legal ethics 2010 cases

7/30/2019 Legal Ethics 2010 Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/legal-ethics-2010-cases 1/20

LEGAL ETHICS 2010 CASES

DR. LEONILO DEL CARMEN

POLLYANA TANALEON

JUAN ENRIQUE SAYSON

HANNAH LEA N. TAÑOSO



CANON 6

Olazo V. Tinga

AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 12, 2010

FACTS OF THE CASE ISSUES RULING PENALTY

The complainant claimed that therespondent abused his position asCongressman and as a member of theCommittee on Awards when he undulyinterfered with the complainant’s sales

application because of his personalinterest over the subject land.Complainant’s second charge involves

a parcel of land belonging to Manuel

Olazo, his brother. The former allegedthat the respondent persuaded the latter to convey his rights over the land to acertain Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.Furthermore, the complainant allegedthat the respondent engaged in the

practice of law within the one year prohibition period when he appeared asa lawyer for Ramon Lee and JosephJeffrey Rodriguez before theCommittee on awards

Whether or notrespondent was engagedin the practice of lawwithin the one year

prohibition for governenet officials.

Whether or notrespondent violated

Rules 6.02 and 6.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

The issue in this case calls for a determination of whether therespondent’s actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct

– first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and amember of the Committee on Awards; and second, when he was nolonger a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client

before the office he was previously connected with.As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the

respondent previously interfered with the sales application coveringManuel’s land when the former was still a member of the Committee

on Awards. The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish thatthe respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face value, thelegal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the

preparation of a single document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,[32] wespecifically described private practice of law as one that contemplates asuccession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holdingone’s self to the public as a lawyer.

In any event, even granting that respondent’s act fell within the

definition of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence areinsufficient to show that the legal representation was made before theCommittee on Awards, or that the Assurance was intended to be

presented before it.

The SC dismissed the case filed against retired Supreme CourtAssociate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.

No penalty becausethe case wasdismissed.



CANON 7 RULE 7.03

RE: COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R. CAPITO

A.M. No. 2008-19- SC, July 27, 2010

FACTS ISSUES RULING PENALTY

Mrs. Milagros lent money to therespondent. Despite the borrowedmoney not having been returned yet heagain borrowed from Mrs. Lee and

promised that he will return the moneyimmediately. Not only that, he again

borrowed money twice. When Mrs.Milagros Lee met the respondent to getthe payment, in front of other people,

the latter told her “Eh kung sabihin ko

na sugar mommy kita,” adding that,

“nagpakantot ka naman sa akin.”

Whether or not therespondent’s conduct

violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

The Court found that respondent is guilty of gross discourtesyamounting to conduct unbecoming of a court employee. By suchviolation, respondent failed to live up to his oath of office as member of the IBP and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Lawyers should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacingand improper language. Their every act or word should be marked by

prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.

the respondent wassuspended for 3months without pay,with a warning that arepetition of thesame or similar actsshall be severelydealt with.



CANON 7and Rule 8.01

Barandon v Ferrer

A.C. No. 5768


In a civil case, Ferer ascounsel for the plaintiff usedabusive, offensive andimproper language whichinsinuated that Atty.Barandon presented falsifieddocument in court in isopposition motion to dismiss.He further filed a fabricatedcharge against the

complainant for falsificationof notarized document. At acourtroom he threatened thecomplainant saying, “ Laban

kung laban, patayan kung

patayan, kasama ang lahat na pamilya. Wala na palang

magagaling na abogado saCamarines Norte, ang

abogado na rito ay mga tagaCamarines Sur, umuwi na

kayo sa Camarines Sur hindi

kayo taga rito.”

Whether or not therespondent is guiltyof the chargesagainst him.

”Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to

conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyersand avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, theCode provides:A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper.”

“Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon.The evidence shows that heimputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the notarized document with pure malicefor he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandonauthored the same. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified

language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.” Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal

profession at all times.Rule 7.03 of the Code provides:A lawyer shall not engage inconduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in

public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

“Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicialforum.”

