canon 8 report

8/18/2019 Canon 8 Report

1/37

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH

COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS

PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID

HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

RULE 8.01 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, IN HIS

PROFESSIONAL DEALINGS, USE LANGUAGE WHICH IS

ABUSIVE, OFFENSIVE OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER.

RULE 8.02 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY, ENCROACH UPON THE PROFESSIONAL

EMPLOYMENT OF ANOTHER LAWYER, HOWEVER, IT IS THE

RIGHT OF ANY LAWYER, WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, TO

GIVE PROPER ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO THOSE

SEEKING RELIEF AGAINST UNFAITHFUL OR NEGLECTFUL

COUNSEL.

August 2010 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Legal and Judicial EthicsPosted on September 20, 2010 by amon !" Songco # Posted in Legal Ethics # $agged delay, dishonesty, %orum shopping,gross misconduct, inhibition, misconduct

&ere are selected August 2010 rulings o% the Supreme Court o% the Philippines on legaland 'udicial ethics(

Attorney) gross discourtesy" *hen +ilagros nally met respondent on September -0,200. /in order to collect on his debt to her, respondent, in the presence o% seeralothers, told her “Eh kung sabihin ko na sugar mommy kita,” adding thatNagpapakantot ka naman sa akin"3 $he Court nds that respondent is indeed guilty o%gross discourtesy amounting to conduct unbecoming o% a court employee" 4y suchiolation, respondent %ailed to lie up to his oath o% o5ce as member o% the 6ntegrated4ar o% the Philippines and iolated ule 7"0- o% the Code o% Pro%essionalesponsibility" $he Court has consistently been reminding o5cials and employees o% the

Judiciary that their conduct or behaior is circumscribed 8ith a heay burden o%responsibility 8hich, at all times, should be characteri9ed by, among other things, strictpropriety and decorum" As such, they should not use abusie, o:ensie, scandalous,menacing and improper language" $heir eery act or 8ord should be mar;ed byprudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity" Aside %rom iolating ule 7"0- o% the Code o%Pro%essional esponsibility, respondent appears to hae also iolated ule ."01 o% the

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/august-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/legal-ethics/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/legal-ethics/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/delay/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/dishonesty/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/dishonesty/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/dishonesty/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/forum-shopping/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/gross-misconduct/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/inhibition/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/misconduct/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/rgslexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/legal-ethics/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/delay/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/dishonesty/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/forum-shopping/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/gross-misconduct/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/inhibition/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/misconduct/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/august-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/


2/37

same Code" Complaints of Mrs. Milagros Lee & Samantha Lee against Atty. il Luisito !.Capito, A.M. No. "##$%'%SC. August $, "##

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813. November 21, 2003]

ATTY. ANTONIO D. SELUDO, complainant, vs. JUDE ANTONIO J.

!INE"A, respondent .

D E # I S I O N

$UNO, J .%

The incident which gave rise to this administrative case occurred in the course of

the proceedings of People of the Philippines vs. lfonso De Villar! Errol De Villar and

"odeo #erio! Criminal Case No. C$%&'() for attempted murder! *efore respondent

+udge ntonio +. ,ine-a! ranch /)/ of the "egional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit0.

The respondent 1udge was charged administrativel0 *0 tt0. ntonio D. Seludo!

counsel for the accused! *efore the Office of the Court dministrator of the Supreme

Court! with the following offenses2 3/4 gross ignorance of the law! 354 oppression in

office! 3)4 grave a*use of authorit0! and 364 conduct un*ecoming of a 1udge. 7/8

It was alleged that on Novem*er 59! 5''5! respondent 1udge ordered the arrest of

complainant for the failure of accused! Errol De Villar and "odeo #erio! as well as their

counsel! tt0. ntonio Seludo! to appear in toda0s promulgation of 3the4 decision despite

due notice! : : :.758 The Order of rrest7)8 commanded an0 officer of the law to arrest

complainant and to ;eep him in 1ail until the decision in Criminal Case No. %&'() shall

have *een promulgated.

Complainant averred that he was the defense counsel in two separate Criminal

Cases2 3/4 Nos. /9&6


3/37

Criminal Case Nos. /9&6


4/37

Complainant replied stating that his secretar0 called respondents office on

Novem*er /&! and was told that all hearings scheduled for the da0 were cancelled due

to respondents hospitali-ation. =e denied he was dela0ing the case.

The report of the Office of the Court dministrator is adverse to the respondent

1udge! viz 2

x x x x x x x x x

The arrest of the complainant was, therefore, not only illegal, but also oppressive, and

it violated his constitutional right to due process. Complainant was arrested and

detained without giving him the opportunity to be heard. In so doing, respondent

judge, wittingly or unwittingly, committed arbitrary detention defined and penalized

under Article !" of the #evised $enal Code when the order of arrest was issued for

complainant %who& was not committing a crime

x x x x x x x x x

In his C'(()*T, respondent judge used the words+ fact fabricator, congenital liar,

Indian who fails to comply with his commitment and dimwitted lawyer, as

descriptive of the complainant. These words are inflammatory which should have

been avoided. In explaining why he issued the order of arrest against the complainant,

the use of intemperate and insulting rhetorics is not necessary, if only to maintain the

dignity of, and respect for, the court as an institution. 7&8

The OC recommended that respondent 1udge *e penali-ed to pa0 a ,INE in the

amount of twent0 thousand pesos 3P5'!'''.''4 for gross ignorance of the law!

oppression! grave a*use of authorit0 and violation of "ule &.'/! 7(8 Canon & and "ule

/'.')!7/'8 Canon /' of the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0.7//8

Ae agree with modification.

In the case at *ar! respondent *ased his authorit0 in ordering complainants

incarceration on Section /6! "ule //( of the "evised "ules of Court! which provides2

Sec. 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness. -hen the court is satisfied,

upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not testify when reuired, it may, upon

motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in such sum as may be deemed

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn11


5/37

proper. /pon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him to prison until he

complies or is legally discharged after his testimony has been ta0en.

