LEGAL ETHICS

Abuse of court processes and legal procedure; forum shopping

The successive filings of a petition for certiorari, petition for annulment of judgment, two petitions for annulment of the complainants certificate of title, and a petition for declaratory relief, all containing a prayer for injunctive relief, reveal the respondents persistence in preventing and avoiding the execution of the final decisions of the lower courts against his client. Under the circumstances, the respondent lawyers repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. These are already uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of the final judgment of the lower courts. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Conrado Que v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7054,December 4, 2009

Gross negligence

A lawyer, when he undertakes a clients cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all

efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. He should undertake the task with dedication and

care, and he should do no less, otherwise, he is not true to his lawyers oath. Respondent was woefully

remiss in his duty to display utmost diligence and competence in protecting the interests of his clients.

Petitioners lost the civil case in the trial court because they were barred from presenting their evidence as

a result of their being declared in default as a consequence of respondents failure to submit a pre-trial

brief and to attend the pre-trial conference. Petitioners appeal to the Court of Appeals from the adverse

default judgment of the trial court was dismissed on account of respondents failure to file an appeal

brief. Respondent is guilty of gross negligence and misconduct in violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.02

and 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cesar Talento and Modesta

Herrera Talento v. Atty. Agustin Paneda, A.C. No. 7433, December 23, 2009

Lawyers; disbarment case; unavailability of procedural defenses

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or

with procedure such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this case,

prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant do not apply in the

determination of a lawyers qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. First, admission to the

practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it

involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued

enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards

for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into

through the Court. In this sense, the complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party whose interest

in the outcome of the charge is wholly his or her own; effectively, his or her participation is that of a

witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. Maelotisea S. Garrido vs. Atty. Angel

E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia, A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010

Lawyers; disbarment; gross immorality

Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or

shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of

the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so

unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or

revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. We make these distinctions as the

supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral,

conduct.

By his actions, Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession, specifically,

violations of the bar admission rules, of his lawyers oath, and of the ethical rules of the profession. He

did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time of his admission to the Bar. As

a lawyer, he violated his lawyers oath, Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which commonly require him to obey the laws of the land.

In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered this second marriage while his

first marriage with Constancia was subsisting. He openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his

petition to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea.

He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which commands that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands that [a] lawyer shall at all times uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which

provides that, [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice

law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of

the legal profession.

Moral character is not a subjective term but one that corresponds to objective reality. To have good moral

character, a person must have the personal characteristics of being good. It is not enough that he or she

has a good reputation, i.e., the opinion generally entertained about a person or the estimate in which he

or she is held by the public in the place where she is known. The requirement of good moral character

has four general purposes, namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of lawyers; (3)

to protect prospective clients; and (4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. Each purpose is as

important as the other. Maelotisea S. Garrido vs. Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia, A.C. No.

6593, February 4, 2010

Lawyers fees

A client has an undoubted right to settle a suit without the intervention of his lawyer, for

he is generally conceded to have the exclusive control over the subject-matter of the litigation and may,

at any time before judgment, if acting in good faith, compromise, settle, and adjust his cause of action

out of court without his attorneys intervention, knowledge, or consent, even though he has agreed with

his attorney not to do so. Hence, a claim for attorneys fees does not void the compromise agreement

and is no obstacle to a court approval.

However, counsel is not without remedy. As the validity of a compromise agreement cannot be

prejudiced, so should not be the payment of a lawyers adequate and reasonable compensation for his

services should the suit end by reason of the settlement. The terms of the compromise subscribed to by

the client should not be such that will amount to an entire deprivation of his lawyers fees, especially

when the contract is on a contingent fee basis. In this sense, the compromise settlement cannot bind the

lawyer as a third party. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice or imposition

of fraud on the part of his client as the client is against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the

court is not only to ensure that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see to it that a

lawyer is paid his just fees.

Even if the compensation of a counsel is dependent only upon winning a case he himself secured for his

client, the subsequent withdrawal of the case on the clients own volition should never completely

deprive counsel of any legitimate compensation for his professional services. In all cases, a client is

bound to pay his lawyer for his services. The determination of bad faith only becomes significant and

relevant if the adverse party will likewise be held liable in shouldering the attorneys

fees. Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415. February 26, 2010

Lawyers; negligence

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the

rule on negligence and states:

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection

therewith shall render him liable.

The Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform

the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. The circumstance that the client was also

at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence in handling a case.

All court rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyers duty to his client once an engagement for

legal services is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting

the latters interest with utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence

and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or

her client. Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the

cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.

In addition to the above finding of negligence, the Court also finds Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account for all the

money received from the client. In this case, Atty. Macalalad did not immediately account for and

promptly return the money he received from Atty. Solidon even after he failed to render any legal service

within the contracted time of the engagement. Atty. Elmer C. Solidon vs. Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad, A.C. No.

8158, February 24, 2010

Lawyers liability for filing complaint with Ombudsman

In our view, the complainants errors do not

belong to the genre of plain and simple errors that lawyers commit in the practice of their profession.

Their plain disregard, misuse and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions constitute serious

misconduct that reflects on their fitness for continued membership in the Philippine Bar. At the very

least, their transgressions are blatant violations of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

which provides: Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a

paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or

knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a

fact that which has not been proved.

To emphasize the importance of requiring lawyers to act candidly and in good faith, an identical

provision is found in Cannon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Moreover, lawyers are sworn to

do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court before they are even admitted to the Bar.