“Atty. Ferrers display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct

in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers aresworn to uphold.”

The Court orderedthe suspension of the respondentfrom the practiceof law for one year effective upon hisreceipt of theDecision.



CANON 10

REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD BUENTIPO MANN,

ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR., AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 8096, July 05, 2010

FACTS ISSUES RULING PENALTYRespondent Ignes was hired by the Koronadal

Water District (KWD), a GOCC, for all caseswherein KWD and its Board of Directors wereinvolved. A controversy later erupted when twodifferent group referred to as the De la Peña Boardand the Yapockun Board laid claim as thelegitimate Board of Directors of KWD. The DelaPeña board adopted a resolution appointingrespondents Mann, Viajar, and Nadua as privatecounsels under the supervision of Ignes. The

respondents filed actions in court as counsels of theKWD in all its cases. The retainership contract of respondent Ignes expired on April 2007 however hedid not stop representing KWD after that.

Later, Local Water Utilities Administrationconfirmed the Yaphockun Board as the new boardof directors of KWD and that said Board hadterminated the respondents and requested to hireanother counsel.

Whether or not therespondents havevalid authority torepresent KWD inCourt.

The Court found that Attys. Nadua, Viajar and Mann hadno valid authority to appear as counsels of KWD. Their appointments had no approval from the GOCC and the COA.In the case of Atty. Ignes, he also had appeared as counsel of KWD without authority.

For respondent’s willful appearance as counsels of KWD

without authority to do so, there is valid ground to imposedisciplinary action against them. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to always showcandor and good faith to the courts.

Respondents were found guilty of willfully appearing asattorneys for a party without authority.

They are finedP5, 000 each. Theywere sternly warnedthat a similar offensewill be dealt withmore severely.



CANON 12

ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO and SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN,Complainants,- versus -ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR.,Respondent.

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


Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated (Servier).The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier and the NLRC, on appeal,affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. She appealed to the CA andlost. She elevated the case to the SCand it denied the petition. She filed amotiom for reconsideration but waslikewise denied with finality. An entry

of judgment as been issued. Despitethat, her counsel, Atty. Relamida, fileda second complaint based on the samecause of action. The labor arbiter dismissed the second complaint on theground of res judicata and forumshopping.

Whether or not the act of the respondentconstitutes a violation of Rule 12.02 and the Rule12.04 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not theexpress truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple

petitions constitute abuse of the court’s processes and improper

conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administrationof justice and will be punished as contempt of court. The lawyer whofiles such multiple or repetitious petitions subjects himself todisciplinary action for incompetence or for willful violation of hisduties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and tomaintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and areconsistent with truth and honor.”

“The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in

violation of the res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires a lawyer to exertevery effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficientadministration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violatedRule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR.”

The respondent is found guilty of violating the Rules on ResJudicata and Forum Shopping.

Atty. Relamida ishereby suspendedfor 6 months fromthe practice of law.He is warned that a

petition of the sameor a similar act will

be dealt with moreseverly.



CANON 12 RULE 12.04

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 225, RESPONDENT.

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248*, September 29, 2010


This is a disbarment and dismissal from the judiciary service against the respondent whichstemmed from consolidated criminal case P. vPacay and P. v Ganias. The case was submittedfor decision on Sept. 8, 2008, respondent movedit to Sept. 17 for the reason that she had amedical consultation for a neck ailment. Shetherafter filed 3 successive requests for extensions. Finally, the judgment was reset for the last time to Dec. 12 and the Decision was

promulgated wherein all the accused Except for SPO1 Carino, were acquitted.

Convicted accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carinoassailed the Joint Decision by filing an UrgentMotion for Reconsideration on 5 January 2009,which the prosecution countered in itsOpposition filed on 14 January 2009. However,it was not until 30 July 2009, or more than six(6) months later, that respondent Judge Sempio-Diy issued an Order submitting the incident for resolution. Less than a month later, or on 24August 2009, respondent Judge Sempio-Diyresolved the pending matter by denying theUrgent Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Whether or not respondentcommitted delay inrendition of judgment for the abovementioned cases.

