ethics digested cases

8/11/2019 ETHICS Digested Cases

1/21

MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETAA.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts:Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored becausethe account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

The Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez,

transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report

regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having been convicted

by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a commercial document.

Issue:Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a closed account.

Held:The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, thedrawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for

issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the

obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a

crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case

likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for

conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of

respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the

respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the r espondent has proved himself unfit to protect

the administration of justice.

Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBREAC-5365. April 27, 2005

Facts:Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembrefilled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses

Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner

Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault.

Held:Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but alsoknown to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant 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 he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney

becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport

themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of

Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and

despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercialdocument, resorted to for his material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal

profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by

respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and

misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely

from the practice of law effective immediately.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS vs. Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLOA.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts:Atty. Macatrio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case before the before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch inSan Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants accuse Atty. Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing

conflicting interests. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and recommended a penalty of

suspension for 6 months. The governors of the IBP increased the penalty for 2 years.

Issue:Whether or not the acts of Arquillo merits his suspension from the practice of law.

Held:The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollaryto this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. When a

lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three separate tests: (1) when, in representation of

one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will

require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client o r, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge acquired

through their professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorneys duty to give undivided fidelityand

loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty. An at torney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a

hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyers representation ofboth sides of an issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting

interests arise with respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.

In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA.A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005

Facts:Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice over his frustrations of the outcome of his cases decided by the Supreme Court. The lettercontained derogatory and malignant remarks which are highly insulting. The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda to explain, however, instead of appearing before the court, he

wrote another letter with insulting remarks as the first one. The court was thus offended with his remarks.


2/21

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of contempt due to the remarks he has made in his letters addressed to the court.

Held:Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass the court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their employment serves nouseful purpose. On the contrary, they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the lawyers oath and a transgression of the Code

of Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence in the fair

administration of justice.[24]No less must this be and with greater reasons in the case of the countrys highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice and

democracy

Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice, to which his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct

ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified nor can it have a

place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda has

transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and constructive criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Free expression, after all, mustnot be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates. Thus, ATTY. NOEL S.

SORREDA is found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross misconduct as an officer of the court

and member of the Bar.

Heirs of Herman Rey, represented by ARACELI Vda. DE ROMERO vs. Atty. Venancio Reyes, Jr.A.C. No. 6192 June 23, 2005

Facts: Atty. Venancio Reyes is counsel for Heirs of Herman Rey for which they are intervenors in a civil case involving multiple sale of a piece of land. There were threebuyers however, and to settle the case, they had agreed to a Compromise Agreement. The Compromise Agreement, dated June 16, 1995, was signed in three stages, first

by Elizabeth Reyes and her husband, then by complainants and their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr., and last, by Antonio Gonzales, Veronica Gonzales for and on

behalf of V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. and by herein respondent. Later, the RTC which houses the records of the case was destroyed by fire, thus The complainants filed a

motion for reconstitution of the records of the case, which was granted by the RTC of Bulacan. The documents attached to the motion were the basis for the reconstituted

records. Because of the circumstances of signing of the Compromise Agreement, the copy submitted to the RTC bore only the signatures of Elizabeth Reyes, her

husband, complainants, and that of their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte. After a lapse of two (2) years from the date of the Compromise Agreement, V.R. CreditEnterprises, Inc. still has not complied with its obligation toward complainants. Hence, complainants filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution against V.R. Credit

Enterprises, Inc. for such failure. Atty. Reyes filed a motion for the case was premature. Later he raised the issue that the Compromise Agreement was not valid since it

was not signed by Veronica Gonzales. Hence, the RTC rued that the Compromise as unenforceable. Thus, herein, complainants filed this administrative case against

Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. charging him with willful and intentional falsehood, in violation of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar. IBP investigating commissioner

found him guilty of violation of his oath.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Venancio Reyes is administratively liable.

Held:Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, whenthey appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as the parties representatives but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients

interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. In assailing the legality of the Compromise Agreement, he claims

good faith. He maintains that he should not be faulted for raising an allegedly valid defense to protect his clients interests. The records show, however, that his actions

bear hallmarks of dishonesty and doublespeak. Atty. Reyes is one of negotiating panel in the compromise agreement. He impressed upon the parties and the trial judge

that his clients were bound to the Compromise Agreement. Then, suddenly and conveniently, he repudiated it by falsely alleging that one of his clients had never signedit. True, lawyers are obliged to present every available remedy or defense to support the cause of their clients. However, their fidelity to their causes must always be made

within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice. In Choa v. Chiongson this principle was explained thus: While a lawyer owes absolute

fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost

learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law Thus, herein, Atty. Venancio Reyes, was ordered suspended for 1 year.

JESUS M. FERRER vs. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELINA.C. No. 6590. June 27, 2005

Facts:Ferrer obtained the services of Atty. Tebelin in a case against Global Link as a result of a vehicular accident through the falut of Global Links driver. Ferrer paidAtty. Tebelin P5, 000.00 as acceptance fee and gave him all pertinent documents. However, Ferrer filed an administrative case against Atty. Tebelin alleging that the said

lawyer abandoned his case. However, Atty. Tebelin expressed his willingness to return the money and denied having abandoned the case. However, during the

proceedings, herein Ferrer died. Atty. Tebelin was nowhere to be found in his given address.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Tebellin may still be held liable despite the death of the complainant.

