eight checks in connection with said
agreement; (3) these checks were dishonored and remain unpaid; and only 20 days, and that he had not yet received the copy of said
(4) the land sold had an existing road-right of- way. resolution. He further explained that he relied on good faith that his
The respondent failed to prove that he had legal cause to Motion for 1st Extension of 30 days would be granted without the
refuse payment, or that he was entitled to legal compensation. warning as this was only a first extension; and also that he
Respondents failure to present evidence is a breach of Rule 12.01 of requested for a second and last extension of 20 days for which he
the Code of Professional Responsibility. complied with the filing of the Petition for Certiorari on the last day
Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the 8 of the supposed extended period.
dishonored checks, respondents indifference to complainants
entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the ISSUE:
bar and an officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Whether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty of negligence.
Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful
conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing HELD:
the 8 checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated Yes. Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
demands for payment until complainant was forced to file this provides: a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to
complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the disposition of this file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
case with dilatory tactics. submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
- so. Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in
the sound discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume
Case: Ramos vs. Atty. Dajoyag Jr. that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted or
(A.C. No. 5174. February 28, 2002) that they will be granted the length of time they pray for. Due
diligence requires that they should conduct a timely inquiry with the
FACTS: division clerks of court of the action on their motions and, the lack of
This is a complaint filed by Ernesto Ramos against Atty. notice thereof will not make them any less accountable for their
Mariano Dajoyag Jr. for negligence in failing to appeal a ruling of omission.
the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal by the Labor Arbiter of a -
complaint for legal dismissal.
It appears that Ramos was terminated from work for failure Case: FIGUERAS ET. AL vs. JIMENEZ .
of his lawyer, Atty. Dajoyag, to file on time the petition for (A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014)
certiorari, when the Supreme Court dismissed it with finality. From
the records, it can be gleaned that Atty. Dajoyag moved for an FACTS:
extension to file which was granted, but the Resolution granting the The Congressional Homeowners Association hired the
first extension contained a warning that no further extension would services of the law firm owned by the respondent Atty. Diosdado B.
be given. Atty. Dajoyag, on the other hand, explained that he was not Jimenez to facilitate a case filed against them by the Spouses
aware of this because when he filed his motion for last extension for Federico and Victoria Santander. The case was regarding the wall
constructed by the Homeowners association which blocked the himself and not of an associate. It was noted that the respondent
passageway for vehicles and pedestrians. They also claimed that such signed an Urgent Motion for Extension in the Court of Appeals in
construction was a violation of the Quezon City Ordinance No. behalf of the firm. Such act made it clear that the respondent
8633-71. Despite the several appeals filed by the Association personally took charge of the case.
represented by the law firm, they lost the case. Respondent also violated Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the
Eight years later, herein petitioners Nestor B. Figueras and Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to exert all efforts and
Bienvenido Victoria Jr. filed a disbarment case against Atty. Jimenez consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
on the ground that he has violated rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Canon 17 administration of justice. He failed to file the appellants brief on
and rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional behalf of his client and has fallen short of his duties as a counsel.
Responsibility. With this, he has also violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 by neglecting
On his answer, the respondent denied the allegations made his duties as a counsel to his client.
and stated that although his law firm represented the association in a Therefore, the court ruled that the respondent Atty. Jimenez
former case, it was not him who personally took over the case but be suspended from practicing law for a period of one month upon the
instead, an associate. He also mentioned that the disbarment case finality of the resolution with warning that repetition of the same and
filed against him is a form of retaliation by the petitioners since Mr. similar violation will be dealt more severely.
Figueras lost against him in the Homeowners election for -
Presidency. He also claimed that the parties have no personality to Case: Santiago vs. Rafanan .
file a disbarment case against him. (A.C. No. 6252. Oct. 5, 2004)
The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines decided that the respondent is guilty of such violations FACTS:
and should be suspended from the practice of law from three to six Petitioner Jonar Santiago and the Commission on Bar
months. Thus, a petition for review was filed by the respondent Atty. Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed a disbarment
Jimenez. case against respondent Atty. Edison V. Rafanan for violating Rules
12.07 and 12.08 of canon 12 of the Code of Professional
ISSUE: Responsibility and several other canons and Rules of Court.
Whether or not the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP The petitioner alleges that respondent failed and/or refused
erred in suspending Atty. Jimenez due to the violation of Rule 12.04 to: a) make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community
of Canon 12, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the notarized
Professional Responsibility? documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute the
certification and enter the PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he
HELD: had notarized, al in violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised
The Court affirmed the decision of the IBP regarding the Administrative Code.
suspension of Atty. Jimenez. From the evidences submitted, the The respondent contends that notation of residences shall
dismissal of the appeals was due to the negligence of the respondent only apply to documents acknowledge by a notary public and is not
mandatory for cases pending in courts and other governmental CANON 13
offices. With regard to his violation of Rules 12.07 and 12.08 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he claims that CASE: ROGELIO H. VILLANUEVA vs. ATTY. AMADO B.
he must testify in behalf of his client since his testimony is essential DELORIA.
to uphold justice. He averred that such allegations were made when (A.C. No. 5018. January 26, 2007)
his client was in his house and therefore, his testimony is needed.
Lastly, he contended that the disbarment case filed against FACTS:
him is a form of harassment since he was the counsel of Barangay Rogelio H. Villanueva avers a decision in the case of
Captain Ernesto Ramos in a case filed by the latter in the Spouses Conrado De Garcia v. Jaime Gonzales, et al. requiring
Ombudsman and BJMP against the petitioner. the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to refund to the spouses De Garcia the
amount of P69,000 plus interest at the prevailing commercial interest
ISSUE: rates. Atty. Amado B. Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of
Whether or not the respondent violated Rules 12.07 and Substitute Judgment and for Consignation which is a violation of the
12.08 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? CPR for his misrepresentation. Villanueva also alleges Atty. Deloria
to have committed the following violations, (1) offered him 50% of
HELD: the recoverable amount in the case if he resolve the latters motion
The Court ruled that the respondent did not violate rules favorably which violates Canon 13 of the CPR, (2) used his
12.07 and 12.08 of Canon 12. His testimony is very much needed to connections in the HLURB to prevent him from releasing an Order
carry out justice in favor of his client since it happened in his house. denying the formers motion to prevail, and interpret the term
Although such is the case, he should have withdrawn from active commercial rate of interest in a way favorable to his clients case,
participation in the case. and (3) assisted his client in filing an in founded criminal cases
Lawyers are not forbidden to testify and serve as witnesses against him with the purposes of getting even with Villanueva for
but there is a preference for them to not serve as witnesses unless denying their motion.
they absolutely have to. It must be noted that when lawyers are
serving double purposes as a counsel and witness for their clients, ISSUE:
such will provoke unkind criticism and leave the people to question 1) Whether or not Atty. Deloria violated Canon 13 of the CPR
the truthfulness of the lawyer. 2) Whether or not there is merit in the case
The Court decided that the respondent Atty. Rafanan shall
pay a fine of Php 3,000.00 for violating the Notarial Law and Canon RULING:
5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to participate 1) No. Atty. Deloria did not violate Canon 13 of the CPR which
on the legal developments and education and for negligence states that,
regarding the notation of residences. CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of
- his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
 tends to influence or gives the appearance of Whether or not Atty. Paguia should be suspended from the
influencing the court practice of law on the ground of violating Rule 13.02 of the CPR.
2) The case is remanded to the IBP for further proceedings. A
formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may RULING:
not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling Yes. Atty. Paguia should be suspended from the practice of
reasons as it was held in Baldomar v. Paras that, if the Court law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court in
deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such violation of Rule 13.02 of the CPR, which states:
as when the matter could not be resolved by merely Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public
evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the statements in the media regarding a pending case
IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. party.
- By his acts, Atty. Paguia may have stoked the fires of public
dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the
CASE: JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. THE HONORABLE administration of justice. He has persisted in ignoring the Courts
SANDIGANBAYAN. well-meant admonition. The Court will not countenance any
(G.R. Nos. 159486-88. November 25, 2003) wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of the peoples faith in the judicial
system by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the
FACTS: Philippines.
The case for consideration has been brought to the court via -
a petition for certiorari filed by Joseph Ejercito Estrada acting
through his counsel Atty. Alan F. Paguia against the Sandiganbayan. EMETERIO GALLO through Counsel Atty. Francisco C. Aurillo,
Atty. Paguia asserts that the justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE CORDERO, MTC, Babatgon,
Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the EDSA 2 Rally and by Leyte, respondent.
authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal- (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1035. June 21, 1995)
Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. He
released a public statement on the 7th September 2003 issue of the FACTS:
Daily Tribune which he wrote that there is political partisanship A sworn complaint dated September 8, 1994 of Emeterio Gallo,
among the members of the court, that his client was denied due charging Judge Jose Cordero of the Municipal Trial Court of
process of law and that there is patent mockery of justice and due Babatgon, Leyte with non-feasance, manifest bias, gross ignorance
process in the subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo. of the law, and graft and rank favoritism. The complaint is made in
Indeed, such public statement of like nature is a violation of Rule connection with violation of P.D.No. 772, otherwise known as the
13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Anti-Squatting Law. The criminal complaint alleged that the above-
named accused, all taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of
ISSUE: the land owners, did then and there, succeeded in occupying and
possessing certain portions of the property of the latter against their conflict of jurisdiction with the Department of Agrarian Reform
will for residential and small farming purposes, and have refused to Adjudication Boards," and he thought that complainant Gallo was
vacate the property despite demands for them to do so. merely pressuring the accused to vacate the property through the
On August 26, 1994, respondent issued a subpoena to complainant filing of a criminal case against them.
requiring him to appear and to testify regarding his affidavit and to
bring with him documents attesting to his ownership of the land. ISSUE:
Complainant appeared as directed on August 30, 1994 in Whether or not the Judge manifested bias, gross ignorance of the
respondent's office. law, and graft and rank favouritism.
The following day, according to complainant, his son Roger Gallo
went to respondent's office to deliver his letter in which he inquired HELD:
from the judge whether he had already issued a warrant of arrest Respondent judge found sufficient ground to hold the accused in the
against the accused; that upon entering the office, Roger saw criminal case for trial. That is why subpoenas were issued to the
respondent conversing with the accused in the criminal case; that an complainant and the accused. In the case of the complainant, the
aide of respondent received the letter and opened it; that respondent subpoena required him to testify and bring with him the papers
did not however say anything nor reply to complainant's letter; that showing his title to the land. But respondent judge did not examine
when Roger left the office, respondent judge and the four accused him with a view to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Instead, he
continued their conversation. subpoenaed complainant only to determine the sufficiency of the
Complainant charges that in violation of article 207 and article 208 complaint. Yet, respondent likewise required the accused to present
of the Revised Penal Code respondent judge refused to order the their evidence the next day, August 31, 1994.
arrest of the accused.; that respondent privately conferred with the It would thus appear that respondent was confused about what to do.
accused in his office on August 31, 1994 which "logically and He says in his comment that he found the criminal complaint to be
naturally arouses suspicion of graft and rank favoritism;" and that he insufficient because it does not state the time of commission of the
acted with bias and ignorance of the law. offense and the name of the offended party. He also contends that it
Respondent alleges that he did not order the arrest of the accused for does not charge an offense because the offense punished under P.D.
that the complaint charges no offense under P.D. No. 772 because of No. 772 is committed only in urban communities. What respondent
"the absence of recital in the body of the complaint that the property should have done was to dismiss the criminal case. The fact,
occupied possessed is within the urban communities" per the ruling however, is that he did not dismiss the complaint; neither did he, on
in People v. Echavez, that the crime of squatting applies only to the other hand, order the arrest of the accused in that case.
urban communities, the complaint is defective because of its failure Respondent judge also opened himself to charges of partiality and
to state the name of the offended party and the date and time of the bias by meeting privately with the four accused. He says that he
commission of the offense; respondent acted in compliance with merely wanted to apprise them of their constitutional right. It was
Administrative Circular No. 8-92 which "reiterates to all trial court improper for respondent judge to meet them without the presence of
judges the need for a careful consideration of the proper application complainant. As already stated, the subpoena required the accused to
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) to avoid appear in court on August 31, 1994 to give their testimony. But no
hearing was set on that date. In fact complainant's son, Roger, merely A Motion to Set Case for Hearing, dated 14 February 1984, was
chanced on the accused in the office of the judge on August 31, 1994 filed by Attys. Roxas and Pastor in Civil Case No. 26804, praying
because he had been sent by his father to deliver the latter's letter that the case be revived and be set for hearing by the court at the
inquiring whether the judge had yet issued a warrant for the arrest of earliest date available in its calendar. The appropriate proceedings
the accused. Respondent judge not only has shown gross ignorance thereafter ensued. On 29 October 1984, a Partial Decision was
of law and procedure but has also failed to live up to the norm that rendered by Branch 141 in Civil Case No. 26804 fixing the just
"judges should not only be impartial but should also appear compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square
impartial." 11 He thus violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial meter. The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 23
Conduct which provides that "a judge should avoid impropriety and November 1984 praying that the Partial Decision be reconsidered
the appearance of impropriety in all activities." In the words of Rule and set aside, and a new one rendered lowering the amount of just
2.01 of that Canon, "A judge should so behave at all times as to compensation in accordance with applicable laws. A Joint Special
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Power of Attorney was executed by Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr.,
judiciary. Enrique De Zuzuarregui and Pacita Javier, in favor of Attys. Roxas
- and Pastor.
Resolution No. 117413 dated 16 December 1985 was issued by the
ROMEO G. ROXAS, Petitioners, vs. ANTONIO DE NHA stating that the Zuzuarregui property would be acquired at a
ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA cost of P19.50 per square meter; that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid
JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. GONZALES, JOSEFINA R. DAZA, in NHA Bonds, subject to the availability of funds; and that the yield
ELIAS REYES, NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA REYES, JOSE on the bonds to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis shall be based on the
REYES and ANTONIO REYES, Respondents. Central Bank rate at the time of payment.
(G.R. No. 152072. January 31, 2006) A Compromise Agreement was executed between the Zuzuarreguis
and the NHA in Civil Case No. 26804. The Compromise Agreement,
FACTS: stipulated among other things, that the just compensation of the
The petitioners, Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor, seek Zuzuarregui properties would be at P19.50 per square meter payable
the reversal and annulment of the Decision and Resolution of the in NHA Bonds. On 27 December 1985, the NHA Legal Department,
Court of Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and 6 February 2002, through Atty. Jose B. H. Pedrosa, released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas,
respectively. in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis, the amount of P20,000,000.00 in NHA
The case had their beginnings in 1977 when the National Housing Bearer Bonds as "partial payment for several parcels of land with a
Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the total area of 1,790,570.36 square meters located in Antipolo, Rizal".
Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal, with a On 25 August 1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis new
total land area of 1,790,570.36 square meters, more or less. the counsel, Jose F. Gonzalez, to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, demanding
Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas that the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to
and Santiago N. Pastor, to represent them in Civil Case No. 26804. bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days from receipt,
This was sealed by a Letter-Agreement dated 22 April 1983. under pain of administrative, civil and/or criminal action. Attys.
Roxas and Pastor answered via a letter dated 21 September 1987 meter, they stress that the amount that should go to the Zuzuarreguis
explaining their side of the story. They stated therein, among other for their 1,790,570.36 square meters property should be
things, that the amount that they got seems huge from the surface, P30,439,696.10, and that in fact the Zuzuarreguis have received
but it just actually passed their hands, as it did not really go to them. P30,520,000.00. The Letter-Agreement dated 10 December 1985
On 29 September 1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis through should thus stand as law between the parties. Since this Letter-
Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., to Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago Agreement, which was "as plain and simple as can be such that there
N. Pastor, informing the latter that their services as counsels of the is no need for any further construction," already fixed the amount
Zuzuarreguis in the expropriation proceedings filed by the NHA, that would go to the Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per square meter), then it
docketed as Civil Case No. 26804, was being formally terminated. should be so.
Apparently unsatisfied with the explanation of Attys. Roxas and Respondents Roxas and Pastor retained for themselves the amount of
Pastor, the Zuzuarreguis filed a civil action for Sum of Money and P3,980,000.00 which represented the agreed attorneys fees of Roxas
Damages on 14 November 1989 before the RTC, Quezon City, and Pastor at P2.50 per square meter. The amount of P20,000,000.00
against the NHA, Jose B. H. Pedrosa, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas and representing the yield of all the bearer bonds was, in the words of the
Atty. Santiago N. Pastor. The Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield Court of Appeals, "deliberately hidden" by respondents Roxas and
on the NHA bonds be turned over to them. The Court rendered Pastor from petitioners. By mathematical computation, the
judgment ordering the dismissal of the complaint against all the P20,000,000.00 yield should be proportionately divided at the ratio
defendants. of P17.00 (petitioners) and P2.50 (share of respondents Roxas and
Pastor). Following this ratio of division, of the P20,000,000.00 yield,
ISSUE: P17,073,122.70 should pertain to petitioners and the balance of
Whether or not the Court erred on a Question of Law in holding the P2,926,877.30 to respondents Roxas and Pastor. Add this amount to
Letter-Agreement should stand as law between the parties. the total of P3,980,000.00 at the agreed rate of P2.50 per square
meter, the total attorneys fees of respondents Roxas and Pastor
should be P6,906,877.30, not bad, again in the words of the Court of
HELD: Appeals, for handling "a simple expropriation case which ended up
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, contend in in a compromise agreement." It was, therefore, in error to still deduct
the main that the Zuzuarreguis are only entitled to the amount of the amount of P4,476,426.28 from petitioners share in the yield in
P17.00 per square meter for the 1,790,570.36 square meters the amount of P17,073,122.70 leaving then only P12,596,696.42.
expropriated by the government. This was embodied in the Letter- Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance
Agreement dated 10 December 1985, wherein the Zuzuarreguis upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The
agreed to accept the price of P17.00 per square meter. Besides, Attys. Zuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter-Agreement, fully gave their
Roxas and Pastor contend that the price of P17.00 was even way consent thereto. In fact, it was them (the Zuzuarreguis) who sent the
above the P11.00 that the Zuzuarreguis were willing to accept for said letter to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming
their properties under the Letter of Engagement executed by the all the matters which they had agreed upon previously. There is
parties earlier on 22 April 1983. Computed at P17.00 per square absolutely no evidence to show that anybody was forced into
entering into the Letter-Agreement. Verily, its existence, due the P19.50 per square meter just compensation paid by the NHA
execution and contents were admitted by the Zuzuarreguis must be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
themselves. The second requisite is the object certain. The objects in The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of the
this case are twofold. One is the money that will go to the P19,583,878.00, while Attys. Roxas and Pastor are entitled to
Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per square meter), and two, the money that 12.82% of said amount. The amount corresponding to 87.17% of
will go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor (any and all amount in excess of P19,583,878.00 is P17,073,224.84. This is the yield that the
P17.00 per square meter). There was certainty as to the amount that Zuzuarreguis are entitled to. Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other
will go to the Zuzuarreguis, and there was likewise certainty as to hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16.
what amount will go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor. The cause is the
legal service that was provided by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. In Attys. Roxas and Pastor, in the opinion of this Court, were not
general, cause is the why of the contract or the essential reason shortchanged for their efforts for they would still be earning or
which moves the contracting parties to enter into the contract. actually earned attorneys fees in the amount of P6,987,078.75
It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations (P4,476,425.59 + P2,510,653.16).
arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be returned by Attys.
parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the Roxas and Pastor to the Zuzuarreguis. They can take this out from
stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, the yield in the amount of P19,583,878.00 which they have
public order or public policy, the same are binding as between the appropriated for themselves.
parties. -
In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount
which was equal to forty-four percent (44%) of the just Case: Bildner v. Ilusorio.
compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to (G.R. No. 157384. June 5, 2009)
the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the
P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in FACTS:
the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, A formal complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action
the 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under the against respondent Atty. Manuel R. Singson for alleged misconduct
circumstances. Its reduction is, therefore, in order. This is in was filed through a motion dated June 5, 2003. The disbarment case
accordance with our ruling in the earlier case of Tanhueco v. De stemmed from his alleged attempt to exert influence on presiding
Dumo, where we reduced the amount of attorneys fees from sixty Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in his clients
percent (60%) to fifteen percent (15%), for being excessive and favor in the form of a bribe offer. Documentary evidences were
unreasonable. provided: (1) the transcript of the stenographic notes of the May 31,
It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas and 2000 hearing in the sala of Judge Reyes in Civil Case 4537-R when
Pastor must be equitably reduced. In the opinion of this Court, the the judge made it of record about the attempt to bribe; (2) the
yield that corresponds to the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in affidavit of Judge Reyes dated December 23, 2004 narrating in some
detail how and thru whom the attempt to bribe adverted to was made;
and (3) the affidavit of Atty. Sevilla who admitted having been Whether or not Atty. Paas has committed violation/s against
approached by Atty. Singson to intercede for his case pending with the Code of Professional Responsibility by using her wifes office
Judge Reyes. Significantly, Atty. Singson admitted having made address.
phone calls to Judge Reyes, either in his residence or office in
Baguio City during the period material. HELD:
The court found Atty. Paas guilty of using misleading and
ISSUE: deceptive address that had no other purpose other than to impress
Whether or not Atty. Manuel R. Singson has acted in such a that he had close ties to a member of the judiciary, violating of
way to influence the court to rule in his clients favor. Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court
emphasized the need to rely on the merits of a lawyers case, instead
HELD: of banking on his relationship with a member of the bench which
The court states that there is a well-grounded reason that tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
Atty. Singson attempted to influence Judge Reyes through the The court added that it was unprofessional and dishonorable to
intercession of Atty. Sevilla, a close family friend of Judge Reyes. misuse a public office to enhance a lawyers prestige.
The conduct of Atty. Singson is not acceptable in the legal -
profession, in violation of Canon 13. Case: FOODSPHERE INC. vs. ATTY.
- (A.C. No. 7199. July 22 2009)