It does not need a ;een intellect to hold that the rule relied upon *0 the respondent

cannot *e used as *asis for the detention of complainant since he is a counsel and not

a material witness to a case.

Section

does not re?uire the presence of the counsel during the promulgation of a 1udgment! viz 2

SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the

presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. 1owever,

if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the

presence of his counsel or representative. -hen the judge is absent or is outside the

province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the cler0 of court.

If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be

promulgated by the executive judge of the #egional Trial Court having jurisdiction

over the place of confinement or detention upon the reuest of the court which

rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to

accept the notice of appeal and to prove the bail bond pending appeal2 provided, that if

the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense

from nonbailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved

by the appellate court.

The proper cler0 of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his

bondsman or warden and counsel, reuiring him to be present at the promulgation of

the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped

from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last 0nown address.

In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment

despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the

criminal doc0et and serving him a copy thereof at his last 0nown address or thru his

counsel.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without

justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these #ules against the

judgment and the court shall order his arrest. -ithin fifteen %3& days from


6/37

promulgation of the judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion

for leave of court to avail of these remedies. 1e shall state the reasons for his absence

at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable

cause, he shall be allowed to avail of these remedies within fifteen %3& days from

notice.

Ae hold that respondent violated "ule ).'6! Canon ) of the Code of +udicial

Conduct! which states2

Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially

the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A

judge should avoid consciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are

made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

It is plain that respondent was impatient and discourteous in dealing with

complainant. +udges should respect all people appearing *efore their courts! *e the0

law0ers or litigants."espondent ordered complainants arrest without according him the

elementar0 right to challenge the order. The violation of his right to due process cannot

*e denied. To *e sure! complainant satisfactoril0 e:plained his a*sence in the

Novem*er /& scheduled promulgation. efore the promulgation! complainants secretar0

called respondents office to verif0 the schedule and was informed that all hearings for

the da0 were cancelled due to respondents confinement in the hospital. It is therefore

inaccurate to contend that complainant was a*sent twice! and he has to *e arrested to

prevent dela0 in the promulgation of the decision. The Office of the Court dministrator correctl0 o*served that the respondent should have followed the following procedure2

-hat respondent judge should have done under the circumstances obtaining at the

time he issued the order of arrest of complainant was first to issue an order directing

him %4eludo&, within a reasonable time, to show cause why he should not be punished

for indirect contempt of court and, reset the promulgation of the decision to some

other time at the convenience of the court. If the explanation is not satisfactory to the

court, then and only then, that a penalty should be imposed upon the contemner.

It is li;ewise provided in .@. No. '5$($'5$SC "e2 utomatic Conversion of Some

dministrative Cases gainst +ustices of the Court of ppeals and the Sandigan*a0anB

+udges of "egular and Special CourtsB and Court Officials Aho are #aw0ers as

Disciplinar0 Proceedings gainst Them oth as Such Officials and as @em*ers of the

Philippine ar! that administrative cases against 1udges of lower courts! who are

li;ewise law0ers! are *ased on grounds which are also grounds for disciplinar0 action of


7/37

mem*ers of the ar! among others! for violation of the Code of Professional

"esponsi*ilit0.

-e consider respondent judge to have violated+ %& #ule 5.6, Canon 5 of the Code of

$rofessional #esponsibility which prohibits the use of inappropriate language+

Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is

abusive, offensive or otherwise improper2 and

%!& #ule 6.67, Canon 6, which mandates the proper observance of the rules of

procedure+

Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to

defeat the ends of justice.

Ae are disappointed *0 respondents penchant for improper words when he called

the complainant a fact fa*ricator! a congenital liar! an Indian who fails to compl0 with his

commitment and dim$witted. Ae had previousl0 admonished respondent 1udge for using

inappropriate language. In J&'(e A)*o)+o J. !+)e v. Romeo $. Ar&e/o!7/58 respondent 1udge filed a complaint against ruelo! a Cler; of Court of another *ranch

for interfering with a case pending in his sala. =e later withdrew his complaint on the

ground that : : : the Supreme Court and the OCD did not ta;e prompt action on 3the4

matter. It too; for 3sic 4 3them4 two 0ears and eight months without favora*l0 giving due

course to this administrative case which was filed *0 this representation against the

respondent. I am downgraded 3sic 4 not to sa0 I am saddened *0 the inaction of the

Supreme Court so I am withdrawing m0 complaint. =e also added that 3he is4 alread0

demorali-ed and 3has4 lost faith in the s0stem. In our decision! respondent 1udge was

en1oined to *e more circumspect in his language. =e was li;ewise made to show cause

wh0 he should not *e administrativel0 sanctioned for casting the Court and the +udiciar0

in *ad light.

In his e:planation! respondent claimed that he had no intention to spea; ill against

the Court or the +udiciar0 and attri*uted his intemperate language to *eing human and

having his own share of human frailties. Nonetheless! we admonished him to e:erciseprudence and restraint in his language and sternl0 warned that a repetition of the same

or similar offense will *e dealt with more severel0. 7/)8

In a more recent case decided *0 the Court En Banc ! L+m v. J&'(e A)*o)+o

J. !+)e,7/68 respondent 1udge was also found guilt0 of gross misconduct for failing to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/am_p_01_1522.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/am_p_01_1522.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/am_p_01_1522.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/am_p_01_1522.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/am_rtj_02_1705.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/am_rtj_03_1813.htm#_ftn14


8/37

e:ecute a 1udgment which had *ecome final! and was fined P)'!'''.''! with a stern

warning that a repetition of the same act will *e dealt with more severel0.