Held:The court held that Atty. Tebelin may still be held liable despite the death of the complainant. The death of a complainant in an administrative casenotwithstanding, the case may still proceed and be resolved. As in the case ofTudtud v. Colifores,the court ruled that The death of the complainant herein does not

warrant the non-pursuance of the charges against respondent Judge. In administrative cases against public officers and employees, the complainants are, in a real sense,

only witnesses. Hence, the unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an administrative complaint, or even his death, as in the case at bar, does not prevent the

Court from imposing sanctions upon the parties subject to its administrative supervision. This Court also finds respondent, for ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him

at his address which he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD his new address if indeed he had moved out of his given address. His actuation betrays his lack of

courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer. This Court faults respondent too for welting on his manifestation-undertaking to return the P5,000.00, not to mention the

documents bearing on the case, to complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his reckless disregard of the duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility: Rule 22.02A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to

which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the

matter.

Thus, the court suspended Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin from the practice of law for Two (2) Months and is ordered to return to complainants heirs the amoun t of P5,

000.00, with legal interest.

JUDGES; UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING JUDGMENT , A VIOLATION OF RULE 70 SECTION 11 OF THE RULES OF COURTDORCAS PETALLAR VS. JUDGE JAUNILLO PULLOSA.M. No. MTJ-03-1484. January 15, 2004

Facts:Complainant Dorcas Petallar averred that after the preliminary conference in a case for forcible entry, he, as plaintiff and the defendants were ordered to submit
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_mtj_01_1347.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_mtj_01_1347.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_mtj_01_1347.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/am_mtj_01_1347.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/am_05_3_04_sc.htm#_ftn24


3/21

their respective position papers and evidence. Two months from the submission of their position papers, complainant personally went to the Court to verify the judgment

had been rendered. He caused his lawyer to file a motion for rendition of judgment which was duly received by the court on August 6, 2001 but still no judgment was

rendered on December 27, 2001 when the complaint was filed. Hence, complainant Petallar charged Judge Juanillo Pullos, former presiding judge of the MCTC of

Surigao del Norte of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.02 & Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as Rule 140, Section 4 & Rule 70, Section 10 & 11 of

the Rules of the Court for undue delay in rendering a decision in a case for forcibly entry.

Issue:Whether or not respondent be held liable for undue delay in rendering judgment.

Held:Respondent is guilty of undue delay in rendering judgment. The records show that the parties had filed their respective posit ion papers as early as February 2,2000. thus, respondent had until March 4, 2000. Had there been circumstances which presented him from handling down his decision within the prescribed period,

respondent should have at least requested from the Court for an extension within which to render judgment. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decisions within the

period fixed by law constitutes serious violation of Article III, section 16 of the Constitution. Judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if publicconfidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. A judge cannot by himself prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without any order of

extension granted by the court, failure to decide a case within the prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT; FORMAL INVESTIGATIONMERCEDES NAVA VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN SORONGONAC No. 5442. January 26, 2004

Facts: Respondent Atty. Sorongon had been the counsel of complainant Mercedes Nava for years. The former informed her of his intention to withdraw as her counsel intwo of her cases due to a stroke that paralyzed his right body but proposed to be retained in two other criminal cases with lesser paper works. He filed his withdrawal on

December 4, 1996 and was granted by the court. Complainant alleged that while she continuously paid for the respondents services, the latter represented other clients

with hostile interests and cases filed against her. Complainant cried that respondent assisted one Francisco Atas in filing a formal complaint for 11 counts of violation of

B.P. 22 against her. She sent a letter to respondents expressing her disbelief and reminding him of his ethical and moral responsibility as a lawyer. Complainant prayed

that an investigation be conducted regarding this unfortunate actuation and deplorable behavior as well as respondents double standard attitude.

Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a resolution suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year considering his clear violation of theprohibition against representing conflicting interest.

Issue:Whether or not a formal investigation is mandatory in complaints for disbarment.

Held:In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement. The court may dispense with the normal referral to the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines if the records are complete and the question raised is simple. Similarly, if no further, factual determination is necessary, the court may decide the case on the

basis of the extensive pleading on record.

Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it out rightly

dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the

pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte

investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.

ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS VILLARINAC No. 4256. February 13, 2004

Facts:Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinageagainst the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in

Isabela, Province.

The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its

annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct,

present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address at12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a

handwritten letter.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the

complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never

deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.

Issue:Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for disbarment.

Held:Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin.Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality

required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with

another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his

misconduct.

Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.

VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEFBIOMIE SARENAS-OCHAGABIA VS. ATTY. BALMES OCAMPOSAM No. 4401. January 29, 2004

Facts:Complainant Biomie Sarenas-Ochagabia and her aunts engaged the services of respondent Atty. Balmes Ocampos in a civil case for recovery of possession and

ownership of a parcel of land. An adverse decision was rendered against complainants. Atty. Ocampos filed a Notice of Appeal at their behest. The Court of Appealsgave them 45 days from notice to file their brief but Atty. Ocampos was granted a 90-day extension. The extended period lapsed without an appellants brief being filed,

hence their appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was not challenged, but complainants filed a complaint contending that respondent violated his duty to inform them of

his failure to file appellants brief and of the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue:Whether or not respondent has exercised due diligence for the protection of the clients interests.


4/21

Held:A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost dil igence. By failing to file appellants brief,respondent was remiss in the discharge of such responsibility. He thus violated the Code of Professional which states:

Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after attaining 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.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

That respondent accepted to represent complainants gratis et amore does not justify his failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty. Every case

deserves full attention, diligence, and competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free.

Until his final release from the professional relation with a client, a counsel of record is under obligation to protect the clients interest. If a party has a counsel of record,

a court does not recognize any other representation in behalf thereof unless in collaboration with such counsel of record or until a formal substitution of counsel is

effected. Since respondent had not then withdrawn as counsel as he in fact filed a motion for extension of time to file brief, he was under obligation to discharge his

professional responsibility.

IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO(former Bar confidant)RAMON GALANG(1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam

FACTS:1. Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.

2. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.

3. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the

examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.

4. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevos move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,

Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).

5. Galang on the other hand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.

RULING: The court disbarred Lanuevohas no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.

He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers of theexaminees.

Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral

character. Galang has a pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case this resulted

him to revoked his license.

PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA

FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the Justice of the PeaceCourt of said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was

representry by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the Secretary of

Justice. Counsel for the accused presented a Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private prosecutor in this case, this time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec.

35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

RULING:The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is morethan isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. The word private practice of law implies that one must

have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as

a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate

supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

IN RE: LUIS B. TAGORDA53 PHIL 37 3/23/29

FACTS: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in the last general elections he made use of a card written inSpanish and Ilocano, which in translation, read as follows: LUIS B. TAGORDA Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER, Province of Isabela.

(NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office, can renew lost documents of your animals; can

make your application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer he can help you collect your loans although long

overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to him in his town Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve thepoor.) The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano, which letter reads as

follow: I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief that my residence as member of the Board will be in Iligan and

that I would then be disqualified to exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make it clear that I am free to exercise my

profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague, I would request your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of

your meeting or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in

your locality have not as yet contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in court

and would charge only three pesos for every registration.

HELD:Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act NO. 2828, providing The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose ofgain, either personally or through paid agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of E thics adopted by the American Bar

Association in 1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to the case of the respondent lawyer. The law is a profession and not a business. The solicitation of

employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

1. Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.

2. For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune respondent attorney is reprimanded.

IN RE: ALMACEN (31 SCRA 562 2/18/70)

FACTS: Vicente Raul Almacens Petition to Surrender Lawyers Certificate of Title, filed on Sept. 26, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is a greatinjustice committed against his client by Supreme Court. He indicts SC, in his own phrase, as a tribual peopled by men whoare calloused to our pleas for justice, who

ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. His clients he continues, who was deeply


5/21

aggrieved by this Courts unjust judgment, has become one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He rid icules the members of the Court, saying that

justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only bline, but also deaf and dumb. He then vowsto argue the cause of his client in the

peoples forum, so that people may know of the silent injustices committed by this court and that whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed

must never be repeated. He ends his petition with a prayer that: a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned

attorney that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Yaptichay v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court

rendered judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 atty. Almacen receive a copy of the decision. Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but did not

notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For lack of proof of

service, the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse partya copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen filed on August

17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who

earlier, that is, on Aug. 22, 1966 had already perfected the appeal. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals.

HELD: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channelsthe acts of courts and judges.

As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may

abridge this right. Nor is he professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a

citizen. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further orders.

TAN V. SABANDAL(170 SCRA 211 2/10/89

FACTS: Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instanceswhen he called himself attorney knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyers oath. Oppositors evidence

sufficiently show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was pa id for his legal services He then filed a

petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was

denied. Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be

faithful to the lawyers oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

HELD: Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy theCourt that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law. Sabandal hereby allowed to take the lawyers oath

A.C. No. 3523 January 17, 2005

RASMUS G. ANDERSON, JR., petitioner, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO A. CARDEO,respondent.

Administrative case against Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeo for malpractice and neglect of duty, stemming from his alleged neglect or deliberate mishandling of a case.

Held:SUSPENDED (6) months and WARNED that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Thus, respondents defenses that the complainant was "uncooperative" as a client, that the voluminous records turned over to him were in disarray, and that the

complainant did not disclose to him certain particulars of the case, are all unavailing. Thus, in view of the fact that he remained counsel of record for the complainant, it

was highly irregular for him to entrust the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration to other people who did not lawfully appear interested in the subject litigation.

As a lawyer representing the cause of his client, he should have taken more control over the handling of the case.

Respondent should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he

possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case

entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. [A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003]

RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO, respondent.

Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property previously owned by her sister.

