ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY.
ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA
A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014.
PER CURIAM
Facts:
Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent
and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into a
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding
respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma.
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified
xerox copy of the certificate of marriage.
Bansig stressed that the marriage between
respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full
legal existence when he contracted his second
marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had
never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful
authority.
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting
marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued
by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly answer
the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a
decade.
Issue:
Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
Ruling:
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these
Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence
to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders
him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as a member of
the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while his first
marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Considering respondent's propensity to disregard
not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of
grossly
immoral
conduct
and
willful
disobedience of lawful orders rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken
of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY.
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS
A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000.
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and nonpayment of bar membership dues filed against
respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a lettercomplaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997,
complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a
member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Llamas, who
for a number of years now, has not indicated the
proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his
pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal
259060 but he has been using this for at least 3
years already. On the other hand, respondent, who
is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a
senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
income taxes and included in this exemption, is the
payment of membership dues.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent has misled the court
about his standing in the IBP by using the same
IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6
years and therefore liable for his actions.
Whether or not the respondent is exempt from
paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
Ruling:
Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his
pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is
also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.
No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership and if nonpayment covers a period of
1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the
delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It
does not matter whether or not respondent is only
engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover,
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior
citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as
determined by the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the
exemption however does not include payment of
membership or association dues.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in
view of respondent's advanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more
temperate application of the law, we believe the
penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP
dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
(1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues,
whichever is later.
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA
A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015.
LEONEN, J.
Facts:
Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon
are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants, along
with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446
square meter parcel of land located in Sison,
Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale over a land owned by the
complainants. The names of petitioners appeared
as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr.
appeared as the vendee. The complainants
claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it
before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of
Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division
certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were
forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s
acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it
was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and
sister to have signed the document because they
were somewhere else at that time. Due to the
forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant
Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness,
filed a case of falsification of public document
against Atty. Cefra and Paran.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the
Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling:
Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility in notarizing a document without
requiring the presence of the affiants.
The notarization of documents ensures the
authenticity and reliability of a document. As this
court previously explained:
Notarization of a private document converts such
document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Notarization is
not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those
who are not qualified or authorized to act as
notaries public from imposing upon the public and
the courts and administrative offices generally.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted
to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and
Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the
document given for notarization. The Deed of
Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by
Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty.
Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty.
Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just
relied on the representations of the vendee.
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a
notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes." He
contumaciously delayed compliance with this
court’s order to file a Comment.
The act of disobeying a court order constitutes
violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts"
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty.
Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed
of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the
absence of the affiants, as well as failure to
comply with an order from this court.
Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from
the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES
his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public. Respondent
is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe
penalties will be imposed for any further breach
of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO
CABUCANA, JR.
A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014.
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon
(complainant) filed a petition against Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana),
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for
falsification of public document.
In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the
would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the
heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely,
Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed
Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed
by the parties in the said case and notarized before
Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at
the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on
December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution
and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the
signatories therein testified that they signed the
instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that
because of the irregularity in the due execution of
the Compromise Agreement, there was undue
delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1689 which caused damage and injury to
complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the
Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the
absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that
he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant further
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats
against him after the hearing of the said case in
MTCC.
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the
complaint was intended to harass him because he
was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed
against complainant before the MTCC; that
complainant had no cause of action as his right was
not violated because he was just a "would be"
buyer and not a party to the compromise
agreement; and that complainant would not suffer
any damage by the pendency of the case or by any
defects obtaining in the notarization of the
compromise agreement.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial
Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the
presence of all the parties therein
Ruling:
Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as
the Notarial Law states:
The acknowledgment shall be before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under
the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a
seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
The requirement of affiant's personal appearance
was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV
of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which
provides that:
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document –
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not
notarize a document unless the person who signs it
is the same person executing it and personally
appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the
party's free and voluntary act and deed.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Accordingly,
the
Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent
notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS
him from being commissioned as a notary
public for two (2) years, effective immediately,
with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE,
AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPEDOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and
RODOLFO V. FELIPE
vs.
ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL
A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013.
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Facts:
Petition for disbarment was filed against
respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal.
In a Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required
respondent to comment. Respondent received a
copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On
August 15, 1996, respondent filed an Urgent ExParte Motion For Extension Of Time To File
Comment. He requested for additional period of 30
days within which to file his comment citing
numerous professional commitments. We granted
said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution.
The extended deadline passed sans respondent’s
comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants
file an Urgent Motion To Submit The Administrative
Case For Resolution Without Comment Of
Respondent claiming the respondent is deemed to
have waived his right to file comment.
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26,
2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating
Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its
Report and Recommendation.
In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner
quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he
then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the
IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made
regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it
was recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their
Petition, complainants alleged that they are coplaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the
defendants therein; that respondent committed
dishonesty when he stated in the defendants'
Answer that the parties therein are strangers to
each other despite knowing that the defendants are
half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and
that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against
the defendants pending before Branch 36 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Complainants also alleged that respondent
introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part
of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury
charge. Complainants insisted that by the foregoing
actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer
and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay
complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing
the damages that they suffered.
Issue:
Ruling:
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful
orders of this Court and the IBP is not only
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect
for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct
is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are
particularly called upon to obey court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in
complying with court directives being themselves
officers of the court. As an officer of the court,
respondent is expected to know that a resolution of
this Court is not a mere request but an order which
should be complied with promptly and completely.
This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
investigating arm of the Court in administrative
cases against lawyers.
Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand
with warning commensurate to the infraction
committed by the respondent.
ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A.
Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give
due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. He is WARNED that
commission of a similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246
dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549
is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of
this Resolution be entered in the personal
records of respondent as a member of the Bar,
and copies furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE
HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.,
HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA,
HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA,
AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL
SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS;
and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO
MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR.
G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013.
PER CURIAM.
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as
Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite
Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged
lack of the required qualification of 10 year law
practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in
Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
holders of a college degree, and must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the
practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on
Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion
in confirming Monsod’s appointment.
HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients, and other works where the work
done involves the determination of the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA
vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional
commission show that the interpretation of the term
practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers
employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged
in the practice of law provided that they use their
legal knowledge or talent in their respective work.
The court also cited an article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as
tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in
other works or functions to meet them. These days,
for example, most corporation lawyers are involved
in management policy formulation. Therefore,
Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with
the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then
worked for an investment bank till 1986, became
member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also
became a member of the Davide Commission in
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in
the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyermanager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the
nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The
power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the
only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the
evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to
exercise its corrective power since there is no such
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA VS SEGUNDINO D.
MANIWANG
A.M. No. 1608. August 14, 1981.
AQUINO, J.
Facts:
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted
sometime in October, 1970 at Cebu City.
