necessity of good moral character in the life of a lawyer
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
NECESSITY OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
IN THE LIFE OF A LAWYER
A. Requisite for admission to the Bar
1. Every applicant for admission as a
member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty one years of age,
of good moral character, and a resident of
the Philippines, and must produce before
the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character and that no charges
against him involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or pending in any court in the
Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
2. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection
with his application for admission to the
bar. (Rule 701, CPR)
3. A lawyer shall not support the application
for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect
to character, education or other, or other
relevant attribute. (Rule 7.02, CPR)
B. Condition for maintenance of
membership in the Bar
4. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
(Rule 1.01, Rule of Professional
Responsibility [CPR])
5. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, now should he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule
7.03, CPR)
6. A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney-at-law
by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or for gross misconduct in such
office, gross immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for willful
disobedience or any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers constitutes malpractice.
(Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
C. Definitions of good moral character.
7. Good moral character includes at least
common honesty (In E Del Rosario, 52 Phil.
399, Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859)
![Page 2: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
8. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix
Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of
truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full
candor, intellectual honesty, and the
strictest observance of fiduciary
responsibility – all of which, throughout the
centuries, have been compendiously
described as moral character. (Justice Fred
Ruiz Castro, “Apostacy in the Legal
Profession”, 64 SCRA 784.
9. Good moral character is more than just
the absence of bad moral character. Such
character expresses itself in the will to do
the unpleasant thing if it is right and the
resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is
wrong. (Cordon vs. Balicanta, 490 SCRA
299)
B. Good moral character and the duties of a
lawyer
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and the legal
processes..
A.C. 6057, June 27, 2006
PETER DONTON vs. ATTY. E. TANSINGCO
By his own admission, respondent admitted
that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified
from owning real property. Yet, in his
motion for reconsideration, [12] respondent
admitted that he caused the transfer of
ownership to the parcel of land to Stier.
Respondent, however, aware of the
prohibition, quickly rectified his act and
transferred the title in complainant’s name.
But respondent provided “some safeguards”
by preparing several documents, including
the Occupancy Agreement, that would
guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual
owner of the property despite its transfer in
complainant’s name.In effect, respondent
advised and aided Stier in circumventing the
constitutional prohibition against foreign
ownership of lands by preparing said
documents.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the
Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and
the Code when he prepared and notarized
the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law
against foreign ownership of lands.
Respondent used his knowledge of the law
to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act
amounts to malpractice in his office, for
which he may be suspended.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
![Page 3: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006
DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.
vs. ATTY.NAPOLEON ESPIRITU
The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate
is what places the law profession in a
unique position of trust and confidence, and
distinguishes it from any other calling. Once
this trust and confidence is betrayed, the
faith of the people not only in the individual
lawyer but also in the legal profession as a
whole is eroded. To this end, all members of
the bar are strictly required to at all times
maintain the highest degree of public
confidence in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of their profession. The nature of
the office of a lawyer requires that he shall
be of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the legal
profession, but its continued possession is
essential to maintain one’s good standing in
the profession. Law is a noble profession,
and the privilege to practice it is bestowed
only upon individuals who are competent
intellectually, academically, and, equally
important, morally. Because they are
vanguards of the law and the legal system,
lawyers must at all times conduct
themselves, especially in their dealings with
their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach.
A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006
ROBERTO SORIANO vs. ATTY. MANUEL
DIZON
The totality of the facts unmistakably bears
the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his
conduct, respondent revealed his extreme
arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As
it were, he acted like a god on the road, who
deserved to be venerated and never to be
slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a
simple traffic incident reflected poorly on
his fitness to be a member of the legal
profession. His overreaction also evinced
vindictiveness, which was definitely an
undesirable trait in any individual, more so
in a lawyer. In the tenacity with which he
pursued complainant, we see not the
persistence of a person who has been
grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of
one trying to assert a false sense of
superiority and to exact revenge”
A.C. No. 5700, January 30, 2006.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING
CORPORATION vs. ATTY. DANTE A.
CARANDANG
Clearly, even if the check was drawn by
Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable.