All these the complainants appear to have seriously violated.

In the interest of due process and fair play, the complainants Lozano should be heard, in relation to their

criminal complaint before the Ombudsman against retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and retired

Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, on why they should not be penalized as members of the

Bar and as officers of this Court, for their open disregard of the plain terms of the Constitution and the

applicable laws and jurisprudence, and their misuse and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions

in their criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January

11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C Office of the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC, March 2,

2010

Lawyers; deceitful conduct

The overt act in arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and

complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of the East Royal Hotel made it clear that Respondent

consented to Judge Dizons desire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision

of their case which was pending before the sala of Judge Dizon. The admission proved that the

respondent had known all along of the illegal transaction between the judge and the complainants, and

belied his feigned lack of knowledge of the delivery of the money to the judge.

The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or

deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the

integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. The

respondent did not measure up to the exacting standards of the Law Profession, which demanded of him

as an attorney the absolute abdication of any personal advantage that conflicted in any way, directly or

indirectly, with the interest of his clients. For monetary gain, he disregarded the vow to delay no man

for money or malice and to conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and

discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients that he made when he took the

Lawyers Oath. He also disobeyed the explicit command to him as an attorney to accept no

compensation in connection with his clients business except from him or with his knowledge and

approval. He conveniently ignored that the relation between him and his clients was highly fiduciary in

nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character.

Verily, the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct, which is improper or wrong conduct, the

transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful

in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. Any gross misconduct of an

attorney in his professional or private capacity shows him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a

ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is

an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such

privilege. Spouses Manuel C. Rafols, Jr., et al. vs. Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 4973, March 15, 2010

Lawyers; lifting order of suspension; guidelines

The following guidelines are to be observed in the

matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law: (1) After a finding that

respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision

imposing the penalty; (2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory

upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof.

The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory; (3) Upon the expiration of the

period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the

Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared

in any court during the period of his or her suspension; (4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be

furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has

pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; (5) The Sworn

Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order of suspension; and (6)

Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for

the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted. Ligaya Maniago vs.

Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

Lawyers; misconduct

The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board of

Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the Cooperative Code of

the Philippines and the GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyers Oath, which provides that a

lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey the laws.

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 or

unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same. When, after obtaining an extension of time to file

comment on the complaint, respondent failed to file any and ignored this Courts subsequent show cause

order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that A lawyer shall

not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse

without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for six months

for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he having been found to have received an

acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her when he had not. It

appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this time is thus

called for. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa Vs. Atty. Oscar Paguinto, A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides, A lawyer

shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is

not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for

misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct

shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders

him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

In the present case, respondent acted in his private capacity. He misrepresented that he owned the lot he

sold to complainant. He refused to return the amount paid by complainant. His refusal to return the

money paid for the lot is unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct,

respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Respondents acts violated the trust and respect complainant reposed in him as a member

of the Bar and an officer of the court. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction with

complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01,

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We cannot, and we should not, let respondents

dishonest and deceitful conduct go unpunished. We consider a penalty of two-year suspension more

appropriate considering the circumstances of this case. Alfredo Roa vs. Atty. Juan Moreno, A.C. No. 8382,

April 21, 2010

Lawyers; gross misconduct

A lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of his client in

the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his client (a) when they become due,

or (b) upon demand. In the instant case, respondent failed to account for and return the P300,000.00

despite complainants repeated demands.

Atty. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed no attorney-client relationship between

him and Barcenas. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case

law has it that an attorney may be removed, or otherwise disciplined, not only for malpractice and

dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties,

making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon

him.

Atty. Alveros failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand

violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and

warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the

money for his own use, and this act constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of

public confidence in the legal profession. They constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical behavior

for which he may be suspended. Reynaria Barcenas vs. Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero, A.C. No. 8159, April 23,

2010

Attorneys fees; quantum meruit

The principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves) may be a basis

for determining the reasonable amount of attorneys fees. Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue

enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying

for it. It is applicable even if there was a formal written contract for attorneys fees as long as the agreed

fee was found by the court to be unconscionable. In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services

rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, factors such as the time spent, and extent of services

rendered; novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; importance of the subject matter; skill

demanded; probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;

customary charges for similar services; amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to

the client; certainty of compensation; character of employment; and professional standing of the lawyer,

may be considered [Orocio v. Anguluan, G.R. Nos. 179892-93, January 30, 2009]. Indubitably entwined

with a lawyers duty to charge only reasonable fee is the power of the Court to reduce the amount of

attorneys fees if the same is excessive and unconscionable in relation to Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules.

Attorneys fees are unconscionable if they affront ones sense of justice, decency or unreasonableness.

Verily, the determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys fees requires the presentation of

evidence and a full-blown trial. It would be only after due hearing and evaluation of the evidence

presented by the parties that the trial court can render judgment as to the propriety of the amount to be

awarded. Hicoblino M. Catly (Deceased), Substituted by his wife, Lourdes A. Catly vs. William Navarro, et al.,

G.R. No. 167239, May 5, 2010

Attoney; grossly immoral act

Respondent acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting

two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can

countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct which only a

beast may be able to do. In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which

constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer. Rosario T.