Magdalena was then a medical technology student
in the Cebu Institute of Medicine while Segundino
was a law student in the San Jose Recoletos
College. They became sweethearts, on March
1971, Magdalena and Segundino had sexual
congress. Thereafter, they had repeated acts of
cohabitation. Segundino started telling his
acquaintances that he and Magdalena were
secretly married.
In 1972 Segundino transferred his residence to
Padada, Davao del Sur. He continued his studies to
Davao City. Magdalena discovered in January 1973
that she was pregnant. The two went to her
hometown, Ivisan, Capiz to apprise Magdalena’s
parents that they were married although they were
not.
The respondent convinced Magdalena’s father to
have the church wedding deferred until after he had
passed the bar examinations where he secured his
birth certificate preparatory to applying for a
marriage license.
Segundino passed the bar examinations that was
released April 25, 1975. After the oathtaking,
Segundino stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Magdalena went to Davao to contact Segundino.
Segundino told her that they could not get married
for lack of money.
In December 1975 Magdalena followed Segundino
in Bukidnon only to find out that their marriage
could not take place because he had married
Erlinda Ang.
Segundino followed Magdalena in Davao and
inflicted physical injuries upon her because she had
a confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang.
Magdalena Arciga then filed a disbarment case on
the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he
refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community"
Issue:
Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred and
be held liable for grossly immoral conduct.
Ruling:
No, Segundino Maniwang shouldn’t be disbarred.
The Supreme Court found that respondent’s refusal
to marry the complainant was not as corrupt or
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The
complaint for disbarment against the respondent is
hereby dismissed.
KHAN vs SIMBILLO
A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone
number and pretended to be an interested party.
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or
custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
husband charges a fee of P48, 000.00, half of
which is payable at the time of filing of the case and
the other half after a decision thereon has been
rendered.
Additional research by the Office of the Court
Administrator and the Public Information Office
revealed that similar advertisements were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The
Philippine Star.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in
his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of
his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but
argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation
are not prohibited acts.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications
or legal services.
Also, practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
The duty to public service and to the administration
of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves. The
following elements distinguish the legal profession
from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument
is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the
administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized
by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
with their clients.
There is no question that respondent committed the
acts complained of. He himself admitted that he
caused the publication of the advertisements. The
Court ruled that respondent RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules
2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. Also, he is suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.
LINSANGAN vs TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009.
CORONA, J.
FACTS:
RULING:
Yes, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court.
A complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro
Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino
for
solicitation
of
clients
and
encroachment of professional services.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help
of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent
them text messages.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing
Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the said calling card.
Moreover, Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility. Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer,
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without
fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
RULING:
Yes. Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client's interest are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses
in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
Section 27, Rule 138.
Attorneys removed
or suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. — A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly 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 the admission to
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing
Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in
the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was
connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s
actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was
benefited.
By recruiting Atty.Linsangan’s
clients, Atty.
Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory
overstep into another’s legal practice.
The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04
and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court and he was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year.
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs. ATTY. ALFREDO
CASTILLO
A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003.
PER CURIAM
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three
children when he had an affair with Carmelita
Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to
1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and
before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got
pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an
affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
support which did not materialize after the birth of
the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for
reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the
paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In
his defense, the latter presented different
certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer
and proving his good moral character. His wife
even submitted a handwritten letter stating his
amicability as a husband and father despite the
affair. More than a year since the original decision
rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his
willingness to support the child to the Court and
attached a photocopy of post-dated checks
addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to
December 2005 in the amount of Php 2,000.00
each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of
gross immoral conduct, making him punishable of
Indefinite Suspension.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent,
Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral
conduct and should be punished with the penalty of
Indefinite Suspension. The attempt of respondent
to renege on his notarized statement recognizing
and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his
part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a
member of a noble profession, tantamount to selfstultification.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance
and active service to the community is a just and
reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of
two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that
Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper
case.
FEDERICO N. RAMOS vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A.
NGASEO
A.C. No. 6210. December 9, 2004.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for suspension of respondent
Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the
Civil Code by demanding from his client,
complainant Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of
1,000 square meters of land, a litigated property, as
payment for his appearance fees.
Sometime in 1998, complainant Federico Ramos
went to respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo’s Makati
office to engage his services as counsel in a case
involving a piece of land in San Carlos,
Pangasinan. Respondent agreed to handle the
case for an acceptance fee of P20, 000.00,
appearance fee of P1, 000.00 per hearing and the
cost of meals, transportation and other incidental
expenses. Complainant alleges that he did not
promise to pay the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land
as appearance fees.
On September 16, 1999, complainant went to the
respondent’s office to inquire about the status of
the case. Respondent informed him that the
decision was adverse to them because a
congressman exerted pressure upon the trial judge.
Respondent however assured him that they could
still appeal the adverse judgment and asked for the
additional amount of P3, 850.00 and another P2,
000.00 on September 26, 2000 as allowance for
research made.
Although an appeal was filed, complainant however
charges the respondent of purposely failing to
submit a copy of the summons and copy of the
assailed decision. Subsequently, complainant
learned that the respondent filed the notice of
appeal 3 days after the lapse of the reglementary
period.
On January 29, 2003, complainant received a
demand-letter from the respondent asking for the
delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he
allegedly promised as payment for respondent’s
appearance fee.
Respondent further contends that he can collect the
unpaid appearance fee even without a written
contract on the basis of the principle of quantum
meruit. He claims that his acceptance and
appearance fees are reasonable because a Makati
based legal practitioner, would not handle a case
for an acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and
P1,000.00 per court appearance.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo, violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding the
delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which was
the subject of litigation.
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Ngaseo violated Rule 20.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides “Rule
20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.”
Rrespondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the
legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a
warning that repetition of the same act will be
dealt with more severely.
ROSARIO JUNIO vs ATTY. SALVADOR M.
GRUPO
A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against
Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice and
gross misconduct.
Rosario N. Junio alleged that sometime in 1995,
she engaged the services of Atty. Grupo for the
redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 20394 registered in the name
of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes,
and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol.
On 21 August 1995, Junio entrusted to respondent
the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the
redemption of the aforesaid property.
suspended from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) month and to pay to respondent,
within 30 days from notice, the amount of
P25,000.00 with interest at the legal rate,
computed from December 12,1996.
In Re: Atty. David Briones
A.C. No. 5486. August 15, 2001
PUNO, J.
Notwithstanding the foregoing and for no valid
reason, respondent did not redeem the property; as
a result of which the right of redemption was lost
and the property was eventually forfeited.
Facts:
Because of respondent’s failure to redeem the
property, complainant had demanded the return of
the money which she entrusted to the former for the
above-stated purpose. Despite repeated demands
made by the complainant and without justifiable
cause, respondent has continuously refused to
refund the money entrusted to him.
The family of the complainant and that of the
respondent were very close and intimate with each
other. Complainant, as well as two of her sisters,
had served respondents family as household
helpers for many years when they were still in
Manila. Grupo also stated that the basis of his
rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or
“an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration
involved.” He concluded that there was no attyclient relationship existing between them.