Whether or not respondent judge committed a delay inacting upon the Motion for Reconsideration of theconvicted accused.

The Court found no evidence to sustain the charges of delay against the respondent in rendering the Decision inthe consolidated case. Records reveal that the respondenttimely sought for three successive extensions for the periodto decide the consolidated cases. All requests werefavorably considered by the Supreme Court and granted atotal of 90 day extension period and the Decision wasmade well within the extension period. However the Courtheld that there was indeed delay in resolving accusedCarino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

The reglementary period to resolve the motion inquestion began to run from February 8, 2009. The

respondent did not act on the matter and allowed the hiatusof the consolidated criminal cases. A judge cannot chooseto prolong the period for resolving pending incidents anddeciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Delayin resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary

period of 90 days fixed by law cannot be excused or condoned

However, considering that this is her first infraction dueto inadvertent, the Supreme Court believed that admonitionwill suffice.

The respondent is found to have been in delay in therendition of an order in the consolidated case.

Respondent wasadmonished to bemore circumspect inobserving thereglementary periodfor disposing of motions.



CANON 11 and CANON 13 (We could not f ind any 2010 case)

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIP Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE

A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007


In a criminal proceeding for murder entitled

P. v Plaza heard in the sala of RTC Judge Tan of Surigao City, the accused was granted bail. Atty.Bagabuyo was then Senior State Prosecutor. Hecaused the publication of an article regarding theOrder granting bail to the accused in MindanaoGold Star Daily and indirectly stated that theJudge was displaying judicial arrogance.

The respondent was ordered to appear incourt and explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article. He admitted to the holding of the

press conference, but refused to answer whether

he made the statements in the article and for thishe was cited in contempt. He posted the required

bond and was released from the custody of thelaw.

Despite being cited in contempt, presentedhimself to the media for interviews and again theattacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial’s

disposition in the proceedings of the criminalcase.

Whether or not the

respondent violated theCode of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Respondent violated the Rule 11.05 of Canon

11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statementsagainst the Order which allowed the accused to bereleased on bail for not resorting to the proper authorities for redress of his grievances.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when heindirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying

judicial arrogance in the article. Moreover heviolated Rule 13.02 when he made the statementsin the article while the criminal case was still

pending in court.Atty. Rogelio was found guilty of violating

Canon 11, Rule 11.05, Canon 13 and Rule 13.02of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Bagabuyo was

suspended in the practice of law for 1 year with a sternwarning that the repetition of a similar offense shall bedealt with more severely.



CANON 6

Olazo V. Tinga

AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 12, 2010

FACTS OF THE CASE ISSUES RULING PENALTY

The complainant claimed that therespondent abused his position asCongressman and as a member of theCommittee on Awards when he undulyinterfered with the complainant’s sales

application because of his personalinterest over the subject land.Complainant’s second charge involves

a parcel of land belonging to ManuelOlazo, his brother. The former allegedthat the respondent persuaded the latter to convey his rights over the land to acertain Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.Furthermore, the complainant allegedthat the respondent engaged in the

practice of law within the one year prohibition period when he appeared asa lawyer for Ramon Lee and JosephJeffrey Rodriguez before theCommittee on awards

Whether or notrespondent was engagedin the practice of lawwithin the one year

prohibition for governenet officials.

Whether or notrespondent violated

Rules 6.02 and 6.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

The issue in this case calls for a determination of whether therespondent’s actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct

– first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and amember of the Committee on Awards; and second, when he was nolonger a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client

before the office he was previously connected with.As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the

respondent previously interfered with the sales application coveringManuel’s land when the former was still a member of the Committee

on Awards. The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish thatthe respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face value, thelegal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the

preparation of a single document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc.,[32] wespecifically described private practice of law as one that contemplates asuccession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holdingone’s self to the public as a lawyer.