Mecaral vs. Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392, June 29, 2010

Attorney; representation within bounds of the law

Canon 19 of the 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

requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer

must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to

counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an

intentional wrong to their adversaries. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI), Bohol vs. Atty. James Benedict

Florido, A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010

Attorney; attorneys fees

The issue of the reasonable legal fees due to respondent still needs to be

resolved in a trial on the merits with the following integral sub-issues: (1) the reasonableness of the 10%

contingent fee given that the recovery of Tiwis share [in unpaid realty taxes] was not solely attributable

to the legal services rendered by respondent, (2) the nature, extent of legal work, and significance of the

cases allegedly handled by respondent which reasonably contributed, directly or indirectly, to the

recovery of Tiwis share, and (3) the relative benefit derived by Tiwi from the services rendered by

respondent. The amount of reasonable attorneys fees finally determined by the trial court should be

without legal interest in line with well-settled jurisprudence. Municipality of Tiwi, represented by Hon.

Mayor Jaime C. Villanueva and Sangguniang Bayan of Tiwi Vs. Antonio B. Betito, G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010

It is settled that a claim for attorneys fees may be asserted either in the very action in

which a lawyer rendered his services or in a separate action. But enforcing it in the main case bodes well

as it forestalls multiplicity of suits. The intestate court in this case, therefore, correctly allowed Atty.

Siapian to interject his claim for attorneys fees in the estate proceedings against some of the heirs and,

after hearing, adjudicate the same on April 3, 1997 with an order for Arturo, et al to pay Atty. Siapian the

fees of P3 million due him. Since the award of P3 million in attorneys fees in favor of Atty. Siapian had

already become final and executory, the intestate court was within its powers to order the Register of

Deeds to annotate his lien on the Estates titles to its properties. The Estate has no cause for complaint

since the lien was neither a claim nor a burden against the Estate itself. It was not enforceable against the

Estate but only against Arturo, et al, who constituted the majority of the heirs. Heirs and/or Estate of Atty.

Rolando P. Siapian, represented by Susan S. Mendoza vs. Intestate Estate of the Late Eufrocina G. Mackay as

represented by Dr. Roderick Mackay, et al., G.R. No. 184799, September 1, 2010

Attorney; engagement of private counsel by GOCC

In Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel

Corporation, we listed three (3) indispensable conditions before a GOCC can hire a private lawyer: (1)

private counsel can only be hired in exceptional cases; (2) the GOCC must first secure the written

conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case

may be; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA must also be secured. Failure to comply with all

three conditions would constitute appearance without authority. A lawyer appearing after his authority

as counsel had expired is also appearance without authority. Rey Vargas, et al. vs. Atty. Michael Ignes, et

al., A.C. No. 8096, July 5, 2010

Attorney; engagement of private counsel by LGU

Pursuant to this provision [Section 444(b)(1)(vi) of the

LGC], the municipal mayor is required to secure the prior authorization of the Sangguniang Bayan before

entering into a contract on behalf of the municipality. In the instant case, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tiwi

unanimously passed Resolution No. 15-92 authorizing Mayor Corral to hire a lawyer of her choice to

represent the interest of Tiwi in the execution of this Courts Decision in National Power Corporation v.

Province of Albay. The above-quoted authority necessarily carried with it the power to negotiate, execute

and sign on behalf of Tiwi the Contract of Legal Services. Municipality of Tiwi, represented by Hon. Mayor

Jaime C. Villanueva and Sangguniang Bayan of Tiwi Vs. Antonio B. Betito, G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010

Attorney; gross misconduct

In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the

issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with

one-year suspension from the practice of law. However, in this case, we deem it reasonable to affirm the

sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD, i.e., Atty. Valerio was ordered suspended from the practice of law for

two (2) years, because, aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay her debts, she has also

shown wanton disregard of the IBPs and Court Orders in the course of the proceedings. A-1 Financial

Services, Inc. vs. Atty. Laarni N. Valerio, A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010

Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitute gross misconduct, for which a

lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the

administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They must, at all times, faithfully perform

their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of

financial obligations. Manuel C. Yuhico vs. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 8391, November 23, 2010

There is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in

different fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any illmotive

or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness. In the present case, however, we find that

the barrage of cases filed by the respondent against his former client and others close to her was meant to

overwhelm said client and to show her that the respondent does not fold easily after he was meted a

penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Carmen Leonor M. Alcantara, et al. vs. Atty.

Eduardo C. de Vera, A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010

While respondents five-year suspension from the practice of law on

account of an earlier administrative case was still in effect, she appeared and actively participated in at

least three cases where she misrepresented herself as Atty. Leizl Tanglao when in fact her name is Luna

B. Avance. She then refused to heed two orders from the SC for her to answer the new charge against her

for which she was found guilty of indirect contempt and fined in the amount of P30,000. However, the

respondent failed to pay the fine imposed. In view of the foregoing, the Court found the respondent

unfit to continue as a member of the bar. As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the

dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a

lawyers obedience to court orders and processes. Here, respondents conduct evidently fell short of

what is expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying the Courts

orders. Failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination or

disrespect which merits a lawyers suspension or even disbarment. Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B.

Avance, A.C. No. 5834. February 22, 2011

Attorney; violation of attorney-client relationship

We find no merit in petitioners assertion that Atty.

Binamira gravely breached and abused the rule on privileged communication under the Rules of Court

and the Code of Professional Responsibility of Lawyers when he represented [respondent] Helen in the

present case. Notably, this issue was never raised before the labor tribunals and was raised for the first

time only on appeal. Moreover, records show that although petitioners previously employed Atty.