Ae consider respondents act of ordering the detention of complainant without 1ust

cause as gross ignorance of the law or procedure! and the improper use of words in his

Comment as gross misconduct!7/%8 *oth under Section &! "ule /6' of the "evised "ules

of Court! 7/


9/37

IN IE EREO!! we find respondent 1udge guilt0 of gross ignorance of

procedure and impose on him a fine of P6'!'''.''! and gross misconduct and impose

on him a fine ofP6'!'''.''! considering his repetition of the offense.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, r!, and "inga, ##!, concur !

A.#. No. 34 O5*ober 26, 2006

ROSALIE DALLON-ALI#INAO, Complainant!

vs.

ATTY. IRIL R. #ASTRO, "espondent.

" E S O # > T I O N

T+)(, J .%

This administrative case concerns a law0er who hurled invectives at a Cler; of Court. @em*ers of

the *ar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner *efitting their no*le profession.

Complainant tt0. "osalie Dallong$alicinao is the Cler; of Court of the "egional Trial Court 3"TC4

of am*ang! Nueva Vi-ca0a. On & @a0 5'')! she filed with the Commission on ar Discipline

3CD4 of the Integrated ar of the Philippines 3IP4 a Complaint-A$$idavit / with supporting

documents5

against respondent tt0. Virgil ". Castro for >nprofessional Conduct! specificall0violation of Canon 9! "ule 9.')! Canon & and "ule &.'5 of the Code of Professional

"esponsi*ilit0.) The charge in the complaint is summed up as follows2

"espondent tt0. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice$President of IP$Nueva Vi-ca0a

Chapter. On % @a0 5'')! respondent went to complainants office to in?uire whether the complete

records of Civil Case No. 9&6! entitled ps! Crispino Castillano v! ps! %ederico ! Castillano and

%elicidad Aberin! had alread0 *een remanded to the court of origin! @CTC Dupa: del Norte! lfonso

Castaned! Nueva Vi-ca0a. It must *e noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either

part0 in Civil Case No. 9&6.

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not 0et *een transmitted since a certified truecop0 of the decision of the Court of ppeals should first *e presented to serve as *asis for the

transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent retorted scornfull0! Aho will certif0

the Court of ppeals Decision! the Court of ppealsF Gou mean to sa0! I would still have to go to

@anila to get a certified true cop0F Surprised at this out*urst! complainant replied! Sir! its in the

"ules *ut 0ou could show us the cop0 sent to the part0 0ou claim to *e representing. "espondent

then replied! Then 0ou should have notified me of the said re?uirement. That was two wee;s ago

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt3


10/37

and I have *een fre?uenting 0our office since then! *ut 0ou never *othered to notif0 me.

Complainant replied! It is not our dut0! Sir! to notif0 0ou of the said re?uirement.

"espondent then answered! Gou mean to sa0 it is not 0our dut0 to remand the record of the caseF

Complainant responded! No! Sir! I mean! its not our dut0 to notif0 0ou that 0ou have to su*mit a

cop0 of the Court of ppeals decision. "espondent angril0 declared in Ilocano! &'ayat mo nga sa(-en, a(an pakialam yon) 'asdiay)& 3Gou mean to sa0 0ou dont care an0moreF Is that the wa0 it

isF4 =e then turned and left the office! *anging the door on his wa0 out to show his anger. The

*anging of the door was so loud it was heard *0 the people at the ad1acent "TC! ranch )' where a

hearing was ta;ing place.6

fter a few minutes! respondent returned to the office! still enraged! and pointed his finger at

complainant and shouted! &*kinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak

ah+& 3Vulva of 0our motherH If 0ou are har*oring ill feelings against m0 client! dont turn 0our ire on

meH4 Complainant was shoc;ed at respondents words *ut still managed to repl0! I dont even ;now

0our client! Sir. "espondent left the office and as he passed *0 complainants window! he again

shouted! &*kinnam nga babai+& 3Vulva of 0our mother! 0ou womanH4

%

Complainant suffered acute em*arrassment at the incident! as it happened in her office of which she

was! and still is! the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credi*ilit0 had *een tarnished and

diminished! eliciting dou*t on her a*ilit0 to command full respect from her staff.<

The Complaint-A$$idavit ! filed three da0s after the incident! was supported *0 an A$$idavit 9 signed *0

emplo0ees of "TC$am*ang! Nueva Vi-ca0a who witnessed the incident. The A$$idavit narrated the

same incident as witnessed *0 the said emplo0ees. Motion to %ile Additional

A$$idavitocumentary Evidence was filed *0 complainant on 5% Septem*er 5'').&

On 5< @a0 5'')! the CD$IP issued an .rder (

re?uiring respondent to su*mit his answer to thecomplaint. "espondent su*mitted his Compliance/' dated /& +une 5''). "espondent e:plained that

he was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. &69! entitled ps! %ederico Castillano, et al! v! ps!

Crispin Castillano, et al!, filed with the "TC of Nueva Vi-ca0a! ranch )'. =e learned of the finalit0 of

the decision of the Court of ppeals in C$.". No.


11/37


12/37

Canon & law0er shall conduct himself with courtes0! fairness and candor toward his professional

colleagues! and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

"ule &.'/ law0er shall not! in his professional dealings! use language which is a*usive!

offensive or otherwise improper.

@oreover! Canon & of the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0 demands that law0ers conduct

themselves with courtes0! fairness and candor toward their fellow law0ers. #aw0ers are dut0 *ound

to uphold the dignit0 of the legal profession. The0 must act honora*l0! fairl0 and candidl0 towards

each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times./&

s correctl0 evaluated *0 the Investigating Commissioner! respondent did not categoricall0 den0 the

charges in the complaint. Instead! he gave a length0 narration of the prefator0 facts of the case as

well as of the incident on % @a0 5'').

Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-A$$idavit that respondents uncharacteristic *ehavior was

not an isolated incident. =e has supposedl0 done the same to tt0s. *raham +ohnn0 . suncionand Temm0 #am*ino! the latter having filed a case against respondent pending *efore this

Court./( Ae! however! cannot ac;nowledge such allegation a*sent an0 evidence showing the

veracit0 of such claim. No affidavits to that effect were su*mitted *0 either tt0. suncion or tt0.

#am*ino.

Nonetheless! the penalt0 to *e imposed should *e tempered owing to the fact that respondent had

apologi-ed to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to sa0! however! that

respondent should *e a*solved from his actuations. People are accounta*le for the conse?uences

of the things the0 sa0 and do even if the0 repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done

cannot *e undone and words uttered cannot *e ta;en *ac;. =ence! he should *ear the

conse?uences of his actions.

The highest reward that can *e *estowed on law0ers is the esteem of their *rethren. This esteem

cannot *e purchased! perfunctoril0 created! or gained *0 artifice or contrivance. It is *orn of sharp

conte:ts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solel0 from integrit0! character! *rains

and s;ills in the honora*le performance of professional dut0.5'

A=E"E,O"E! premises considered! respondent is here*0 ,INED in the amount of TEN

T=O>SND 3P/'!'''.''4 PESOS with a warning that an0 similar infraction with *e dealt with more

severel0. #et a cop0 of thisecision *e furnished the ar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the

record of the respondent.

SO O"DE"ED.

DANTE O. TINA

Associate #ustice

AE CONC>"2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/ac_6396_2005.html#fnt20


13/37

REYNATO S. $UNO

Associate #ustice

Chairman

MA. ALI#IA AUSTRIA-MARTINE", ROMEO J. #ALLEJO, SR.

Associate #ustice Associate #ustice

3On #eave4

MINITA . #I#O-NA"ARIO

Associate #ustice

ADM. #ASE NO. 6737 O5*ober 26, 200

!ERDINAND A. #RU", complainant!

vs.

ATTY. STANLEY #A9RERA, respondent.

" E S O # > T I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINE", J.:

In an administrative complaint dated +ul0 9! 5''5! ,erdinand . Cru- charges tt0. Stanle0 Ca*rerawith misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0.

Complainant alleges that he is a fourth 0ear law studentB since the latter part of 5''/! he instituted

several actions against his neigh*orsB he appeared for and in his *ehalf in his own casesB he met

respondent who acted as the counsel of his neigh*orsB during a hearing on +anuar0 /6! 5''5! in one

case *efore the "egional Trial Court! ranch //5! Pasa0 Cit0! presided *0 +udge Caridad Cuerdo!

the following e:change transpired2


14/37

::: ::: So! ma0 we ;now 0our honor! if he is a law0er or notF

The Court having *een inhi*ited *0 the respondent from hearing the case! replied2

Gou are as;ing for m0 inhi*ition and 0et 0ou want me to rule on his appearance :::

:::.

Thereafter! the respondent said2

ecause 0our honor! he 3pertaining to the complainant4 is misrepresenting himself to

*e a law0erH

To this the complainant remar;ed2

Gour =onor! Im not ::: :::.

"espondent! this time engulfed with anger in a raising voice said2

ppear ;a ng appear! pumasa ;a munaB : : :.

"espondents imputations were uncalled for and the latters act of compelling the court to as;

complainant whether he is a law0er or not was intended to malign him *efore the pu*lic! inasmuch

as respondent ;new that complainant is not a law0er! having appeared for and in his *ehalf as a

part0 litigant in prior casesB respondents imputations of complainants misrepresentation as a law0er

was patentl0 with malice to discredit his honor! with the intention to threaten him not to appear

an0more in cases respondent was handlingB the manner! su*stance! tone of voice and how the

words appear ;a ng appear! pumasa ;a munaH were uttered were totall0 with the intention to

anno0! ve: and humiliate! malign! ridicule! incriminate and discredit complainant *efore the pu*lic.

Complainant claims that respondents displa0 of improper attitude! arrogance! mis*ehavior!

misconduct in the performance of his duties *oth as a law0er and officer of the court! *efore the

pu*lic and the court! was a patent transgression of the ver0 ethics that law0ers are sworn to uphold

in their dealings with societ0 and corresponding appropriate penalt0 or sanctions for the said

administrative violations should *e imposed on the respondent.

In his Comment! respondent contends that the complaint filed against him is a vicious scheme to

dissuade him from appearing as counsel for the @ina famil0 against whom complainant had filed

several civil and criminal cases including him to further complainants illegal practice of lawB

complainants complaint occurred during a 1udicial proceeding wherein complainant was a*le torepresent himself considering that he was appearing in barong tagalog thus the presiding 1udge was

misled when she issued an order stating 7i8n toda0s hearing *oth law0ers appearedB *ecause of

which! respondent stated2 Gour honor I would li;e to manifest that this counsel 3referring to

complainant4 who represents the plaintiff in this case is not a law0er! to which complainant replied2

The counsel ver0 well ;now that I am not 0et a law0erB the reason he informed the court that

complainant is not a law0er was *ecause the presiding 1udge did not ;now that complainant is not a

law0er and complainant did not inform the presiding 1udge that he is not a law0er when he stated2


15/37

for the plaintiff 0our honorB he stated pumasa ;a muna out of indignation *ecause of

complainants temerit0 in misrepresenting himself as law0erB it is surprising that the Cit0 Prosecutor

of Pasa0 Cit0 filed a complaint for oral defamation against him considering that in a precedent case

the Supreme Court stated2 It is a settled principle in this 1urisdiction that statements made in the

course of 1udicial proceedings are a*solutel0 privileged 3Navarrete vs. Court of ppeals! )5% SC"

%6'4B in another malicious prosecution *eing perpetuated *0 the complainant against the @inafamil0 pending *efore +udge Priscilla @i1ares of "TC ranch /'&! Pasa0 Cit0! the0 were a*le to

prohi*it the appearance of complainant as counsel for himself as authenticated *0 an Order of +udge

Priscilla @i1ares which allegedl0 stated among otherB to wit2

In connection with ,erdinand . Cru-s motion to appear as counsel! the motion is li;ewise

denied! movant not having satisfied the re?uirements and conditions under "ule /)&$!