Case: Paas v. Almaves. FACTS:

(A.M. No. P-03-1690. April 4, 2003) Foodsphere, Inc. is a corporation engaged in meat processing
-manufacturer and distributor of CDO canned goods and grocery
FACTS: products. While the respondent, Atty. Melanio Batas Mauricio is a
In a case for inhibition of Judge Paas it was revealed that writer and columnist of tabloids, a television and radio program host.
Judge Paas husband, Atty. Paas, was using his wifes office as his On June 2004, Alberto Cordero complained about the quality
office address. Copies of a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, of the CDO Liver Spread, found to be sour and soon discovered a
specifically notices from Pasay RTC Branch 109 and from the colony of worms inside the can. Bureau of Food and Drug
Supreme Court with respect to the case of People vs. Louie Manabat, Administration Laboratory examination confirmed the presence of
et al, showed that Atty. Paas had undoubtedly used the address parasites in the liver spread. Cordero demanded P150,000 as
Room 203, Hall of Justice, Pasay City, address of Judge Paas. In a damages, but Foodsphere refused to heed the demand, instead
Supplemental Affidavit executed by Judge Paas on January 24, 2002, offered to return actual medical and incidental expenses supported by
she admitted that her husband did use her office as his office address. receipts. The offer was turned down and threatened to bring the
matter to the attention of the media. Mauricio proposed to
ISSUE: Foodsphere to settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 of which would
go to the Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation, and directed
them to place paid advertisements in his tabloids and radio and stating that murder is non-bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a
television programs. Otherwise, he threatened them to proceed with motion for reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence,
the publication of articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies, respondent
and defects to Foodsphere and its products. caused the publication of an article in the August 18, 2003 issue of
Foodsphere filed a complaint for disbarment and criminal Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to the
complaints against Mauricio for libel and threatening to publish libel media, after he was ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00
under the Revised Penal Code. Mauricio continuously attacked this time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again Judge Tan
Foodsphere in his columns and radio and television programs. and his disposition on the proceedings of People v. Luis Bucalon
Plaza.

ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mauricio is guilty of violating Rule Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of
13.02 of CPR where a lawyer shall not make public statements in professional conduct.
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party. (Despite the pendency of civil case against HELD:
him, he continued with his attacks against complainant and its Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the code of
products) professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02 which states that a
lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding
HELD: a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
YES. Atty. Mauricio was suspended from the practice of law party. That instead of resorting to the available judicial remedies
for three years and warned that petitions of the same or similar acts before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has degraded the dignity and authority
will be dealt with more severely. of the court and the presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in
- the administration of justice when he resorted to media and declared
his complaints there.
Case: RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO. -
(A.C. No. 7006. October 9 2007)
FACTS: CANON 14
The administrative case has its roots from the case of People
v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the sala of Judge Jose Manuel Case: ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO v. ATTY. ROSENDO
Tan, Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon MENESES III.
was found to be guilty of homicide and not murder with the evidence (CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998)
as basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that
amount of bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor and FACTS:
deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests
 Frankwell Management and Consultant Inc., a group of scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his
companies which includes Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc., professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good
engaged the legal services of Atty. Rosendo Meneses III. One of the faith on his part is exacted.
pending litigations handled by him was the case of People vs. Lai -
Chan Kow, a.k.a. Wilson Lai, and Arthur Bretana. He received an
amount of P50,000 from the accused in the said case, to a certain Case: VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, et al vs. ATTY. AMADO R.
Gleason, as for an out-of-court settlement and a motion to dismiss FOJAS.
the case. Despite repeated requests, respondent failed to present his (A.C. No. 4103. September 7, 1995)
client the receipt and accordingly, there is no motion to dismiss filed
in the RTC. The supposed amicable settlement was also not finalized
and concluded. Despite repeated demands for an explanation, FACTS:
Meneses deliberately ignored the pleas of herein complainant. The Veronica S. Santiago is the president of the FEUFA.
Commission ordered him to submit an answer but instead filed a Santiago and some officers of the association alleges that Paulino
motion to dismiss the case which is therefore denied. Respondent Salvador be expelled from the union. The latter filed with the DOLE
also failed to attend hearings despite due notice, and several a complaint to declare illegal his expulsion. Salvadors complaint is
postponements which declared the case submitted for resolution. affirmed and the union is directed to reinstate him. Subsequently, he
filed with the RTC a complaint for damages and attorneys fees,
ISSUE: docketed as Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. As the complainants
Whether or not respondent should be suspended from the counsel, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case and was
practice of law for his misconduct and unfitness for confidence and granted. Salvador filed for motion for reconsideration and was
trust reposed on him as an officer of the Court approved, also requiring the complainants to file their answer.
Instead of filing an answer, respondent filed a motion for
RULING: reconsideration and a petition for certiorari. Both were denied and
Yes. Respondent is herein suspended from the practice of the complainants herein were declared in default for failure to answer
law for three (3) years and is ordered to return the P50,000 pesos he in the said case. Respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order
received from petitioner. Failure on his part to comply thereof, of default but to no avail. Thereafter, RTC rendered a decision
resulted in his disbarment. ordering the complainants to pay for damages, fees and cost of suit.
In violation of Canon 14 of the CPR, he had failed to inform
his client of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable ISSUE:
time to his clients request. His misconduct also constitutes a gross Whether or not the respondent committed culpable
violation of his oath as a lawyer which imposes the duty to delay no negligence in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil
man for money or malice. In relation to Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Case No. 3526-V-91
Code, he also miscarried to account for all money or property
collected or received from his client. As a lawyer, he should be RULING:
 Yes. The respondent committed culpable negligence in
failing to comply with his duty to file an answer in Civil Case No.
3526-V-91 and for inconsistent reasons as to why he failed to do so. HELD:
In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent The Supreme Court holds that respondent did not gravely
invoked forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and pressure of abuse its discretion in issuing the subject Resolutions as the issuance
legal work, while in his Comment in this case, he attributes it to is not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. At the time of PAO's
honest mistake and excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to appointment, the accused did not want to avail themselves of any
question the denial order of the trial court. counsel; hence, respondent exercised a judgment call to protect the
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as constitutional right of the accused to be heard by themselves and
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his counsel during the trial of the cases.
client. He has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to
Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Subsequently, respondent reduced the number of PAO
- lawyers directed to represent the accused, in view of the engagement
of new counsels de parte, but retained two of the eight PAO lawyers
Case: PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MAXIMO B. USITA, JR. obviously to meet such possible exigency as the accused again
and WILFREDO C. ANDRES vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, relieving some or all of their private counsels.
SPECIAL DIVISION
(G.R. Nos. 154297-300, February 15, 2008) In any event, since these cases of the accused in the
Sandiganbayan have been finally resolved, this petition seeking that
PAO, the only remaining petitioner, be relieved as counsel de oficio
FACTS: therein has become moot.
The case is a petition for Certiorari alleging that the
Sandiganbayan, Special Division, committed grave abuse of -
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
Resolutions retaining the petitioners as counsels de oficio of then Case: RUEL TUANO Y HERNANDE vs. PEOPLE OF THE
accused President Joseph Estrada and his son, Jose "Jinggoy" PHILIPPINES|
Estrada. (G.R. No. 205871, September 28, 2016)

ISSUE: FACTS:
The issue is whether or not respondent committed grave On 8 June 2012, the accused Ruel Hernandez was convicted
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in for Violation R.A. 9165. On 16 April 2013, the accused filed a
issuing the subject Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers to act as petition for review on certiorari. On 23 June 2014, an unsigned
counsels de oficio for the accused who are not indigent persons. resolution was issued by the Supreme Court on affirming the
conviction of the accused. On 7 August 2014, accused questioned the one (1) year, four (4) months, and 15 days after its
unsigned resolution and prayed for his acquittal. The accused, occurrence.
through the Public Attorneys Office, filed motion for extension of This Court notes that accused was represented by the
time to reply on 16 September 2015 and reply on 22 September Public Attorney's Office. Notwithstanding their heavy case
2015. On 27 June 2016, the Supreme Court issued a resolution workload and the free legal assistance, they provide to indigents
reconsidering the unsigned resolution and the accused is acquitted and low-income persons, however, counsels from the Public
and ordered to be released. Attorney's Office are still obliged to pursue their cases with
An order for release was issued and sent to the Director of competence and diligence. This is consistent with their
Bureau of Corrections. In a letter dated 15 July 2016, the Court was commitment to public service.
informed that the accused has already died on 1 March 2015, but the Rule 14.04 of the Code of Professional
counsels did not inform the Court of their clients death. Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer who accepts the cause of
a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the
ISSUE: same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying
Whether or not the counsel of the accused violated any of clients.
their duties as officer of court. Counsels for accused have shown inefficiency in the
performance of their duties. Relying on their representations in
HELD: their pleadings, this Court was led to believe that the criminal
Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court provides that the action against accused subsisted. Consequently, this Court issued
counsel is duty-bound to report the death of a party to the court. a resolution even after accused's death. Had counsels for accused
Although the Rule is directly applied more often in civil actions for informed this Court earlier of the death of their client, this Court
the substitution of the deceased party, the rule that the counsel of the would have been saved precious time, effort, and resources,
deceased party must inform the court of the death of his or her client which could have been devoted to other pending cases that call
also properly applies in criminal actions. Regardless of the nature of for this Court's resolution and judgment. Likewise, the parties
the action, courts cannot be expected to assume the death of the party need not have filed the pleadings calling for the resolution of
without the counsel's proper manifestation. accused's Motion for Reconsideration.
Counsels for accused are directed to show cause why no
Counsels for accused were grossly remiss in this duty. disciplinary action should be taken against them for failing to
Accused died on March 1, 2015. However, his counsels inform this Court of accused's death.
continued to file pleadings on his behalf, including a Motion for -
Extension of Time to File Reply dated September 16, 2015 and a
Reply dated September 22, 2015. It was only through the July Case: ABAQUETA vs. FLORIDO.
15, 2016 letter of the Director General of the Bureau of (A.C. No. 5948. January 22, 2003)
Corrections did this Court find out that accused had already died
FACTS:
 An administrative case was filed against Atty. Bernardito A. FACTS:
Florido with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan filed a complaint against Joselito
Bar Discipline. The case prays that appropriate sanctions be imposed M. Silvosa where the former averred that the latter has acted
against Atty. Florido for representing conflict of interests. Atty. unprofessionally having appeared as counsel for the accused in the
Florido was counsel for an earlier case for complainant, Gamaliel same case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor. In light of
Abaqueta and then on a later case, became counsel for Milagros Yap the foregoing, Atty. Catalan points out that Atty. Silvosa has violated
Abaqueta. Such counseling for both parties involved the same Rule 6.03 which states that "A lawyer shall not, after leaving
properties where Atty. Florido made allegations in his later case government service, accept engagement or employment in
which were contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
counsel for his earlier case. service." In Atty. Silvosas defense, he relies on 2.01 which provides
that "A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the cause of
ISSUE: the defenseless or the oppressed" and on Canon 14 which provides
Whether or not the Code of Professional Responsibility that "A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy."
provides lawyers to decline employment as adviser/advocate.
ISSUE:
HELD: Whether or not Atty. Silvosa invocation of Canon 2.01 and
The court, in citing Canons 15.03 which provides that A Canon 14 as his defense is appropriate.
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts, HELD:
and the provisions of rule 14.03 which provides that A lawyer may The court holds that Atty. Silvosa has indeed violated Rule
not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless: 6.03 when he entered into appearance on the Motion to Post Bail
a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or Bond Pending Appeal. Atty. Silvosa forgot Rule 15.03 which
competently; or provides that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
prospective client, or between a present client and the disclosure of facts." Thus, finding his reliance on the said Canons
prospective client, stresses that no lawyer is obliged to act as (2.01 and 14) unacceptable.
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his -
client, a lawyer has the right to decline employment
specifically in cases which involve conflict of interests. Case: BLANZA & PASION vs. ATTY. ARCANGEL.
- (A.C. No. 4920. September 5, 1997)

Case: CATALAN JR. vs. SILVOSA . FACTS:

(A.C. No. 7360. July 24, 2012) Complainants, Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion, ask the
Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Agustin
Arcangel, who volunteered to help them in their respective pension the Photostat services, the respondent has failed to live up to that
claims, for professional non-feasance for (1) his failure to attend to ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait, and
complainants' pension claims for six years; (2) his failure to hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their
him, and (3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging
of her documents. indefinitely. Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed.
Respondent admitted having received the documents from -
complainants but explained that it was for photo stating purposes
only. He alleged that his failure to return it was due to the
complainants refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photo Case: ENDAYA vs. OCA.
stating costs. Respondent contends that he was not obliged to follow (A.C. No. 3967. September 3 2003)
up complainants pension since there was no agreement for
his compensation as their counsel. FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio
ISSUE: Endaya and his wife. At the beginning of the preliminary conference,
Whether or not respondent is bound to observe the same spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the
standard of conduct governing his relations with his paying clients Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case.
when he voluntarily offered his services according to Rule14.04 of At the continuation of the preliminary conference, Oca filed motion
Canon 14 of CPR. for amendment of answer. The Motion was then denied. The judge
ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers, and
HELD: the court also said that 30 days after submission of the last paper or
upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore on the case. Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
not entitled to attorneys fees, nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed
clients case with all due diligence and zeal. By volunteering his because those who filed the case were not really parties-in-interest.
services, he has established a client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again.
has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely The RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses Endaya were ordered
complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya
law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not
model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative
services. Despite the dismissal of the charges against the respondent complaint.
because complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in
filing their respective claims for their failure to cooperate and pay for ISSUE:
 Whether or not Oca committed professional misconduct
FACTS:
HELD: The complainants are related to the petitioners in G.R.
Yes. He was suspended for 2 months from practice of law. In No.152621-23 in whose behalf the respondent filed a Petition for
his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in Review on Certiorari. The respondent allegedly mishandled the said
the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the answer. petition which resulted to its denial with finality by the Court.
Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his Furthermore, it was claimed that the respondent did nothing to
complaint. The Supereme Court ordered Oca to file his rejoinder, but prevent the period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing and even
then, Atty. Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that withdrew from the case without the complainants knowledge.
he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it In his Comment, the respondent said he had no formal
was no longer necessary. In the IBP investigation, Oca only appeared engagement and he was not the original counsel. He stresses that his
once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. filing of the petition was done within the reglementary period and
The facts show that the respondent failed to employ every legal and all these were done without proper and adequate remuneration.
honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally
failing to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent ISSUE:
practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight Whether or not committed gross misconduct or negligence in
for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A handling G.R. No. 152621-23?
lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client
relationship is terminated. Ocas story shows his appalling HELD:
indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of respect for the The Supreme Court finds the respondent falling short of the
courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. However high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must perform to
Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a safeguard the rights of his clients. The Court notices that the petition
non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer. He also assured was indeed filed out of time. Moreover, in not filing the Notice of
Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never Withdrawal himself and instead relegating the job to the accused (in
gave anything to Oca to support their claim. Lastly, the Public G.R. No. 152621-23) through a letter he claims he sent to a third
Attorneys Office is burdened with a heavy caseload, and given these party to be forwarded to his clients and making it difficult for them
circumstances the professional conduct of Oca does not warrant to reach him, made him negligent in handling the case. The Court
disbarment. also does not appreciate how the respondent described the shooting
- incident that the accused were engaged in wherein he branded his
own clients as being the culprits that salvaged the victims. Rule
Case: MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN, and 14.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs the
CARLOS JOAQUIN vs. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. lawyers not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the
PORTUGAL. latter.
(A.R. No. 6155. March 14, 2006)
 The respondent is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice review. Despite this extension, respondent failed to file the petition
of law for three (3) months. within the reglementary period. Further, the failure of the
- complainant to settle the balance of P1,000 of his fee was not
sufficient to justify his failure of respondent to comply with his
Case: ROSITA TAN vs. ATTY. JOSE L. LAPAK. professional obligation which does not depend for compliance on the
(G.R. No. 93707. January 23, 2001) payment of the lawyers fee. Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer who accepts the cause of a
FACTS: person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same
The complainant sought the legal services of the respondent standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.
regarding Civil Case No. 5295 for filing the petition for review on The respondent is REPRIMANDED and ORDERED to
certiorari on a Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing refund the complainant the amount of P4,000.
complainants appeal. However, when the complainant confronted -
the respondent about the result of the appeal, the latter just told her to
wait patiently for an update on the aforementioned motion. When the CANON 15
complainant visited Manila and dropped by the Supreme Court to
inquire about her case, she learned that the respondent failed to file Case: LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO vs. ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING
the petition, therefore, her appeal got dismissed. (A.C. No. 6174. November 16, 2011)
The respondent in his Comment said that he learned that the
Resolution of CA already became final when he went to the CA to FACTS:
get the certified true copies of the Resolution. Further, the Complainant Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty.
complainant was only able to pay P4,000 instead of the agreed Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Arlene W.
P5,000 lawyers fee, and even demanded the money back when she Koa. Respondent drafted a demand letter to Ms. Koa demanding
had misgivings and lukewarm feelings in bringing the case to the payment of the checks. After sometime, Justo received a copy of
Supreme Court after the dismissal. Motion for Consolidation filed by respondent for and behalf of Ms.
Koa for he had therefore appeared as her counsel. Complainant avers
ISSUE: that respondent violated the CPR by representing conflicting
Whether or not the respondent committed a gross interests. In respondents defense, he is a close friend of the opposing
misconduct and negligence in handling the complainants parties in the criminal case and his involvement in the joint
case. proceedings is only to assume the role of moderator or arbiter of the
parties, and denied receiving any professional fee for the services he
HELD: rendered to the complainant. Respondent also claims that his
Contrary to what the respondent has stated in his Comment, intention is only to help the parties achieve an out-of-court settlement
the Resolution of the CA had not yet attained finality and the Court and possible reconciliation.
even granted their motion for extension of time to file the petition for
ISSUE: president, respondent filed a complaint against her, in behalf of AIB
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of for replevin and damages while serving as counsel in the pending
the CPR ejectment case. He convinced complainants brother to organize
another security agency, SESSI, where the respondent served as
HELD: president. In RA No. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law), it
Yes. The Court resolved to suspend the respondent from the prohibits a person from having an interest in more than one security
practice of law for one (1) year, with a warning that a petition of the agency. Therefore, he is guilty of representation of conflicting
same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty. He interests by serving as legal counsel of AIB and as president of
violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR which states that, "A SESSI but claims that his involvement in the ejectment case and the
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written replevin case are unrelated cases involving different issues and
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. parties.
Respondent accommodated both of the opposing parties in the
criminal case alleging that due to non-payment of complainant any ISSUE:
professional fee, there exists no lawyer-client relationship between Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for
them and that he drafted the demand letter only as a personal favor to representing conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets
complainant who is a close friend. of the legal profession
A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the
close friendship between complainant and respondent. The RULING:
relationship was established the moment complainant sought legal Yes. The respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing
advice and by drafting the demand letter, respondent further affirmed conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR.
such relationship. Absence of monetary consideration does not He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, A lawyer shall not
pursuing cases with conflicting interests. represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
- concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. In view of the
contrary, respondent failed to present evidence whether or not
Case: FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. complainant expressly gave consent to his continued representation
BAMBA in the ejectment case and also failed to show that he fully disclosed
(A.C. No. 6708. August 25, 2005) the facts to both of his clients as required under the same rule of this
Code. The prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and
FACTS: good taste. It is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It
Felicitas S. Quiambao was the president of AIB, and behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence,
procured the legal services of Atty. Nestor A. Bamba for corporate but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for
and personal affairs. Bamba acted as her counsel in an ejectment case only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
in Civil Case No. 11928. About six months after she resigned as AIB
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of use against the former client the confidential information acquired by
justice. her during the previous employment.
- It was clear from the start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not
take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her legal
Case: ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES, JR. vs. ATTY. SANIATA representation of Turqueza in the latters administrative charge
LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE against Seares, Jr. There was no indication whatsoever of her having
(Adm. Case No. 9058. November 14, 2012) gained any confidential information during her previous engagement
by Seares, Jr. that could be used against Seares, Jr. as the two cases
FACTS: was entirely foreign against each other.
Respondent Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was was the legal counsel The Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against
of the complainant Robert Seares, Jr. when the complainant filed a Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate for utter lack of merit; and
protest in his lost in the May 2007 election. This protest subsequently admonishes the petitioner for filing the malicious complaint.
dismissed. In May 2010 election, the complainant run and won. -
Barely two-months in office, a certain Carlito Turqueza charged him
with abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Case: ROMEO H. SIBULO vs. ATTY. STANLEY R. CABRERA
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra and the respondent represented (A.C. No. 4218, July 20, 2000)
Mr. Turqueza as his legal counsel.
FACTS:
ISSUE: In a case entitled Brenda Sucaldito v. Reynaldo
Whether the Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violated Code of Marcelo, et al, defendant therein retained the services of respondent
Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interest. Cabrera. Subsequently, however, Cabrera also entered his
appearance as counsel for Sucaldito in the same case, without
HELD: withdrawing his appearance as counsel for Marcelo. Hence, the
Atty. Gonzales-Alzates legal representation of Turqueza present administrative complaint.
neither resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to
Seares, Jr. as his former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of ISSUE:
unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of
as an attorney. Representing conflicting interests would occur only Professional Responsibility?
where the attorneys new engagement would require her to use
against a former client any confidential information gained from the HELD:
previous professional relation. The prohibition did not cover a
situation where the subject matter of the present engagement was Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained
totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney. To of, when he stated in his Answer that he merely accepted a case from
constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally a plaintiff and at the same time he was the counsel as intervenor of
one of the defendants. Such a revelation is a categorical admission The court held that there was indeed a violation of
that the respondent represented two conflicting interests, which the said provisions of the Code of Professional responsibility, that
representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of the respondents represented conflicting interests. Conflict of interests
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is said to be present when a lawyer argues for one client and such
was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.
civil case. When he agreed to represent the defendant and later on, The court states that accepting to represent a new client by the
also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no longer serve either of respondent firm in filing a criminal case against its former client was
his said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily unethical, as it would possibly create a conflict of interest thus
conflict with his duty to the defendant. The relation of attorney and opening a possibility of injuring the complainant in the qualified
client is based on trust, so that double dealing which could theft case.
sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided. -
-
Case: Fajardo v. Dela Torre
Case: Anglo v. Valencia (A.C. No. 6295. April 14, 2004)
(A.C. No. 10567. February 25, 2015)
FACTS:
FACTS: Complainant Josefina B. Fajardo filed a complaint
A complaint-affidavit dated December 4, 2009 was filed by charging respondent of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Negligence
Wilfredo Anglo charging Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia and company in the Performance of Profession after learning that the petition for
of violating the code of professional responsibility, specifically the review with the Court of Appeals she instructed respondent to file
rule against conflict of interest. On September 18, 2009 a criminal was dismissed only when her opponent, Felisa Imperial, filed a
case for qualified theft was filed against complainant and his wife by motion for new trial where the said dismissal of the petition was
FEVE Farms Agricutural Corporation acting through a certain attached. Respondent has failed to inform complainant of the actual
Michael Villacorta who was represented by Valencia Ciocon Dabao status of the appeal. Moreover, repeated failure to comply with the
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office, the same lawful orders, specifically filing of explanation. Such misgiving of
law firm which handled the complainant labor cases- for which labor respondent Atty. Danilo Dela Torre runs afoul with Canon 15, 16
cases impleaded Anglo as respondent. and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation of pertinent provisions Whether or not respondent Atty. Danilo Dela Torres failure
of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 15, has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 15.03.
HELD:
HELD:
 The Court holds that the relationship of lawyer-client is one Whether or not respondent Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr.
of confidence, where such confidence thrives on the ever present violated Canon 15 and Rules 15.06 of the Code of Professional
need to adequately and fully inform ones client of the development Responsibility.
of the case and not to be left in the dark. It is through this that the
trust, loyalty, fairness and confidence are protected and upheld. HELD:
Moreover the court states that once a lawyer agrees to take up the The Supreme Court ruled that complainant correctly alleged
cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be that respondent violated his oath under Canon 15 to serve his client
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Depriving with competence and diligence for filing a case of estafa when it
complainant of the information of the development of the case should be known that a breach of contract is merely a civil liability,
clearly showed that the respondent has failed to do his duty and has and for filing the case before the Regional Trial Court when the
clearly violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. proper forum should have been the Municipal Trial Court, the claim
- amounting only to Php36,000 pursuant to the amended Batas
Pambansa Blg. 219. Furthermore, after the dismissal of both cases,
Case: JULIAN PENILLA vs. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR. respondent was plainly negligent and did not apprise complainant of
(A.C. No. 9149. Sep 4, 2013) status and progress, showing no importance to the cause despite
follow-ups, resulting to lack of professionalism for negligence and
FACTS: neglect, and violating Rules 15.06
The case is an administrative complaint filed against -
respondent Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. for violation of the Lawyers
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for gross Case: GONZALES vs. ATTY. CABACUNA
misconduct in the performance of his duty as a lawyer. (A.C. No. 6836. January 23 2006)
Respondent was the counsel of complainant Julian Penilla in
a case of breach of contract entered with Spouses Rey and Evelyn FACTS:
Garin who failed to oblige with their duties to repair complainants Gonzales was a complainant in civil case involving
Volkswagen automobile despite full payment. Due the spouses collection for sum of money represented by CABACUNA LAW
default, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa against the OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabacuna handling the case. She won
spouses and later, a civil case for Specific Performance and Damages said case. Defendant was ordered to pay her P17,310. Sheriff Romeo
when the first case failed, all in all costing complainant around Gatcheco, failed to implement the writ of execution. Gonzales filed a
Php50,000 for attorneys fees and filing fees, and a bottle of Carlos complaint against the sheriff. Sheriff together with his wife went to
Primero I upon respondents request as a bribe to Asst. City Gonzales house and harassed her.
Prosecutor Fortuno, promising the success of the case. Gonzales then filed criminal cases against them. Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, brother of Atty Edmar (lawyer of Gonzales),
ISSUE: represented the spouses in the criminal case. Gonzales then filed
complaint against Atty Marcelino for conflict of interest
 The complainant filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and
ISSUE: Balageo wherein the respondent served as the latters legal counsel.
Whether or not Atty Marcelino Cabucana is guilty of conflict In his Comment to the disbarment case filed by the
of interest complainant, the respondent claimed that prior to the Retainer
Agreement with the complainant, Balageo already was one of his
HELD: clients in several cases and it was Atty. Sabling who convinced the
Yes. A lawyer is barred from representing conflicting complainant to sign and accept the retainer proposal - and he did not
interest: take advantage of any information regarding the business of the
a. except if with written consent after full disclosure complainant.
b. prohibition founded on principles of public policy and
good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust ISSUE:
and confidence of the highest degree, and
c. to avoid appearance of treachery and double-dealing Whether or not the respondent should be held
The Court said that the rule on conflicting interest still administratively liable for violatingthe Code on Professional
applies even if represented by law firm. There may be instances Responsibility (CPR).
where lawyers cannot decline representation but they cannot be made
to labor under conflict of interest. Could have gotten written consent HELD:
of both parties if no lawyer was really available. Based on the established facts, the respondent transgressed
- Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
providing a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
Case: DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALONG L. written consent of all concerned given aster a full disclosure of
DAVIS facts. This rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and
(A.R. No. 9395. November 12, 2014) has no intention to represent conflicting interests.
The respondent is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice
FACTS: of law for six (6) months with a stern warning.
The complainant is a bar owner and operator who is leasing -
the building space from Pinlac for the establishment. Being a
delinquent in paying monthly rentals, the latter terminated the lease Case: ALMIRA C. FORONDA vs. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ
and offered the place to Balageo who accepted. Pinlac together with (A.R. No. 9976, June 25, 2014)
Balageo and the respondent went the complainants bar, did an
inventory and informed the latter that Balageo would take over the FACTS:
operation of the bar. Before this happened, the complainant signed a The complainant engaged the respondents services in
Retainer Agreement with the Davis and Sabling Law office instituting the nullification of her marriage. Respondent was late on
(respondents law office) which is still subsisting and in force. filing the petition for annulment. Furthermore, he borrowed money
from the complainant for a lending business where he is a partner.
He issued dishonored checks when the complainant demanded the CANON 16
money she lent him and the accompanying interest. This resulted to a
criminal case (B.P. Blg. 22) against filed by the complainant against Case: EDUARDO P. MENESES vs. ATTY. RODOLFO P.
the respondent.. MACALINO
The respondent denied most of the allegations, including the (A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006)
dishonored checks and claimed that the delay in filing for the
nullification of the marriage was caused by the complainant who, he FACTS:
said, have instructed him to delay the filing due to a possible The Atty. Rodolfo Macalino offered his legal services to
reconciliation. Eduardo Meneses with a package deal of P60,000 to secure the
release of complainants car from the Bureau of Customs. Meneses
ISSUE: then paid P10,000 for processing the papers and P30,000 to expedite
Whether or not the respondent should be held the release of car. However, the respondent failed to furnish receipts
administratively liable for violating the Code on Professional on both times and even failed to update the complainant on the
Responsibility (CPR). matter. Meneses went to NBI and filed a complaint against estafa to
Atty. Macalino but found insufficient evidence to prosecute the
HELD: respondent. NBI advised the complainant to file a complaint for
The respondents acts of lying about why the filing of the disbarment against the respondent.
petition for annulment was delayed and not fulfilling his promise to
settle his obligation when he borrowed money from the complainant ISSUE:
as well as issuing worthless checks seriously breached the Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred for violating
complainants trust. The Court finds the respondent liable for the lawyers oath.
violation of Canon 15 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions HELD:
with his client. The Supreme Court ruled, as recommended by IBP, that the
The respondent is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice respondent was guilty of violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule
of law for six (6) months with a stern warning. 16.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- because (a) respondent failed to inform and respond to inquiries of
the complainant regarding the status of the case, (b) respondent
failed to account and return the money he received from
complainant, and (c) respondent failed to file an answer and attend
the hearings before the IBP. Considering the lack of prior
administrative record and the complainants prayer, the Court
suspended the complainant from the practice of law for one year,
ordered to return the full amount of 20,000 with interest at 12% per The Supreme Court affirms with the findings of IBP that
annum from he date of promulgation of this decision until full respondent is administratively liable but extends IBPs
payment, and directed to submit to the Court proof of payment. recommendation from 6 months to a year of suspension due to his
- failure to comply with Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code.
Respondent did not only accomplish his undertaking under the
Case: AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA vs. ATTY. BARTOLOME retainer, but likewise failed to give an explanation for such non-
C. LAWSIN performance despite the length of time given for him to do so.
(A.C. No. 7965, November 13, 2013) -

FACTS: Case: EMILIA O. DHALIWAL vs. ATTY. ABELARDO B.