Complainant was able to pay respondent for legal fees.

Respondent failed. Complainant demanded that respondent refund to her the legal fees and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent

failed to comply with said demands.

Held:SUSPENDED for 1 year; repetition of violation will be dealt severely. PAY the complainant.

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.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a

gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor,

fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal

advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard

expected of him.

[A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]

LOURDES R. BUSIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent.

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to

respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainants husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a


6/21

bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the

amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Held:DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuanceof a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of

P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the

confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has

misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

[A. C. No. 5485. March 16, 2005]

ELMER CANOY, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ, respondent.

Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz deigned to represent. He claims having prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit

the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case. Atty. Ortiz admits though that the period within which to file the position paper had already

lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor because he was too busy. Eventually, he withdrew from

his other cases and his free legal services. Complainant filed this complaint but later on withdrew .

Held: SUSPENDED: (1) month, with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more severely.

Still, the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with

the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be counsel i n the case.

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02

requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall

cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on the case was that he was informed

that Canoy had acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.

There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation without even informing the client of the fact

or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not mitigate the

dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to deviate from the norm in this case.

[A.C. No. 5817. May 27, 2004]

EMMA V. DE JUAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III,respondent.

Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation so she filed a complaint before the NLRC against the company for illegal dismissal. In search of a lawyer, she

asked the assistance of BBC which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of complainant.The Company appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated on September 24, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared there was no illegal

dismissal.

Complainant blamed respondent for the reversal. She said that she came to know of the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision when she called respondent in October

2001. When she asked the respondent what they should do, respondent answered, Paano iyan ihaehhindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue:The core issue is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to f ile for the complainant a motion forreconsideration from the decision of the NLRC.

Held:FINED with WARNING that a repetition of the same will be dealt with severely.

No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such

cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Further, among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an

action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdrawhis services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client. This means that his

client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC such that the said decision eventually had become final and

executory. Respondent does not refute this. His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. After complainant had

expressed an interest to file a motion for reconsideration, it was incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize himself with the procedural

rules for a motion for reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a complicated legal task.

We are however, not unaware that respondent had been forthright and candid with his client when he warned her of his lack of experience as a new lawyer. We are also

not unaware that he had advised complainant to get a new lawyer. However, his candor cannot absolve him. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal

as counsel, respondent remains counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the

cold. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the

attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. Respondent did not comply with these obligations.

Negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.

A.C. No. 5162 March 20, 2003

EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainant, vs.ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA, respondent.ECTHA and respondent entered into a Retainers Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant for P20,000.00 as attorneys fees

and P1,000.00 as appearance fee per hearing. It was further agreed that respondent lawyer would update the complaint and work on the development of the case.


7/21


8/21


9/21

The breach of respondents sworn duty as a lawyer and of the ethical standards he was strictly to honor and observe has been sufficiently established. Respondent has

fallen short of the competence and diligence required of every member of the Bar.

CANON 17.A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18.A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

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

Respondent erred in not returning complainants money despite demands after his failure to file the case and his devious act of compelling complainant to sign a

document stating that he has no financial obligation to complainant in exchange of the return of complainants papers. This conduct violated the following Canon:

CANON 15.A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

Rule 16.03.A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of client when due or upon demand.

The failure of an attorney to return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and

violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It is not only a gross violation of the general morality as well as of professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence

in the legal profession and deserves punishment. In short, it is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the

imposition of disciplinary action.

A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be

characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan

PCGG want to build up their case against Eduardo Coujuanco for the anomalies in the COCO LEVY FUNDS. PCGG wants petitioners divulge that Cojuangco indeed

was a client of their firm, as well as other information regarding Cojuangco.

Issue:Can the PCGG compel petitioners to divulge its clients name?

Held: NO.

As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery. The general is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the

name or identity of his client.

1) the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.

2) the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client.

3) the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.

Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his

opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces.

Except:

1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the

lawyers advice.

2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged.

3) Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the only link that would

form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the clients name is privileged.

That client identity is privileged in those instances where a strong probability exists that the disclosure of the client's identity would implicate the client in the very

criminal activity for which the lawyers legal advice was obtained.

Case Digest on Cleto Docena vs. Atty. Dominador Q. Limon (295 SCRA 262)Lawyer Unlawful Conduct

Facts:Respondent was petitioners lawyer in a civil case. During that case, he asked the petitioners to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the appealeddecision. Petitioners forwarded the money to Limon. Later, the case was decided in their favor. They were unable to recover the money because the clerk of court said

no such bond had ever been filed. IBP suspended him for one year. Hence this petition.

Held: Disbarred (see Canon 1.01 and 16.01). Respondents allegation that the money waspayment of his fees was overcome by other evidence. The law is not a tradenor craft but a profession. Its basic ideal is to render public service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. If it has to remain an honorable profession and attain

its basic ideal, lawyers should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. By extorting money from hisclient through deceit, Limon has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has indirectly eroded the peoples confidence in the judicial system. He is disbarred for

immoral, deceitful and unlawful conduct.