Binamira to manage several businesses, there is no showing that they likewise engaged his professional

services as a lawyer. Likewise, at the time the instant complaint was filed, Atty. Binamira was no longer

under the employ of petitioners. Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation and Lambert Lim vs. Helen

Binamira, G.R. No. 170464. July 12, 2010

Attorney; gross discourtesy

When Milagros finally met respondent on September 30, 2008 [in order to

collect on his debt to her], respondent, in the presence of several others, told her Eh kung sabihin ko na

sugar mommy kita, adding that Nagpapakantot ka naman sa akin. The Court finds that respondent is

indeed guilty of gross discourtesy amounting to conduct unbecoming of a court employee. By such

violation, respondent failed to live up to his oath of office as member of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court has consistently

been reminding officials and employees of the Judiciary that their conduct or behavior is circumscribed

with a heavy burden of responsibility which, at all times, should be characterized by, among other

things, strict propriety and decorum. As such, they should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous,

menacing and improper language. Their every act or word should be marked by prudence, restraint,

courtesy and dignity. Aside from violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

respondent appears to have also violated Rule 8.01 of the same Code. Complaints of Mrs. Milagros Lee &

Samantha Lee against Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito, A.M. No. 2008-19-SC. August 18, 2010

Attorney; mistake binding on client

A client is generally bound by the mistakes of his lawyer; otherwise,

there would never be an end to a litigation as long as a new counsel could be employed, and who could

then allege and show that the preceding counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or

learned. The legal profession demands of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a

good father of a family; such lawyer should adopt the norm of practice expected of men of good

intentions. Moreover, a lawyer owes it to himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and orderly

system of keeping track of the developments in his cases, and should be knowledgeable of the remedies

appropriate to his cases. National Tobacco Administration vs. Daniel Castillo, G.R. No. 154124,August 13,

2010

Petitioner cannot simply harp on the mistakes and negligence of his

lawyer allegedly beset with personal problems and emotional depression. The negligence and mistakes

of counsel are binding on the client. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when the reckless or gross

negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application of the general

rule results in the outright deprivation of ones property or liberty through a technicality. However, in

this case, we find no reason to exempt petitioner from the general rule. The admitted inability of his

counsel to attend fully and ably to the prosecution of his appeal and other sorts of excuses should have

prompted petitioner to be more vigilant in protecting his rights and replace said counsel with a more

competent lawyer. Instead, petitioner continued to allow his counsel to represent him on appeal and

even up to this Court, apparently in the hope of moving this Court with a fervent plea for relaxation of

the rules for reason of petitioners age and medical condition. Verily, diligence is required not only from

lawyers but also from their clients. Gregorio Dimarucot y Garcia vs.. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.

183975,September 20, 2010

Considering the initial 15-day extension granted by the CA and the

injunction under Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against further extensions except for

the most compelling reason, it was clearly inexcusable for petitioner to expediently plead its counsels

heavy workload as ground for seeking an additional extension of 10 days within which to file its petition

for review. To our mind, petitioner would do well to remember that, rather than the low gate to which

parties are unreasonably required to stoop, procedural rules are designed for the orderly conduct of

proceedings and expeditious settlement of cases in the courts of law. Like all rules, they are required to

be followed and utter disregard of the same cannot be expediently rationalized by harping on the policy

of liberal construction which was never intended as an unfettered license to disregard the letter of the

law or, for that matter, a convenient excuse to substitute substantial compliance for regular adherence

thereto. When it comes to compliance with time rules, the Court cannot afford inexcusable delay. J.

Tiosejo Investment Corporation vs.. Sps. Benjamin and Eleanor Ang, G.R. No. 174149, September 8, 2010

Attorney; mistake of counsel

Granting that their counsel made a mistake in entering into such

stipulations, such procedural error unfortunately bound them. The Court has consistently held that the

mistake or negligence of a counsel in the area of procedural technique binds the client unless such

mistake or negligence of counsel is so gross or palpable that would require the courts to step in and

accord relief to the client who suffered thereby. Without this doctrinal rule, there would never be an end

to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not

been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned. Gilbert Urma, et al. vs. Hon. Orlando Beltran, et al., G.R.

No. 180836, August 8, 2010

Attorney; notarization of falsified deed

We cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public

performs. In Gonzales v. Ramos, we stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act

but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private

document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its

authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this

reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of

his duties; otherwise, the publics confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be

undermined. The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in

discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain the identities of the affiants before him

and failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties

presentation of their residence certificates or any other document to prove their identities. Given the

respondents admission in his pleading that the donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed

of Donation, we have no doubt that he failed in his duty to ascertain the identities of the persons who

appeared before him as donors in the Deed of Donation. Under the circumstances, we find that the

respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated

the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Luzviminda R. Lustestica vs. Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6258. August 24, 2010

Attorney; reinstatement

The Court, in the recent case of Ligaya Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios,

issued the guidelines on the lifting of orders of suspension, and has advised strict observance thereof.

However, the Court will not hesitate to withhold the privilege of the practice of law if it is shown that

respondent, as an officer of the Court, is still not worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and of

the public. Thus, applying the guidelines in Maniago, the Court Resolved to GRANT Respondents

Petition for Reinstatement, effective upon his submission to the Court of a Sworn Statement attesting to

the fact: 1) that he has completely served the four (4) suspensions imposed on him successively;2) that

he had desisted from the practice of law, and has not appeared as counsel in any court during the

periods of suspension; and 3) that he has returned the sums of money to the complainants as ordered by

the Court, attaching proofs thereof. Carlos Reyes vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan/Celia Arroyo-Posidio vs. Atty.