Azucena Segovia-Ribaya and Atty. Bartolome Lawsin DUMAGUING
entered into a retainership agreement for the processing of (A.C. No. 9390 (Resolution), August 1, 2012)
registration and delivery of the certificate of title over a certain
parcel of land. Respondent acted as the representative of Heirs of the FACTS:
late Isabel Segovia and received P15,000 for litigation and P39,000 Complainant engaged the services of the respondent. The
for land registration expenses. In the lapse of 3 years, it was alleged complainant procured two managers check with a total value of
that respondent failed to fulfill his undertaking to register the subject P311,819.94 and consigned the same to HLURB after the
land and deliver to complainant the certificate of the title over the complainants request to suspend the payment to Fil-Estate
same. Complainant decided to withdraw the subject amount and sent Development, Inc. Subsequently, the respondent withdrew the
2 demand letters but all to no avail. Respondent asserted that the consigned checks. HLURB promulgated decision adverse to the
complainants brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount complainant. Thereafter, complainant made demands upon
of P7,500.00 which the latter purportedly paid to the land surveyor. respondent to return and account to her the amounts previously
He also found out that he could not perform his undertaking under consigned with the HLURB. Respondent did not comply. Thus,
the retainer because the ownership of the subject land was still under complainant prays that respondent be disbarred.
litigation. He also wanted to return the balance of the subject amount
but it was prevented because the complainant shouted and called him ISSUE:
names in the presence of his staff in his office.
Whether or not there are grounds for the disbarment of the
ISSUE: respondent?
Whether or not the respondent should be held
administratively liable for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 HELD:
of the Code. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as
payment for the balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land as
HELD: in the present case, but not used for the purpose, should be
immediately returned. "A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the
funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the ISSUE:
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in Did the respondent violated Code of Professional
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross Responsibility or not?
violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves HELD:
punishment." Respondent's responsibility to the complainants is
Since respondent withdrew the consignation of the BPI unequivocally stated in Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of
manager's checks in the total amount of P311,891.94 from the Professional Responsibility. The four rules governing this situation
HLURB and the same was not used to settle the balance of the were: he owed candor to his clients; he was bound to account for
purchase price of the parcel of land purchased by complainant from whatever money he received for and from them; as a lawyer, he was
Fil-Estate, then reimbursement with legal interest was properly obligated to keep his own money separate from that of his clients;
ordered by the IBP. and, although he was entitled to a lien over the funds in order to
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for satisfy his lawful, fees, he was also bound to give prompt notice to
six months and return the amount P311, 891.94 plus legal interest. his clients of such liens and to deliver the funds to them upon
- demand or when due. Respondent violated each and every one of
these rules.
Case: DANIEL MORTERA, TERESITA MORTERA, Respondent cited the need to protect the money for the
FERDINAND MORTERA and LEO MORTERA vs. ATTY. unpaid services he has rendered but did not present any evidence at
RENATO B. PAGATPATAN all to prove his claim. Thus, these claims should be ignored.
(A.C. No. 4562, June 15, 2005) Because the respondent admitted concealing his clients'
money, the respondent is suspended from practice of law for two
FACTS: years and return the P150,000 he received on the complainants
The complainants, then the plaintiffs, sued their mother, one behalf.
Renato C. Aguilar and one Philip Arnold Palmer Bradfield for the -
rescission of a contract of sale. They secured judgment under which
Aguilar was to pay them P155,000 for the property.
The respondent then, under a secret agreement with Aguilar,
he accepted P150,000 from the latter as partial payment of the
judgment sum, issuing a receipt for the amount. He then deposited
the money in his personal bank account without the knowledge of Case: Agot v. Rivera
complainants. Until now, respondent adamantly refuses to surrender (A.C. No. 8000. August 5, 2014)
the money to complainants, despite the successive Orders of the RTC
and the Court of Appeals. FACTS:
 Complainant Chamelyn Agot filed a Complaint-Affidavit (A.C. No. 9154 (Resolution). March 19, 2012)
against Respondent Atty. Luis P. Rivera charging him of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyers oath for FACTS:
misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return her Complainant, Aurora D. Cerdan, filed an affidavit-complaint
money despite several demands. Complainant sought for services of against Atty. Carlo Gomez for violating the Code of Professional
respondent who represented himself as an immigration lawyer. On responsibility. Complainant sought for the legal advice of respondent
November 17, 2007, they entered into contract whereby respondent with regard to the properties left by her partner, Benjamin Rufino.
undertook to facilitate and secure the release of a US Visa in favor of She alleged that she paid Atty. Gomez PhP 152,000.00 but only PhP
complainant. Complainant thereafter paid respondent the amount of 100,000 was reflected on the receipt. Moreover, it was alleged that
PhP 350,000.00 as down payment. Respondent however failed to Atty. Gomez was given a special power of attorney to settle Rufinos
perform his undertaking within the agreed period, nor was he able to savings account in a particular branch of a bank. Respondent
secure an interview for the complainant. Moreover respondent was thereafter remitted to complainant her share of PhP 290,000.00 from
negligent in returning the said down payment. the said account. Moreover, it was alleged that Atty. Gomez has
acted in excess of the authority conferred to him by complainant.
ISSUE: Atty. Gomez is not authorized to enter into settlement with respect to
Whether or not respondent has violated the Code of the said properties, as it was not stipulated in the agreed special
Professional Responsibility thus be held administratively liable. power of attorney. Records reveal that the money remitted to
complainant was substantially less than the actual share of
HELD: complainant which is supposedly valued at PhP 442,547.88.
The court holds that respondent has violated a number of
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility namely Canons ISSUE:
1, 18 and 16. Respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 Whether or not the acts committed by Atty. Gomez gravely
of the same code when he failed to return the said PhP 350,000.00 violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.
the complainant paid him. The court explained that lawyer-client
relationship highly involves trust and prescribes a lawyer great HELD:
fidelity and good faith. Such relationship obliges a lawyer to account The court holds that a lawyer-client relationship is highly
for the money and/or property collected or received from his client. fiduciary in nature and it requires a high standard of conduct and
Failure to return the same, as gleaned in the case, gives rise to the demands utmost fidelity, candor, fairness, and good faith. Moreover
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use. The Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 provide that lawyer shall hold in trust all
court finds that respondent grossly violated general ethics as well as moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
the professional ethics having acted as such. possession; shall account for all money or property collected or
- received for or from the client. By obtaining funds for his client,
Atty. Gomez is obliged to account for and deliver the same when due
Case: Cerdan v. Gomez or upon demand. As records show however, he has evidently failed
to do the same. Consequently, the court cannot tolerate such act of his client that may come into his possession and to account for all
non-observance of the very essence of the code. Thus he is it to be money or property collected or received for or from the client.
held in gross violation of the provisions of the same. Respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts
- given to him by the complainant which amounts to Php95,000. A
lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds or property he
Case: ADELITA B. LLUNAR vs. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT holds for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
(A.C. No. 6484, Jun 16, 2015) appropriated these funds or property for his own use to the prejudice
of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
FACTS: -
The case is a complaint-affidavit by complainant Adelita B.
Llunar against respondent Atty. Romula Ricafort for gross and Case: CELINA F. ANDRADA vs. ATTY. RODRIGO CERA
inexcusable negligence and serious misconduct. (A.C. No. 10187. Jul 22, 2015)
Respondent was hired by the complainant to file a case of
recovery of a parcel of land which, he later on discovered, was never FACTS:
done by the former. Respondent refused to return the full amount the The case is an affidavit-complaint by complainant Celina F.
complainant paid for the filing, reasoning that a complaint for Andrada against respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera for allegedly
annulment of title was actually filed by another lawyer, Atty. Edgar engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in
M. Abitria. Complainant refused to recognize having no knowledge violation of the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility.
of the engagement of Atty. Abitria and considering that the Complainant hired the respondent as representative in an
complaint was three years later when the property could no longer be annulment of marriage case wherein she gave the latter a total of
redeemed, and after discovering that the respondent had actually Php13,000 to process the registration and issuance of her childrens
been suspended indefinitely from the practice of law since the year birth certificates with the NSO and for hiring of a psychologist
2002. and/or the conduct of psychological tests. After several follow ups,
complainant later on discovered that the respondent neither
ISSUE: accomplished both. It was only until a compromised agreement to
dismiss a criminal case for estafa filed against the respondent, that he
Whether or not respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort violated returned the amount of Php17,280 and agreed to secure the said birth
Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. certificates.

HELD: ISSUE:
The Supreme Court ruled the respondent as guilty of Grave Whether or not respondent violated Rule 16.03 of Canon 16
Misconduct in his dealings with his client violating Rule 16.03 of the of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Code of Professional Responsibility, among others, which canon
mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of HELD:
 The Supreme Court sustained the IBP Board of Governors ISSUE:
findings of administrative liability and penalty of one year Whether or not the respondent should be held
suspension from practice of law against the respondent for violation administratively liable for violating the Code on Professional
of Rule 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Responsibility, among others.
Respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when HELD:
he unlawfully withheld the complainant's money and never used it Based on the established facts, the respondent was found to
for its intended purposes, confirming the presumption that the be the one who borrowed the money. It would be illogical for the
respondent misappropriated the funds of his client; and when he complainants to extend that amount without any collateral or any
failed to return the complainants money upon demand. security on the loan to a person they do not know.
- The Court repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
between a lawyer and his client is imbued with trust and confidence.
A lawyers act of asking for a loan, as what the respondent did, is
very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of
clients confidence. The respondent violated Rule 16.04 of Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that a lawyer is
Case: SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION and BLESILDA S. prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the clients
CONCEPCION vs. ATTY.ELMER A. DELA ROSA interests are fully protected. The respondent abused the
(A.R. No.10681. February 13, 2015) complainants trust and confidence and reneged on his obligation.
The respondent is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice
FACTS: of law for three (3) years with a stern warning.
For 11 years, the respondent has been the retained legal -
counsel of the complainants. The former borrowed the amount of
Php2,500,000 from the couple who, believing that the respondent Case: HECTOR TREAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
would return it with interest after five days as he promised, lent the (G.R. No.195002. January 25, 2012)
aforesaid sum.
On the day that he was supposed to give back the money, the FACTS:
respondent failed to pay the complainants. The latter sent a demand This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul
letter and another after the former got ignored. In his Reply to the and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
second demand letter, the respondent claims that a certain Charles (CA) finding the petitioner guilty of estafa on the ground that the
Nault was the real debtor. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which heard the case
Both Nault and the complainants explicitly denied knowing first, had no jurisdiction over such.
each other. The estafa case was instituted because the petitioner was the
legal counsel of a certain Elizabeth about the titling of a property to
her aunt Margarita Alocilja. Elizabeth gave the petitioner P150,000 Case: ROBERTO P. NONATO vs. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M.
but the latter misappropriated and converted it to his own use. FUDOLIN, JR.
(A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015)
ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC Makati City had no jurisdiction over the FACTS:
case.
The father of the complainant, the late Restituto Nonato, was
HELD: the owner of real property at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The
The Court finds that RTC Makati City indeed had no property became a subject of ejectment proceedings before the MTC
jurisdiction over the case as most of the transaction was made in of Hinigaran. Restituto was represented by Atty. Garcia but was
Iloilo City. replaced by Atty. Fudolin during the pre-trial stage. The complainant
Furthermore, it sees fit to point out that the petitioner had alleged that Restituto paid the respondent his acceptance fees but no
blatantly disregarded Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.02 of the Code of formal retainer agreement was executed and did not issue any
Professional Responsibility providing a lawyer shall account for all receipts for the acceptance fees paid. The respondent alleged that he
money or property collected or received for or from the client and a received the minimal acceptance fee of P20,000 and appearance fee
lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his of P1,000, and that he engaged his services to Restituto because they
own and those others kept by him, respectively. were relatives. During the pendency of the case he failed to inform
The petitioners failure to deliver his clients funds or Restituto of the status and developments in the case, Restituto could
properties as they fall due or upon demand and to render an not contact him, and he failed to furnish Restituto copies of the
accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the pleadings, motions and other documents filed with the court. MTC
money does not materialize) constitutes grave misconduct and a dismissed Restitutos complaint. Respondent filed 2 Motions for
gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. Reconsideration, both of which denied. He also averred that he was
His failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the suffering from "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the Fibrillation, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II" and had an
prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. undetected stroke and arterial obstruction.
This impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment. ISSUE:
This petition is GRANTED and this case is referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the initiation of Whether or not the respondent could be held liable for
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. negligence in the performance of duty.
-
HELD:
CANON 17 The Supreme Court adopted the findings of IBP except for
the recommended penalty. The respondent has been remiss in the
performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel and his alibis were While complainants and respondent did not appear during
unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Respondent is then the mandatory conferences set by IBP, the IBP found that the
suspended for 2 years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, respondent violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 of the Code. The Court
Canon 18, and Canon 17 of the Code. He is also warned that the agreed with the IBPs findings that respondent did not competently
commission of similar acts will be dealt more severely and is and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of Ramiscals. The
directed to formally Manifest to the Court the date of receipt which Court believes that the respondent violated the Lawyers Oath which
shall be the starting point of his suspension. contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
- Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. He failed to
discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and
Case: ANGELITO RAMISCAL vs. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO with all good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of
(A.C. No. 10945, February 23, 2016) the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the
administrative investigation of his conduct revealed his
FACTS: irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP.
Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent to -
handle a case in which they were defendants seeking the declaration
of nullity of title to a parcel of land in Isabela. Respondent received Case: FELIX E. EDQUIBAL vs. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR.
P10,000 acceptance fee from them and handled the trial of their case (A.C. No. 5687. February 03, 2005)
until RTC decided in their favor. Plaintiffs appeals to the CA to
which the respondent requested from the complainants an additional FACTS:
P30,000 for the preparation and submission of their appellees brief Edquibal charged Atty. Ferrer with professional misconduct
in the CA. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC but the and neglect of duty. Complainant alleged that he engaged the
respondent did not inform the complainants. They had trouble services of respondent to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed
communicating with respondent. When they finally reached him, he against his sister Delia involving a certain property. His mother
requested for an additional P7,000 as fee for filing a motion for obtained favorable judgments in four cases handled by respondent.
reconsideration which he did not file. Complainants lost their However, in the civil case, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse
property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of to his mother. Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the
P3,391,600. Court of Appeals and that the cost involved is P4,000.00. When
complainant informed respondent that he does not have enough
ISSUE: money, the latter said P2,000.00 would be sufficient for the moment.
Whether or not the respondent may be suspended from the When complainant failed to hear from respondent, he went
practice of law due to his gross misconduct. to the Court of Appeals to follow-up the appealed case. He then
HELD: learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required
appellants brief.
 In his comment, respondent denied that he filed an appeal or performing his duties as their counsel. The complainant alleged,
received P2,000.00. among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often absent during court
hearings but still collected appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the
ISSUE: postponement of trial; (3) failed to file a demurrer to evidence; (4)
Whether or not Atty. Ferrer is guilty of professional failed to present evidence on behalf of the defense; (5) did not inform
misconduct and neglect of duty her and German of the dates of the presentation of defense evidence
and the promulgation of judgment; and (6) erroneously indicated the
HELD: wrong case number in the notice of appeal.
Yes. Records show that respondent was the counsel for the Villaseca refuted the allegations against him. The Integrated Bar of
appellants. There is a need for the client to be adequately and fully the Philippines recommended that Villaseca be suspended for six
informed about the developments in his case. Respondent violated months from the practice of law.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides: ISSUE:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client Whether or not Atty. Villaseca is guilty of negligence.
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. HELD:
Atty. Ferrer is found guilty of professional misconduct and Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
neglect of duty and is suspended from the practice of law for three states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
months. shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
- The Court stressed that the moment Villaseca agreed to
handle the complainants case, he became duty-bound to serve his
Case: MARY ANN T. MATTUS vs. ATTY. ALBERT T. clients with competence and diligence. The Court stated that
VILLASECA Villaseca fell short of what is expected of him as an officer of the
(A.C. No. 7922. October 01, 2013.) Court and showed a wanton and utter disregard to his clients cause.
The Court found him guilty of negligence, in violation, among
FACTS: others, of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Mary Ann T. was suspended from the practice of law for five years.
Mattus against Atty. Albert T. Villaseca for gross and inexcusable -
negligence.
The complainant and her husband, German, were among the Case: WILLIAM ONG - GENATO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ESSEX L.
accused in a case for estafa thru falsification of public document. The SILAPAN, respondent.
spouses engaged the services of Villaseca to represent them. (A.C. No. 4078, Jul 14, 2003)
The complainant maintained that she and German were
convicted due to Villasecas gross and inexcusable negligence in FACTS:
 The lawyer was given a small space within the defendant Essex L. Silapan all refused to do not only
complainants building so he can use it for office space. Eventually, because such acts are immoral and illegal, but also
the complainant entrusted several legal matters to the lawyer. Later, because the complainant confided to him that he was
the lawyer borrowed some money from the complainant so he can really involved in the commission of the crime that
buy a new car, to which the complainant acceded by lending him was charged of in the above-mentioned case.
P200,000.00. The lawyer issued a check in favor of complainant to (emphasis supplied)
cover the first six months interest of the loan. He also executed a
real estate mortgage in favor of the complainant, but did not Complainant felt aggrieved on the allegations made by the lawyer in
surrender the title to the complainant. his answer, alleging that it is irrelevant to the civil action and
Later, the lawyer failed to pay the amortization on his car, violated lawyer-client confidentiality, thus he filed a disbarment case
the financing company sent demand letters to the complainant, hence against the lawyer.
the complainant encashed the checks issued by the lawyer for
payment, but it was dishonored for reason that the account closed. ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyer be made liable for violating the
In his answer to the civil action, the lawyer alleged, quoting lawyer-client relationship if he alleges or imputes illegal activity on
the decision: the part of his client.