Case Digest on Victor Nunga v. Atty. Verancio Viray (306 SCRA 487) Lawyer Unlawful Conduct

Facts:N accused V of notarizing documents without a commission. It appears that in 1987 and 1991 he notarized deeds of sale of property between the bank he worksfor and his minor son. At those times, he was not commissioned as a notary public.

Held:SUSPENDED. Notarization is invested with public interest because3 it converts a private document into a public one. Notarizing without commission is aviolation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws (the Notarial Law) and by making it appear that he is so authorized is a deliberate falsehood which violates the lawyers

oath and Rule 1.01 (CPR) that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Case Digest on Atty. Prudencio Penticostes v. Prosecutor Diosdado Ibaez (304 SCRA 281) Lawyer Unlawful Conduct

Facts:Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS benefits. She gave the contested amount to respondent, who was supposed to forward the same to the SSS and dropthe charges. Respondent did not forward the amount. He only remitted the amount after his complaint for misconduct was filed with the IBP.


10/21

Held:REPRIMANDED. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 pr ovides that a lawyer shall notengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfu l conduct. While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyers handlingof funds of a client is still applicable, thus, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so

constitutes professional misconduct. Also, even if he was acting as a prosecutor, Canon 6 provides that these canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the

discharge of their official tasks.

Case Digest on Renato S. Ong & Francia N. Ong v. Court of Appeals, Inland Trailways, Inc. & Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. (301 SCRA 387) AttorneysFeesFacts: Renato Ong was injured during a vehicular collision. He was awarded damages by the trial court. On appeal, the CA, the awards for actual damages, moraldamages & attorneys fees were reduced because (1) the cost & feasibility of corrective surgery had not been adduced in evidence, (2) the document relied upon to prove

actual damages was not formally offered in evidence and (3) no evidence but the bare assertion of counsel was put forward to prove damages for unearned income.

Held: Attorneys fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, based on any of the cases authorized bylaw. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the 2 have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The

Court has established a set of standards in fixing the amount of attorneys fees. Counsels performance, however, does not justify the award of 25 percent attorneys

fees. The nature of the case was not exceptionally difficult, and his handling of the case was sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of

civil procedure & evidence. It is well-settled that such award is addressed to sound judicial discretion and subject to judicial control.

Case Digest on Teodulfo B. Basas vs. Atty. Miguel I. Icawat (Duty to Client/Accounting of Clients Money/Negligence)

Facts:Atty. Miguel Icawat was the lawyer for Teodulfo Basas and some other laborers in their complaint against their employer. The NLRC rendered an adversedecision. Basas and his fellow workers, however, insisted that they appeal the decision. Atty. Icawat, however, failed to file the required memorandum of appeal. Basas

filed an administrative complaint, also alleging that Atty. Icawat issued a receipt for an amount less than that which they had paid him.

Held:GUILTY. Respondents failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the NLRC Rules of Procedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. Respondentpractically admitted that he did not file the memorandum. His failure to file the memorandum clearly prejudiced the interests of his clients. Respondent manifestly fellshort of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client

with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewithshall render him liable. For his failure to issue the proper receipt for the money he received from his clients, respondent also violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The Court fined Atty. Icawat inthe amount of PhP 500, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

Case Digest In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani (Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer)

Facts:Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to submit his proof of service in his appellants brief which subsequentlycaused the inability of the appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of

service and his answer to the IBPs query. Hence, this administrative complaint.

Held:GUILTY. Atty. Bayanis failure to submit proof of service of appellants brief and his failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to thelawful orders of the Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that Atty. Bayani has fallen short of the circumspection required of a

member of the Bar. A counsel must always remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence

and capability in that representation. Further, lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure and anyone who deals with them has

the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to his clients cause. Having been remiss in his duty tothe Court and to the Bar, Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he complies with the Order of the Supreme Court to submit

the required proof of service.

Case Digest on Office of the Court Administrator vs. (Judge) Florentino S. Barron (297 SCRA 376) Impropriety

Facts: Judge Barron was arrested during an entrapment operation when he tried to solicit bribes from an American national in exchange for ruling in the latters favor ina pending case.

Held: Judge dismissed. A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about hishonesty. The conduct of respondent shows that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant

constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved, which erodes the respect for th e

law and the courts.

Case Digest on Sarah B. Vedana vs. Judge Eudarlo B. Valencia (295 SCRA 1) Impropriety

Facts: Complainant is the court interpreter and a relative of respondent judge. She claims that he kissed and fondled her when she went to his sala to inform him that thecases for the day were ready for trial.

Held: Respondent guilty of violating Canons 2, 3 and 22 of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Code mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff ofimpropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. A public official is also

judged by his private morals. A judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. Ajudges official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.

Case Digest on Corazon T. Reontoy v. Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit (302 SCRA 604) Negligence of Counsel

Facts:On January 28, 1998 the SC found Ibadlit administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for failing to appeal within thereglementary period the decision rendered against his client. His reason was, an appeal would only be futile. SC declared that it was highly improper for him to haveadopted such opinion. SC said that a lawyer was without authority to waive his clients right to appeal and that his failure to appeal within the reglementary period

constituted negligence and malpractice, proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides (a) lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. This is a motion for reconsideration.