Sections / and 5.

"espondent alleges that when complainant filed an administrative case against +udge Priscilla

@i1ares when said +udge stated in "agalog in open court 0ay naku masama yung marunong pa sa

0u(es+ .' F the same was dismissed *0 the =onora*le Courts Third Division which stated amongothers2 That the ?uestioned remar;s of respondent were uttered more out of frustration and in

reaction to complainants actuations and ta;ing into account that complainant is not 0et a law0er *ut

was alread0 lecturing the court on a matter which is not even a point of discussion was sheer

arrogance on the part of the complainant. "espondent pra0s that the complaint against him *e

dismissed for lac; of merit.

The administrative case was referred to the Integrated ar of the Philippines 3IP4 for investigation!

report and recommendation.

In a report! dated @arch 6! 5''6! IP Commissioner #0dia . Navarro recommended respondents

suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating "ule &.'/ of the Codeof Professional "esponsi*ilit0 which provides2

law0er shall not! in his professional dealings! use language which is a*usive! offensive or

otherwise improper.

In her report! Commissioner Navarro stated2

fter going over the evidence su*mitted *0 the parties! the undersigned noted that

respondents averment that the utterances he made in open court is 3sic4 privileged

communication does not hold water for the same was 3sic4 not relevant to the issue of the

case in ?uestion under trial *efore the said court.

"espondent did not refute the fact that the same utterances he made in open court against the

complainant had *een the *asis for his indictment of Oral Defamation and later >n1ust Ve:ation

under Criminal Cases Nos. '5$/')/ and No. '5$5/)< respectivel0! pending trial *efore @TC ranch

6%! Pasa0 Cit0.


16/37

#i;ewise respondent did not refute complainants allegation that in /(9( he was held in contempt

and was not allowed to practice law for seven 0ears *0 the Supreme Court in the administrative case

filed against him *0 Emilia E. ndres on Decem*er /6! /(9( doc;eted as .@. #$%&% for his

fondness in using contumacious language in his dealing with others.

,rom the facts o*taining! it is apparent that the utterance hurled *0 the respondent in the manner!su*stance and tone of his voice which was not refuted *0 him that appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka

muna in whatever manner it was uttered are in itself not onl0 a*usive *ut insulting speciall0 on the

part of law students who have not 0et ta;en nor passed the *ar e:amination re?uired of them.

"espondent should have *een more discreet and cautious in informing the court if it was his purpose

relative to complainants appearance in courtB although the latter appeared onl0 in his *ehalf *ut not

for others if he had complied with the re?uirements of "ule /)& 3Sections / and )4 of the "ules of

Court.

"espondent should have *een more temperate in ma;ing utterances in his professional dealings so

as not to offend the sensitivities of the other part0 as in this case.

On pril /

investigator shall *e reviewed *0 the IP oard of overnors upon the record and evidencetransmitted to it *0 the Investigator with his report. The decision of the oard upon such

review shall *e in writing and shall clearl0 and distinctl0 state the facts and the reasons on

which it is *ased. It shall *e promulgated within a period not e:ceeding thirt0 3)'4 da0s from

the ne:t meeting of the oard following the su*mittal of the Investigators report. 3Emphasis

supplied4

In Teodosio vs. Nava!/ the Court stressed the important function of the re?uirement that the decision

of the oard of overnors state the facts and the reasons on which it is *ased! which is a;in to what

is re?uired of the decisions of courts of record! thus2

,or aside from informing the parties the reason for the decision to ena*le them to point out tothe appellate court the findings with which the0 are not in agreement! in case an0 of them

decides to appeal the decision! it is also an assurance that the 1udge! or the oard of

overnors in this case! reached his 1udgment through the process of legal reasoning. 5

In this case! the oard of overnors resolution a*solving respondent of an0 misconduct does not

contain an0 findings of facts or law upon which it *ased its ruling. Ordinaril0! non$compliance with the

rule would result in the remand of the case. Nonetheless! where the controvers0 has *een pending


17/37

resolution for ?uite sometime and the issues involved could *e resolved on the *asis of the records

on appeal! the Court has opted to resolve the case in the interest of 1ustice and speed0 disposition of

cases.) This case falls within the e:ception.

Ae hold that respondents out*urst of appear ;a ng appear! pumasa ;a muna does not amount to

a violation of "ule &.'/ of the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0.

ased on the facts of this case! such out*urst came a*out when respondent pointed out to the trial

court that complainant is not a law0er to correct the 1udges impression of complainants appearance!

inasmuch as the 1udge! in her Order of +anuar0 /6! 5''5! noted that complainant is a law0er.6 Such

single out*urst! though uncalled for! is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondents suspension

or reproof. It is *ut a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an

argument *etween them. It has *een said that law0ers should not *e held to too strict an account for

words said in the heat of the moment! *ecause of chagrin at losing cases! and that the *ig wa0 is for

the court to condone even contemptuous language.%

Nonetheless! we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating personall0 hiscases. part0s right to conduct litigation personall0 is recogni-ed *0 Section )6 of "ule /)& of the

"ules of Court2

SEC. )6. 0 whom litigation conducted. $$ In the court of a 1ustice of the peace a part0 ma0

conduct his litigation in person! with the aid of an agent or friend appointed *0 him for that

purpose! or with the aid of an attorne0. In an0 other court! a part0 ma0 conduct his litigation

personall0 or *0 aid of an attorne0! and his appearance must *e either personal or *0 a dul0

authori-ed mem*er of the *ar.

In @aderada vs. @ediodea!


18/37

Clearl0! in appearing for herself! complainant was not customaril0 or ha*ituall0 holding

herself out to the pu*lic as a law0er. Neither was she demanding pa0ment for such services.