In any event, even granting that respondent’s act fell within the

definition of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence areinsufficient to show that the legal representation was made before theCommittee on Awards, or that the Assurance was intended to be

presented before it.

The SC dismissed the case filed against retired Supreme CourtAssociate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.

No penalty becausethe case wasdismissed.



CANON 7 RULE 7.03

RE: COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R. CAPITO

A.M. No. 2008-19- SC, July 27, 2010


Mrs. Milagros lent money to therespondent. Despite the borrowedmoney not having been returned yet heagain borrowed from Mrs. Lee and

promised that he will return the moneyimmediately. Not only that, he again

borrowed money twice. When Mrs.Milagros Lee met the respondent to getthe payment, in front of other people,

the latter told her “Eh kung sabihin kona sugar mommy kita,” adding that,

“nagpakantot ka naman sa akin.”

Whether or not therespondent’s conduct

violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

The Court found that respondent is guilty of gross discourtesyamounting to conduct unbecoming of a court employee. By suchviolation, respondent failed to live up to his oath of office as member of the IBP and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Lawyers should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacingand improper language. Their every act or word should be marked by

prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.

the respondent wassuspended for 3months without pay,with a warning that arepetition of thesame or similar actsshall be severelydealt with.



CANON 7and Rule 8.01

Barandon v Ferrer

A.C. No. 5768


In a civil case, Ferer ascounsel for the plaintiff usedabusive, offensive andimproper language whichinsinuated that Atty.Barandon presented falsifieddocument in court in isopposition motion to dismiss.He further filed a fabricatedcharge against thecomplainant for falsificationof notarized document. At acourtroom he threatened thecomplainant saying, “ Laban

kung laban, patayan kung

patayan, kasama ang lahat na pamilya. Wala na palang

magagaling na abogado saCamarines Norte, ang

abogado na rito ay mga tagaCamarines Sur, umuwi na

kayo sa Camarines Sur hindi

kayo taga rito.”

Whether or not therespondent is guiltyof the chargesagainst him.

”Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to

conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyersand avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, theCode provides:A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper.”

“Atty. Ferrers actions do not measure up to this Canon.The evidence shows that heimputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the notarized document with pure malicefor he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandonauthored the same. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignifiedlanguage in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.”

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal

profession at all times.Rule 7.03 of the Code provides:A lawyer shall not engage inconduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in

public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

“Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicialforum.”

“Atty. Ferrers display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct

in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers aresworn to uphold.”

The Court orderedthe suspension of the respondentfrom the practiceof law for one year effective upon hisreceipt of theDecision.



CANON 10

REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD BUENTIPO MANN,

ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR., AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 8096, July 05, 2010

FACTS ISSUES RULING PENALTYRespondent Ignes was hired by the Koronadal

Water District (KWD), a GOCC, for all caseswherein KWD and its Board of Directors wereinvolved. A controversy later erupted when twodifferent group referred to as the De la Peña Boardand the Yapockun Board laid claim as thelegitimate Board of Directors of KWD. The DelaPeña board adopted a resolution appointingrespondents Mann, Viajar, and Nadua as privatecounsels under the supervision of Ignes. Therespondents filed actions in court as counsels of theKWD in all its cases. The retainership contract of respondent Ignes expired on April 2007 however hedid not stop representing KWD after that.

Later, Local Water Utilities Administrationconfirmed the Yaphockun Board as the new boardof directors of KWD and that said Board hadterminated the respondents and requested to hireanother counsel.

Whether or not therespondents havevalid authority torepresent KWD inCourt.

The Court found that Attys. Nadua, Viajar and Mann hadno valid authority to appear as counsels of KWD. Their appointments had no approval from the GOCC and the COA.In the case of Atty. Ignes, he also had appeared as counsel of KWD without authority.