Held:Suspension lowered to 2 monthshis arguments are partly persuasive, he believed in good faith that his clients case was weak and that she accepted hisexplanation that the adverse decision was not worth appealing anymore. Besides, it was only several years later that she complained when no more relief was available toher. Also, complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal from the judgment or file a petition for relief, that he

did not commit to handle his clients case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive. This is also his first offense.

Case Digest on People of the Philippines v. Sevilleno ( 304 SCRA 519) Negligence of Counsel

Facts:In a criminal case for rape with homicide, the accused pleaded guilty. However, the 3 PAO lawyers assigned as counsel de officio did not perform their du ty. Thefirst did not advise his client of the consequences of pleading guilty, the second left the courtroom during trial and thus did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

The third postponed the presentation of evidence for the defense, and when he did appear, he said he would rely solely on the plea in the mistaken belief that it wouldlower the penalty to reclusion perpetua.


11/21

Held:Case remanded. Canon 18 required every lawyer to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrustedto him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. In this case, the defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, the fundamental rights ofthe accused.

N.B. Case remanded because of error by the judge in not using searching questions to find if the plea was made knowingly.

Case Digest on Rodolfo P. Velasquez v. CA & PCIB (GR No. 124049, June 30, 1999) Negligence of Counsel

Facts:As an incident in the main case, V appointed his counsel as attorney-in-fact to represent him at the pre-trial. Counsel failed to appear, hence V was declared indefault. The order of default was received by counsel but no steps were taken to have it lifted or set aside.

Held:Binding on V. V was also guilty of negli8gence because after making the special power of attorney, he went abroad and paid no further attention to the case untilhe received the decision. Thus, no FAME which will warrant a lifting of the order.

Case Digest on Regalado Daroy vs. Esteban Abecia Lawyer on Property Under Litigation

Facts: Daroy was plaintiff in a forcible entry case. He hired Abecia as his lawyer and won. To satisfy the award for damages, a parcel of land of the defendant was soldto Daroy at an execution sale. The land was then sold to Daroys relative, who then sold it to Abecias wife. He now claims that these sales are void because Abeciaforged his signature on the deeds of sale. IBP disbarred Abecia.

Held: Reversed. The evidence shows that Daroy was a party to the sale at the time ot was made and did not discover it 9 years later as he c laimed. He was notdefrauded


12/21

Facts:S was a judge and the publisher/columnist for a tabloid; he was also a writer for another paper. G charges him with using his columns to ventilate his views. Hehas repeatedly used insulting and inflammatory language against the governor and the provincial prosecutor and legal adviser.

Held:JUDGE DISMISSED. While S has the right to free speech, his writing of vicious editorials compromise his duties as judge in the impartial administration ofjustice. They reflect both on his office and on the officers he ridicules. The personal behavior of a judge in his professional and everyday life should be free from theappearance of impropriety. Improper conduct erodes the public confidence in the judiciary.

Case Digest on Benjamin Sia Lao vs. Hon. Felimon C. Abelila III (295 SCRA 267) Impropriety

Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land, respondent judge committed acts of forcible entry, attempted to deny complainant of possession despite a lease in thelatters favor. He also gave firearms to his men in order to assault complainants workers. Respondent also fled from police when called in for questioning.

Held: Respondent DISMISSED. A judge is the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the peoples sense of just ice and that, accordingly, he shouldconstantly keep himself away from any act of impropriety, not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations. No other position exacts

a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the judiciary. A judge must be the first to abide by the law and to weave

an example for the others to follow.

Case Digest on Spouses Benedicto & Rose Godinez v. Hon. Antonio Alano and Sheriff Alberto Ricardo Alano (303 SCRA 259) Impropriety

Facts:G charged A with committing irregularities in a civil case for sum of money. In said case, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the effects seized werekept in Judge As house. The court investigator found that the writ was improperly issued because the allegations of fraud and attempts to abscond in the affidavit were

bare assertions and not substantiated by the facts.

Held: FINED. The writ was issued in error. But in order to merit a disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent, gross, malicious,deliberate, or done in bad faith. Absent a clear showing that the judge has acted arrantly, the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the

imposition of administrative punishment. Judge A is fined for storing the effects in his house and their intent to charge storage fees. Judges should avoid impropriety ofthe appearance of impropriety.

Case Digest on Gregorio & Teresita Lorena v. Judge Adolfo Encomienda (302 SCRA 632) Impropriety

Facts:Spouses Lorena were evicted from the property of Judge Es brother. They refused to vacate. The mayor invited the parties to a conciliation meeting but they stillrefused. The owners allowed them to stay on the condition that they sign a written promise to leave after the grace period. When L refused, E phoned him and tried to

convince him to sign. L still refused, E then said: mga tarantado, mabulok kayo sa kalabos! and slammed the phone down. L accuses E and his conspirators of abuse of

authority for later throwing them in jail.