![Page 4: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
In People v. Tuanda, we explained the
nature of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as follows:
The gravamen of the offense punished by
B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for
payment . . . . The thrust of the law is to
prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting
them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by the law. The law
punishes the act not as an offense against
property but an offense against public
order.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless
check transcends the private interests of the
parties directly involved in the transaction
and touches the interests of the community
at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an
injury to the public. The harmful practice of
putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can
very well pollute the channels of trade and
commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and
the public interest.
A.C. No. 6963. February 9, 2006.]
VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E.
BERNABE
Respondent's act of notarizing the
Magkasanib na Salaysay in the absence of
one the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Notarial Law. By
affixing his signature and notarial seal on
the instrument, he led us to believe that
Basilia personally appeared before him and
attested to the truth and veracity of the
contents of the affidavit when in fact it was a
certain Pronebo who signed the document.
Respondent's conduct is fraught with
dangerous possibilities considering the
conclusiveness on the due execution of a
document that our courts and the public
accord on notarized documents. Respondent
has clearly failed to exercise utmost
diligence in the performance of his function
as a notary public and to comply with the
mandates of the law.
A.C. 5377, June 15, 2006
VICTOR LINGAN vs. ATTYS. CALUBAQUIB &
BALIGA
Notarization by a notary public converts a
private document into a public one and
makes it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. Notaries
public must therefore observe utmost care
with respect to the basic requirements of
their duties.
![Page 5: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Being not only lawyers but also public
officers, respondents should have been
acutely aware of their responsibilities.
Respondents’ acts did not amount to mere
simple and excusable negligence. Having
failed to perform their sworn duty,
respondents were squarely in violation of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
A.C. 5907, July 21, 2006
ELSA MONDEJAR vs. ATTY. VIVIAN RUBIA
The document clearly appears to have been
ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate
Marilyn from the Anti-Dummy charge
against her in 2002.
The document was allegedly notarized on
January 9, 2001 but a new revised/amended
document was made in 2002 bearing the
original date of execution/acknowledgment.
If that were so, how could an error have
been committed regarding the other year
2001 original entries in the notarial register,
when the purported new document was to
retain the original January 9, 2001 date as it
would merely input additional conditions
thereto? The above-quoted discussion by
the Investigating IBP Commissioner of why
he discredited respondent’s explanation
behind the conflicting dates appearing in the
document is thus well-taken.
A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL
FACULTY & STAFF vs.
ATTY. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ
Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes
immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to
warrant his disbarment? Indeed, he
exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the
Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while the
first marriage was still in place, is contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality
However, measured against the definition,
we are not prepared to consider
respondent’s act as grossly immoral. This
finds support in the following
recommendation and observation of the IBP
Investigator and IBP Board of Governors.
:
A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006
CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG vs. ATTY.
DIOSDADO RONGCAL
While it is has been held in disbarment
cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
![Page 6: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so
with respect to betrayals of the marital vow
of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-
marital relations are punishable under
penal law, sexual relations outside marriage
is considered disgraceful and immoral as it
manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed
by our laws.
A.C. No. 54171 . March 31, 2006.
AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR vs. ATTY.
ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO
Respondent failed to comply with the above
provisions. Records show and as found by
Investigating Commissioner, respondent
committed deceit by making it appear that
complainant executed a Special Power of
Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to
file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution
and to collect the money judgment awarded
to the former. Worse, after receiving from
the NLRC cashier the check amounting to
P99,490.00, he retained the amount. It was
only when complainant reported the matter
to the NBI that respondent paid him
P40,000.00 as partial payment of the
"award." In fact, there still remains an
outstanding balance of P10,000.00.
Moreover, as correctly found by IBP
Commissioner Maala, respondent has no
right to retain or appropriate unilaterally
his lawyer's lien by dividing the money into
60-40 ratio. Obviously, such conduct is
indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.
He was clinging to something not his and to
which he had no right.
A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006
MARILI C. RONQUILLO, et al. vs. ATTY.
HOMOBONO CHAVEZ
In the instant case, respondent may have
acted in his private capacity when he
entered into a contract with complainant
Marili representing to have the rights to
transfer title over the townhouse unit and
lot in question. When he failed in his
undertaking, respondent fell short of his
duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It cannot be
gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent
to transfer property over which one has no
legal right of ownership. Respondent was
likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful
conduct when he concealed this lack of right
from complainants. He did not inform the
complainant that he has not yet paid in full
the price of the subject townhouse unit and
lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell,
transfer or assign said property at the time
of the execution of the Deed of Assignment.