12. That on January 29, 1993, before paying for the HELD:
next installment on his car on January 30, 1993, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
defendant Essex L. Silapan asked the complainant to provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
execute a Deed of Sale transferring ownership of the shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The
car to him but the latter said that he will only do so long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose
after the termination of his criminal case at Branch 138 communications made to him in his professional character by a
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, x client, unless the latter consents. The protection given to the client is
x x where he (complainant) wanted Essex L. Silapan, perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
his former counsel in that case, to offer bribe money to nor is it affected by the partys ceasing to employ the attorney and
the members of the review committee of the retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them.
Department of Justice where a petition for review of Be that as it may, respondents explanation that it was
the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was necessary for him to make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to
pending at the time, x x x or, in the event that the said satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his
petition for review is denied, he wanted Essex L. rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was
Silapan to offer bribe money to the prosecutor improper for the respondent to use it against the complainant in the
assigned at the above-mentioned Court, and even to foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein
the presiding Judge, for his eventual acquittal, which and respondents professional competence and legal advice were not
being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself,
especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner HELD:
that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be The Court ruled that that the respondent violated Canon 17
characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness. of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:
The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES
months. FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT
- AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF
THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN
Case: LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO FLORES HIM.
(A.C. No. 4219, Dec 8, 2003) The Court has time and again emphatically stated that the
trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in the
FACTS: lawyer a high standard and an appreciation of his duty to his clients,
Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against his profession, the courts and the public. Every case an attorney
Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992, complainant Schulz engaged in the accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a complaint regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for the latters free. To be sure, any member of the legal fraternity worth his title
failure to deliver the jeep which he sold to Schulz. cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical manner.
Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in acting -
upon his case resulted in his being a defendant rather than a
complainant. He also charged the respondent for collecting excessive Case: FERDINAND A. SAMSON vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA
and unreasonable fees. In support of his charges against the (A.C. No. 6664, Jul 16, 2013)
respondent, he pointed out that he was a Municipal Judge of Negros
Oriental who was dismissed from service after the Marcos Regime. FACTS:
Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and application The case is a disbarment complaint by complainant
of PD No. 1508 which mandates that all disputes between and among Ferdinand A. Samson charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era
residents of the same city or municipality should be brought first with violation of his trust and confidence of a client by representing
under the system of barangay conciliation before recourse to the the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client, in a manner that
court can be allowed. Because of respondents transgressions, his blatantly conflicted his interest.
client was haled to court as part-defendant. Respondent also refused Respondent was the representative of complainant and his
to return petitioners money in spite of his meager service. relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group, officers
of the ICS Exports, Inc., a pyramiding scam. Respondent contended
ISSUE: that the attorney-client relationship between him and Samson and his
Whether or not the lawyer is in violation of Canon 17 of the group had terminated upon the compromise settlement between them
Code of Professional Responsibility. and Sison and the ICS Corporation, and that his counseling of the
latter was an appointment de officio by Branch 102 of the Regional preliminary conference, said case resulted in immediate submission
Trial Court of Quezon City only for purposes of her arraignment. for decision and the eventual loss of the complainants cause to
which respondent never remedied. Furthermore, respondent failed to
ISSUE: timely turn-over to complainant the papers and documents after
losing said case, barred off her remedies resulting her loss.
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
HELD: Professional Responsibility.
The Supreme Court held respondent guilty. The termination
of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to HELD:
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former The Supreme Court held respondent guilty of Canon 17 of
client as the clients confidence once given should not be stripped by the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others, which holds
the mere expiration of the professional employment. A lawyer should that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client, nor Respondent failed to justify his absence during the scheduled
should he disclose or use any of the clients confidences acquired in preliminary conference hearing; he could have exercised ordinary
the previous relation. This violates Canon 17 of the Code of diligence by inquiring whether said tentative hearing would push
Professional Responsibility which expressly declares that: A lawyer through. Moreover, the fact that respondent had an important
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the commitment during that day hardly exculpates him from his
trust and confidence reposed in him. omission since the prudent course of action would have been for him
- to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf. Equally
compelling is the fact that respondent purposely failed to assail the
Case: JOSEFINA CARANZA DE SALDIVAR vs. ATTY. RAMON heirs appeal before the CA.
SG CABANES, JR. -
(A.C. No. 7749, Jul 8, 2013)
Case: MARILEN G. SOLIMAN vs. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-
FACTS: AMBOY
The case is an administrative complaint by complainant (A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015)
Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar against respondent Atty. Ramos
SG Cabanes, Jr. for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 of the FACTS:
Code of Professional Responsibility, among others. Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in connection
Respondent was complainants representative in an unlawful with a partition case which was no longer instituted but instead Atty.
detainer case wherein due to the latters failure to attend a Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the said property
from the co-owners to the individual owners. Atty. Amboy told the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners
Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles to the of the property. It was her negligence which caused the delay in the
property because of the failure of the other co-owners to submit issuance of the certificates of title. The respondent was found
certain documents. Later, the respondent told Soliman that someone GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules
from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
the titles for a fee of P50,000.00. Soliman deposited the same to hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
Atty. Amboys bank account. Afterwards, Atty. Amboy informed years ORDERED to return the entire amount of Fifty Thousand
Soliman that the certificates of title to the property were then only Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal interest.
awaiting the signature of the authorized officer. However, Atty. -
Amboy failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman
and her co-owners to the subject property. Atty. Amboys secretary Case: ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO
informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for an (A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)
additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said certificates
of title. Soliman then refused to further pay and then asked the FACTS:
updates on the release of the said title but respondent did not answer. Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his
Thereafter, Soliman and Atty. Amboys secretary went to the office wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City. They
of a certain Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila. Soliman are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles in
inquired to Atty. Marasigan if he received the P50,000.00 as Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991, they engaged the services of
payment for the release of the said titles but the latter denied having respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but
received any amount to facilitate the release of the titles and claimed also as administrator of their businesses whenever complainant
that the reason why the same could not be processed was that Atty. would leave for the United States of America (USA). Sometime in
Amboy failed to file certain documents. Upon demand to release the 1993, complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife
documents and the money given, respondent refused. were having an illicit affair. When confronted, his wife initially
denied any amorous involvement with respondent but eventually
ISSUE: broke down and confessed to their love affair that began in 1993.
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively Respondent likewise admitted the relationship. Subsequently, at a
liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility meeting initiated by respondent and another meeting was held, in the
presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and
HELD: Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness.
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he Complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23,
should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Canon 1995 charging respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct.
17). Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her In his Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations of the
professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to complaint but interposed the defense of pardon.
 Complainant engaged in the services of respondent
ISSUE: to handle her case. Respondent received P50,000 as partial
Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the acceptance fee evidenced by a receipt placed on his calling card but
Affidavit is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the present no steps were taken to protect the complainants interest.
disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct Complainant asked the return of the amount given to respondent for
repairing her house. Respondent promised to take charge of the
HELD: repairs but he failed to fulfill his promise.
NO. Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's
wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of ISSUES:
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost Whether or not disbarment or suspension proceeding
moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. shall be interrupted or terminated by reason
Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by of resolution between complainant and
complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code respondent.
of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit
relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly Whether or not the complainant violated Canon 18,
immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Rule 18.03 of the Code.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney
may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any HELD:
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly Respondent prayed that the case be closed because
immoral conduct, among others. the matter has been resolved. However, IBP and the Court stated that
Respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO was found as general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be interrupted or
GUILTY of Gross Immorality and was SUSPENDED from the terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with a STERN WARNING restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with prosecute unless the Court motu proprio determines that there is no
more severely. compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension
- proceedings against the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings involve
no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
CANON 18
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for
Case: TRINIDAD H. CAMARA vs. ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY legal services in handling complainant's case and subsequently
REYES failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18, Rule
(A.C. No. 6121, July 31, 2009) 18.03 which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. Accordingly, respondent is suspended
FACTS: from practice of law for 6 months.
 investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an
officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the
Case: MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL vs. ATTY. RONALDO E. Bar. It was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03
RENTA and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
(A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014) similar act would be dealt with more severely.
-
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Case: REX POLINAR DAGOHOY vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN
Associates Law Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition for JUAN
the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before (A.C. No. 7944. June 03, 2013.)
the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent, the managing partner of the FACTS:
firm, signed the "Special Contract of Legal Services" and received Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross
the "full and package price" of P160,000 for the filing of the petition negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal
for recognition. However, no petition was filed. Complainant then filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy, his client
filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file the petition and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged
for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand. with and convicted of theft. According to the complainant, the CA
Respondent explained that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file the dismissed the appeal for San Juans failure to file the appellants
petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured brief. He further alleged that San Juan did not file a motion for
that he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's reconsideration against the CAs order of dismissal. The complainant
Affidavit of Desistance which averred that respondent cried for also alleged that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of
forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed the real status of Tomas appeal and did not disclose to them the real
that respondent had already refunded the amount he paid. reason for its dismissal.
In his comment, Atty. San Juan denied the charge.
ISSUE: He imputed fault on Tomas for failing to furnish him a copy of the
Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his case records to enable him to prepare and file the appellants brief.
breached duty to serve complainant with diligence
and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. San Juan is guilty of gross
HELD: negligence.
On complainants affidavit of desistance, it was held
that execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant HELD:
proceedings against respondent in view of the public service Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy
character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment of the case records was within Atty. San Juans task as the lawyer.
proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is not an Second, Atty. San Juan knows that filing an appellants brief within
the reglementary period is critical. Third, the records also disclose ISSUE:
Atty. San Juans lack of candor in dealing with his client. The Court Whether or not Atty. Millo violated Rule 18.03,
found Atty. San Juan in violation of Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide: HELD:
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with Yes. The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Millos
competence and diligence. acceptance of the sums of money from Johnny and Abella to enable
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter him to attend to the transfer of title and to complete the adoption case
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall initiated the lawyer-client relationship between them. From that
render him liable. moment on, Atty. Millo assumed the duty to render professional
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the service to them as his clients. Yet, he failed to discharge his duty. He
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the was inefficient and negligent in going about what the professional
client's request for information. service he had assumed required him to do. The Supreme Court
The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for a further explained that Atty. Millo had the obligation to serve his
period of one year and to deny his motion to be allowed to return to clients with competence and diligence. Canon 18 of the Code of
the practice of law. Professional Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit:
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with
- competence and diligence.
Case: JOHNNY M. PESTO vs. MARCELITO M. MILLO The Court held Atty. Millo guilty of violating Canon 18,
(ADM. CASE NO. 9612. March 13, 2013.) Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
FACTS: Lawyers Oath and suspended him from the practice of law for a
Johnny Pesto, a Canadian national, charged Atty. period of six months.
Marcelito M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, -
misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence
and negligence in the performance of his duty as a lawyer. Case: SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARNEL
Johnny averred that his wife Abella retained the CAPISTRANO, respondent. (A.C. No. 6903, Apr 16 2012)
services of Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of
land to her name, and the adoption of her niece; that among other FACTS:
transgressions, Atty. Millo repeatedly gave them false information to An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by
explain his inability to complete the transfer of title; that Atty. Millo complainant charging the respondent of violating the Code of
likewise made them believe that the tax for the property had been Professional Responsibility. On January 2005, Suzette and her
paid, but they found out that he had not yet paid the tax. Likewise, friend, Ricky S. Tuparan, engaged in the legal services of Atty.
Johnny blamed Atty. Millo for letting the adoption case be Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their
considered closed due to two years of inaction. respective marriages allegedly for a fee of P140,000.00 each. On the
same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by and
between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
fee of P30,000.00, appearance fee of P2,500.00 per hearing and CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
P2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly DILIGENCE.
advised her to prepare an additional amount as payment for the filing xxx
fee, summons, fiscals, psychiatrist and commissioner. Suzette gave RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
Atty. Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00. For every matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
payment made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status connection therewith shall render him liable.
of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two
cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed
City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the of the status of his case and shall respond within a
Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet reasonable time to the clients request for
been filed. Suzette demanded the refund of the total amount of information.
P78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano offered to return P63,000.00 on
staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Indeed, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he
Tuparan case, to which she agreed. However, Atty. Capistrano only will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to
returned P5,000.00, then refused to communicate with her. exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes the lawyer
In the Report and Recommendation dated April 2007, the unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him
IBP-CBD found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the
interests by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling
to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It ones case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases
also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had as much as he can efficiently handle.
promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers
probity and good demeanor. who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality,
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform
ISSUE: their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
Code of Professional Responsibility. profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Falling short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline
HELD: an erring lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty.
Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of Canon -
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
Case: STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA BRUNET vs. ATTY.
RONALD GUAREN
(A.C. No. 10164, Mar 10 2014)
 making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
FACTS: yields profits. The duty to public service and to the administration of
The Brunet spouses filed a complaint against Atty. justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
Guaren. According to them, they engaged his services for the titling subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
of a residential lot they acquired, to which Atty. Guaren asked for
P10,000.00 as expenses for titling. He also asked for an advance Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
payment of P1,000.00 and took all the pertinent documents for the provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
titling of the lot. Respondent again asked for advance payment of diligence. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted
P6,000.00 which they gave on March 1997, but from 1997 to 2001, the amount of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee.
despite several reminders, Atty. Ronald failed to complete his He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the
undertaking and merely alleged that the titling was in progress. Thus, titling of complainants lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren
they demanded the refund of the amount they gave, to which Ronald breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence
agreed, provided that P5,000.00 be deducted as his professional fee. when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
-
Despite the existence of their lawyer-client
relationship, Respondent made a special appearance against them in Case: JOSE ALLAN TAN vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE
a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court of Oslob, (A.C. No. 7766, Aug 5, 2014)
Cebu.
FACTS:
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. The case is an administrative complaint for
Guaren liable for accepting the titling of complainants lot and disbarment filed by complainant Jose Allan Tan against respondent
receiving payments but failed to perform his obligation after 5 long Pedro S. Diamante, charging him of violating the Code of
years, as well as for appearing in a case against the complainants Professional Responsibility and the lawyers oath for failing to keep
without securing their written consent. his client informed of the status of the case, among others.

ISSUE: Complainant engaged in the services of respondent

Whether or not Atty. Guaren is in violation of Canon in a case for partition of property against the heirs of his illegitimate
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for being father, the late Luis Tan. Respondent, though notified of the
incompetent and negligent. dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of
evidence quite early, failed to notify complainant who had only
HELD: discovered such when he visited the formers office who thereafter
Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a asked him for payment of appeal fees and other costs. Later on, the
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary appeal was dismissed after having been filed beyond the
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money- reglementary period provided by law, which the respondent did not
disclose to complainant and, instead, showed complainant an Order Respondent was hired by complainant Reynaldo
purportedly issued by the RTC directing the submission of the results Remirez as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title when
of a DNA testing to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan. the former contacted him as per a referral from a friend of his sister,
offering her legal services on the condition that she be given 30% of
ISSUE: the land subject of the controversy instead of attorneys fees plus
Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.04 of Php1,000 per court appearance.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
After several follow ups, respondent informed
HELD: complainant that his appeal had been denied to his failure to establish
The Supreme Court denied the petition. As an officer his filiation with his alleged father, the basis of his claim.
of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of Respondent made it appear that the case was dismissed on the merits
whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his when, in truth, she failed to file the Appellants Brief on time. This
clients case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to was discovered by complainant after personally going to the Court of
enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review Appeals.
thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case
will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in Respondent contends that the she had only agreed to
the attorney. In the case at bar, clearly, respondent failed to exercise take on the case after complainants mother begged her to do so, and
the required skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession had taken it for free save for the Php1,000 travel expense per
commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional hearing, claimed that she had candidly informed complainant and his
employment. mother that they only had 50% chance of winning the case, and
denied the contingent fee of 30% of the land value of the said land.
- Furthermore, her defense on her failure to immediately inform
complainant of the unfavorable Decision of the Court of Appeals was
Case: REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. MERCEDES that her eight year-old daughter had played with her phone and
BUHAYANG-MARGALLO accidentally erased all her contacts.
(A.C. No. 10537, Feb 3, 2015)
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.03 and
The case is a Petition for Review filed by respondent Atty. 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo assailing the Resolution of the Board Responsibility.
of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines affirming her
violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of HELD:
Professional Responsibility, among others. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The lack of
communication and coordination between respondent and
complainant was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of President of Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III,
her client. Respondent failed to discharge her duties with the Incorporated(Samahan), alleged that he engaged the services of
requisite diligence as provided by the Code of Professional respondent for the purpose of filing a case in order to determine the
Responsibility: true owner of the land being occupied by the members of Samahan.
In connection therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate amount of
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees for the action to be
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. instituted, as evidenced by a written acknowledgment executed by
respondent himself. Despite the payment, respondent failed to file an
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal action in court. When confronted, respondent explained that the
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the filing fees in
there with shall render him liable. court. Thus, complainant asked for the return of the money, but
respondent claimed to have spent the same and even demanded more
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed money.
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to clients request for information. ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held
Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no administratively liable for the acts complained of.
longer interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse and there was
no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This HELD:
is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the Yes. A lawyers neglect of a legal matter entrusted
basis of an assumption. Respondent had failed to exhaust all possible to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he
means to protect complainants interest, which is contrary to what must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon
she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. 18 of the CPR, which reads:
-
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
Case: EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
AGCAOILI, JR.
(A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015) In the instant case, it is undisputed that complainant
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in
FACTS: court, and in connection therewith, gave the amount of P48,000.00 to
An administrative complaint was filed by complainant answer for the filing fees. Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to
Eduardo A. Maglente, against respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, comply with his undertaking and offered the flimsy excuse that the
Jr. praying that the latter be directed to return the amount of money he received from complainant was not enough to fully pay the
P48,000.00 that he received from the former. Complainant, as filing fees. Verily, when a lawyer receives money from the client for
a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to matter entrusted to him and drafted the Deed of Extrajudicial
the client showing that the money was spent for the intended Partition (Deed) that underwent several revisions.
purpose.
ISSUE:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Whether or not respondent should be held
Jr., is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon administratively liable for the acts complained of.
16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the HELD:
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt Yes. It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up
of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. competence, and to attend to such clients cause with diligence, care,
- and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyers neglect of a
Case: SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA vs. ATTY. OTILIO SY legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable
BONGON negligence for which he must be held administratively liable for
(A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015) violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR which reads:

FACTS: CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
respondent for the purpose of titling and/or reconstituting the titles to
the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta. In connection Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
therewith, she claimed to have given the aggregate amount of him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
P112,499.55 to respondent. However, respondent failed to update liable.
complainant regarding the status of the matters referred to him. Thus,
complainant terminated her engagement with respondent and In view of respondents old age, his condition of
demanded for the return of P112,499.55, but to no avail. In his having undergone a triple heart bypass surgery, and considering that
defense, the respondent asserts that he only received P55,000.00 and this is his first offense, the Court concurs with the recommendations
that the rest of the money was received by a certain Rowena Delos of the IBP. WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of
Reyes-Kelly who was not an employee of his law firm. Furthermore, violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of
he averred that he had already offered to return the amount of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
P30,000.00 to complainant, claiming that he already earned the fees he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
for legal services in the amount of P20,000.00 for having studied the month and is ORDERED to return to complainant the amount of
P55,000.00 he received.
- The Supreme Court agrees with the Office of the Bar
Confidant that Atty. Jimenez is not guilty of forum shopping.
CANON 19 Records show that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz
J. Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
Case: ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES vs. ATTY. JACINTO D. 70349 assailing the Order of March 12, 2002 appointing the
JIMENEZ accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as auditor; and, a regular
(A.C. No. 6691. April 27, 2007.) appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71488 assailing the Order of
April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to
FACTS: complainant. It is evident that there is identity of parties but different
causes of action and reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of
Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the forum shopping
Estate of Luz J. Henson while Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, herein
respondent, is the counsel for the Heirs of Henson. After the probate On the violation of the Code of Professional
proceedings, the RTC issued an order directing Briones to deliver the Responsibility, the Court finds that there is sufficient ground in
residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. Atty support of complainants claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01
Briones refused to deliver the estate. of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering that
complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to
Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey
criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against Atty. Briones the lawful order of the court. Atty. Jimenez should have first filed the
for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order. Atty. Briones proper motion with the RTC for the execution of the subject Order,
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum instead of immediately resorting to the filing of a criminal complaint
shopping and violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 and Canon 12 of the against the complainant. The filing of the criminal complaint was
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent claims that he acted evidently premature.
in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he
assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him. enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same
Atty. Jimenez also contends that a lawyer owes his client the exercise Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his
of utmost prudence and capability. client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same
Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair
ISSUE: and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.
Whether or not Atty. Jimenez violated Canons 19
and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility WHEREFORE, Atty. Jimenez is found GUILTY
and REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of
HELD: Professional Responsibility.
- -
Case: VALERIANA U. DALISAY vs. ATTY. MELANIO
Case: ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA vs. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
OSCAR PAGUINTO (A.C. No. 5655. January 23, 2006)
(A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010)
FACTS:
FACTS: Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondents services
Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Notwithstanding his receipt of
allegations that respondent: promoted or sued a groundless, false or documents and attorneys fees, respondent never rendered legal
unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same; disobeyed laws services. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client relationship
of the land, promoted disrespect for law and the legal profession; did and demanded the return of her money, but respondent refused. The
not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his Supreme Court in its Decision, found respondent guilty of
professional colleague and engaged in harassing tactics against malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from the
opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his practice of law for a period of six months.
client with zeal within the bounds of the law; and ruined and Upon learning of the Courts decision, respondent
damaged not only the Gen. Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, verified the status of Civil Case No. 00-044. He learned of the trial
Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the entire water-consuming community courts Decision holding that the tax declarations and title submitted
as well. by complainant are not official records. Thereupon, respondent filed
a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant alleging that
ISSUE: complainant offered tampered evidence. The respondent then filed a
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court Decision and
from the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, and Rule argued that complainant did not engage his services as counsel, and
12.03 of the Code of Professional that complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-
Responsibility. 004, prompting him to file falsification cases against her.