Held:REPRIMANDED. Although the charges against E were refuted by evidence, the serious nature of the tasks of judges requires them to be circumspect in both theirpublic and their private dealings. As they are expected to rise above human frailties they must, in all their activities, avoid not only impropriety but even the appearanceof impropriety. Hence, E should not have called L by [honewhich gave the impression of undue pressure and influence. He should not have cursed L over the phone as

a judges behavior must be beyond reproach.

Case Digest on Felicidad L. Oronce, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (298 SCRA 133) Gross Misconduct

Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, alawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.

Held: Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & makingutterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they peacefully took over the property, such

peaceful take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member

of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lesseningconfidence in the legal system.

Case Digest on Romulo F. Manuel v. Judge Demetrio d. Calimag (307 SCRA 657) Gross Misconduct

Facts:M charged C with selling him a stolen car, for which he was arrested.

Held: CASE DISMISSED. No evidence to substantiate the charges. The SC also said that to warrant dismissal for misconduct, it must be shown that the misconduct isserious and has a direct relation to his official duties amounting to misadministration, or intentional neglect and failure to discharge said duties. The judicial acts

complained of must be so corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law.

Case Digest on Erlinda Alonto-Frayna v. Judge Abdulmajid Astih (300 SCRA 199) Gross Misconduct

Facts: Judge Asith did not act on the case of the herein complainant for over 2 years despite the orders and directives of the Office of the Court Administrator to resolveit without delay. In addition, when asked to explain his actions before the SC, respondent failed to reply.

Held:A Judge who deliberately and continuously refuses to comply with the resolution of the SC is guilty of gross misconduct & insubordination. It is gross misconduct& even without outright disrespect for the SC for the respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in

the complaint against him. Furthermore, failure to render a decision beyond the 90 day period from its submission constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of the

honor & integrity of his office & in derogation of a speedy administration of justice.

Case Digest on Remedios Tapucar vs. Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar (293 SCRA 331)

Facts:Respondent was previously dismissed as CFI judge for maintaining and cohabiting with his mistress. Despite this, he later married the same woman and hadchildren with her. He even made statements displaying contempt for the SC and mocking the law and said court. Petitioner, his lawful wife, filed a letter-complaint fordisbarment against her husband. IBP disbarred him.

Held:Disbarred (ratio is the same as the Narag case). A judge is a visible representation of the law and, more importantly of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as asource of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law. A judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in all actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to

others. Likewise, an attorney is also invested with public trust. As officers of the court, lawyers must ensure the faith and confidence of the public that justice isadministered with dignity and civility. A high degree of moral integrity is expected of a lawyer in the community where he resides. The Court may disbar or suspend a

lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus

proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. The power to disbar, however, is one to be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconductwhich seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage

while a prior one subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the

law and the lawyers oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondents character, his moral indifference to scandal inthe community, and his outright defiance of established norms.


13/21

Case Digest on Julieta B. Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag (291 SCRA 451) Gross Immoral Conduct

Facts: Atty. Narags spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and havingchildren by her. Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this

petition.

Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge andbrought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyerfails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for

Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross

immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensibleto a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from

adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Case Digest on Jesus Conducto vs. Judge Iluminado C. Monzon (291 SCRA 619) Gross Ignorance of the Law

Facts: Respondent judge was charged with gross ignorance of the law. He refused to suspend the mayor due to criminal charges against the latter for the crime ofunlawful appointment. The judge opined that an official cannot be suspended for something that has happened in a previous term. Settled jurisprudence says this only

applies to administrative, not criminal cases.

Held: Fined for P5000. While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, it is imperative that theybe conversant with basic legal principles. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative

that he be conversant with the basic legal principles and aware of well-settled and authoritative doctrines. Also, if he did the act deliberately, he violated Canon 18 of theCanons of Judicial Ethics directs a judge to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he i s not a depository of

arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. An RTC judge cannot overturn a settled doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, otherwise, litigation would be

endless.

Case Digest on Rosalia Villaruel, et al v. Grapilon, et al: In the Matter of the Petition to Remove Atty. Jose A. Grapilon as President, IBP (302 SCRA 138)Abuse of Authority

Facts:G was accused of 16 IBP employees who sought his removal as IBP President for: Immorality, questionable disbursements of funds, dishonesty, failure to turnover IBP donations from private individuals, refusal to turn over records and money pertaining to the Employees Loan Savings Association, Appropriation of Office

Property, Extending loans to IBP employees, oppression/harassment, appointment of unworthy employees and relatives and organization of a secret society. The issue

regarding legal ethics is whether the SC can assume jurisdiction or should it be considered a labor dispute under the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

Held:Charges dropped. All the accusations of the petitioners were either unsubstantiated or refuted by controverting evidence. As to the issue of jurisdiction, the SC haspreviously assumed administrative jurisdiction over the IBP president. If the petitioners allege that the IBP terminated them as an act of reprisal and with malice or bias,this would constitute gross abuse of authority and serious misconductwarranting the use of the SCs supervisory powers over the IBP. Lastly, even if there was no

wrongful act, G is ordered to transfer the funds of the savings and loan association to an account in their name to prevent the appearance and suspicion of impropriety.