![Page 7: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
His acceptance of the bulk of the purchaser
price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty
Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(P937,400.00). despite knowing he was not
entitled to it, made matters worse for him.
Rule 1/02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
A.C. No. 6968, August 9, 2006
ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON vs. ATTY.
MARICHU LAMBINO
In the main, Atty. Dizon invoked Section 1
(a) of Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter)
which empowers the NBI “to undertake
investigations of crimes and other offenses
against the laws of the Philippines, upon its
own initiative and as public interest may
require” [5] and to make arrests. The
invocation does not impress. Said section
does not grant the NBI the power to make
warrantless arrests. The NBI Charter clearly
qualifies the power to make arrests to be “in
accordance with existing laws and rules.”
Members of the investigation staff of the
Bureau of Investigation shall be peace
officers, and as such have the following
powers:
(a) To make arrests, searches and seizures
in accordance with existing laws and rules.
[6]
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
By persisting in his attempt to arrest the
suspected students without a warrant, Atty.
Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs,
support efforts to achieve high standards in
law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in
dessiminating information regarding the
law and jurisprudence.
A.C. No. 6352, February 27, 2006
SPS. WILLIAMS vs. ATTY. RUDY ENRIQUEZ
As pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that a
lawyer be updated in the latest laws and
jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to act as if one
does not know it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. As a retired judge,
respondent should have known that it is his
duty to keep himself well-informed of the
![Page 8: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
latest rulings of the Court on the issues and
legal problems confronting a client. In this
case, the law he apparently misconstrued is
no less than the Constitution, the most basic
law of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s
mandate to protect a client’s interest to the
best of his/her ability and with utmost
diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the
law and legal developments, and participate
in continuing legal education programs.
Thus, in championing the interest of clients
and defending cases, a lawyer must not only
be guided by the strict standards imposed
by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise
espouse legally sound arguments for clients,
lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a
technical ground. Ignorance encompasses
both substantive and procedural laws.
CANON 6 – Thee canons shall apply to
lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks-
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government
service shall not use is public position to
promote or advance his private interests,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
A, C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006
GISELLA HUYSSEN vs. ATTY. FRED L.
GUTIERREZ
Respondent’s act of asking money from
complainant in consideration of the latter’s
pending application for visas is violative of
Rule 1.01 [17] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibits members of
the Bar from engaging or participating in
any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of
Rule 6.02 [18] of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from
promoting their private interest. Promotion
of private interest includes soliciting gifts or
anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his
office or which may be affected by the
functions of his office. [19] Respondent’s
conduct in office betrays the integrity and
good moral character required from all
lawyers, especially from one occupying a
high public office. A lawyer in public office is
expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the
trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government; he must also uphold the
dignity of the legal profession at all times
and observe a high standard of honesty and
fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in
government service is a keeper of the public
faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than
his brethren in private practice.
![Page 9: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
A.C. No. 6705. March 31, 2006.
RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. CARLOS
B. SAGUCIO .
Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he
rendered his legal services to complainant
while working as a government prosecutor.
Even the receipts he signed stated that the
payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's
fee." Thus, as correctly pointed out by
complainant, respondent clearly violated
the prohibition in RA 6713.
However, violations of RA 6713 are not
subject to disciplinary action under the
Code of Professional Responsibility unless
the violations also constitute infractions of
specific provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Certainly, the
IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate
violations of RA 6713 — the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees — unless the acts
involved also transgress provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Here, respondent's violation of RA 6713 also
constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." Respondent's admission
that he received from Taggat fees for legal
services while serving as a government
prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which
constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01..
A.C. No. 4517, September 11, 2006
AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR. vs. ATTY
VITALIANO FABROS, ET AL.
As public officers, respondents failed to live
up to the high degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence and skill
required of them. [16] As lawyers, they were
found to have engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.
They also violated their oath as officers of
the court to foist no falsehood on anyone.
Furthermore, by express provision of Canon
6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the avoidance of such conduct is demanded
of them as lawyers in the government
service:
As lawyers in the government service,
respondents were under an even greater
obligation to observe the basic tenets of the
legal profession because public office is a
public trust.
CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
his professional colleagues, and shall void
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
A.C. 6501, August 31, 2006
![Page 10: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
ATTY. LEON L. ASA, et al. vs. ATTY. PABLITO
M. CASTILLO, et al.
A final word. The spectacle of members of
the bar being engaged in bickering and
recrimination is far from edifying. Mutual
bickerings and unjustified recriminations
between brother attorneys detract from the
dignity of the legal profession and will not
receive any sympathy from this Court.
Personal colloquies between counsels which
promote unseemly wrangling should thus
be carefully avoided.
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not allow any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court, nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.
A.C. No. 5246, May 2, 2006
EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY. RUBEN T.
ALMADRO
Said statement shows very clearly that Atty.
Almadro has received a copy of the
complaint. For how can he prepare a draft of
his comment if it were not so? This should
have alerted Atty. Alambra to verify the
veracity of the claim of Atty. Almadro Atty.
Alambra should not have relied on the
statement given by Atty. Almadro. Their
being classmates in the law school is not a
reason to be less cautious in his dealings
with the Court. He is an officer of the court,
and as such, he owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
A.C. NO. 6198, September 15, 2006
RENATO MALIGAYA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO
DORONILA
By stating untruthfully in open court that
complainant had agreed to withdraw his
lawsuits, Atty. Doronila breached these
peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not
only that, he violated the lawyer’s oath to
“do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court,” of which Canon 10 and Rule
10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed
on every lawyer’s duty to “never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by
an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”
Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
A.C. No. 7056, September 13, 2006
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO
E. REVILLA, JR.
It must be noted that when the Court of
Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision,
![Page 11: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
respondent resorted to a different forum to
pursue his clients’ lost cause. In the
disturbance compensation case, he
represented his clients as tenants and
acknowledged that complainants were the
owners of the subject land. In the action to
quiet title, however, he conveniently
repudiated his previous admission by
falsely alleging that his clients were adverse
possessors claiming bona fide ownership.
Consequently, he was able to obtain a
temporary restraining order preventing the
execution of the provincial adjudicator’s
Decision.
CANON 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and
to judicial officers and should insist in
similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive and menacing
language or behavior before The courts.
A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006
JUDGE UBALDINO LACUROM vs. ATTYS.
JACOBA
Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer,
both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, to criticize in properly respectful
terms and through legitimate channels the
acts of courts and judges. However, even the
most hardened judge would be scarred by
the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July
2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution
presented the facts correctly and decided
the case according to supporting law and
jurisprudence. 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 unnecessary language is proscribed if we
are to promote high esteem in the courts
and trust in judicial administration.
Rule 11.04 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a
judge motives not supported by the record
or having no materiality to the case.
G.R. No. 145213. March 28, 2006.
JIMMY T. GO vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, et.,
al.
Before closing, the Court has a few
observations regarding the conduct of
petitioner and his counsel in this case. The
petitioner alleges that:
“Now it can be told, that the fishy and
suspicious actuations of Atty. Javier was
done for the sole purpose of making sure
that Jimmy T. Go will lose his case. With due
![Page 12: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
respect, to our mind, it can even be said that
the respondent IBank and its counsel Atty.
Benedicto Valerio, Alberto Looyuko,
petitioner's nemesis against whom he
initiated several cases, and Looyuko's
counsel Atty. Flaminiano, the Honorable
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City, Branch 150 Zeuz Abrogar
and Petitioner's negligent counsel Atty.
Javier are in cahoots with one another in
their common objective to pin down Mr.
Jimmy T. Go. Our apprehension is not
without basis, consider the following: “.
Petitioner thereafter goes on to state the
basis for his accusations against everyone
connected to the case: 1) Looyuko had
withdrawn his appeal; 2) Atty. Flaminiano
conformed to the writ of execution; 3) Atty.