IBP found respondent liable for violation of Rule
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which forbids lawyers from borrowing money
from their clients unless the latter’s interests
are protected by the nature of the case or by
independent
advice.
The
Investigating
Commissioner found that respondent failed to
pay his client’s money.
Issue:
Whether or not there was an attorney-client
relationship.
Ruling:
Yes. There was an attorney-client relationship
between Junio and Grupo. A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the client’s
interests are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice (Rule 16.04, Code
of Professional Responsibility).This rule is intended
to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over the client.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of
such long relation of master and servant, Grupo
took advantage of his influence by not returning the
money. Grupo has committed an act which falls
short of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an
ordinary borrower of money is required by law to
repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer
whose conduct serves as an example.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty
of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and orders him
This matter arose from the continued failure of
Atty. David P. Briones, counsel for accusedappellant in G.R. No. 130965 (People of the
Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan) pending
before the Second Division of this Court, to file
the required appellant's brief.
The notice to file appellant's brief was mailed to
Atty. Briones and was given thirty (30) days from
receipt of the notice within which to file the brief.
However, Atty. Briones failed to file the required
brief within the period. The Court ordered Atty.
Briones to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such
failure and to submit the required brief within ten
(10) days from notice. Atty. Briones failed to comply
with the Court's directive within the specified
period. Copy of said resolution was returned to the
Court unserved without specific reason.
The Court referred the matter of the repeated
failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation,
report and recommendation. Through letter the IBP
Commissioner required Atty. Briones to file his
Comment within 5 days from receipt of the said
letter. Atty. Briones, however, did not file any
Comment. The Commissioner recommended that
Atty. Briones be suspended for 6 months, which
subsequently adopted and approved by the IBP
Board of Governors. Atty. Briones filed with the
IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation in
which he claimed that he filed a Comment on the
administrative case but the same was not
considered by the investigating commissioner. The
IBP however denied the motion. Thereafter Atty.
Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation and
explained that he failed to file an appellant’s brief
because he never received a copy of the resolution
requiring him to file said brief. If ever a copy was
received by his secretary, the latter was not able to
give it to him because he had already ceased
practicing law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Briones should be suspended
from the practice of law.
Ruling:
YES. The failure of the counsel to submit the
required brief within the reglementary period is an
offense that entails disciplinary action. His failure to
file an appellant’s has caused the appeal to remain
inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his
client, the accused himself, who continues to
languish in jail pending the resolution of his case.
The accused in a criminal case has the right to a
swift and just disposition of his case. Lawyers are
obliged to protect, not defeat, such right. The
explanation of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply
with the Court’s directive is unsatisfactory. Such
omission can be attributed to pure negligence on
the part of Atty. Briones which we deem
inexcusable.
It is evident that respondent violated Rule 18.03
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility to wit:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
He cannot deny that his office received a copy of
the Court’s resolution ordering him to submit an
appellant’s brief. The registry return card shows
that the notice to file appellant’s brief was received
by the addressee. To exonerate himself from
liability, Atty. Briones claims that his secretary did
not forward to him the mail matters received in his
office. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to
exercise due diligence in the practice of his
profession. He should have taken the initiative to
check with her if there are important matters
requiring his action or attention. Neither is the
cessation of his law practice an excuse for his
failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true
that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he
still could not ignore the directives coming from the
Court. It does not appear from the records that Atty.
Briones has withdrawn his appearance. It should be
stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s fidelity to
the cause of his client requires him to be ever
mindful of the responsibilities that should be
expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best
efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the
interest of his client. The Code of Professional
Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence and he should
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months effective
immediately.
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL E.
MACALALAD
A.C. No. 8158. February 24, 2010.
BRION, J.
Facts:
Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban
City. Although he is in public service, the DENR
Secretary has given him the authority to engage in
the practice of law.
While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October
2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty.
Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz CaboBorata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty.
Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of
land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and
owned by Atty. Solidons 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 received Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining
balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the
certificate of title to the property.
Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for
registration over the property.
Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty.
Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case six
(6) months after he paid the initial legal fees.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of
negligence in handling his case.
Ruling:
YES. In administrative cases against lawyers, the
quantum of proof required is preponderance of
evidence which the complainant has the burden to
discharge. The Court considered the evidence
presented and fully satisfies the required quantum
of proof in proving Atty. Macalalads negligence.
Respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the
rule on negligence and states:
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
In addition to the above finding of negligence, the
Court found Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which requires a lawyer to account for all the
money received from the client. In this case, Atty.
Macalalad did not immediately account for and
promptly return the money he received.
We impose on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the
penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from
the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.03
and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, effective upon finality of this
Decision. Atty. Macalalad is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs ATTY. GERARDO F.
LARA
A.C. No. 7024. January 30, 2009.
BRION, J.
Facts:
Somosot employed Lara as her counsel in a
collection case filed against her by Golden
Collection for the sum of P 1.3M. She was counterclaiming that Golden Collection Corp owed her P
800,000. He entered his appearance after securing
his acceptance fee. She alleged that after filing the
answer the respondent failed to inform her of
developments in the case and that she only learned
that there had been a decision against her. She
learned that Lara had tried to discharge himself
from the duty of being her counsel. He said that he
could not locate her, thus he did so without her
knowledge and consent. Somosot claims however
that Lara knows where she lives and could have
easily contacted her. The court had denied Lara’s
motion to withdraw from the case and Somosot
claims that he represented her in a half-hearted
manner, resulting in a grant of her opponent’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings and because
he failed to properly oppose the motion she was
prevented from presenting evidence and once the
decision was executed, sale of her house pushed
through, despite the assistance of another lawyer.
Lara answered that he pursued the case “according
to his own ability and knowledge” that he had
presented all of the defense and claims. But that
interrogatories and requests for admission were
filed and that these are by law, directed towards
Somosot and not him.That he became a consultant
for the BOI and counsel of Gov. Leviste and that
when he tried to contact Lara he was told at the
office of Lara that she had moved and there was no
forwarding address and that in any case she had
not paid his retainer fees. IBP recommends
reprimand
inquiry for several months is inexcusable. While he
is correct to state that a lawyer may be relieved of
his duties without the conformity of his client when
he has lost all contact with the latter, the fact
remains that the court denied his discharge as
counsel and that he is bound by oath to represent
Somosot. Lara violated Canon 18 of CPR that a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Much was left to be desired in this case.
He never informed her of the request for admission
and the interrogatories. His reason, assuming it
were true, that he had not been paid from May to
august is no cause to withhold vital information
from her. While he had valid reasons to withdraw
and terminate his relationship with his client
(deliberate failure to pay for services/comply with
retainer agreement AND appointment/election to
public office) it seems he never cited these before
the courts. He was suspended for 3 months.
DR. GIL Y. GAMILLA vs. ATTY. EDUARDO J.