For respondent’s willful appear ance as counsels of KWDwithout authority to do so, there is valid ground to imposedisciplinary action against them. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to always showcandor and good faith to the courts.

Respondents were found guilty of willfully appearing asattorneys for a party without authority.

They are finedP5, 000 each. Theywere sternly warnedthat a similar offensewill be dealt withmore severely.



CANON 12

ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO and SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN,Complainants,- versus -ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR.,Respondent.

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


Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated (Servier).The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier and the NLRC, on appeal,affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. She appealed to the CA andlost. She elevated the case to the SCand it denied the petition. She filed amotiom for reconsideration but waslikewise denied with finality. An entry

of judgment as been issued. Despitethat, her counsel, Atty. Relamida, fileda second complaint based on the samecause of action. The labor arbiter dismissed the second complaint on theground of res judicata and forumshopping.

Whether or not the act of the respondentconstitutes a violation of Rule 12.02 and the Rule12.04 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not theexpress truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple

petitions constitute abuse of the court’s processes and improper

conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administrationof justice and will be punished as contempt of court. The lawyer whofiles such multiple or repetitious petitions subjects himself todisciplinary action for incompetence or for willful violation of hisduties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and tomaintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and areconsistent with truth and honor.”

“The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in

violation of the res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires a lawyer to exertevery effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and ef ficientadministration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violatedRule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR.”

The respondent is found guilty of violating the Rules on ResJudicata and Forum Shopping.

Atty. Relamida ishereby suspendedfor 6 months fromthe practice of law.He is warned that a

petition of the sameor a similar act will

be dealt with moreseverly.



CANON 12 RULE 12.04

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 225, RESPONDENT.

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248*, September 29, 2010


This is a disbarment and dismissal from the judiciary service against the respondent whichstemmed from consolidated criminal case P. vPacay and P. v Ganias. The case was submittedfor decision on Sept. 8, 2008, respondent movedit to Sept. 17 for the reason that she had amedical consultation for a neck ailment. Shetherafter filed 3 successive requests for extensions. Finally, the judgment was reset for the last time to Dec. 12 and the Decision was

promulgated wherein all the accused Except for SPO1 Carino, were acquitted.

Convicted accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carinoassailed the Joint Decision by filing an UrgentMotion for Reconsideration on 5 January 2009,which the prosecution countered in itsOpposition filed on 14 January 2009. However,it was not until 30 July 2009, or more than six(6) months later, that respondent Judge Sempio-Diy issued an Order submitting the incident for resolution. Less than a month later, or on 24August 2009, respondent Judge Sempio-Diyresolved the pending matter by denying theUrgent Motion for Reconsideration for lack of

merit.

Whether or not respondentcommitted delay inrendition of judgment for the abovementioned cases.

Whether or not respondent judge committed a delay inacting upon the Motion for Reconsideration of theconvicted accused.

The Court found no evidence to sustain the charges of delay against the respondent in rendering the Decision inthe consolidated case. Records reveal that the respondenttimely sought for three successive extensions for the periodto decide the consolidated cases. All requests werefavorably considered by the Supreme Court and granted atotal of 90 day extension period and the Decision wasmade well within the extension period. However the Courtheld that there was indeed delay in resolving accusedCarino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

The reglementary period to resolve the motion inquestion began to run from February 8, 2009. The

respondent did not act on the matter and allowed the hiatusof the consolidated criminal cases. A judge cannot chooseto prolong the period for resolving pending incidents anddeciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Delayin resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary

period of 90 days fixed by law cannot be excused or condoned

However, considering that this is her first infraction dueto inadvertent, the Supreme Court believed that admonitionwill suffice.

The respondent is found to have been in delay in therendition of an order in the consolidated case.

Respondent wasadmonished to bemore circumspect inobserving thereglementary periodfor disposing of motions.