Javier neglected his case and continued to
represent Looyuko in other cases; 4)
Looyuko supported the Motion to Cite
petitioner for contempt that was filed by the
Bank; and, 5) Judge Abrogar was once an
assistant fiscal under then Manila City Fiscal
Atty. Flaminiano.
x x x x x
The Court is also dismayed that such
baseless attacks were assisted by counsel,
who is an officer of the court. Under Canon
11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE
AND MAINTAIN RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. In
particular, he shall not attribute to a judge
motive not supported by the records or by
evidence. A lawyer should submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only. Atty. Caneda, Jr. should
have known better than to permit the
irresponsible and unsupported claim
against Judge Abrogar to be included in the
pleadings. Allowing such statements to be
made is against a lawyer's oath of office and
goes against the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Petitioner Jimmy T. Go and
Atty. Gregorio D. Caneda, Jr. are STRICTLY
WARNED not to make disrespectful
statements against a Judge without basis in
the records or the evidence.
CANON 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
A.C. 6986, March 6, 2006
JULIUS AGUSTIN v. ATTY. ENRIQUE
EMPLEO
True, a lawyer cannot enter into a
compromise agreement without his client’s
consent. Be it remembered, however, that a
![Page 13: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
lawyer is also an officer of the court with the
correlative duty to see to it that cases are
disposed in the soonest possible time.
Here, respondent, fully aware that there is a
pending court order for the submission of a
compromise agreement, should have taken
pains to remind complainant about it and
ascertain the true intent of the latter
regarding the same, so that he, as
complainant’s counsel, can make the
necessary legal action in order for the case
not to be unduly delayed and appear not to
be indefinitely pending in the docket of the
court concerned.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment
or misuse court processes.
A.C. No. 5649, January 27, 2006
DANDY V. QUIJANO vs. GEOBEL A.
BARTOLABAC, et al.
Both respondents labor arbiter and
commissioner do not have any latitude to
depart from the Court’s ruling. The Decision
in G.R. No. 126561 is final and executory
and may no longer be amended. It is
incumbent upon respondents to order the
execution of the judgment and implement
the same to the letter. Respondents have no
discretion on this matter, much less any
authority to change the order of this Court.
The acts of respondent cannot be regarded
as acceptable discretionary performance of
their functions as labor arbiter and
commissioner of the NLRC, respectively, for
they do not have any discretions in
executing a final decision. The
implementation of the final and executory
decision is mandatory.
A.C. NO. 7062, September 26, 2006
RENERIO SAMBAJON, ET AL., vs. ATTY. JOSE
A. SUING
Herein complainants, four of the seven who
purportedly executed the Release Waiver
and Quitclaims, denied having signed and
sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said
documents or having received the
considerations therefor. Hence, spawned
the administrative complaint at bar, alleging
that respondent, acting in collusion with his
clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil,
“frustrated” the implementation of the Writ
of Execution by presenting before the Labor
Arbiter the spurious documents.
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his delings with
his client.
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent
![Page 14: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006
LETICIA GONZALES vs. ATTY. MARCELINO
CABUCANA
Complaint was plaintiff in a case for sum of
money handled by Atty. Edmar Cabucna of
the CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN
AND CABUCANA Law Office. After a decision
was rendered in favor of the complainant, a
writ of execution was issued but Sheriff
Romeo Gatcheco failed to fully implement
the same. This led to he filing by the
complainant of civil and criminal case
against the sheriff and his wife. Respondent
Marcelino Cabucana (of the same law office)
entered his appearance for the sheriff and
his wife in he said cases. Complainant filed
an administrative charge against him.
Respondent claimed that his appearance for
the sheriff and his wife was in good faith
and pro bono, and there is no conflict of
interest involved because it was his brother
Edmar who handled the civil case for ms.
Gonzales.
Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
responsibility. The representation of
opposing clients in unrelated cases
constitutes conflict of interests or, at the
very least, invites suspicion of double-
dealing.
A.C. No. 6160, March 30, 2006
NESTOR PEREZ v. ATTY. DANILO DELA
TORRE
As found by the IBP, at the time respondent
was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the
accused in the murder of the victim
Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing
the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his
representation of opposing clients in the
murder case invites suspicion of double-
dealing and infidelity to his clients.
What is unsettling is that respondent
assisted in the execution by the two accused
of their confessions whereby they admitted
their participation in various serious
criminal offenses knowing fully well that he
was retained previously by the heirs of one
of the victims. Respondent, who presumably
knows the intricacies of the law, should
have exercised his better judgment before
conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It
did not cross his mind to inhibit himself
from acting as their counsel and instead, he
even assisted them in executing the
![Page 15: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
extrajudicial confession.