Jeremias R. Vitan/Violeta Tahaw vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan/Mark Yuson vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, A.C. No.

5835/A.C. No. 6051/A.C. No. 6441/A.C. No. 6955, August 18, 2010.

Attorney; violation of rules on forum shopping and abuse of judicial processes

A lawyer owes fidelity to

the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of

multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede,

obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless

to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the

execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for

not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to

the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth

and honor. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of

res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer

to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of

justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a

lawyers mandate to delay no man for money or malice. Atty. Josabeth V. Alonso, et al. vs. Atty. Ibaro B.

Relaminda, Jr., A.C. No. 8481, August 3, 2010.

Attorney; misconduct

Respondent (lawyer) was ordered to reimburse his client Php16,300.00. Nine

years after the directive was made, he effected payment. Respondents belated compliance with the

order glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities

that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. The lack of any sufficient justification or

explanation for the nine-year delay in complying with the Resolutions betrays a clear and contumacious

disregard for the lawful orders of this Court. Such disrespect constitutes a clear violation of the lawyers

Code of Professional Responsibility. Leonard W. Richards vs. Patricio A. Asoy, A.C. No. 2655, October 12,

2010

With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not

state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the

transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document

for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price

paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the

correct taxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance

of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in

an Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and

credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose.

Respondents actions violated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent

sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent is meted the penalty of

revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.

Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October 11, 2011.

Attorney; negligence

Respondent Atty. Elayda failed to inform his clients, petitioners herein, of the dates

of hearing and the adverse decision against them, which eventually became final and executory as no

appeal was filed therefrom, to the prejudice of his clients. A lawyer is duty bound to uphold and

safeguard the interests of his clients. He should be conscientious, competent and diligent in handling his

clients cases. Atty. Elayda should give adequate attention, care, and time to all the cases he is handling.

As the petitioners counsel, Atty. Elayda is expected to monitor the progress of said spouses case and is

obligated to exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the cause

espoused by the petitioners. Respondent is guilty of gross negligence. Spouses Virgilio and Angelina

Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907. December 15, 2010

A complaint for disciplinary action was filed against Atty. Macario Ga due to his

failure to reconstitute or turn over to his client the records of the case in his possession. The Code of

Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule

18.03 and Rule 18.04 state: Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his

negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable; Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client

informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for

information. Respondent Atty. Ga breached these duties when he failed to reconstitute or turn over the

records of the case to his client, herein complainant Gone. His negligence manifests lack of competence

and diligence required of every lawyer. His failure to comply with the request of his client was a gross

betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a breach of the trust reposed upon him by his client. Respondents

sentiments against complainant Gone is not a valid reason for him to renege on his obligation as a

lawyer. The moment he agreed to handle the case, he was bound to give it his utmost attention, skill and

competence. Public interest requires that he exert his best efforts and all his learning and ability in

defense of his clients cause. Those who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only safeguard

the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and help maintain

the communitys respect for the legal profession. Patricio Gone v. Atty. Macario Ga, A.C. No. 7771, April 6,

2011.

Government lawyers; prohibition against private practice

As a rule, government lawyers are not

allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. By way of

exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following

conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the

practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. The last paragraph of

Section 7 of RA 6713 provides an exception to the exception. In case of lawyers separated from the

government service who are covered under subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a oneyear

prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter before the office he used to be

with.

Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers, after

leaving the government service, to accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in

which he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility is the term intervene which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person who

has the power to influence the proceedings. Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, the respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a

matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome

of the proceedings.

As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales

application covering Manuels land when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards.

The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of

law. At face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a

single document and private practice of law contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature

habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. Jovito S. Olazo vs. Justice Dante O.

Tinga (Ret.), A.M. No. 10-5-7-S

Government lawyers; promoting private interests

Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

prohibits a lawyer in the government service from using his or her public position to: (1) promote private

interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public

duties. The restriction extends to all government lawyers who use their public offices to promote their

private interests. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in

any transaction requiring the approval of his or her office, or may be affected by the functions of his or

her office. Private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interest of

relatives. We also ruled that private interest interferes with public duty when the respondent uses the

office and his or her knowledge of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives.

Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the case, we find the absence of any concrete proof that the

respondent (retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga) abused his position as a

Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. Jovito S. Olazo vs. Justice Dante O. Tinga (Ret.), A.M. No. 10-5-7-S

Attorney; dishonesty

Respondent was accused of filing various pleadings on behalf of parties who were

already deceased. To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest value, for, as the Court has

said in Young v. Batuegas: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar

that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a

lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts

as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly

inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at

correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from

lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients

rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his conduct must never

be at the expense of truth. Respondent lawyer was found not liable as he had disclosed in a pleading

the death of the deceased parties and the fact that he was representing the successors in interest of the

deceased parties. Jessie R. De Leon vs. Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo, A.C. No. 8620, January 12, 2011

It is clear from the records that respondent Atty. Ediza deceived the Spouses

Floran when he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to

him. Respondent also made it appear that the original owner of the land conveyed her rights therto to

respondent and not to the Spouses Floran. When the sale of the Spouses Florans land pushed through,

respondent received half of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the Spouses Floran into

thinking that he will register the remaining portion of the land. Lamentably, Atty. Ediza played on the

navet of the Spouses Floran to deprive them of their valued property. This is an unsavory behavior

from a member of the legal profession. Aside from giving adequate attention, care and time to his

clients case, a lawyer is also expected to be truthful, fair and honest in protecting his clients rights.