=ence! she cannot *e said to *e in the practice of law.9

On the other hand! all law0ers should ta;e heed that law0ers are licensed officers of the courts who

are empowered to appear! prosecute and defendB and upon whom peculiar duties! responsi*ilitiesand lia*ilities are devolved *0 law as a conse?uence. @em*ership in the *ar imposes upon them

certain o*ligations. @andated to maintain the dignit0 of the legal profession! the0 must conduct

themselves honora*l0 and fairl0.& Though a law0ers language ma0 *e forceful and emphatic! it

should alwa0s *e dignified and respectful! *efitting the dignit0 of the legal profession. The use of

intemperate language and un;ind ascriptions has no place in the dignit0 of 1udicial forum.(

A=E"E,O"E! the complaint against respondent tt0. Stanle0 Ca*rera for misconduct in violation of

the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0 is DISMISSED for lac; of merit. =e is!

however! 'mo)+:e' to *e more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer of the

court.

SO O"DE"ED.

/uno, Callejo, r!, "inga, and Chico-1azario, ##!, concur.

!oo*)o*e

Senator abuses parliamentary immunity In the recent administrative case of ANTERO J. $O9RE v. Se). MIRIAM DE!ENSOR- SANTIAO,

A.#. No. 7344, A&(&* 26, 2004, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the letter$complaint of ntero

+. Po*re against SenatorLtt0. @iriam Defensor$Santiago! conforma*l0 to rt. VI! Sec. // of the

Constitution! *ut castigated! so to spea;! the feist0 and aggressive! if not foul$mouth! respondent lad0

senator for using what I would call intemperate and hate$filled language in a privilege speech she had

delivered *efore the Philippine Senate which was directed against the Philippine Supreme Court Chief

+ustice rtemio Pangani*an and the +udicial and ar Council 3+C4.

The +C had previousl0 re1ected her nomination as Chief +ustice of the Philippine Supreme Court.

I am trul0 glad the +C had re1ected her nomination to the highest tri*unal of the land! considering her

notorious pu*lic image as a war$frea; person.

In the aforecited case! although the Court held that the privilege speech of the com*ative lad0 senator

was not actiona*le criminall0 or in a disciplinar0 proceeding under the "ules of Court! it however

e:pressed its deep concern a*out the language Senator Santiago! a mem*er of the ar! used in her

speech and its effect on the administration of 1ustice. To *:e #o&r*, *:e /'; e)*or : &)'o&b*e'/;

5roe' *:e /+m+* o< 'e5e)5; )' (oo' =ro&o*e' **+)( *:* :e ?)*e' @*o =+* o) *:e


19/37

:+ 5o:or* +) *:e S&=reme #o&r*, )' 5//+)( *:e #o&r* @S&=reme #o&r* o< +'+o*.

The offensive and disrespectful words of the lad0 senator were as follows2

@B B B I m )o* )(r;. I m +r*e. I m


20/37

should en1o0 the fullest li*ert0 of speech and that he should *e protected from resentment of ever0 one!

however! powerful! to whom the e:ercise of that li*ert0 ma0 occasion offense! the Court said! citing

previous decided cases.

Aithout parliamentar0 immunit0! parliament! or its e?uivalent! would degenerate into a polite and

ineffective de*ating forum. #egislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhi*ited discharge of their

legislative duties! not for their private indulgence! *ut for the pu*lic good. The privilege would *e of little

value if the0 could *e su*1ected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon a

conclusion of the pleader! or to the ha-ard of a 1udgment against them *ased upon a 1udges speculation

as to the motives.

The Court said that it does not interfere with the legislature or its mem*ers in the manner the0 perform

their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. n0 claim of an unworth0 purpose or of the

falsit0 and mala fides of the statement uttered *0 the mem*er of the Congress does not destro0 the

privilege. The disciplinar0 authorit0 of the assem*l0 and the voters! not the courts! can properl0

discourage or correct such a*uses committed in the name of parliamentar0 immunit0.

lthough the Court held that the privilege speech of the com*ative lad0 senator was not actiona*lecriminall0 or in a disciplinar0 proceeding under the "ules of Court! it felt! however! e:pressed its deep

concern a*out the language Senator Santiago! a mem*er of the ar! used in her speech and its effect on

the administration of 1ustice. To the Court! the lad0 senator has undou*tedl0 crossed the limits of decenc0

and good professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in ?uestion were intemperate

and highl0 improper in su*stance. To reiterate! she was ?uoted as stating that she wanted Mto spit on the

face of Chief +ustice rtemio Pangani*an and his cohorts in the Supreme Court! and calling the Court a

MSupreme Court of idiots.

No law0er who has ta;en an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts should *e allowed to erode the

peoples faith in the 1udiciar0. The Court stated that in this case! the lad0 senator clearl0 violated Canon &!

"ule &.'/ and Canon // of the Code of Professional "esponsi*ilit0! which respectivel0 provide2

Canon &! "ule &.'/.JJ law0er shall not! in his professional dealings! use language which is a*usive!

offensive or otherwise improper.

Canon //.JJ law0er shall o*serve and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the 1udicial officers

and should insist on similar conduct *0 others.

It will *e noted that SenatorLtt0. Santiago was a former "egional Trial Court 1udge! a law professor! an

oft$cited authorit0 on constitutional and international law! an author of numerous law te:t*oo;s! and an

elected senator of the land. Needless to stress! Senator Santiago! as a mem*er of the ar and officer of

the court! li;e an0 other! was dut0$*ound to uphold the dignit0 and authorit0 of this Court and to maintainthe respect due its mem*ers. #aw0ers in pu*lic service are ;eepers of pu*lic faith and are *urdened with

the higher degree of social responsi*ilit0! perhaps higher than their *rethren in private practice. Senator

Santiago should have ;nown! as an0 perceptive individual! the impact her statements would ma;e on the

peoples faith in the integrit0 of the courts.