MARIO JR.
A.C. No. 4763. March 20, 2003
Facts:
THIS DISBARMENT CASE EMANATED from an
intra-union leadership dispute some seventeen
(17) years ago that spilled over to the instant
complaint alleging impropriety and doubledealing in the disbursement of sums of money
entrusted by the University of Sto. Tomas to
respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mario Jr. as
president of the UST Faculty Union and his core
of officers and directors for distribution among
faculty members of the university.
Sometime in 1986 respondent Atty. Mario Jr. as
president of the UST Faculty Union and other
union officers entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the management of
UST for the provision of economic benefits
amounting to P35 million. Instead of creating a
harmonious
relationship
between
the
contracting parties, the collective bargaining
agreement regrettably engendered disputes
arising
from
the
interpretation
and
implementation thereof one of which even
reached this Court.
Issue:
Ruling:
ABRAGAN v. RODRIGUEZ
(A.C. No. 4346. April 3, 2002)
Issue:
Are Respondent’s claims sufficient to exculpate him
from liability in so far as Canon 18 is concerned?
Ruling:
It appears that Lara was remiss in fulfilling
his duties, but Somosot is not without fault,
because she did not make any attempt to follow up
on the status of the case. Instead she assumed that
he should take complete initiative to inform her. The
court has ruled that no prudent party will leave the
fate of his case entirely to his lawyer. Absence of
FACTS:
Sometime in 1986, complainants hired the
services of the respondent to represent in a case
for Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and Damages before the
MTCC of Cagayan de Oro City. The case was won
by the complainants. After the case was finally
won, and a Writ of Execution was issued by the
Honorable Municipal Trial Court in Cities of
Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3, the same
respondent lawyer represented the petitioners. But
when respondent counsel disturbed the association
(Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents Association,
Inc.), to which all the complainants belong, by
surreptitiously selling some rights to other persons
without the consent of the petitioners herein, they
decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship.
On August 1991, complainants filed a case
of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando
Loncion et al. Much to their surprise, respondent
represented the sheriff. Since the counsel
employed by the complainants was a former
student of respondent, said counsel, by the
suggestions of respondent withdrew the case
without the petitioner’s consent. That as a result of
such withdrawal, subsequent events occurred that
damage and prejudice of the herein petitioners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez should be
disbarred.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent clearly violated Rule
15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after full disclosure
of the facts.” Respondent should have evaluated
the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for
the defendants in the indirect contempt
proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to
their clients, and should at all times weigh their
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter
and the public at large. They must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times. The Court
will not tolerate any departure from the "straight
and narrow" path demanded by the ethics of the
legal profession.
WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found
guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice
of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be.
IMELDA A. NAKPIL vs. ATTY. CARLOS J.
VALDES
A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998
Facts:
The friendship of JOSE NAKPIL and respondent
CARLOS J. VALDES dates back to the 50s during
their schooldays in De La Salle and the Philippine
Law School. Their closeness extended to their
families and respondent became the business
consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils.
In 1965, Jose Nakpil became interested in
purchasing a summer residence in Moran Street,
Baguio City.[1] For lack of funds, he requested
respondent to purchase the Moran property for him.
They agreed that respondent would keep the
property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter
could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement,
respondent obtained two (2) loans from a bank (in
the amounts of P65,000.00 and P75,000.00) which
he used to purchase and renovate the property.
Title was then issued in respondents name.
It was the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer
house. When Jose Nakpil died on July 8, 1973,
respondent acted as the legal counsel and
accountant of his widow, complainant IMELDA
NAKPIL. On March 9, 1976, respondents law firm,
Carlos J. Valdes & Associates, handled the
proceeding for the settlement of Joses estate.
Complainant was appointed as administratix of the
estate.
The ownership of the Moran property became an
issue in the intestate proceedings. It appears that
respondent excluded the Moran property from the
inventory of Joses estate. On February 13, 1978,
respondent transferred his title to the Moran
property to his company, the Caval Realty
Corporation.
On March 29, 1979, complainant sought to recover
the Moran property by filing with the then Court of
First Instance (CFI) of Baguio City an action for
reconveyance with damages against respondent
and his corporation. In defense, respondent
claimed absolute ownership over the property and
denied that a trust was created over it.
During the pendency of the action for
reconveyance, complainant filed this administrative
case to disbar the respondent. She charged that
respondent violated professional ethics when he:
I. Assigned to his family corporation the Moran
property (Pulong Maulap) which belonged to the
estate he was settling as its lawyer and auditor.
II. Excluded the Moran property from the inventory
of real estate properties he prepared for a clientestate and, at the same time, charged the loan
secured to purchase the said excluded property as
a liability of the estate, all for the purpose of
transferring the title to the said property to his
family corporation.
III. Prepared and defended monetary claims
against the estate that retained him as its counsel
and auditor.
In 1983, the CFI of Baguio dismissed the action for
reconveyance. The trial court ruled that respondent
held the Moran property in trust for the Nakpils but
found that complainant waived her right over it.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court. The appellate court held that respondent was
the absolute owner of the Moran property.
Issue:
Whether or not there was conflict of interest
between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the
complainant. – CANON 17
Ruling:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice
of law for one (1) year.
more
severely.
Respondent
allegedly
represented conflicting interests in violation of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics, and
Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RATIO:
There is no question that the interests of the estate
and that of its creditors are adverse to each other.
Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of
assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same
time, computed the claims of two creditors of the
estate. There is clearly a conflict between the
interest of the estate which stands as the debtor,
and that of the two claimants who are creditors of
the estate.
Respondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a
position where his loyalty to his client could be
doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of
respondent’s law firm was to contest the claims of
these two creditors but which claims were prepared
by respondent’s accounting firm. Even if the claims
were valid and did not prejudice the estate, the setup is still undesirable. The test to determine
whether there is a conflict of interest in the
representation is probability, not certainty of
conflict. It was respondent’s duty to inhibit either of
his firms from said proceedings to avoid the
probability of conflict of interest.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct
of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should
determine his conduct by acting in a manner that
would promote public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession. Members of the bar are
expected to always live up to the standards
embodied
in
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility as the relationship between an
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. In the
case at bar, respondent exhibited less than full
fidelity to his duty to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his
clients.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court finds respondent
ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES guilty of misconduct.
He is suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective from receipt of this
Decision, with a warning that a similar infraction
shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
LOLITA ARTEZUELA vs. ATTY. RICARTE B.
MADERAZO
A.C. No. 4354. April 22, 2002.
Facts:
For his failure to meet the exacting standards of
professional ethics, the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in its
Resolution of May 2, 2000 recommended the
suspension from the practice of law of
respondent Atty. Ricarte B. Maderazo for the
period of six (6) months, with a stern warning
that repetition of the same act will be dealt with
Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident at Caduman
St., corner H. Abellana St., Mandaue City. At the
time of the accident, Echavia was driving a Ford
Telstar car owned by a Japanese national named
Hirometsi Kiyami, but was registered in the name of
his brother-in-law, Jun Anthony Villapez. The car
rammed into a small carinderia owned by
complainant Lolita Artezuela.