Case Digest on Victoriano P. Resurreccion v. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson (300 SCRA 129)

Facts: respondent was accused of having appropriated for his own benefit the amount of P 2, 5000.00 representing the amount which was delivered by the Resurreccionto the respondent as compensation or settlement money of a case for homicide thru reckless imprudence. Sayson did not turn over the amount to his client, the

Complainant in the criminal case, forcing Resurreccion to pay the same amount again. Sayson was later convicted for estafa.

Held: Sayson DISBARRED. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain extant in order to

maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Acts of moral turpitude (i.e. done contrary to justices, honesty & good morals) such as estafa or

falsification render one unfit to be a member of the legal proession. Also, Saysons acts of delaying the hearings before theOSG and the IBP reinforce this view.

Case Digest on Tomas Cabulisan v. Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan (297 SCRA 593) Good Moral Character

Facts: Cabulisan filed an administrative complaint against respondent for grave misconduct committed as follows : (1) peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C.Dumayas, a public health nurse, and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding, was then taking a bath; (2) having a mistress in the neighboring town;

and (3) allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him.

Held: Respondent filed for voyeurism, other charges dismissed for lack of evidence. People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only beproficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest degree on integrity and probity and anunquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives. By committing the acts in question, respondent violated the trust reposed in him and utterly failed

to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality required in the judicial profession.

Case Digest on Ban Hua U. Flores v. Atty. Enrique S. Chua (306 SCRA 465) Falsehood/Forum-shopping/Dilatory Tactics

Facts: Chua was charged with many offenses. The evidence was found to support the charges that he notarized a forged deed of sale, that he caused to be published anadvertisement of a SEC decision in order to bring ridicule and shame upon a corporation, that he filed a civil case knowing that the reliefs he prayed for were probably

granted in the SEC casethus belying his certification against forum shopping. He has also been previously reprimanded for bribing a judge and for consistently using

dilatory tactics to prolong a litigation.

Held:DISBARRED. He has thus violated Rules 10.01, 12.02, 12.04 (foisting or commission of falsehood, forum-shopping and causing in court proceedings), Canon 19(failing to resort to lawful means in representing his client), 27, 3.01 and 13.02 (causing undue publication of a pending action). He had an active role in committingfraud since he falsely stated that the person making the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free act and deed- when evidence shows the

signature was forged; also, he prolonged a family dispute by using dilatory tactics and placing an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponentsin violation of Rule

1.04 that lawyers should encourage their clients to end a controversy by a fair settlement. A lawyer must uphold the integrity of the profession. He brings honor to it byhonesty and fair dealing and by performing his duties to society, the bar, the courts and his clients.

Case Digest on Development Bank of the Philippines and Asset Privitization Trust v. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation (302 SCRA 362)Duty to Protect Clients Interest

Facts: CCC filed an injunction suit to prevent the DBP and APT from foreclosing on its mortgages. During trial, DBP & APT were unable to appear for cross-examining CCCs witnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared, unavailable or ill. The lower court decided this as a waiver, hence judgment was rendered

for CCC. DBP & APT filed this petition alleging denial of due process.

Held:Petition denied. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but did not do so. Counsel for APTwas absent on several occasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel, unreadiness to conduct the cross-examinations and serious illness. The withdrawal of APTsprevious counsel in the thick of the proceedings would be a reasonable ground to seek postponement of the hearing. However, such necessitates a duty on the part of the

new counsel to prepare himself for the next scheduled hearing. The excuse that it was due to the former counsels failure to turn over the records of the case to APT,


14/21

shows the negligence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. Counsel should have taken adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client,

rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. A motion to postpone trial on the ground that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disregardof his clients interest. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings

that have transpired prior to his takeover. Also, even if counsel had been ill with dengue, he chose not to notify his co-counsels who could have conducted the cross-

examination.

Case Digest on Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (293 SCRA 622) Assisting in the Speedy Administration of Justice

Facts: Judgment was rendered against the petitioner ordering it to reconvey the cemetery to the rightful owners. Despite the final decision of the SC, petitioner was ableto prevent the execution for 17 years, and thus render the judgment ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the

CA despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial courts decision had long become final before the said petitions were filed.

Held: Petition denied. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they are also officers of thecourt, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice

or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should not be

permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for

sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

Case Digest on Atty. Raula A. Sanchez v. Judge Augustine A. Vestil (298 SCRA 1)

Facts: Complainant charged RTC Judge Vestil with falsifying his monthly certificate of service submitted to the SC by stating that he has no pending case submitted fordecision or resolution that has gone beyond the NINETY (90) day period allowed by law when in fact there were numerous civil & criminal cases which the respondent

failed to resolve within the said period. Respondents say most of the cases were either inherited & substantially heard by other judges, or that they require further study orwhose stenographic notes were yet to be transcribedand these are excepted from being included the certificate by a proviso contained therein.

Held: Respondent Judge suspended and fined. Judges are mandated to decide cases seasonably. Judges who cannot comply with such mandate should ask for additionaltime, explaining in their request the reaso

ethics digested cases

Documents