Once a lawyer fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Respondent lawyer violated Rule

1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for

which he is suspended from the practice of law for six months. Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty.

Roy Prule Ediza. A.C. No. 5325. October 19, 2011.

Attorneys; plagiarism

The rule exonerating judges from charges of plagiarism applies also to lawyers.

Although as a rule they receive compensation for every pleading or paper they file in court or for every

opinion they render to clients, lawyers also need to strive for technical accuracy in their writings. They

should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in what they write so long as they do not depart, as

officers of the court, from the objective of assisting the Court in the administration of justice. In matter of

the charges of plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. February

8, 2011

Attorney; willful disobedience of lawful orders of court

Respondent willfully disobeyed the Court when

she continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension order against her and even

misrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was

twice ordered to comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from

her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed

in the September 29, 2009 Resolution. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the

bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or for a willful

disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. In repeatedly disobeying the Courts orders,

respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains

indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the

court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Luna B. Avance, A.C. No.

5834. February 22, 2011

Attorney; breach of fiduciary duties

Atty. Ricaforts act of obtaining money from his clients under the

respective pretexts that the amount would be deposited in court and that he would prepare and file the

memorandum for them erected a responsibility to account for and to use the amounts in accordance with

the particular purposes intended. For him to deposit the amount in his personal account without the

consent of the clients and to fail to file the memorandum and not return the money upon demand,

constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on his duty to render an

accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the amounts for the particular purposes intended.

He was thereby presumed to have misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of his

clients and in violation of the clients trust reposed in him. He could not escape liability, for upon failing

to use the moneys for the purposes intended, he should have immediately returned the moneys to his

clients. Atty. Ricaforts plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable

for violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01, supra, and Canon 17, all of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of general morality and of

professional ethics that impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

Erlinda R. Tarog v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253, March 15, 2011.

Law Professors; academic freedom; limitation

A novel issue involved in the present controversy, for it

has not been passed upon in any previous case before this Court, is the question of whether lawyers who

are also law professors can invoke academic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding for

intemperate statements tending to pressure the Court or influence the outcome of a case or degrade the

courts. Applying by analogy the Courts past treatment of the free speech defense in other bar

discipline cases, academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The

implicit ruling in jurisprudence is that the constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of

the Bar may be circumscribed by their 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. To our mind, the reason that

freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the

academic freedom of law professors. It is not contested that respondent professors are, by law and

jurisprudence, guaranteed academic freedom and undisputably, they are free to determine what they

will teach their students and how they will teach. We must point out that there is nothing in the Show

Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of

their instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom for this Court

to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct and speech, coupled

with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending case, without observing proper procedure, even

if purportedly done in their capacity as teachers. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring

Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the allegations of

plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011.

Law Professors; engaged in practice of law

It would do well for the Court to remind respondent law

professors that, in view of the broad definition in Cayetano v. Monsod, lawyers when they teach law are

considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers

who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal

profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be measured against the same canons of

professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law

professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty

entitled Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on

the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011.

Law Professors; freedom of expression and speech; limitation

Respondent law professors claim that the

Court, upon its issuance of the Show Cause Resolution, has interfered with their constitutionally

mandated right to free speech and expression. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that the right to

criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the

independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics

are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this

Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial

or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency. Verily, the accusatory

and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of fair comment and cannot

be deemed as protected free speech. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A

statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and

misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011.

Law Professors; respect for courts

For the disposition of the Court are the submissions of 37 respondent

law professors in response to the Resolution directing them to show cause why they should not be

disciplined as members of the Bar for issuing a statement which alleged acts of plagiarism and

misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their

points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainly

not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the same respect and

courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether they

are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have

voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct

themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law

professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the law school to which they belong.

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the

Philippines College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M.

No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011.

Lawyers; administrative proceedings vis--vis contempt proceedings

When the Court initiates contempt

proceedings and/or disciplinary proceedings against lawyers for intemperate and discourteous

language and behavior directed at the courts, the evil sought to be prevented is the same the

degradation of the courts and the loss of trust in the administration of justice. For this reason, it is not

unusual for the Court to cite authorities on bar discipline (involving the duty to give due respect to the

courts) in contempt cases against lawyers and vice versa. When the Court chooses to institute an

administrative case against a respondent lawyer, the mere citation or discussion in the orders or decision

in the administrative case of jurisprudence involving contempt proceedings does not transform the

action from a disciplinary proceeding to one for contempt. Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring

Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law etc., A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, June 7, 2011

Attorney; filing of baseless complaint

Respondents cannot be held liable for judiciously performing

their sworn duty to observe and follow court proceedings as provided by the Rules. Complainant

apparently filed this complaint primarily to divert the attention of his client from his shortcomings as its

counsel, if not to simply harass the respondents. A lawyer who files an unfounded complaint must be

sanctioned because, as an officer of the court, he does not discharge his duty by filing frivolous petitions

that only add to the workload of the judiciary.