The destruction of the complainant's carinderia
caused the cessation of the operation of her small
business, resulting to her financial dislocation. She
incurred debts from her relatives and due to
financial constraints, stopped sending her two
children to college.
Complainant engaged the services of the
respondent in filing a damage suit against Echavia,
Villapez and one Bernardo Sia. However, the case
was dismissed.
Artezuela filed before the Court a verified complaint
for disbarment against the respondent. She alleged
that respondent grossly neglected his duties as a
lawyer and failed to represent her interests with
zeal and enthusiasm. According to her, when the
case was scheduled for pre-trial conference,
respondent asked for its postponement although all
the parties were present.
Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged
in activities inimical to her interests. While acting as
her counsel, respondent prepared Echavia's
Answer to the Amended Complaint. The said
document was even printed in respondent's office.
Complainant further averred that it was respondent
who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading
the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was
with her consent.
IBP recommended and found the respondent guilty
of representing conflicting interests, in violation of
Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6
of the Code of Professional Ethics. He
recommended that the respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Issue:
Whether or not he had a direct hand in the
preparation of Echavia's Answer to the Amended
Complaint.
Ruling:
Yes.
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics
states:
"It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of the
retainer to disclose to the client the
circumstances of his relations to the parties
and any interest in or in connection with the
controversy, which might influence the client in
the selection of the counsel.”
The professional obligation of the lawyer to give his
undivided attention and zeal for his client's cause is
likewise demanded in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Inherently disadvantageous to his
client's cause, representation by the lawyer of
conflicting interests requires disclosure of all facts
and consent of all the parties involved. Thus:
"CANON 15- All lawyers shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.03- A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts."
The Court reminded the respondent that the
practice of law is not a property right but a mere
privilege, and as such, must bow to the inherent
regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance
with the lawyer's public responsibilities. The
suspension of the respondent's privilege to practice
law may result to financial woes. But as the
guardian of the legal profession, we are
constrained to balance this concern with the injury
he caused to the very same profession he vowed to
uphold with honesty and fairness.
The Resolution of the IBP finding the
respondent guilty of violating Canon 6 of the
Code of Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is affirmed. Respondent is
suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months with a stern warning that a similar act in
the future shall be dealt with more severely.
BURBE v. MAGULTA
(A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002)
FACTS:
Petitioner Dominador P. Burbe filed a
complaint for disbarment, suspension or any
disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta.
Respondent agreed to legally represent the
petitioner in a money claim and possible civil case.
He prepared the demand letters and other legal
papers; however, he later on suggested that the
petitioner must file the necessary complaint.
Petitioner paid an amount of P25, 000 for lawyer’s
fees and amounts for filing the case. Months had
passed but there was still no feedback regarding
the petitioner’s case. Petitioner would frequently
inquire yet respondent would repeatedly tell him to
wait. To prove that the case was already filed,
respondent brought the petitioner to the Hall of
Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao City. He made
the petitioner wait for hours at the prosecutor’s
office and came back with the news that the Clerk
of Court was absent that day. Petitioner personally
went to the Office of the Clerk of Court and found
out that the case was not filed. A confrontation took
place wherein the respondent denied the allegation.
It was only when the certification was shown that
Atty. Magulta admitted that he spent the money for
his own purpose and offered to reimburse the
Burbe.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. Magulta
should be disbarred?
HELD:
The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the
Philippine’s recommendation. It is evident that the
petitioner deposited an amount of P25, 00 for the
filing fees of the Regwill complaint. There was a
lawyer-client relationship established since the
respondent agreed to legally represent the
petitioner. There’s an obligation on the part of the
respondent to file the complaint within the time
frame. In addition to that, there was
misappropriation of funds of the client. His actions
caused damages and prejudice to his clients. His
conduct was dishonest thus unsuitable to be a
member of the legal profession. He was not
disbarred; nonetheless, he was suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one year.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found
guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year, effective upon his
receipt of this Decision. Let copies be furnished
all courts as well as the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which is instructed to include a copy
in respondent’s file.
PNB v. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO
(A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995)
FACTS:
After having arranged the sale of steel
sheets for Mrs Siy, the latter became implicated in
a civil case with the complainant PNB. After having
stop employment with PNB, respondent Atty.
Telesforo Cedo appeared as counsel for Mrs. Siy.
A similar situation also happened when spouses
Almeda were implicated to a case with complainant
PNB— counsel for Sps. Almeda is the Cedo,
Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates. Atty. Cedo was AVP
of the Asset Management group of complainant
bank, where such loan transaction of Sps. Almeda
came under his purview. Respondent asserted that
in the former case, he did not participate in the
litigation before the court, while the latter, it was
another partner of the firm that handle the case.
IBP made its report and recommendation for
suspension for having deliberate intent to devise
ways and means to attract as clients former
borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the
best position to see the legal weaknesses of his
former employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Cedo be
held administratively liable.
HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Canon 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A
lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.” Having been
an executive of complainant bank, respondent
sought to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a
case against his former employer involving a
transaction which he formerly handled while still an
employee of complainant, violated said Canon.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND
respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the
practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective
immediately.
LEONILA J. LICUANAN vs. ATTY. MANUEL L.
MELO
A.M. No. 2361. February 9, 1989.
Facts:
An affidavit-complaint, was filed by Leonila J.
Licuanan with the Office of the Court Administrator
against respondent, Atty. Manuel L. Melo, for
breach of professional ethics, alleging that
respondent, who was her counsel in an ejectment
case filed against her tenant, failed to remit to her
the rentals collected by respondent on different
dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he
report to her the receipt of said amounts. It was
only after approximately a year from actual receipt
that respondent turned over his collections to
complainant after the latter, through another
counsel, acquired knowledge of the payment and
had demanded the same.
Respondent admitted having received the payment
of rentals from complainant's tenant, Aida Pineda,
as alleged in the complaint, but explained that he
kept this matter from the complainant for the
purpose of surprising her with his success in
collecting the rentals.
Thus, the Court find it hard to believe respondent's
defense that he kept the money of complainant for
a year merely because he wanted to surprise her
with his success in collecting the rental payments
from Pineda. On the contrary, it is very much
discernible that he did not surrender immediately
the money to complainant because he was using it
for his own benefit.
Issue:
Whether there was unreasonable delay on the part
of the respondent in accounting for the funds
collected by him for his former client, the
complainant herein, for which unprofessional
conduct respondent should be disciplined.
Ruling:
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to
delay any man for money or malice and is bound to
conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients.
He is obligated to report promptly the money of his
clients that has come into his possession. He
should not commingle it with his private property or
use it for his personal purposes without his client's
consent. He should maintain a reputation for
honesty and fidelity to private trust.