A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006
HUMBERTO C. LIM vs. ATTY. NICANOR
VILLAROSA
The representation by a lawyer of
conflicting interests, in the absence of the
written consent of all parties concerned
after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes
professional misconduct which subjects the
lawyer to disciplinary action.
Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle
the existing controversy among the family
members] was improper because the
written consent of all concerned was still
required. A lawyer who acts as such in
settling a dispute cannot represent any of
the parties to it.
A.C. No. 6125, September 19, 2006
SIMON D. PAZ vs. ATTY. PEPITO A.
SANCHEZ
By respondent’s own admission, when he
filed the DARAB case on Dizon’s behalf
against complainant, both complainant and
Dizon were respondent’s clients at thqat
time. Respondent was representing
complainant against Lizares where
respondent was duty bound to defend
complainant’s title over the properties
against the claims of Lizares. While it is not
clear from the records that the Lizares cases
included Dizon’s property, it is undisputed
that respondent acted as complainant’s
counsel in the Lizares case. At the same
time, respondent was also representing
Dizon before the DARAB for cancellation of
lis pendens involving Dizon’s property,
which cancellation was needed for
complainant to purchase the Dizon
property. In filing the second DARAB case
pn Dizon’s behalf, respondent was duty-
bound to assail the complainant’s title over
Dizon’s property, which complainant had
purchased from Dizon. Respondent was
clearly in a conflict of interest situation.
CANON 16 – A lawyer shal hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs. ATTY.LEONARD
S. DE VERA
In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in
holding on to his client’s money without the
latter’s acquiescence is conduct indicative of
lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear
that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in
his own account and using the same for his
own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct and unethical behavior.
![Page 16: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
He caused dishonor, not only to himself but
to the noble profession to which he belongs.
For, it cannot be denied that the respect of
litigants to the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the
profession betrays their trust and
confidence. Respondent violated his oath to
conduct himself with all good fidelity to his
client.
A.C. No. 2591, September 8, 2006
LETICIA ADRIMISIN vs. ATTY. ROLANDO
JAVIER
A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand
the funds held by him on behalf of his client
gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics. It
impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.
A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006
DAVID ALMENDAREZ, JR. vs. ATTY.
MINERVO L. LANGIT
Respondent committed flagrant violation of
his oath when he received the sum of money
representing the monthly rentals intended
for his client, without accounting for and
returning such sum to the rightful owner.
Respondent received the money in his
capacity as counsel for the complainant.
Therefore, respondent held the money in
trust for complainant.
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.
A.C. No. 4285, May 2, 2006
FLORENCIA SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. ELIAS
PONTEVEDRA
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that lawyers owe
fidelity to the cause of their clients and must
therefore be always mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in them. Under Canon
18, they are mandated to serve their clients
with competence and diligence. Specifically,
they are not to “neglect a legal matter
entrusted to [them], and [their] negligence
in connection therewith shall render [them]
liable.” Additionally, they are required to
keep their client informed of the status of
the latter’s cases and to respond within a
reasonable time to requests for information.
![Page 17: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
[13] Before admission to the bar, lawyers
subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves
“with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to their clients.” Failure to comply with
these abiding precepts of ethical conduct
renders counsel liable for violating the
canons of his profession.
In this case, respondent failed to exercise
that degree of diligence required of him in
the performance of his duties. While it was
impossible for him to prepare a
memorandum without the transcripts of
stenographic notes and his case folder, and
while respondent may have been
constrained simply to enter into an
agreement with the opposing counsel to
submit the case for decision without
memorandum, respondent failed to inform
the trial court of said agreement. He should
have filed a manifestation before the trial
court informing it of the agreement instead
of leaving the trial court waiting and
wondering whether said memoranda will be
filed at all. His omission not only gave
complainant much anxiety, it also needlessly
compounded the long delay in the
resolution of the 23-year-old case. Worse,
respondent did not inform complainant that
the case had been submitted for decision
without memorandum despite
complainant’s repeated requests for
information regarding the status of her case.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
A.,C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006
SPS. ANTONIO SORIANO vs. ATTY. RENATO
REYES
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him
liable. In this case, by reason of Atty. Reyes’s
negligence, complainant suffered actual loss.
He should have given adequate attention,
care and time to his cases. This is why a
practicing lawyer may accept only so many
cases that he can efficiently handle.
Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced.
Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care.
If he should do any less, then he is not true
to his lawyer’s oath.
A.C. No/ 4809, May 3, 2006
SPS. WILLIAM ADECER vs. ATY. EMMANUEL
AKUT
Respondent is bound by the representations
![Page 18: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
he made in his Memorandum in Support of
the Petition for Probation, i.e., that a timely
petition for probation was not filed due to
the fact that he was out of town and that
complainants were laboring under the
misapprehension that the civil liability must
be paid in full before probation could be
availed of. Either of his two “explanations” is
enough ground to render him liable for
negligence under the Code of Professional
Conduct. First, despite his receipt of a copy
of the Decision and the consequent running
of the fifteen (15)-day period to file a
petition for probation, respondent went out
of town without contacting complainants to
give them proper legal advice. Furthermore,
his admission that complainants were [1]
under the impression that they first had to
pay off their civil liabilities prior to filing a
petition for probation and [2] unaware that
they had only fifteen (15) days from their
counsel’s receipt of a copy of the decision to
file their petition, proves that he failed to
give complainants timely legal advise
CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the
law.
A.C. 6317, August 31, 2006
LUZVIMINDA LIJAUCO vs. ATTY. ROGELIO
TERRADO
Respondent’s disregard for his client’s
interests is evident in the iniquitous
stipulations in the compromise agreement
where the complainant conceded the
validity of the foreclosure of her property;
that the redemption period has already
expired thus consolidating ownership in the
bank, and that she releases her claims
against it. As found by the Investigating
Commissioner, complainant agreed to these
concessions because respondent misled her
to believe that she could still redeem the
property after three years from the
foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to
safeguard his client’s interests commences
from his retainer until his discharge from
the case or the final disposition of the
subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of
money from a client establishes an attorney-
client relationship and gives rise to the duty
of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of
the legal profession require that once an
attorney agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with zeal, care and
utmost devotion.
Respondent’s admission that he divided the
legal fees with two other people as a referral
fee does not release him from liability. A
lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide
a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain
cases.
![Page 19: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received
information that his client in the course of
the representation, perpetuated a fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly
call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he has to terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance
with the Rules of Court.
A.C. No. 5655, January 23, 2006
VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO
MAURICIO,
Assuming that complainant indeed offered
falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case
No. 00-044, will it be sufficient to exonerate
respondent? We believe not. First, Canon 19
outlines the procedure in dealing with
clients who perpetrated fraud in the course
of a legal proceeding. Consistent with its
mandate that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal and only within the bounds
of the law, ………. As a lawyer, respondent is
expected to know this Rule. Instead of
inaction, he should have confronted
complainant and ask her to rectify her
fraudulent representation. If complainant
refuses, then he should terminate his
relationship with her.
CANON 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the
confidences and secrets of the client.
A.C. No. 7023, March 30, 2006
BUN SIONG YAO vs. ATTY.EDUARDO A.
AURELIO
Notwithstanding the veracity of his
allegations, respondent’s act of filing
multiple suits on similar cases of action in
different venues constitutes forum-
shopping, as correctly found by the
investigating commissioner. This highlights
his motives rather than his cause of action.
Respondent took advantage of his being a
lawyer in order to get back at the
complainant. In doing so, he has inevitably
utilized information he has obtained from
his dealings with complainant and
complainant’s companies for his own end.
CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair
and reasonable fees.
A.C. No. 152072, January 31, 2006
ROMEO G. ROXAS, et al. vs. ANTONIO DE
ZUZUARREGUI, JR., et al.
However, in cases where contingent fees are
sanctioned by law, the same should be
reasonable under all the circumstances of
the case, and should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its
reasonableness, such that, under Canon 20
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
![Page 20: Necessity of Good Moral Character in the Life of a Lawyer](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022020803/54fd558d4a7959d43c8b518c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
CANON 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.
A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006
MA. GINA FRANCISCO, et al. vs. ATTY. JAIME
J. PORTUGAL
In a criminal case like that handled by
respondent in behalf of the accused,
respondent has a higher duty to be
circumspect in defending the accused for it
is not only the property of the accused
which stands to be lost but more
importantly, their right to their life and
liberty. …….
Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should have informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of the accused.