Such filing of baseless complaints is contemptuous of the courts. Complainant was ordered to show

cause why he should not be subjected to disciplinary action for filing a frivolous and baseless complaint.

Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo v. Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma and Legal Researcher

Diana G. Ruiz, all of Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 Tagytay City. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2265. September 21, 2011

Attorney; grave misconduct

Respondent attorney was found to have violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents actions clearly show that she deceived

complainant into lending money to her through the use of documents and false representations and by

taking advantage of her education and complainants ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by

complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondents

misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and that complainant could register the

open deed of sale if respondent fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not only

complainants perception of the legal profession but the publics perception as well. Her actions

constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined. Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba.

A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.

Attorney; notarization of illegal document

A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a

marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the

conjugal partnership, which is exactly what respondent did in this case. In preparing and notarizing an

agreement for extrajudicial dissolution of marriage a void document respondent violated Rule 1.01,

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in

unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent knew fully well that the Kasunduan Ng

Paghihiwalay has no legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore, respondent may be suspended

from office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Rodolfo A. Espinosa and Maximo A. Glindo v. Atty. Julieta A. Omaa. A.C. No.

9081. October 12, 2011.

Attorney; gross immorality

Possession of good moral character is not only a condition for admission to

the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain ones good standing in the legal profession. It is the

bounden duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the

integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or

private activities, which tends to show him deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good

demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or disbarment. Respondents act of having an affair

with his clients wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own

marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for his profession. He also

violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by the complainant, which in itself is prohibited under

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Elpidio P. Tiong vs. Atty. George M. Florendo. A.C. No.

4428. December 12, 2011

Attorney; gross misconduct; inexcusable ignorance of well-established rules of procedures

The

respondent, while an MTC judge, accepted a petition for declaratory relief filed by the Municipal

Council of San Fernando, Pampanga, assigned it to himself, and acted on it, all on the same day and

without issuing summons or giving notice to the complainant who was the part adversely affected by

the resolution subject of the Municipal Councils petition. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and

impartiality but they must also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality, which may erode the

peoples faith in the judiciary. Integrity and impartiality, as well as the appearance thereof, are deemed

essential not just in the proper discharge of judicial office, but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

This standard applies not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which the decision is

made. As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be well-versed in the Rules of

Procedure. This is expected upon members of the legal profession because membership in the bar is in

the category of a mandate for public service of the highest order. Lawyers are oath-bound servants of

society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary

duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which they have sworn to be fearless

crusaders. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Daniel B. Liangco A.C. No. 5355. December 13,

2011

Attorney; accounting of funds

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular

purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the

money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render

an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize)

constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a

lawyer has the duty to deliver his clients funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His

failure to return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has

misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the

client. The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed

account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows lack of

personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and

constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. Hector Trenas vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 195002.

January 25, 2012

Attorney; mistake of counsel

The general rule is that the mistake of a counsel binds the client, and it is

only in instances wherein the negligence is so gross or palpable that courts must step in to grant relief to

the aggrieved client. It can be gleaned from the circumstances that petitioner was given opportunities to

defend his case and was granted concomitant reliefs by the court. Thus, it cannot be said that the mistake

and negligence of his former counsel were so gross and palpable to have deprived him of due process.

Cresencio C. Milla vs. People of the Philippines and Carlo V. Lopez. G.R. No. 188726. January 25, 2012

Administrative cases against lawyers; prescriptive period

The two-year prescriptive period for

initiating a complaint against a lawyer for disbarment or suspension provided under Section 1, Rule VIII

of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline should be construed to mean two

years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. Nesa Isenhardt vs. Atty. Leonardo M.

Real, A.C. No. 8254, February 15, 2012.

Attorney; disqualification as notary public

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the

person who signs it is the same person who executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the

contents and the truth of what are stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the

genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the

partys free act. The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public

interest. It is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are

willing to pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment that the subject SPA was not utilized by the

grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly transferred from

complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale consummated between them. What is being

penalized is respondents act of notarizing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. A

notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries

public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the

public in notarized documents will be undermined. Nesa Isenhardt vs. Atty. Leonardo M. Real, A.C. No.

8254, February 15, 2012

Attorney; government service; applicability of Code of Professional Responsibility

The Code of

Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the

government service. Where a lawyers misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect

his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of

the bar on such grounds. Martin Lahn III and James P. Concepcion vs. Labor Arbiter Jovencio Li. Mayor, Jr.,

A.C. No. 7430, February 15, 2012.

Attorney; gross ignorance of the law

The respondent labor arbiter, being part of the quasi-judicial

system of our government, performs official functions that are akin to those of judges. Accordingly, the

present controversy may be approximated to administrative cases of judges whose decisions, including

the manner of rendering the same, were made subject of administrative cases. While a judge may not

always be held liable for ignorance of the law for every erroneous order that he renders, it is also

axiomatic that when the legal principle involved is sufficiently basic, lack of conversance with it

constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed

authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken together

with the delay in the resolution of the said motion for reconsideration, would clearly show that the

respondent deliberately intended to cause prejudice to the complainants. Martin Lahn III and James P.

Concepcion vs. Labor Arbiter Jovencio Li. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No. 7430, February 15, 2012

Attorney; lifting of indefinite suspension

Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional

provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of the Supreme Court is a serious breach of the rigid

standards that a member of good standing of the legal profession must faithfully comply with. Thus, the

penalty of indefinite suspension was imposed. However, in the past two years during which Atty.