Respondent's
unprofessional
actuations
considered, we are constrained to find him guilty of
deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office.
He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral
character. He has violated his oath not to delay any
man for money or malice, besmirched the name of
an honorable profession and has proven himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an
officer of the Court. He deserves the severest
punishment.
WHEREFORE, consistent with the crying need
to maintain the high traditions and standards of
the legal profession and to preserve
undiminished public faith in attorneys-at-law,
the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent,
Atty. Manuel L. Melo, from the practice of law.
His name is hereby ordered stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.
HONORIO MANALANG and FLORENCIO
CIRILLO vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES
A.C. No. 1558. March 10, 2003.
Facts:
Administrative complaint was filed against Atty.
Francisco F. Angeles for grave misconduct as a
lawyer, respondent stands charged with infidelity in
the discharge of fiduciary obligations to his clients,
herein complainants Honorio Manalang and
Florencio Cirillo.
Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the
complainants in a case for overtime and separation
pay filed against their employer, the Philippine
Racing Club Restaurant, before the National Labor
Relations Commission. Respondent was their
counsel. Judgment was rendered in their favor, in
the amount of P 6,500. After the decision became
final, a writ of execution issued. However, without
authority from his clients, respondent compromised
the award and was able to collect P 5,500 only.
Complainants said they made several demands
upon respondent to turn over to them the amount
collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of
thirty percent (30%), but Atty. Angeles refused and
offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.
In his answer, respondent stated that he offered to
give complainants their money, but they insisted
that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount
of P2,000, representing the amount discounted by
the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club
Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and
other administrative expenses." Respondent
claimed that to accept complainants' proposition
meant that he "would not be compensated for
prosecuting and handling, the case."
Code of Professional Responsibility. This is
contrary to all ethical principles that members of the
bar are supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no
hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of
suspension. However, this is the first case on
record against him, a fact which could be taken into
account by way of mitigation. Considering further
the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months
suspension appears to us in order.
Issue:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby SUSPENDS
Atty. Francisco F. Angeles from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months, effective
immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.
He is also ordered to pay the sum of two
thousand two hundred seventy five pesos
(P2,275.00) each to complainants Honorio
Manalang and Florencio Cirillo, with interest of
six percent (6%) per annum from the time of
filing this complaint until fully paid.
Whether or not respondent Atty. Francisco F.
Angeles should be suspended from the practice of
law because of grave misconduct related to his
clients' funds.
Ruling:
Yes. Money claims due to workers cannot, as a
rule, be the object of settlement or compromise
effected by counsel without the consent of the
workers concerned. A client has every right to
expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken
or withheld from him, save by the rules of law
validly applied. By compromising the judgment
without the consent of his clients, respondent not
only went against the stream of judicial dicta, he
also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the
interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the
maintenance and defense of their rights. In so
doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states:
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.
Moreover, a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. In the instant case, the records clearly
and abundantly point to respondent's receipt of and
failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of P4,
550 intended for his clients. This is a clear breach
of Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
funds and may apply so much thereof as may
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements,
giving
notice
promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the
instant case were poor working men. They were
made to wait long for their money, by their very own
counsel, contrary to the Attorney's Oath and the
GEORGE C. SOLATAN vs. ATTYS. OSCAR A.
INOCENTES and JOSE C. CAMANO
A.C. No. 6504. August 9, 2005.
Facts:
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm
of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and
Associates Law Office was retained by spouses
Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the
Genito
Apartments
were
placed
under
sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the
spouses Genito before the PCGG and the
Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against
non-paying tenants occupying the Genito
Apartments. Solatan’s sister was a tenant of the
Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to
Solatan and other members of her family. A
complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals
was filed against her and a decision was rendered
in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the
premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment
when he learned of the judgment.
He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange
the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of
which he would be the new lessee of the
apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty.
Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases
against tenants of the Genito Apartments. During
the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal
agreement was made in which complainant agreed
to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister,
including awarded attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty.
Camano representing half of the attorney’s fees.
Complainant failed to make any other payment.
The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano
enforced the writ of execution and levied the
properties found in the subject apartment.
Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano
agreed to release the levied properties and allow
complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on
Atty. Camano’s advice, complainant presented an
affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released
the levied items. However, a gas stove was not
returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty.
Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where
he was temporarily staying. Complainant filed the
instant administrative case for disbarment against
Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board
of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano
from the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand
Atty.
Inocentes
for
exercising
command
responsibility.
Issues:
1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility
2) Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility
ROMINA M. SUAREZ vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
(G.R. No. 91133. March 22, 1993.)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY. RUBEN L.
ALMADRO
HELD:
All lawyers must observe loyalty in
transactions and dealings with their clients.
all
(A.C. No. 5246. May 2, 2006.)
1. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or
legal representative for a person without being
retained. No employment relation was offered or
accepted in the instant case. Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers
to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings
with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney
giving legal advice to a party with an interest
conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty
of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty.
Camano in the context where the complainant was
the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties
was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the
court. It should not be construed as being in conflict
with the interest of the spouses Genito as they
have no interest over the properties. The act of
informing complainant that his properties would be
returned upon showing proof of his ownership may
hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence
of double dealing and betrayal.
2. Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain
responsibilities over matters under the charge of his
law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name
practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is
tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable
efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should
act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Inocentes received periodic
reports from
Atty. Camano
complainant.
and goings of the cases handled by persons over
which they are exercising supervisory authority and
in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge.
on
the
latter’s
dealings
with
This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over
Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.
Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory
capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary
diligence in apprising themselves of the comings
FACTS:
This refers to an offshoot incident in the
disbarment case filed by Edgar O. Perea against
Atty. Ruben L. Almadro.
Atty. Ruben L. Almadro engaged the services of the
Sua & Alambra Law Offices to represent him in this
disbarment case. In their Entry of Appearance with
Motion/Manifestation dated November 20, 2000,
signed by Atty. Alan Andres B. Alambra, he stated
that respondent has yet to receive a copy of the
complaint and thus prayed that a copy of the said
complaint be furnished him so he can file an
answer. Complainant Edgar O. Perea filed a
Manifestation dated November 29, 2000,
asseverating that he had furnished respondent
copies of the complaint through facsimile machine.
In the Resolution dated March 20, 2003, the Court
sustained the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’
order requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alambra
to show cause for their deliberate falsehood and
misrepresentation in the preparation of the answer
for respondent, and accordingly remanded the case
to the IBP for further action on the contempt
proceedings.
In their Explanation dated September 10, 2002,2
Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra avered that: Atty. Sua,
a partner in the Sua & Alambra Law Offices, was
not and is not, the partner assigned to handle the
case for Atty. Almadro and had no participation
whatsoever in the case other than to notarize the
Affidavit of Service for Atty. Almadro’s Answer; Atty.