CANON 11 and CANON 13 (We could not find any 2010 case)

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIP Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE

A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007


In a criminal proceeding for murder entitled

P. v Plaza heard in the sala of RTC Judge Tan of Surigao City, the accused was granted bail. Atty.Bagabuyo was then Senior State Prosecutor. Hecaused the publication of an article regarding theOrder granting bail to the accused in MindanaoGold Star Daily and indirectly stated that theJudge was displaying judicial arrogance.

The respondent was ordered to appear incourt and explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article. He admitted to the holding of the

press conference, but refused to answer whether

he made the statements in the article and for thishe was cited in contempt. He posted the required

bond and was released from the custody of thelaw.

Despite being cited in contempt, presentedhimself to the media for interviews and again theattacked the integrity of Judge Tan and the trial’s

disposition in the proceedings of the criminalcase.

Whether or not the

respondent violated theCode of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Respondent violated the Rule 11.05 of Canon

11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press conference where he made statementsagainst the Order which allowed the accused to bereleased on bail for not resorting to the proper authorities for redress of his grievances.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when heindirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying

judicial arrogance in the article. Moreover heviolated Rule 13.02 when he made the statementsin the article while the criminal case was still

pending in court.Atty. Rogelio was found guilty of violating

Canon 11, Rule 11.05, Canon 13 and Rule 13.02of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Bagabuyo was

suspended in the practice of law for 1 year with a sternwarning that the repetition of a similar offense shall bedealt with more severely.



CANON 16[A.C. No. 8159 (formerly CBD 05-1452) : April 23, 2010]

REYNARIA BARCENAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO, RESPONDENT.


Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo SanAntonio (San Antonio), entrusted to Atty. Alverothe amount of P300,000.00, which the latter wassupposed to give to a certain Amanda Gasta. Thereceipt of the money was evidenced by anacknowledgment receipt. In the said receipt, Atty.

Alvero said that he would deposit the money in

court because Amanda Gasta refused to accept the

same.

Barcenas discovered that Atty. Alvero did not

deposit the money in court, but instead converted

and used the same for his personal needs. Atty.

Alvero admitted the receipt and promised to return

the money. But he failed to do so.

Whether respondent breached Canon 1, Rule1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.02and 16.03.

”Atty. Alvero breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

When a lawyer receives money from a clientfor a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound torender an accounting to the client showing that themoney was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended

purpose, the lawyer must immediately return themoney to his client. These, Atty. Alvero failed todo.

Atty. Alvero's failure to immediately accountfor and return the money when due and upondemand violated the trust reposed in him,demonstrated his lack of integrity and moralsoundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumptionthat he converted the money for his own use, andthis act constituted a gross violation of

professional ethics and a betrayal of publicconfidence in the legal profession.

Respondent was found guilty og grossmisconduct.

Suspension for two (2) yearsin the practice of law.



RULE 16 AND 18A.C. No. 8158 : February 24, 2010

ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, Respondent.


Atty. Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by former’s

relatives. For a consideration of Eighty Thousand

Pesos (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the

task to be completed within a period of eight (8)

months. Atty. Macalalad has never filed any petition

for registration over the property sought to be titled.

Whether respondentviolated Rule 16.01 andRule 18.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall notneglect a legal matter entrusted to him and hisnegligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

This Court has consistently held, in construingthis Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to

perform the obligations due to the client isconsidered per se a violation.In addition to the above finding of negligence, wealso find Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

which requires a lawyer to account for all themoney 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 legalservice within the contracted time of theengagement.

Respondent violated Rule 16.03 and Rule 18.03 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility.

SIX (6) MONTHSSUSPENSION from the

practice of law.

Atty. Macalalad is also

ORDERED to RETURN to Atty.

Elmer C. Solidon the amount of

Fifty Thousand Pesos

(P50,000.00) with interest of

twelve percent (12%) per

annum from the date of

promulgation of this Decision

until the full amount isreturned.



CANON 19 and Rule 15.07A.C. No. 5736

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE,INC. (RBCI) BOHOL,Complainant, - versus -ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO,Respondent.