ISSUE:
HELD: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration
IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the should be granted.
Lawyers Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the HELD:
Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been The respondents motion for reconsideration is
suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of the denied. The Court explained that once a lawyer accepts money from
Code. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his a client, an attorney-client relationship is established. Assuming that
ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time. complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence, it will
not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent. Consistent with the he had filed the motions in court. However, respondent stopped
mandate of Canon 19 that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent,
and only within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the same Canon complainant filed this administrative case before the Integrated Bar
specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information that of the Philippines.
his clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to ISSUE:
rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship Whether the respondent violated the Code of
with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. Professional Responsibility.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this
Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and HELD:
asked her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent
refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her. failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainants
cause since he: first, failed to represent her competently; and, second,
- abandoned his clients cause while the grave coercion case against
Case: MARIA CRISTINA PITCHER vs. ATTY. RUSTICO B. them was pending.
GAGATE
(A.C. No. 9532. October 8, 2013.) Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states:

FACTS: CANON 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal

Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late within the bounds of the law.
David B. Pitcher who owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting
Edge, Inc. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband, Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
complainant engaged the services of respondent. means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not
Complainant and respondent met with Katherine present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded
Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss the criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
settlement of Davids interest in the company. Prior to another proceeding.
scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by respondent
to put a paper seal on the door of the premises. Bantegui expressed The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating
disappointment over these actions then asked them to leave and Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of
refused to give them a duplicate key. Respondent caused the change the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the
in the lock of the office door. This prompted Bantegui to file a practice of law for a period of three years.
complaint for grave coercion. The Prosecutors Office issued a -
Resolution finding probable cause to charge complainant and
respondent. Respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until Case: DOLORES BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN MACASA
 (A.C. No. 7815, Jul 23 2009) Complainant availed respondents legal services in connection with
the case of her son, with an agreement that the respondent will
FACTS: handle the case for P30,000 as Attorneys
Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but
Complainant availed respondents legal services in respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments.
connection with the case of her son,with an agreement that the
respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorneys Fees. The On November 2004, complainant went to see
complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant
did not issue any receipt for any of the installments. Aside from this, wanted to avail of respondents legal services for the case of her son,
respondent also received P18,000 from complainant as a bond to Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod
secure the provisional liberty of her (complainants) son. Again, City earlier that day for alleged violation of RA 9165. Respondent
respondent did not issue any receipt. However, she later found out agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00
that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant
then demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several The following day, complainant made a partial
occasions but the latter ignored her. payment of P15,000 to respondent. A few days after, she gave him
an additional P10,000.00. She paid the P5,000.00 balance the day
Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of after. On all occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.
complainants son and complainant was forced to avail of the
services of the Public Attorneys Office for her sons defense. Hence, A few days after, respondent received P18,000.00
the disbarment case Complainant availed respondents legal services from complainant for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty
in connection with the case of her son, with an agreement that the of her son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When
respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorneys complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that
Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not remit the amount to the court.
respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments.
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000.00
Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover,
from complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her respondent failed to act on the case of complainants son and
(complainants) son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
However, she later found out that respondent did not remit the Attorneys Office for her sons defense.
amount to the court. Complainant then demanded the return of the
P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but the latter ignored In an order dated July 2005, the CBD required
her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainants respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof.
son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file an
Attorneys Office for her sons defense. Hence, the disbarment case answer dated August 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint for
being "baseless, groundless and malicious" without offering any prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his
explanation. He also prayed that he be given until September 2005 to constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the
submit his answer. amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional
liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latters
Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for constitutional right to bail.
second and third extensions of time praying to be given until
November 2005 to submit his answer. He never did. -
CASE: Jon De Ysasi III vs. National Labor Relations Commission
ISSUE: (4th Division), Cebu City, and Jon De Ysasi
Whether or not Atty. Macasa did acts in violation of FACTS:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Jon De Ysasi III is the son of Jon De Ysasi. The
elder Ysasi is the owner of a hacienda in Negros Occidental while De
HELD: Ysasi III is employed by his father as the farm administrator. In
The Court ruled that that the respondent violated November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent a surgery and causing him
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides to be absent from work. He was confined and while he was being
that a lawyer must represent his client with zeal within the bounds of treated from his infections he was terminated by his father without
the law. due process. The younger De Ysasi filed against his father for illegal
dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission.
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits However, His father contended that his sons absence has equated to
to devote himself, particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort, abandonment of his work.
to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence ISSUE:
reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Whether or not De Ysasi abandoned his work.
Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm HELD:
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the No. The court held that for abandonment to be
exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that constituted, there must be a) failure to report for work without a valid
nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules and justifiable reason, and b) a clear intention to sever the employee-
of law legally applied. employer relationship through overt acts. No such requisites are
present in this case.
In this case, after accepting the criminal case against The court was also disappointed by the conduct of
complainants son and receiving his attorneys fees, respondent did both counsels of the parties stating that Canon 19, which provides
nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal that a lawyer must handle his case with zeal, must be read with
assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the Canon 1, which provides that a lawyer shall encourage his client to
cause of his client. Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair
case of complainants son was reprehensible. Not only did it settlement. It is just as much their responsibility, if not more
importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot just wait
conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of for his clients to make an inquiry about the status of the case, for
the direct and immediate blood ties between their clients. The court close communication is vital for its preparation. Also, a lawyers
explicitly reiterates that the useful function of a lawyer is not only to attendance must not be dependent to the attendance of his clients.
conduct litigation but also to avoid it by advising settlements. Thus, his excuse that he did not appear because the spouses did not
appear cannot be countenanced. Among others, Atty. Elayda has
- violated Canon 19 of the Code of professional Responsibility which
CASE: Spouses Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel Elayda provides: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
(A.C. No. 7907, October 26, 2013) bounds of the law. A 6 month suspension was recommended by the
IBP Board of Governors and was subsequently adopted by the court.
FACTS:
Petitioner spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda -
hired respondent Attorney Emmanuel Elayda to represent them in a Case: ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO
civil case in 2006. In July of said year, petitioners to their surprise (A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002)
received an unfavorable decision issued by the court, resulting to the
forfeiture of their car. The petitioners claim that respondent Attorney
did not inform them of the schedule of hearing and that no order of FACTS:
judgment was given to them despite having receipt of the order dated This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against
February 2006. Moreover, they allege that they have been deprived Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and conduct
of their right to present evidence and their right to appeal to said case unbecoming of a lawyer. While a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
because of the gross negligence of their counsel. his client, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. In this
Respondent Atty. Elayda contended that it was the case, he has not exercised good faith because he tried to coerce the
petitioners lack of participation and cooperation that lead to the complainant to comply with his letter demand by threatening to file
adverse decision of the court and that they were the ones who did not various charges against the latter. When complainant did not heed his
appear in court given that Atty. Elayda was just in another courtroom warning, the respondent maliciously filed a string of "manufactured"
and asked the stenographer to notify him if the spouses have arrived. criminal and administrative cases which did not have a bearing to the
Spouses have never inquired as to the status of their case. cause of his client against the former to blackmail him or extort
ISSUE: money from him, in violation of Canon 19. The respondent offered
Whether or not Attorney Elayda should be given a monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information
disciplinary action. against the complainant so he would have a leverage in his actions
HELD: against the latter. The complainant branded the respondent's tactics
Yes. While it is true that communication is a shared as "highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical, constituting
responsibility in the client and lawyer relation, it is the prime duty of malpractice of law and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.
the counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court and Respondent was directed to submit his comment on the complaint
lodged against him. He did not file any. It appears that the
respondent did not appear before the investigating officer, to answer FACTS:
the charges against him. This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the
members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc.
ISSUE: (RBCI) Bohol against respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido, for
Whether or not Atty. Unto is guilty of a conduct "acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as counsel for
unbecoming of a lawyer the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in physically
taking over the management and operation of the bank through force,
HELD: violence and intimidation.". According to RBCI, respondent and his
Considering the facts of the case, the Court find that clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr.
respondent has not exercised the good faith required of a lawyer in Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through force and
handling the legal affairs of his client, The respondent offered intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the
monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted
against the complainant just so he would have a leverage in his Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and
actions against the latter. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to installed their own staff to run the bank. Respondent denied RBCIs
the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest, allegation and explained that he acted in accordance with the
encourage any suit or proceeding and he shall not do any act authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the
designed primarily to solicit legal business. The respondent chose not lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent
to participate in the proceedings against him. His nonchalance does said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of
not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of respect towards management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent
the public officers. The recommended penalty for the unprofessional to Garay but he refused to comply and to ensure a smooth transition
conduct of the respondent was one (1) month suspension or of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos
reprimand. The Court believes that the same is too light vis-a-vis the group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down.
misconduct of the respondent. Respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO D.
UNTO is declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He is ISSUE:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five (5) Whether or not the respondent violated the
months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility.
will be dealt with more severely.
HELD:
- The Court affirmed IBP Board of Governors'
resolution. It is the lawyer's duty to promote respect for the law and
Case: RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL vs. legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the
ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO law or lessening confidence in the legal system. Canon 19 of the
(A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010) Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code alleging that Jimenez violated the Code of Professional
requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law Responsibility when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he
and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and could collect the balance of his notarial fee. In its report, the IBP
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of violating
duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their recommended that Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. be reprimanded.
adversaries. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and ISSUE:
honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his Whether or not respondent Jimenez, Jr. is guilty of
devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. The violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of
Court finds respondent GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules Professional Responsibility.
1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one HELD:
year effective upon finality of the Decision. Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
- Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial
CANON 20 action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. There was
clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in this case to
Case: ALEX B. CUETO vs. ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JR. justify the legal action taken by respondent. As borne out by the
(A.C. No. 5798. January 20, 2005) records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than half of
respondents fee. To resort to a suit to recover the balance reveals a
FACTS: certain kind of shameful conduct and inconsiderate behavior. The
Engr. Alex B. Cueto filed a complaint for duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
disciplinary action against Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. with the Integrated profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, the bar, the
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline. Cueto courts and his clients. The legal profession is imbued with public
engaged the services of Jimenez as notary public and after notarizing service and remuneration is a mere incident. Although every lawyer
the Construction Agreement, Cueto paid the agreed P50,000 as must be paid what is due to him, he must never resort to judicial
notarial fee. He paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check for the action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity
balance in the amount of P20,000. Cueto informed Jimenez that he of the profession.
ran short of funds especially since Jimenezs son Jose III failed to
pay his own obligation to Cueto. As a result, the check that Cueto Wherefore, the Supreme Court severely reprimanded
issued was dishonored for insufficient funds, so Atty. Jimenez filed a Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. for violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code
complaint against Cueto for violation of BP 22. Hence, this of Professional Responsibility.
administrative complaint was filed by Cueto against Jimenez,
- on the one hand, and Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago Pastor, on
Case: ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N. PASTOR vs. the other. It confirms an amendment to their agreement regarding the
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI attorneys fees. The Zuzuarreguis confirmed and agreed that they are
(G.R. No. 152072. January 31, 2006.) willing to accept as final and complete settlement for their 179
hectares expropriated by NHA a price of SEVENTEEN PESOS
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. vs. THE NATIONAL (P17.00) per square meter, or for a total of THIRTY MILLION
HOUSING AUTHORITY FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P30.4 Million), all
(G.R. No. 152104. January 31, 2006.) payable in NHA Bonds. And that they also agree and confirm to pay
their lawyers and counsels the contingent attorneys fees any and all
FACTS: amount in excess of the SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square
The instant cases had their beginnings in 1977 when meter payable in NHA bonds.
the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation
proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to A resolution was issued by the NHA stating that the
the latter situated in Antipolo, Rizal. The said case was ordered Zuzuarregui property would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 per
archived. square meter; that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid in NHA Bonds,
subject to the availability of funds; and that the yield on the bonds to
About a month before the aforecited case was be paid to the Zuzuarreguis shall be based on the Central Bank rate at
ordered archived, the Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of the time of payment.
Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor, to represent them.
This was sealed by a Letter-Agreement which indicates that: The The total amount in NHA bonds released by the
lawyers endeavor to secure the just compensation with the National NHA Legal Department to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the
Housing Authority and other governmental agencies at a price of Zuzuarreguis amounted to P54,500,000.00. Out of this amount, the
ELEVEN PESOS (P11.00) or more per square meter. Any lower records show that the amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by
amount shall not entitle us to any attorneys fees. At such price of Atty. Roxas amounted to P30,520,000.00 in NHA bonds.
P11.00 per square meter or more our contingent fee[s] is THIRTY
PERCENT (30%) of the just compensation. The lawyers fees shall Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the
be in the proportion of the cash/bonds ratio of the just compensation. 1,790,570.36 square meters property of the Zuzuarreguis was
expropriated at a total price of P34,916,122.00. The total amount
The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued. A released by the NHA was P54,500,000.00. The difference of
Partial Decision was rendered fixing the just compensation to be paid P19,583,878.00 is, undoubtedly, the yield on the bonds.
to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square meter.
A letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis new counsel,
A Letter-Agreement was executed by and between Jose F. Gonzalez, to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, demanding that the
Antonio Zuzuarregui, Jr., Pacita Javier and Enrique De Zuzuarregui, latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds
paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days from receipt, under pain Both parties filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
of administrative, civil and/or criminal action. assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered via a letter stated ISSUE:

therein, among other things, that the amount that they got seems Whether or not the Letter-Agreement executed by
huge from the surface, but it just actually passed their hands, as it did the Zuzuarreguis, and Attys. Roxas and Pastor, fixing the exact
not really go to them. amount that must go to the former, should stand as law
between the parties.
A letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis through
Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., to Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago HELD:
N. Pastor, informing the latter that their services as counsels of the It is basic that a contract is the law between the
Zuzuarreguis (except Betty) in the expropriation proceedings filed by parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law
the NHA was being formally terminated. between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good
faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals,
The Zuzuarreguis filed a civil action for Sum of good customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as
Money and Damages before the RTC, Quezon City against the NHA, between the parties.
Jose B. H. Pedrosa, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas and Atty. Santiago N.
Pastor. The Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and
be turned over to them. Pastor are to receive contingent fees for their professional services. It
is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited
A Decision was rendered dismissing the Complaint. by law.
It further ordered plaintiffs, jointly and solidarily, to pay for moral
damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fee and the cost of suit. It is sanctioned in Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that: CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL
Upon appeal by the Zuzuarreguis a Decision was CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES. However, in
eventually promulgated reversing and setting aside the ruling of cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same should
RTC. Defendants-Appellees Roxas and Pastor were ordered to return be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, and should
to plaintiffs-appellants the amount of P12,596,696.425, the balance always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its
from the P17,073,122.70, received as yield from NHA bonds after reasonableness, such that under Canon 20 of the Code of
deducting the reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair
P4,476,426.275.25 (P2.50 per square meter of the 1,790,570.51 and reasonable fees.
square meter)
In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received
an amount which was equal to forty- four percent (44%) of the just
compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his
the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the sister and brother-in-law. He represented them in two civil cases and
P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in in both, he obtained judgment in favor of his clients. He filed a
the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, petition for Attorneys Lien with Notification to his Clients which
the 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under the provided that he is entitled to own 97.5 sq.m of his clients share of
circumstances. Its reduction is, therefore, in order. the lot in question; shall have usufructuary right for 10 years of his
clients share of the lot in question; and all the damages accruing to
It is imperative that the contingent fees received by his client if for the undersigned counsel.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor must be equitably reduced. In the opinion of A series of hearings were made and the trial court
this Court, the yield that corresponds to the percentage share of the ruled in favor of thelawyer.10 months after, the heirs of the lawyers
Zuzuarreguis in the P19.50 per square meter just compensation paid (deceased) clients filed a motion to set aside the orders of the trial
by the NHA must be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. court. The lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the
professional services was pursuant to a contract which could no
The yield on the NHA bonds amounted to longer be disturbed as it has already been implemented and since
P19,583,878.00. This amount must therefore be divided between the then had become final. CA ruled in favor of the lawyer, dismissing
Zuzuarreguis, on the one hand, and Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the the appeal of the petitioners. Instant petition: The petitioners now
other. fault the respondent court for its failure to exercise its inherent power
to review and determine the propriety of the respondents lawyers
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, in the opinion of this Court, fees. They also accuse their lawyer of having committed an unfair
were not shortchanged for their efforts for they would still be earning advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the Contract for Professional
or actually earned attorneys fees in the amount of P6,987,078.75 Services devised by him. According to the petitioners, they may have
(P4,476,425.59 + P2,510,653.16). won the cases (where the lawyer represented them) but would lose
the entire property won in the litigation to their lawyer.
The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be 1) They would be deprived of their house and lot and the
returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor to the Zuzuarreguis. They can recovered damages since everything would just go to
take this out from the yield in the amount of P19,583,878.00 which lawyers fees.
they have appropriated for themselves. 2) Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would recover
- would still go to lawyers fees since it pertains to the
lawyers son by way of usufruct for 10 years.
Case: WILFREDO D. LICUDAN and CRISTINA LICUDAN- ISSUE:
CAMPOS vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and Whether or not the award of attorney's fees in this
ATTY. TEODORO O. DOMALANTA, case is reasonable, being in the nature of contingent
(G.R. No. 91958. January 24, 1991) fees, is the principal issue.
FACTS: HELD:
 No. Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional terminated the legal services of the private respondent. At the time
Responsibility, a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. In the petitioner had already received P7 million from Filstream. Upon
determining whether or not the lawyer's fees are fair and reasonable, knowing the existence of the MOA, the private respondent filed in
Rule 20-01 of the same Code enumerates the factors to be considered Civil Case No. 612 an Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney's Fees
in resolving the said issue. and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien praying, among other things, that the
The Court finds the Contract for Professional petitioner be ordered to pay him the sum of P700,000.00 as his
Services dated August 30, 1979, unconscionable and unreasonable. contingent fee in the case. Petitioner contends that private respondent
The amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, in lieu of the 121.5 did not exert any effort to amicably settle the case, nor was he even
square meters awarded to the respondent lawyer and the ten-year present during the negotiations for the settlement of the same. There
usufructuary right over the remaining portion of 150 square meters was, therefore, no legal and factual justification for the private
by the respondent lawyer's son, is, in the opinion of this Court, respondent's "fantastic and unreasonable claim for attorney's fees of
commensurate to the services rendered by Atty. Domalanta. P600,000.00." On the other hand, the private respondent asserted that
The instant petition is GRANTED. The Court of he was assured by the petitioner that non-collection cases were
Appeals' decision of September 12, 1989 is hereby REVERSED and included in the contingent fee arrangement specified in the retainer
SET ASIDE. Atty. Domalanta is awarded reasonable attorney's fees contract wherein there was to be contingent compensation for any award
in the amount of P20,000.00. arising from any lawsuit handled by him. According to him, Civil Case No.612
was not the only "non-collection" case he handled for the petitioner.
-
ISSUE:
Case: RESEARCH and SERVICES REALTY, INC. vs. COURT OF Whether respondent is entitled to attorneys fees for
COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL S. FONACIER, JR. the MOA.
(G.R. No. 124074. January 27, 1997) HELD:
FACTS: Yes. It was incumbent upon the private respondent
On 3 November 1969, the petitioner RESEARCH and to prove the reasonable amount of attorney's fees, taking into account
SERVICES REALTY, INC. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the foregoing factors or circumstances. The records before us and the
Jose, Fidel, and Antonia Carreon. On 4 April 1983, the Carreons and a certain trial court's 11 October 1993 order do not confirm that the private
Patricio C. Sarile instituted before the RTC of Makati City an action against the respondent proved by either testimonial or documentary evidence
petitioner for rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement. On 9 April 1985, that the award of P600,000.00 was reasonable. The private
the petitioner engaged the services of private respondent Atty. respondent's testimony thereon was crucial. Yet, it does not appear
Manuel S. Fonacier, Jr., who then entered his appearance in Civil from the 11 October 1993 order that he took the witness stand. From
Case No. 612.While the said case was pending, the petitioner, the Minutes of the trial court attached to the Rollo of CA-G.R. CV
without the knowledge of the private respondent, entered into a No. 44839, 26 it appears that only Atty. Atienza and Mr. Suazo gave
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with another land developer, oral testimony on the motion.
Filstream International, Inc. On 31 March 1993, the petitioner
 The instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged Whether or not the amount of the attorney's fees awarded to
Decision of 31 March 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Atty. Moya should be properly gauged on the basis of the long-
No. 44839 and the Order of 11 October 1993 of the Regional Trial standing rule of quantum meruit, meaning, "as much as he deserves,
Court of Makati, Branch 64, in Civil Case No. 612 are hereby SET is reasonable.
ASIDE. The trial court is further DIRECTED to set for further
hearing the private respondent's Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of HELD:
Attorney's Fees and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien and Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, serves
thereafter to fix the private respondent's attorney's fees in Civil Case as a guideline in fixing a reasonable compensation for services
No. 612 as of 31 March 1993 when his contract with the petitioner rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, which makes
was effectively terminated, taking into account Section 24, Rule 138 the amount of P50,000.00 as compensation for the services rendered
of the Rules of Court; Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of by Atty. Moya just and reasonable.
Professional Responsibility; and the jurisprudentially established It was held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and
guiding principles in determining attorney's fees on quantum meruit lawyers are not merchant, also to maintain the dignity and integrity
basis. No pronouncement as to costs. of the legal profession to which he belongs.
- -