Alambra acted in good faith upon the express
instructions and advise of Atty. Almadro that he
never received a copy of the complaint up to the
time that he referred the case to their Law Office.
To bolster their claim of good faith, they attached a
photocopy of the letter of Atty. Almadro dated
November 9, 20003 stating that he had not actually
received a copy of the complaint of Mr. Perea.
The Court is not fully convinced.
ISSUE:
Respondent admitted having received the
documents from complainants but explained that it
was for photostating purposes only. He alleged that
his failure to return it was due to the complainants’
refusal to hand him the money to pay for the
photostating costs. Respondent contends that he
was not obliged to follow up complainants’ pension
since there was no agreement for his compensation
as their counsel.
RULING:
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.5 As
explicitly stated in Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he misled, or allow the Court to be misled by
any artifice.
Considering the admission made by Atty. Alambra
regarding the non-participation of Atty. Sua, the
latter should be absolved of any liability.
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Alan Andres B.
Alambra guilty of contempt of Court and neglect of
his duties as a lawyer as embodied in Canon 10,
Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is FINED in the amount of Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a WARNING
that any similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Kenton Sua is absolved of any liability.
BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL
(A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967)
FACTS:
Complainants, OlegariaBlanza and Maria Pasion,
ask the Court to take disciplinary action against
respondent
Atty.
Agustin
Arcangel,
who
volunteered to help them in their respective pension
claims, for professional non-feasance for (1) his
failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for
six years; (2) his failure to immediately return the
documents despite repeated demands upon him,
and (3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion,
allegedly, all of her documents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is bound to observe the
same standard of conduct governing his relations
with his paying clients when he voluntarily offered
his services according to Rule 14.04 of Canon 14 of
CPR.
HELD:
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a
client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees,
nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a client’s
case with all due diligence and zeal. By
volunteering his services, he has established a
client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer has a more
dynamic and positive role in the community than
merely complying with the minimal technicalities of
the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a
leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par
excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he
volunteers his professional services. Despite the
dismissal of the charges against the respondent
because complainants themselves are partly to
blame for the delay in filing their respective claims
for their failure to cooperate and pay for the
Photostat services, the respondent has failed to live
up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to
have complainants wait, and hope, for six long
years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
co-operate, respondent should have forthwith
terminated their professional relationship instead of
keeping them hanging indefinitely.
Accordingly, the case against respondent is
dismissed.
RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO
(A.M. No. P-06-2177, June 26, 2006)
FACTS:
Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the
RTC in Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of
gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely
remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. She
was fined P10k. Since his malfeasance prima facie
contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful conduct), the SC ordered
ordered him to show cause why he should not be
disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the
court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a
timely remittance of the cash deposited with him
was inexcusable; he maintained his contention that
he kept the money in the court’s safety vault and
never once used it for his own benefit.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating
Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
HELD:
YES. Even though he was in good faith, his
action was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes while Rule
1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As servants of the law and officers of the court,
lawyers are required to be at the forefront of
observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are
expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of
emulation. The least a lawyer can do in compliance
with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful
conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary
to law is unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the
part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring
his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01
which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging
in unlawful conduct. Atty. Kho’s conduct was not
only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For
this, he must be called to account. Atty. Kho is
ordered to pay FINE.
SORIANO v. ATTY. DIZON
(A.C 6792, January 25, 2006)
FACTS:
Atty. Dizon was driving his car on his way
home. Soriano, taxi driver overtook his car driven
by Dizon who was under the influence of liquor.
Dizon tailed Soriano until the latter stopped. Dizon
stopped his car held Soriano by his shirt. To stop
the aggression, the Soriano forced open his door
causing the accused to fall to the ground. Soriano
got out of his car to help him get up. But Dizon, by
now enraged, attempted twice to deal Soriano with
a fist blow twice. Dizon went back to his car and got
his revolver and shot Soriano. Soriano survived but
sustained a spinal cord injury which disabled him
for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon filed an application
for probation which was granted on the condition
that he satisfy the civil liabilities imposed by the
court in favor of Soriano. Dizon failed to comply
with this undertaking and even appealed the civil
liability. IBP recommended that Dizon be disbarred
from the practice of law for having been convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether Atty. Dizon violated Canon 1 of the
CPR.
2.
Whether Atty. Dizon should be disbarred
from the practice of law.
HELD:
1.
YES. It is glaringly clear that respondent
violated Canon 1 of the CPR through his illegal
possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust
refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus
violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of
the courts. Dizon has shown through this incident
that he is wanting in even a basic sense of justice.
He obtained the benevolence of the court when it
suspended his sentence and granted him
probation. And yet, it has been four years since he
was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to
complainant. To date, respondent remains adamant
in refusing to fulfill that obligation,
2.
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, conviction for a crime involving moral
turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have
become unfit to uphold the administration of justice
and to be no longer possessed of good moral
character. Moral turpitude has been defined as
"everything which is done contrary to justice,
modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals." 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. When lawyers are
convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending
circumstances – not the mere fact of their
conviction – would demonstrate their fitness to
remain in the legal profession. In the present case,
the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen
dishonesty of respondent clearly show his
unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar.
Atty. Dizon is DISBARRED.
CANTILLER v. POTENCIANO
(A.M. Case No. 3195, December 18, 1989)
FACTS:
Herein respondent, Potenciano, is charged
with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also
with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts
unbecoming of an officer of the court. Complainant,
after losing to an ejectment case, contracted the
legal service of Potenciano. Respondent told the
complainant that the temporary restraining order
would be secured if the judge who would hear the
case is his “barkada” However, when the case was
raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding
judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in
the case on the ground of their friendship.
Respondent went into the house of complainant
and asked for 2,000 pesos to be given to another
judge who could secure the latter’s restraining
order in the ejectment case. Sometime after the
filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed
complainant that there was a need to file another
case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them
to retain possession of the apartment. For this
purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare
the amount of 10,000 pesos allegedly to be
deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as
purchase price of the apartment and another
1,000.00 pesos to cover the expenses of the suit.
Respondent stressed to the complainant the need
and urgency of filing the new complaint. Later on
during the hearing, respondent withdrew his
appearance
as
counsel
for
complainant.
Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or
preliminary injunction was obtained. As a
consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment
case was eventually enforced and executed. Later
on the complainant wrote a letter asking for
reimbursement of the amount given to respondent
however the respondent did not returned the said
amount (P 11 000) to the complainant. It was also
found that the respondent prepared a "hastily
prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly
composed petition for annulment of judgment.”
Member of the Board of the municipality of Ilagan,
Isabela. He also stated that he would be willing to
render his legal services to the people who have
not contracted any other lawyer’s services.
Respondent’s service is based on the registration
of land titles and charge people three pesos for
every registration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of
the allegations, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation,
and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of
acts unbecoming of an officer of the court, charged
against him by the complainant?