Respondent and his clients, minoritystockholders of RBCI, through force andintimidation, with the use of armed men, forciblytook over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A.Garay (Garay), the bank manager, destroyed the

bank’s vault, and installed their own staff to run

the bank.

Whether respondentviolated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

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 hisclient compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair andhonest means to attain the lawful objectives of hisclient. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use

peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice andrefrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.

A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the

administration of justice. To that end, his client’ssuccess is wholly subordinate. His conduct oughtto and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer,even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s

cause, is condemnable and unethical.Respondent was found guilty of violating

Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of theCode of Professional Responsibility.

SUSPENSION for one(1) year.



Canon 12 and 21A.C. No. 5859 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421) : November 23, 2010

ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. MERCADO, SEVERINO P. MERCADO AND SPOUSES JESUS AND ROSARIO MERCADO,Complainants, v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA, Respondent.


The respondent is the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case Pursuant to afavorable decision, a writ of execution pendingappeal was issued in favor of Rosario P.Mercado. Herein respondent garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded thatthe respondent turn over the proceeds of thegarnishment, but the latter refused claiming thathe had paid part of the money to the judge whilethe balance was his, as attorney’s fees. The IBP

Board of Governors promulgated a Resolutionholding the respondent guilty of infidelity in thecustody and handling of client’s funds andrecommending to the Court his one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Following the release of the aforesaid IBPResolution, the respondent filed a series of lawsuits against the Mercado family Therespondent also instituted cases against thefamily corporation, the corporation’s accountant

and the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where respondent tried to collect the

balance of his alleged fee from Rosario

Whether respondent isguilty of infidelity in thecustody and handling of client’s funds.

The SC agreed with the findings andrecommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.The respondent not only filed frivolous andunfounded lawsuits that violated his duties as anofficer of the court in aiding in the proper administration of justice in violation of Canon 12,

but he did so against a former client to whom heowes loyalty and fidelity. For that, he violatedCanon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The cases filed by therespondent against his former client involved

matters and information acquired by therespondent during the time when he was stillRosario’s counsel. Information as to the structure

and operations of the family corporation, privatedocuments, and other pertinent facts and figuresused as basis or in support of the cases filed by therespondent in pursuit of his malicious motiveswere all acquired through the attorney-clientrelationship with herein complainants. Such act isin direct violation of the Canons and will not betolerated by the Court.

Respondent Atty.Eduardo C. De Vera ishereby DISBARRED fromthe practice of law.



CANON 17, 18 and 19[A.C. No. 7907 : December 15, 2010]

SPOUSES VIRGILIO AND ANGELINA ARANDA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA, RESPONDENT.


Respondent was the former counselof the petitioners. On the date that thecomplainant’s case was submitted of

decision they were not able to attend because they did not receive any noticetherefor. Their counsel hereinrespondent did not inform them of thesetting despite receiving to the noticefor the hearing. The Court rendered

judgement against the spouses Aranda.The respondent did not do anything tohave the decision be reconsidered of set aside. It is only after when thesheriff implemented the writ of execution did the complainants knewof the court’s decision which had

already become final and executor.Hence, the complainant charged therespondent with gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling their case.

Whether the respondentcommitted gross negligence or grossmisconduct in handling their case.

Whether respondent is guilty of violating the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent violated Canons 17,18 and 19 and also Rules 18. 02, 18.03,and 18.04.

Respondent should have givenadequate attention, care, and time to allthe cases he is handling. He isexpected to monitor the progress of said spouses’ case and is obligated toexert all efforts to present everyremedy or defense authorized by lawto protect the cause of herein

petitioners pursuant to Canon 19. He proved himself unworthy of the trustreposed on him by his helpless clientswhich he should have been mindful of as what Canon 17 had enunciated. Hisconduct furthermore showed that henot only failed to exercise duediligence in handling his clients’ cause

but in fact abandoned his clients’ cause

as what he should have done observingCanon 18.

Respondent was SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for SIXMONTHS.

legal ethics 2010 cases

Documents