The Court stressed that a careful re$reading of her foul and repulsive utterances would readil0 show that

her statements were e:pressions of personal anger and frustration at not *eing considered for the post of

Chief +ustice. In a sense! therefore! her remar;s were outside the pale of her official parliamentar0


21/37

functions. Even parliamentar0 immunit0 must not *e allowed to *e used as a vehicle to ridicule! demean!

and destro0 the reputation of the Court and its magistrates! nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust.

uthorities are agreed that parliamentar0 immunit0 is not an individual privilege accorded the individual

mem*ers of the Parliament or Congress for their personal *enefit! *ut rather a privilege for the *enefit of

the people and the institution that represents them.

The Court stated that Senator Santiagos out*urst was directl0 tracea*le to what she considered as an

Mun1ust act the +C had ta;en in connection with her application for the position of Chief +ustice. ut

while the +C functions under the Courts supervision! its individual mem*ers! save perhaps for the Chief

+ustice who sits as the +Cs e:$officio chairperson! have no official dut0 to nominate candidates for

appointment to the position of Chief +ustice. The Court is! thus! at a loss to understand Senator

Santiagos wholesale and indiscriminate assault on the mem*ers of the Court and her choice of critical

and defamator0 words against all of them.

s e:plicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that it is the dut0 of a law0er to maintain

towards the Courts a respectful attitude! not for the sa;e of the temporar0 incum*ent of the 1udicial office!

*ut for the maintenance of its supreme importance. That same canon! as a corollar0! ma;es it peculiarl0

incum*ent upon law0ers to support the courts against un1ust criticism and clamor. nd more. Theattorne0s oath solemnl0 *inds him to a conduct that should *e with all good fidelit0 to the courts.

law0er is an officer of the courtsB he is! Mli;e the court itself! an instrument or agenc0 to advance the

ends of 1ustice. =is dut0 is to uphold the dignit0 and authorit0 of the courts to which he owes fidelit0! Mnot

to promote distrust in the administration of 1ustice. ,aith in the courts! a law0er should see; to preserve.

,or! to undermine the 1udicial edifice Mis disastrous to the continuit0 of government and to the attainment

of the li*erties of the people. Thus has it *een said of a law0er that M7a8s an officer of the court! it is his

sworn and moral dut0 to help *uild and not destro0 unnecessaril0 that high esteem and regard towards

the courts so essential to the proper administration of 1ustice.

The Court in a su*tle wa0 critici-ed the Senate itself for neglecting its dut0 to discipline the respondent

senator for her offensive language. The "ules of the Senate itself contains a provision on>nparliamentar0 cts and #anguage that en1oins a Senator from using! under an0 circumstance!

Moffensive or improper language against another Senator or against an0 pu*lic institution. ut as to

Senator Santiagos unparliamentar0 remar;s! the Senate President had not apparentl0 called her to order!

let alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinar0 action! as the

"ules dictates under such circumstance. The lad0 senator clearl0 violated the rules of her own cham*er.

It is unfortunate that her peers *ent *ac;wards and avoided imposing their own rules on her.

CA*'* 5

by (artin 8avino

ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.

%A.C. *o. 3"5, 9uly , !667&


22/37

=ACT4+

Complainant Atty. #eyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong

because of the latter>s violation of Canon 5 of the Code of $rofessional #esponsibility dealing

with the idea that lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong>s

client did not appear upon the court when $rosecutor 4alonga issued a subpoena for their preliminary investigation, the $rosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa against said client.

After which Chiong made an urgent motion to uash the warrant concomitant with his filing for

a civil complaint and collection for a sum of money and damages against Atty. #eyes, ?u %the

complainant>s client& and the $rosecutor. /pon their confrontation, no settlement was reached.

Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. #eyes as codefendant in Civil Case

*o. "55" and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. 1e argues that he impleaded the

$rosecutor because the criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action of the

$rosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his client>s motion for an opportunity to

submit counter affidavit and evidence.

I44/)+

;id respondent violate Canon 5 of the Code of $rofessional #esponsibility@

1);+

Bes, it was recommended by the I$ that defendant>s purpose of filing for the collectionsuit with damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the estafa case of his client. Clearly

there was no need to implead complainant and $rosecutor 4alonga because they never had any

participation in the business transactions between $an and ?u, clearly it was for the mere

harassment of the two. Chiong was suspended for two %!& years from the practice of law and was

implemented immediately.


23/37


24/37

CA*'* 5

by (artin 8avino

ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR.

%A.C. *o. 3D


25/37

I44/)4+

. ;id the I$ err in finding Atty. =errer guilty of the charges set against him@

!. In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed on him justified@

1);+

*o, there was no reason to disagree with the findings of the I$ because it can be seen

that there was an appropriate and tedious investigation set upon him for administrative purposes

and it can be inferred that the decision went through a rigorous process.

Bes, because as stated in Canon 5 of the Code of $rofessional #esponsibility, all lawyers

conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyer and more

specifically in #ule 5.6 a lawyer shall not in his professional dealings, use language which is

abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It was clearly seen in this case that there was a

violation of this Canon and also Canon D which dealt with the proper conduct of a lawyer and

how he should not behave in a scandalous manner that would discredit the legal profession,

appearing drun0 and having multiple cases piled against him would be very clear that there is a

clearcut violation of said Canon.


26/37


27/37

CORONA,J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by Pedro Linsangan of the

Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty.

Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of

professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe

Marie Labiano, convinced his clients[2] to transfer legal

representation. Respondent promised them financial

assistance[3] and expeditious collection on their claims.[4] To induce

them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them

text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn

affidavit[5] of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail

upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and

utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan

of P50,000. Complainant also attached respondents calling card:[6]

,ront

NICO@EDES TO#ENTINO

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn6


28/37

#A O,,,ICE

CONS>#TNCG @"ITI@E SE"VICES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

,e @arie #. #a*iano

Paralegal

/st @I+I @ansion! 5nd ,lr. "m. @$'/ Tel2 )


29/37

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and

authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7]

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,

report and recommendation.[8]

Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its

report and recommendation,[9] found that respondent had

encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating

Rule 8.02

[10]

and other canons

[11]

of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against

soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or

brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138[12] 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.

We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of

respondent but we modify the recommended penalty.

The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by

respondent into complainants professional practice in violation of

Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in

furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn12


30/37

Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to,

including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made

known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

CNON ) $ #AGE" IN @IN NOAN =IS #E#

SE"VICES S=## >SE ON#G T">E! =ONEST! ,I"!

DINI,IED ND O+ECTIVE IN,O"@TION O" STTE@ENT

O, ,CTS.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law

is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertisetheir talents as merchants advertise their wares.[13] To allow a lawyer

to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law,

degrade the profession in the publics estimation and impair its

ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which

every member of the bar is called.[14]

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

">#E 5.'). #AGE" S=## NOT DO O" PE"@IT TO E

DONE NG CT DESINED P"I@"I#G TO SO#ICIT #E#

>SINESS.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose

of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.[15] Such

actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16


31/37

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the

CPR which provides:

">#E /.'). #AGE" S=## NOT! ,O" NG CO"">PT

@OTIVE O" INTE"EST! ENCO>"E NG S>IT O"

P"OCEEDIN O" DE#G NG @NS C>SE.

This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost

any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an

agent in order to gain employment)[17] as a measure to protect the

community from barratry and champerty.[18]

Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of the

sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano andreferred to respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed

solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals suits.

Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his

answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.

Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was

benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19


32/37

on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a

more favorable result.

Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled

is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor

induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good

result or reduced fees for his services.

[20]

Again the Court notes thatrespondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor

receiving benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never

denied Labianos connection to his office.[21] Respondent committed

an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He

cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clientsas borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:

"ule /


33/37

fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for

surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of

mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely

affected.[22] It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he

is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients

cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the

clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject

matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.[23] Either of

these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own

recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement

which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of

the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients

cause.[24]

As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes

malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary

powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious

sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for the

purpose of obtaining employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we

adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian

machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of

the legal profession.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26


34/37

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including

violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the

sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy

slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate

to its findings.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by

petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation

for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character

and conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to

announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use

of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyers name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;

(c) address;

(d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.[28]

Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial

assistance. The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn28


35/37

already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of

loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure

clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of

their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass

commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no

place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial

evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule

that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the

printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating

Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for a

period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this

resolution. He isSTERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same

or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the

Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and

be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office

of the Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.


36/37

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

Chairperson

Solicitation of clients. With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the

rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s 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 notes that

respondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits

from Labiano’s “referrals.” Furthermore, he never denied Labiano’s connection to his office.

Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice. He cannot

escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.Pedro L. Linsangan vs. Atty. Nicodemes Tolentino, A.C.

No. (()", September *, "##'.

1.. G.R. No. L- 24114 June 30, 1970 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR

DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO IN L-24114, People's

Homesite and Housing Corporation and University of the Philippines,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm


37/37

38. LANCE M. APOLONIO LEGAL ETHICS vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ELPIDIO TIBURCIO,

MARCELINO TIBURCIO, ET AL. FACTS: On October 10, 1969, Clemente M. Soriano, a member of

the Philippine Bar entered his appearance inthe presentcase (L-24114, PHHC and U.P. vs.

Mencias,Tiburcio,etal.) as "chief counsel of record"for the respondentsMarcelinoTiburcio,etal.Thisact

initself wouldhave beeninnocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one year and eight monthsafter the decision in this case became final. Atty. Soriano asked the Court to exhume the case from

the archives. Atty. Soriano's subsequent explanation did not, however, serve to dissuade this Court

from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for

entering an appearance at such a late date. He allegedthatsometimeduringthe firstweekof October

1969, the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio, in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other

respondents, went to him to engage his professional services in two cases, to wit: this terminated

case (L-24114) and the Varsity Hills case (L-30546). Atty. Sorianoallegedlyrelieduponthe assurance

of a mutual acquaintance and representation of Marcelino Tiburciothat the twocases were

pendinginthe Court.He thenagreedtorenderprofessional servicesin the two cases in consideration of

a contingent fee of 143.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or less) involved in the two

cases. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Soriano is guilty of negligence. HELD: YES. Before taking over a

case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformityof the counsel

whomhe wouldsubstitute. And if this cannot be had, then he should, at the veryleast,give notice to

such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. His entry of appearance in the case without the

consent of the first lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the

professionalemploymentof the original counsel. Atty. Soriano violates Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach

upon the professional employment of anotherlawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without

fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or

neglectful counsel. We find Atty. Clemente M. Soriano guilty of gross negligence in the performance

of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this Court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no

less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession, were it not for his candor, at the

hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and the apology he made to this Court. It is the sense

of this Court, however, that he must be as he is hereby severely censured. Atty. Soriano is further

likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary sanction.

Atty.Sorianoisherebyordered,inthe present case, to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has

entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/146833098-legal-ethics-case-digest-1-40-docx-150910031250-lva1-app6891/95/146833098-legalethicscasedigest140docx-38-638.jpg?cb=1441855128http://image.slidesharecdn.com/146833098-legal-ethics-case-digest-1-40-docx-150910031250-lva1-app6891/95/146833098-legalethicscasedigest140docx-38-638.jpg?cb=1441855128http://image.slidesharecdn.com/146833098-legal-ethics-case-digest-1-40-docx-150910031250-lva1-app6891/95/146833098-legalethicscasedigest140docx-38-638.jpg?cb=1441855128

canon 8 report

Documents