Lozano has been suspended, he has repeatedly expressed his willingness to admit his error, to observe

the rules and standards in the practice of law, and to serve the ends of justice if he should be reinstated.

And in these two years, this Court has not been informed of any act that would indicate that Atty.

Lozano had acted in any unscrupulous practices unsuitable to a member of the bar. While the Court will

not hesitate to discipline its erring officers, it will not prolong a penalty after it has been shown that the

purpose for imposing it had already been served. Re: subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of

Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman/Re: Order of the Office of the Ombudsman

referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O. Lozano & Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano against Chief Justice Reynato

S. Puno(ret.). A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC & A.M. NO. 10-9-9-SC, March 20, 2012.

Attorney; falsification

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or

suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly

immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath;

(7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing

as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.

The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and,

therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to

justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the

private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and

customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty, or good morals.

Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral

turpitude. Re: SC Decision date May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court vs.

Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin. A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012.

Attorney; groundless imputation of bribery

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe

and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or

menacing language or behavior before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives

that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Atty. Pea cannot be excused for uttering snide and accusatory remarks at the expense of the reputation

and integrity of members of this Court, and for using those unsubstantiated claims as basis for the

subject Motion for Inhibition.

Not only has respondent Pea failed to show sincere remorse for his malicious insinuations of bribery

and wrongdoing against Justice Carpio, he in fact continually availed of such unethical tactics in moving

for the inhibition of eleven Justices of the Court. Indeed, his pattern of behavior can no longer be seen as

isolated incidents that the Court can pardon given certain mitigating circumstances. Respondent Pea

has blatantly and consistently cast unfounded aspersions against judicial officers in utter disregard of his

duties and responsibilities to the Court.

Respondent Peas actions betray a similar disrespectful attitude towards the Court that cannot be

countenanced especially for those privileged enough to practice law in the country. In re: Supreme Court

Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822. A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012.

Attorney; lack of diligence

When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due

diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention

expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his

client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and

society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling ones case because it is settled that a lawyer

must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle. Suzette Del Mundo vs. Atty. Arnel C.

Capistrano. A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012.

Attorney; obligation to hold in trust money of his client

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his

client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and

apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and

processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives

rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the

conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of

public confidence in the legal profession. Suzette Del Mundo vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano. A.C. No. 6903,

April 16, 2012.

Attorney; representation of conflicting interests

The proscription against representation of conflicting

interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an

unrelated action. The prohibition also applies even if the lawyer would not be called upon to contend

for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion

to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions

are wholly unrelated. To be held accountable under this rule, it is enough that the opposing parties in

one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the

lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided

fidelity to both clients. Anion vs. Sabistsana. A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012

Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03. Rule 15.03 also provides

that A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given

after a full disclosure of facts. in Hilado v. David, the Court held that an attorney is employed that

is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or counselor when he is listening to his

clients preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is

drawing his clients pleadings, or advocating his clients pleadings, or advocating his clients cause in

open court. Hence the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and

client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone to

prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer

from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. It is founded on principles of public policy, on

good taste. The question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney

has adhered to proper professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like

Caesars wife, not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of

treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their

attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. The prohibition against

representation of conflicting interests applies although the attorneys intentions were honest and he

acted in good faith. Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. vs. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa. A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012.

Attorney; submission of falsified internal court documents

The falsification, subject of the instant

administrative case, lies in the fact that respondent Pea submitted to the Court a document he was

absolutely certain, at the time of such submission, was a copy of the Agenda of the then ponente.

Candor and truthfulness are some of the qualities exacted and expected from members of the legal

profession. Thus, lawyers shall commit no falsehood, nor shall they mislead or allow the court to be

misled by any artifice. As disciples of truth, their lofty vocation is to correctly inform the court of the law

and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. Courts are

entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. In the

instant case, the submission of a document purporting to be a copy of the Agenda of a member of this

Court is an act of dishonesty that puts into doubt the ability of respondent to uphold his duty as a

disciple of truth.

Respondent led the Court to believe that what he submitted was a faithful reproduction of the ponentes

Agenda, just to support the subject Motion to Inhibit. The original of the purported copy was later found

to have been inexistent in the courts records.

The Court noted that respondent Pea has not explained, to the Courts satisfaction, how he managed

to obtain internal and confidential documents.

Respondent Pea is sanctioned for knowingly using confidential and internal court records and

documents, which he suspiciously obtained in bolstering his case. His unbridled access to internal court

documents has not been properly explained. The cavalier explanation of respondent Pea that this

Courts confidential documents would simply find themselves conveniently falling into respondents lap

through registered mail and that the envelopes containing them could no longer be traced is unworthy

of belief. This gives the Court reason to infer that laws and its own internal rules have been violated over

and over again by some court personnel, whom respondent Pea now aids and abets by feigning

ignorance of how the internal documents could have reached him. It is not unreasonable to even

conclude that criminal liabilities have been incurred in relation to the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, with Atty. Pea benefitting from the same. Respondents actions clearly

merit no other penalty than disbarment. In re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos.

145817 and 145822. A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012.

Attorneys; disbarment cases imprescriptible

The defense of prescription is untenable. The Court has

held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the

commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the

administrative culpability of a lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to

disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private

complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated

from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco vs. Atty.

Pablo Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012

Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on

those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are

expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,

integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the

courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in

the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Magats