Case: ELNORA R. CORTES and EDMUNDO CORTES vs. Case: ATTY. FRANCISCO U. BULSECO, JR. vs. HEIRS OF
COURT OF APPEALS, F. S. MANAGEMENT & PEDRO MIRAMON, NAMELY, EMILIA MIRAMON, JOSEFINA
DEVELOPMENT CORP. PICHAY-EVILLA, CONCEPCION PICHAY-GOROSPE,
(G.R. No. 121772. January 13, 2003.) DOMINADOR MIRAMON PICHAY AND EDILBERTO
MIRAMON PICHAY, ALL REPRESENTED BY JOSEFINA
FACTS: PICHAY-EVILLA
Spouses Edmundo and Elnora Cortes retained the services of (G.R. No. 198371. December 7, 2015.)
Atty. Felix Moya for the purpose of representing them in the case for
specific performance with damages filed against them by F.S. FACTS:
Management and Development Corporation (FSMDC). However,
they did not agree on the amount of compensation for the services to A complaint for annulment of sale and cancellation
be rendered by Atty. Moya. Thus, Atty. Moya filed an "Urgent of title with reconveyance of an 8,247-sq.m. land located in
Motion to Fix Attorney's Fee, Etc." On July 2, 1991, spouses Cortes Tallungan, Aparri, Cagayan was led by the respondents against the
and Atty. Moya settled their differences in open court that the former heirs of Fernando Campo in the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan. The
will pay the latter the amount of P100,000.00 as his attorney's fees. respondents were represented by the petitioner as their lawyer
through a Contract of Services dated June 11, 2003 wherein it was
ISSUE: explicitly provided that a favorable judgment obtained by the
respondents shall obligate them to convey, cede and transfer a 500-
sq.m. portion of the lot under litigation, to be taken from the Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos
northernmost portion thereof, in favor of the petitioner in payment (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. Complainant subsequently paid the
for legal services he rendered. amount he owed to respondent, as evidenced by receipts duly signed
by the latter. However, during the last hearing of the case, respondent
ISSUE: demanded an additional amount of Ten Thousand
Whether or not charging lien in favor of a lawyer is Pesos(PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum, which
proper only when a money judgment favorable to the he said would further strengthen complainant's position in the case,
client has been secured in the action. plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the subject property as
additional fees for his services. Complainant did not accede to
HELD: respondent's demand for it was not agreed upon. On January 12,
Contingent fees should be reasonable under all the 1998, a Decision was rendered which transmitted the decree of
circumstances of the case, and should always be subject to the registration and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the
supervision of a court, pursuant to Canon 20 of the Code of property. However, when complainant went to the RD to get the
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer is tasked to owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT), He was
charge only fair and reasonable fees. The judgment obtained by the surprised to discover that the same had already been claimed by and
respondents in such case was not a money judgment which, released to respondent on March 29, 2000. On May 4, 2000,
according to the CA, is among the requisites in order for a charging complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked him to turn
lien to be valid. Thus, such judgment did not entitle the petitioner to over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which he had claimed without
claim any charging lien because the land involved may not be used to complainant's knowledge, consent and authority. Respondent insisted
pay for his legal services. that complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20%share in
- the property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for which,
respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT. Once
CASE: Valentin C. Miranda vs Atty. Macario D. Carpio again, complainant refused the demand, for not having been agreed
(A.C. No. 6281, Septemberber 26, 2011) upon.
FACTS:
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the ISSUE:
owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Whether or not Attorney Carpio should be given a
Pias, Metro Manila with a land area of 1,890 square meters. In disciplinary action.
1994, respondent attorneys services was engaged by complainant as
substitute of the original counsel who figured in a vehicular accident HELD:
during the course of the case with Land Registration Commission Yes. Respondent attorney violated Canon 20 of the
(LRC) Case No. M-226 for the registration of the aforementioned Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer
property. In complainant's Affidavit,[2] complainant and respondent shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. It is highly improper for
agreed that complainant was to pay respondent Twenty Thousand a lawyer to charge fees that were never agreed upon at the time of
engagement of his services. Moreover, An attorney's retaining lien is Petioners then raised the case to the Supreme Court
fully recognized if thepresence of the following elements concur: (1) and argued that the Court of appeals erred in its decision and the land
lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, cannot be used as the lawyers compensation since it was not part of
documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees. the agreement.
The last requisite is clearly not present because as correctly found by
the IBP-CBD, there are no evidences as to any agreement between ISSUE:
the client and attorney that the latter is entitled to be paid 20% of the 1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its decision?
market value of the land. 2) Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 20 of the
Code of Professional Responsibilty?
-
Case: The Conjugal Partnership of Cadavedo Spouses vs. Lacaya HELD:
(G.R. No. 173188, Jan 15, 2014) The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err
FACTS: in its decision. The Court found it proper that the land be given to the
The Cadavedo spouses acquired the services of Atty. lawyer as his compensation since he has served as the familys
Lacaya when their former lawyer Atty. Bandal who withdrew for lawyer for a period of years. It is only appropriate that he be
health reasons. They acquired his counsel to help them facilitate a rewarded to the extent of the services he has rendered to the family.
case regarding the sale of their land to the Ames spouses. The As stated in Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
conflict arose when the Ames spouses failed to pay the balance of Responsibility, a lawyer is entitled the compensation commensurate
their purchase and with the help of Atty. Lacaya, they were able re- to his or her services. Atty. Lacaya did not violate the canon since
acquire the said land. the services he provided, greatly benefitted the client. In its decision,
With regard to the compensation of Atty. Lacaya, the Supreme Court considered the length of time he served as the
the parties agreed to settle his compensation on a contingent basis by familys lawyer and the gravity of the case.
paying him the amount of P2,000.00 for attorneys fees. After the The Court held that Atty. Lacaya be awarded two (2)
settlement of the case, Atty. Lacaya asked for one-half of the hectares particularly one tenth of the disputed one half with the fruits
property and he himself divided the land and got the more profitable previously received from the disputed one-half portion as his
one. attorneys fees.
The spouses and the responded agreed and reached a -
compromise but nonetheless filed a case against the lawyer to the
RTC who denied their complaint. They raised their complaint to the Case: Dalisay vs. Mauricio
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the (A.C. No. 5655, April 20, 2005)
RTC who, considered one-half of the subject lot as the lawyers FACTS:
contingent fees and that Vicentes decision to dispose of the land Petitioner Valeriana U. Dalisay was impressed with
without the approval of Benita is a valid act since the services of the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of the respondent Atty.
Atty. Lacaya redounded to the benefit of the family. Melanio Batas Mauricio, Jr. She decided to hire the services of the
respondent as her counsel on a civil case and in turn, the respondent The court decided that the IBP did not err in its
asked her to pay P25,000.00 as his acceptance fee to which, she decision but instead modified the resolution. It decided that the
agreed. The, respondent asked for another P8,000.00 for the filing P56,000.00 paid by the petitioner be paid in full by the respondent
fee. Although she knew the case was already filed and docketed, she within 15 days upon the receipt of the resolution.
still paid for the amount, thinking that the case will prosper. The court also found the respondent guilty of
A month later, petitioner approached the respondent malpractice since he violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
to follow-up on her case since there was no improvement since their Responsibility regarding reasonable charges and fees. It was ruled
last meeting. Atty. Mauricio once more demanded for an additional that it was improper on the part of the respondent to charge the
of P90,00.00 saying that he will give her a discount if she pays in petitioner of such amount since he did not take any step to assist the
cash. Respondents demands for another additional fee of P3,000.00 petitioner and that such amount is unreasonable to serve as fees for
to serve as his appearance fee. his legal advice.
Petitioner alleged that despite her payments,
respondent failed to attend to her case and never rendered any legal -
services. When she terminated the services of the respondent, he
refused to return the p 56,000.00 paid by the petitioner. CANON 21
In his defense, the respondent contended that he was
only referred by a certain Atty. Lozano and he has asked the Case: CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN B.
petitioner to take her son-in-law to his office and to submit certain BULALACAO
documents but the petitioner failed to do so. He also raised that he (A.C. No. 3745, October 2, 1995)
has provided advice and counsel to the respondent and should serve FACTS:
as his services as a lawyer. On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement,
Upon investigation, the Integrated Board of the respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as counsel of
Philippines through Commissioner Navarro decided that the Tacma Phils., Inc. On October 31, 1990, the attorney-client
disbarment case against Atty. Mauricio be dismissed and that the relationship between the respondent and the said corporation was
P56,000.00 paid by the petitioner be returned but 20% of such severed. On July, 1991, or nine (9) months after the termination of
amount shall be deducted to serve as consultation fees. the respondent's retainer agreement with Tacma, Phils., Inc, several
employees of the corporation consulted the respondent for the
ISSUE: purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed
1) Whether or not the IBP through Commissioner Navarro to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma, Phils.,
erred in its decision? Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations
2) Whether or not Atty. Mauricio violated Canon 20 of the Commission, and appearing in their behalf. On that account,
Code of Professional Responsibility? complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of the said corporation
filed a complaint for disbarment dated October 25, 1991, against
HELD: respondent Atty. Bulalacao. The Court in a resolution resolved to
refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of
investigation, report and recommendation. The abovementioned facts the confidence of the people. Thus, the respondent plea for leniency
were undisputed as examined by the IBP, and accordingly cannot be granted because a lawyer starting to establish his stature in
recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for the legal profession must dutifully abide by the norms of conduct of
three months. The respondent even filed a motion for reconsideration the profession. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the
wherein he admitted that he did commit an act bordering on grave practice of law for three months.
misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorneys oath and
pleading for the courts compassion and leniency to reduce the -
penalty of three months suspension to a fine or admonition.
Case: ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE
ISSUE: P. MERCADO, SEVERINO P. AND SPOUSES JESUS AND
Whether or not respondent breached his oath of ROSARIO MERCADO, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA
office for representing the employees of his former client, after the (A.C. No. 5859. November 23, 2010)
termination of their attorney-client relationship.
FACTS:
HELD: Rosario P. Mercado, complainant hired the
The Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the respondent Atty. Eduardo De Vera as her legal counsel in 1984. The
IBP that the respondent breached his oath of office. The respondent respondent garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not
violated Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which turn over the proceeds to Rosario claiming that he had paid part of
provides that a lawyer shall preserve the confidences of his client the money to the judge while the balance was his, as attorneys fees.
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. The Court The refusal to return the money prompted Rosario to file an
reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the administrative case for disbarment against the respondent. In 1993,
case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution holding the
attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of clients
him to defend another case for other person against his former client funds and recommending to the Court his one-year suspension from
under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the practice of law, and liable for professional malpractice, gross
the former case. It is a measure to avoid the appearance of treachery misconduct, and recommended his disbarment. As a result, the
and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to respondent filed a total of 12 cases against the people involved for
entrust their secrets to their attorneys. A lawyer owes fidelity to the his suspension from the practice of law including his former client,
cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and and her family members, as well as the family corporation. In
confidence reposed in him. An attorney becomes familiar with all the addition to the 12 cases filed, the respondent also re-filed cases
facts as well as the weak and strong points of the case. No which had previously been dismissed. Complainants allege that the
opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets respondent committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of
of clients obtained while the confidential relation of attorney and family problems, and use of intemperate language when he filed
several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits against the complainants documents, and other pertinent facts and figures used as basis or in
and their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation. support of the cases filed by the respondent in pursuit of his
The complainants maintain that the primary purpose of the cases is to malicious motives were all acquired through the attorney-client
harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension from the relationship with herein complainants. Such act is in direct violation
practice of law meted out by the IBP against the respondent. In his of the Canons and will not be tolerated by the Court. Thus, the
defense the respondent basically offers a denial of the charges respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.
against him. -

ISSUE: SALONGA v. HILDAWA

Whether or not the act of the respondent in filing numerous (A.C. No. 5105, 12 August 1999)
cases against his former client constitute a violation of Canon 21 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. FACTS:
The President of STAVA charged Atty. Hildawa of having
HELD: withdrawn a deposit in favor of STAVA in the amount of
The Supreme Court agrees to the findings of the P104,543.80 without authority and of refusing to turn over the
IBP. The Court ruled that the act of filing a barrage of cases appears withdrawn sum of STAVA. He was likewise charged with appearing
to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger and frustration as counsel for KBMBPM, an opponent of STAVA.
against his former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against
him for infidelity in the custody of a clients funds. Further, the ISSUE:
respondent not only filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that Whether or not respondent is engaging in conflict of interest.
violated his duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the proper
administration of justice, but he did so against a former client to HELD:
whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. It is a clear violation of Canon 21 Respondent is exonerated from having violated his
and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which obligation to hold in trust the funds of his client, as it turned out that
provides that A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of the following day he turned over the amount he received to
his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated and STAVAs Treasurer as the President was then on leave.
A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use Respondent was however reprimanded for having placed at
the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the risk his obligation of preserving the confidentiality relation with a
client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto previous client. This obligation continues even after the attorney-
respectively. The cases filed by the respondent against his former client relation ceases. He should not have appeared as counsel for a
client involved matters and information acquired by the respondent party his client has previously contended with in a case similarly
during the time when he was still Rosarios counsel. Information as involving the said parties. Respondent violated Canon 21 which
to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private
states, A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his
client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. On Jan. 13, 1950, Olimpio Patero filed a motion to intervene
- in the civil
Case: NATAN vs. CAPULE. case of forcible entry filed by Natan against 3 individuals. On Feb.
( A.C. No. 76 July 23, 1952) 27, 1950 Capule filed on behalf of Olimpio a petition in the
administration proceedings, alleging that Olimpio Patero is the sole
FACTS: heir of Santiago and that he is in possession of Hacienda Minit; that
Complainant Simplicio Natan, the judicial administrator of the administrator of the estate, his former client Natan, had been
the estate of the deceased Maria Patero filed an action against the encroaching upon the land constituting the Hacienda Minit,
decedents husband Santiago Patero for recovery of the wifes share interfering with its use and occupation and depriving Olimpio of the
in the conjugal properties. Santiago was then condemned to deliver harvest of coconut and palay; and praying that Natan be restrained
his wifes share in the conjugal properties to Natan plus his one-half from interfering with the occupation and enjoyment of Hacienda
share in the Hacianda Minit for failure to render an accounting of the Minit by Olimpio. It also appears that during the filing of the forcible
fruits of the properties while it was in Santiagos possession. entry case in 1949, Natan gave various documents to Capule, which
Santiago died in Aug. 1925 and Natan continued in possession of the the latter used in this petition against his former client.
Hacienda Minit in his original capacity as administrator.
ISSUE/S:
In 1949, Natan filed an action of forcible entry against 3 Whether or not Capule is guilty of violating the Code of
individuals for Professional Responsibility
having illegally occupied and detained portions of the Hacienda
Minit under his administration. Natan engaged the services of HELD:
respondent Atty. Simeon Capule who prepared an amended Yes, Capule is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
complaint and an opposition to dismiss the case. Capule received Responsibility.
P50 which is a part of his fee of P250 for accepting the case. Natan
paid Capule sums of money in partial payment up to Oct. 7, 1949, RATIO: Capule violated Canon 21 which states that A LAWYER
amounting to P180. On Oct. 7, 1949, the hearing of the case was SHALL
postponed to Nov. 17, 1949 as Capule was based in Manila and the PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS
hearing was conducted in Coron, Palawan. On Nov. 17, 1949, CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION
Capule assured Natan what in case he would not be able to arrive on IS TERMINATED.
time, that he would ask the judge for postponement. However, the
judge refused to grant the postponement and Natan was forced to In this case, Capule used the documents given to him by his
handle the case himself, being a lawyer. On Nov. 21, 1949, Capule former client Natan during their attorney- client relationship, in his
filed a petition to withdraw as attorney for Natan, to which the latter petition against the latter, after the attorney-client relationship
agreed. between them was ended in Nov. 21, 1949. He did actually utilize
the papers, knowledge and information which he had received in the
course of his employment as lawyer for Natan. An attorney is ISSUE:
forbidden to do either of two things after severing his relationship Whether or not respondent is guilty of being accused
with the former client. He may not do anything which will of malpractice and misconduct on for representing interests which
injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he conflict with those of his former client, herein complainant and, for
formerly represented represented him, nor may he at any time use taking advantage of the information and knowledge that he obtained
against his former client knowledge or information acquired by from complainant.
virtue of the previous relationship. The court ruled to impose the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 2 years upon the HELD:
respondent Atty. Capule for his misconduct. Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found GUILTY of
- representing conflicting interests in lieu of Canon 21 of the same
Code enjoins a lawyer to preserve the confidences and secrets of his
Case: ELESIO C. PORMENTO, SR. vs . ATTY. ELIAS A. clients even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. Rule
PONTEVEDRA 21.02, Canon 21 specifically requires that:
(A.C. No. 5128. March 31, 2005)
A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client,
FACTS: use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he
Complainant alleges that between 1964 and 1994, use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless
respondent is his family's legal counsel having represented him and the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
members of his family in all legal proceedings in which they are
involved. Complainant also claims that his family's relationship with -
respondent extends beyond mere lawyer-client relations as they gave
respondent moral, spiritual, physical and financial support in his Case: SENIOR MARKETING CORPORATION, represented by
different endeavors. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the JAMES VINCENT C. NAVARETTE vs. ATTY. AQUILINO P.
rift between complainant and respondent began when complainant's BOLINAS
counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648 filed with the Regional Trial (A.C. No. 6740. February 26, 2014.)
Court of Bacolod City was dismissed. Complainant also claims that
in order to further protect his rights and interests over the said parcel FACTS:
of land, he was forced to initiate a criminal case for qualified theft Complainant Senior Marketing Corporation
against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land. (complainant) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Respondent is the counsel of the accused in said case. Complainant Aquilino Bolinas (Atty. Bolinas), alleging that on September 5,
claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case, respondent 1995, it engaged the services of Atty. Bolinas to handle collection
utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from cases and other legal services and paid him for the months of
complainant while the latter is still his client. October to December 1995; that on January 5, 1998, the retainer's fee
of Atty. Bolinas was increased from P2,000.00 to P3,000.00 per an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client
month as evidenced by a voucher issued to and acknowledged by except where there is an express consent from the former client.
Atty. Bolinas; that on December 11, 1997, Atty. Bolinas entered his -
appearance as counsel for complainant in a case that the latter filed
against Dante Almacen for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate; Case: WILFREDO ANGLO vs. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA,
that complainant also conferred with Atty. Bolinas regarding the et al.
cases to be filed against their erring sales representatives and turned (AC No. 10567, Feb. 25, 2015)
over to him pertinent documents material to their prosecution; that
since the engagement of Atty. Bolinas as their counsel from 1995 to FACTS:
2002, he had access to the documents related to the cases he handled; Complainant alleged that he availed the services of
that due to business reversal and financial constraints, complainant the law firm of the respondents, for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a
terminated his services as retainer; that his termination irked him and partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent complainant. The
in obvious vindictiveness, he accepted cases filed against labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A
complainant by its employees; and that Atty. Bolinas' act of criminal case for qualified theft was filed against complainant and
accepting the cases and in representing complainant's employees in a his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law firm, which handled
case filed against complainant without its consent violated his oath of complainant's labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this
office. disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated the
rule on conflict of interest. Respondents admitted that they indeed
ISSUE: operated under the name Valencia Law Office, but explained that
Whether or not there was a conflict of interest when their association is not a formal partnership, but one that is subject to
a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing certain "arrangements."
parties.
According to them, each lawyer contributes a fixed
HELD: amount every month for the maintenance of the entire office; and
In the present case, Atty. Bolinas clearly violated the expenses for cases, such as transportation, copying, printing, mailing,
prohibition against representing conflicting interests when he and the like are shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each
accepted the cases filed against complainant by its employees lawyer to fix and receive his own professional fees exclusively. They
notwithstanding the fact that he was previously the retained counsel averred that complainant's labor cases were solely and exclusively
of the complainant and that the latter consulted him on the possibility handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm. Moreover,
of filing complaints against its erring employees and had access to respondents asserted that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE
documents material to their prosecution. The explanation of Atty. Farms was handled by Atty. Penalosa, a new associate who had no
Bolinas that he accepted the case of complainant's employees one knowledge of complainant's labor cases, as he started working for the
year after his termination does not excuse him. The termination of firm after the termination thereof.
the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent
ISSUE: through teleconference. When the meeting was called to order,
Whether or not respondents are guilty of respondent objected to the meeting for lack of quorum. Respondent
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule asserted that Steven and Deanna Palm could not participate in the
15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of meeting because the corporate by-laws had not yet been amended to
Professional Responsibility. allow teleconferencing. Palm claims this was a breach of the
attorney-client privilege of confidentiality.
HELD: Comtechs new counsel sent a demand letter to
Yes. If he argues for one client, this argument will Soledad to return or account for the amount of P90,466.10
be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." Also, there representing her unauthorized disbursements when she was the
is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will Corporate Treasurer of Comtech. On 22 April 2004, Comtech
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect received Soledads reply, signed by respondent. Due to Soledads
his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also failure to comply with Comtech's written demands, Comtech filed a
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his complaint for Estafa against Soledad before the Makati Prosecutors
first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Office. In the proceedings before the City Prosecution Office of
Makati, respondent appeared as Soledads counsel.
As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing
new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any ISSUE:
manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on Whether or Not respondent violated the
totally unrelated cases for principles of public policy and good taste. Confidentiality of Lawyer- Client Relationship
-
HELD: NO.
Case: REBECCA J. PALM vs. ATTY. FELIPE ILEDAN, JR. Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(A.C. No. 8242, October 2, 2009) provides:
FACTS: Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence
Prior to the completion of the amendments of the and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relationship is
corporate by-laws, complainant became uncomfortable with the close terminated.
relationship between respondent and Elda Soledad (Soledad), a The Court agree with the IBP that in the course of
former officer and director of Comtech, who resigned and who was complainants consultations, respondent obtained the information
suspected of releasing unauthorized disbursements of corporate about the need to amend the corporate by-laws to allow board
funds. Thus, Comtech decided to terminate its retainer agreement members outside the Philippines to participate in board meetings
with respondent effective November 2003. through teleconferencing. Respondent himself admitted this in his
In a stockholders meeting, respondent attended as Answer.
proxy for Gary Harrison (Harrison). Steven C. Palm (Steven) and However, what transpired on was not a board
Deanna L. Palm, members of the Board of Directors, were present meeting but a stockholders meeting. Respondent attended the
meeting as proxy for Harrison. The physical presence of a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca
stockholder is not necessary in a stockholders meeting because a Cola Bottlers Philippines (CCBP), and was represented in said case
member may vote by proxy unless otherwise provided in the articles by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy, explained by Ortiz, was one of his indigent
of incorporation or by-laws. Hence, there was no need for Steven and clients, in that it was the latters practice since commencing his
Deanna Palm to participate through teleconferencing as they could practice of law to cater to indigent and low-income clients. In the
just have sent their proxies to the meeting. labor case against CCBP filed with the National Labor Relations
Whether or not respondent violated the Commission, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their
Confidentiality of Lawyer-Client Relationship respondent made the respective position papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary
representation after the termination of his retainer agreement with documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the
Comtech. A lawyers immutable duty to a former client does not position paper. Canoy made several follow-ups with the office of his
cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyers employment attorney, said visits were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge in
with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the 2000, upon inquiring with the NLRC itself, that his complaint was
duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he already dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute because
previously handled for the former client and not for matters that the parties did not submit their position papers. Canoy further
arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated. claimed that Atty. Ortiz never informed him about the status of his
case nor of the fact that he failed to submit the position paper. In his
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit
Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr. for lack of merit. the position paper because the period within which to file it lapsed
already, with arbiter already dismissing the case, but reasoned out
- that his election as a Councilor of Bacolod City made him very
preoccupied with his functions. His duties as a public servant and a
lawyer are beyond physical limitation, said Atty. Ortiz, so he had
to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not being able
to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the
CANON 22
dismissal of the case, but recalled of Canoy conveying that he
Case: ELMER CANOY vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ already has a lawyer to handle the case. Hence, his office did not
(A.C. No. 5485. March 16, 2005) insist on refiling the case.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct
Complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former and malpractice.
counsel, Atty. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice filed
with the Office of the Bar Confidant in 2001. In 1998, Canoy filed a HELD:
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines concluded that does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty. Suspension
clearly Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to
diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients claim and deviate from the norm in this case.
recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. The Supreme Court, -
however, finds the recommended penalty (reprimand) of the IBP Case: ANGELITA C. ORCINO vs. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR
too lenient and instead suspended Atty. Ortiz from the practice of (Adm. Case No. 3773. September 24, 1997.)
law for one month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of FACTS:
the same negligence will be dealt with more severely. Complainant engaged the services of respondent to
prosecute a criminal case she intended to le against several suspects
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Ortiz was guilty in the slaying of her husband. The criminal case against the suspects
of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code, which states, A lawyer shall was thereafter led with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc,
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Respondent failed to attend the hearing
connection there with shall render him liable, on account of his in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the court, over the
failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to neglecting a complainant's objections, granted bail to all the accused.
legal matter entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without Complainant became belligerent and started accusing respondent of
prejudice does not mitigate his liability. Further, Ortiz also violated jeopardizing the case by his absence. Respondent explained that he
Rule 22.02, which states: A laywer shall withdraw his services only did not receive formal notice of the hearing. Complainant asked for
for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. the records of the case saying that she could refer them to another
Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, lawyer. Stung by complainant's words, respondent gave her the
he, however, cannot just do so and leave complaint in the cold records. Respondent led with the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw
unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who as Counsel." Since the motion did not bear the consent of the
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn complainant, the court ordered respondent to secure complainant's
over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall consent and to remain as private prosecutor until he has secured the
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. consent. Complainant refused to sign her conformity to the
Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on withdrawal. The hearings in the criminal case continued. Respondent
the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the did not appear at the hearings nor did he contact complainant.
services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no Complainant was thus compelled to engage the services of another
apparent coordination between Att. Ortiz and this new counsel. lawyer. Hence, the present administrative case. The case was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
There are no good reasons that would justify a
lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of On June 14, 1992, complainant Angelita C. Orcino
litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of filed with the Court a letter-complaint dated December 10, 1991
desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of against respondent Atty. Josue Gaspar, her former counsel.
what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, Complainant prayed that this Court impose disciplinary sanctions on
respondent for abandoning his duties and for failing to return the complainant and respondent. Complainant was upset by respondent's
legal fees she fully paid for his services. absence at the hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers
of her husband. She vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was
ISSUE: thus a spontaneous and natural reaction for her to confront
respondent with his absence. Her belligerence arose from her
1) Whether or not there is a reasonable ground to withdraw as overzealousness, nothing more. Complainant's words and actions
counsel. may have hurt respondent's feelings considering the work he had put
2) Whether or not the complainants act violates the Code of into the case. But her words were uttered in a burst of passion. And
Professional Responsibility. even at that moment, complainant did not expressly terminate
respondent's services. She made this clear when she refused to sign
HELD: his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel."
Granting that respondent's motion without
complainant's consent was an application for withdrawal with the IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is admonished to
court, we find that this reason is insufficient to justify his withdrawal exercise more prudence and judiciousness in dealing with his clients.
from the case. Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that He is also ordered to return to complainant within fifteen (15) days
"there no longer exist[ed] theconfidence" between them and that from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
there had been "serious differences between them relating to the representing a portion of his legal fees received from the latter with a
manner of private prosecution." warning that failure on his part to do so will result in the imposition
A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client of stiffer disciplinary action.
only in the following instances: (a) when a client insists upon an -
unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that
the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Case: JESUS M. FERRER vs. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN
Responsibility; (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers (A.C. No. 6590, June 27, 2005)
and the lawyers could not get along to the detriment of the case; (d)
when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him FACTS:
incapable of handling the case effectively; (e) when the client Complainant, Jesus Ferrer, was involved in a traffic
deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon; (f) when the accident. He sought the assistance of the respondent, Atty. Jose
lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar Tabelin, to render legal services, respondent charged P5,000 as
cases. acceptance fee. Complainant later complained against the respondent
for abandoning his case and refusing to talk or see him. He wanted
The instant case does not fall under any of the for the return of the acceptance fee he paid the respondent.
grounds mentioned. Neither can this be considered analogous to the
grounds enumerated. As found by the Commission on Bar Respondent answered that he did not abandoned the
Discipline, this case arose from a simple misunderstanding between case. He talked with the other party in the accident and later sent a
demand letter. He is also willing to return the fee he received. The
respondent, however, did not attend the scheduled hearing and Respondent is suspended from the practice of law
moved out of his office address. for two months and ordered to return the P5,000 with legal interest.
-
ISSUE:
Did Atty. Tabelin violated the Code of Professional Case: TERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE
Responsibility or not? (A.C. No. 5834. December 11, 2003)
FACTS:
HELD: Complainant is the defendant in an action for
It has been held that That complainant failed to ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 50988. During the pendency of
contact or communicate with respondent immediately before he was the ejectment case, she filed an action to Declare Deed of Absolute
prompted to seek a refund due to respondent's alleged unavailability, Sale Null and Void and for Reconveyance with Damages docketed as
as conveyed by respondent's secretary, does not necessarily make out Civil Case No. 97-275. Complainant then engaged the services of
a case of abandonment, especially in light of respondent's above- respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance as her counsel in both cases and
mentioned unrefuted claim that he had proffered demands for agreed to pay respondent her acceptance fee. However, respondent
damages to Global Link and explained to complainant's daughter that refused to issue the corresponding receipts.
they still had to await for the response of Global Link. Civil Case No. 97-275 was dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Respondent then made representations with complainant
However, the Court faults respondent for ignoring that she was going to file a petition for certiorari. Complainant
the hearing and failure to notify of his new address. His actuation discovered that no such petition had been filed. Since then,
betrays his lack of courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer. He is respondent persistently avoided complainant and failed to represent
also faulted for welching on his manifestation-undertaking to return her in Civil Cases Nos. 50988 and 97-275.
the P5,000.00, not to mention the documents bearing on the case, to Complainant then filed the administrative case at bar
complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his reckless disregard with the Commission on Bar Discipline praying that appropriate
of the duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the Code of sanctions be meted on respondent. The Investigating Commissioner
Professional Responsibility: found respondent culpable as charged and recommended that she be
suspended from the practice of law for two years.
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, ISSUE:
immediately turn over all papers and property to Whether or not Atty. Avance violated the Code of
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with Professional Responsibility.
his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, HELD:
including all information necessary for the proper Yes. The Court stated that there is no question that
handling of the matter. respondent was grossly remiss in the performance of her duties as
counsel. Aggravating her gross negligence in the performance of her
duties, respondent abruptly stopped appearing as complainants ISSUE:
counsel even as proceedings were still pending with neither a Whether or not respondent properly withdrew his
withdrawal nor an explanation. This was in gross violation of Canon services as counsel of record in Civil Case No. 97-9865.
22 which states that a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. HELD:
The Court further stated that the inevitable Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY
conclusion is that respondent gravely abused the confidence that of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
complainant reposed in her and with palpable bad faith. The Court Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
found the recommended penalty not commensurate to the degree of year.
respondents malfeasance. The Court ordered that Atty. Avance be
suspended from the practice of law for five years. An attorney may only retire from a case either by
- written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due
notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that
Case: HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA RESORTS the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. A lawyer who
CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A. JALANDONI vs . desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his
ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, (A.C. No. 5303. June 15, client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve a
2006) copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least
three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court may
FACTS: treat the application as a "mere scrap of paper." Respondent made no
That Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26,
Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on
Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein complainant married to her April 28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only
daughter, Cristina J. Lim. That sometime on the year 1997 the case presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty.
above-cited (Civil Case No. 97-9865) was filed before the court Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place,
against the sisters. The propriety of respondent's withdrawal as
counsel for Lumot A. Jalandoni in Civil Case No. 97-9865 to fulfill -
an alleged retainership agreement with the spouses Jalbuena in a suit
by PRC, through Cristina Lim, against the Jalbuenas and Delfin (BC Case: ELISA V. VENTEREZ, GENARO DE VERA, INOCENCIA
I.S. No. 99-2192). In his December 1, 2000 comment, respondent V. RAMIREZ, PACITA V. MILLS, ANTONINA V. PALMA and
stated that it was he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. RAMON DE VERA vs . ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME
Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from (A.C. No. 7421. October 10, 2007)
the case with the knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of
court. FACTS:
 Complaint filed by complainants Eliza V. Venterez, not comply with these obligations. Therefore, he remains the counsel
Genaro de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. of record for the complainants in Civil Case No. 981 with the duty to
Palma and Ramon de Vera against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. protect complainants' interest. Had he made the necessary inquiries
Cosme, charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross Negligence and as to the status of the case, he would have known that he was still the
Dereliction of Duty. Complainant Elisa V. Venterez was constrained counsel of record as no entry of appearance was ever made by
to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion for Reconsideration another counsel. It would have been easily discernible on his part
which was filed on 19 March 2004. It must be stressed that the said that there was no change in his status as complainants' lawyer. As of
motion was signed by complainant Elisa V. Venterez herself as the that time, their client-lawyer.
said lawyer did not enter his appearance. Respondent averred that -
"he [was] withdrawing the case from the respondent because he
already engaged another lawyer to take over the case, so respondent Case: FELICISIMO M. MONTANO vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF
gave the records of the case to him." THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA
(A.M. No. 4215, May 21, 2001)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed culpable FACTS:
negligence in handling complainants' case, as In a verified complaint filed before this Court on
would warrant disciplinary action. March 9, 1994, complainant Felicisimo M. Montano charged Atty.
Juan Dealca with misconduct and prays that he be sternly dealt
HELD: with administratively. The complaint is summarized as follows: (1)
A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or Complainant hired the services of Atty. Dealca as his counsel in
special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before
and with a copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the the Court of Appeals; (2) Complainant paid respondent the amount
client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an application of P7,500.00 representing 50% of the attorneys fee; (3) Thereafter,
with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse party, even before the respondent counsel had prepared the appellants brief
shall determine whether the lawyer ought to be allowed to retire. The and contrary to their agreement that the remaining balance be
application for withdrawal must be based on a good cause. Without a payable after the termination of the case, Atty. Dealca demanded an
proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, additional payment from complainant. Complainant paid the amount
respondent remains counsel of record for the complainants in Civil of P4,000.00 and failed to pay the remaining P3,500.00 upon demand
Case No. 981; and whether he has a valid cause to withdraw from the by the respondent. When complainant was unable to do so,
case, he cannot immediately do so and leave his clients without respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance as complainants
representation. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity. Returning
written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due the case folder to the complainant, respondent counsel attached a
notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should see to it that note to complainant withdrawing as counsel which was couched in
the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. Respondent did impolite and insulting language. IBP reversed its previous
recommendation of the penalty from three (3) months suspension to The complainant sought the legal services of the
a reprimand when the Court referred back the case to them. respondent regarding her mother-in-laws share in her husbands
estate. Since she had no money to pay for attorneys fees, the
ISSUE: respondent made her sign a promissory note for Php32,000 which
Whether or not Atty. Dealcas conduct was just and was lent by a certain Domingo Natavio. This was paid when her
proper mother-in-law arrived from United States.

HELD: However, the respondent severed the lawyer-client

No. The Court finds Atty. Dealcas conduct relationship due to overwhelming workload demanded by her new
unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of employer, Nakayama Group of Companies, thereby leaving the
the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyer shall withdraw his complainant with no representation.
services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when the
client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, under the ISSUE:
circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was Whether or not the respondent should be held
unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the administratively liable for violating the Code on Professional
attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill Responsibility (CPR).
his obligation. Respondents contemptuous conduct does not speak
well of a member of the bar considering that the amount owing to HELD:
him was only P3,500.00. Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a Based on the established facts, the respondent is
lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his liable for violating a number of rules in the CPR. Among others, the
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent respondent failed to maintain an open line of communication with
imposition, injustice or fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to the complainant regarding the status of their complaint and
him by complainant, respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance eventually withdrew her services when the demand of her workload
with the demands of the Code. Respondent is REPRIMANDED with for another client became overwhelming. However, heavy workload
a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more is not a sufficient reason for the withdrawal of her services. Canon
severely. 22 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall withdraw his services
- only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. When a lawyer accepts a case, he undertakes to give
Case: MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. CENIZA vs. ATTY. VIVIAN his utmost attention, skill and competence to it, regardless of its
G. RUBIA significance. Thus, failure to fulfill his duties will subject him to
(A.C. No.6166, October 2, 2009) grave administrative liability as a member of the Bar.

FACTS:
 The respondent is therefore SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months with a stern warning.