FACTS:
Petitioner prays the Court to order the
respondent to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as
that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law
profession other than those allowed by law. The
petitioner contends that the advertisements
reproduced by the respondents are champertous,
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and
destructive of the confidence of the community in
the integrity of the members of the bar and that, to
which as a member of the legal profession, he is
ashamed and offended by the adverts of the
respondents on providing services for secret
marriage and giving information regarding Guam
Divorce, Annulment of Marriage, Remarriage to
Filipina Fiancees, etc. In his answer to the petition,
respondent admits the fact of publication of said
advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is
not engaged in the practice of law but in the
rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines.
HELD:
The respondent was found guilty of the
offenses charged against him and was sentenced
indefinite suspension until such time he can
demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to
deserve to resume the practice of law. His first duty
was to file the best pleading within his capability as
a lawyer. He had also depended on his closeness
to the judge to get desired decisions. He had also
extorted 10,000 from client as deposit but deposit
was not required and such was also not made.
Lastly, he had failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client’s interest due to the fact that
four days before hearing of preliminary injunction,
he already withdrew as counsel because of his
reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to
hemorrhoids, however he failed to find a
replacement and failed to inform the complainant to
hire another lawyer in his stead.
IN RE: TAGORDA
(G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929)
FACTS:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a
practicing attorney and a member of the provincial
board of Isabela, that he made use of a card written
in Spanish and Ilocano and distributed it to their
municipality so he could render legal service to
them. Respondent also admitted having written a
letter in Ilocano addressed to a lieutenant in his
home municipality in Echague, Isabela in which he
stated his continued exercise of his profession as a
lawyer and a notary public, besides being a
ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of Luis B.
Tagorda is meritorious under the code of
professional responsibility by advertising and
soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets?
HELD:
The respondent was suspended for 1 month
under the Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility because it is stated in the rule that “A
lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.”
Practice of law is not a trade or a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration.
ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
(A.C. No. 553, June 17, 1993)
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the advertised services
offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice
of law and whether the same are in violation of the
Code of Professional responsibility.
HELD:
The advertisement of the respondent is
covered in the term practice of law as defined in the
case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted
concept and limited acceptance of paralegal
services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some
persons not duly licensed to practice law are or
have been permitted with a limited representation in
behalf of another or to render legal services, but
such allowable services are limited in scope and
extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
in making known his legal services shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is
not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or
give something of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The
Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption
of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should
not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his
photograph to be published in connection with
causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of
concerning the manner of the conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance
the lawyer's position, and all other like selflaudation. The respondent’s defense with the case
of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an
exception to the prohibition against advertisements
by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for
an initial consultation or the availability upon
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate
of the fee to be charged for the specific services.
No such exception is provided for, expressly or
impliedly whether in our former Canons of
Professional Ethics or the present Code of
Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the
disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stand therein are not
applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state. The
Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The
Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement
in any form which is of the same or similar tenor
and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition,
and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any
activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law
or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated
herein.
facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in
the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping which are contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not herein respondent should be
disbarred for violation of Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, and Canon 10.
HELD:
After a careful scrutiny of the records, the
Court find the administrative complaint bereft of
merit and should be dismissed. The core issue to
be resolved here is whether respondent Atty.
Bernas transgressed Circular No. 28-91, Revised
Circular No. 28-91, and Administrative Circular No.
04 - 94 on forum shopping. Wherefore, the instant
complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE
(G.R. No. L-41862, February 7, 1992)
FACTS:
A case is filed by complainant Adriano E.
Dacanay against Juan G. Collas Jr. and nine other
lawyers engaging the practice of law under the firm
name Baker & Mckenzie. In November 16, 1979,
one of the respondent lawyers, Vicente A. Torres
sent a letter using the Baker & Mckenzie letterhead
to Rosie Clurman, a client of herein complainant,
demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client
of herein respondents. Complainant’s response to
the letter denied any liability of Clurman to
respondent’s
client.
He
also
questioned
respondent’s use of a letterhead belonging to a
different law office. Not receiving a reply,
complainant filed the instant case assailing the
respondent’s use of a foreign law office name.
ISSUE:
Whether or not herein respondents violated
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
CABARRUS, JR. v. BERNAS
(A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997)
FACTS:
On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus,
Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged
violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code
and Code of Professional Responsibility. In his
complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that
respondent Atty. Bernas, the counsel on record of
the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646, is the
same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at
the NBI for forgery and respondents themselves
conspired and confabulated with each other in
facilitating and insuring the open, blatant and
deliberate violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal
Code. He further alleged that respondent should be
disbarred for having instigated, abetted and
Yes, the use of a foreign law office name is
misleading towards the public and the clients. Rule
3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that “In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased.”
The respondents, being associates of the firm
Baker & Mckenzie are not authorized to use the
said firm’s name which may tend to mislead clients.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker &
McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal
services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign
trade and investment." This is unethical because
Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law
here.
CORDOVA v. LABAYEN
(A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
FACTS:
On March 5, 1993, the Municipal Trial Court
(branch II) of Batangas City rendered judgment for
petitioners with respect to four ordering the
ejectment of private respondents and ordering them
to pay monthly rentals of P50,000.00 starting April
7, 1992 until they shall have vacated the lots and
surrendered their possession to petitioners and the
sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved for
the execution of the decision in their favor, alleging
that although private respondents had filed a notice
of appeal, the latter had not filed a supersedeas
bond nor make a deposit every month of the
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the
properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8.
Private respondents opposed the motion,
claiming that they are co-owners of the lots from
which they were ordered to be ejected and that to
grant immediate execution of the decision would
render their appeal moot and academic.
ISSUE:
Whether there
Supersedeas Bond.
was
a
late
filing
of
HELD:
The petition is not meritorious. As a general
rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an
ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to
prevent further damage to him arising from the loss
of possession of the property in question. The
motion for execution was filed eighteen days from
the date the petitioners received a copy of the
MTC's decision, after the appeal had already been
perfected. Because no supersedeas bond had
been filed within the period for appeal, a writ of
execution should have been issued as a matter of
right. Petitioners manifestly failed to adduce a
compelling reason to justify a departure from the
afore cited rule. Lawyers as officers of the court
must assist in the administration of justice.
DULALIA v. ATTY. CRUZ
(A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007)
FACTS:
Complainant’s wife Susan Dulalia filed an
application for building permit for the construction of
a warehouse, but was not issued a the permit She
attributes this fact to the opposition of respondents
who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J.
Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent
Building Official of Meycauayan, Bulacan The letter
alleges that high-rise building under construction of
the said Mrs. Soriano-Dulalia is an unbearable
nuisance that causes imminent danger to the
respondents and his family, they being the
immediate neighbors of this construction site.
Complainant claims that respondent Atty Cruz
opposed the application for the permit, because of
a personal grudge against his wife Susan who
objected to respondent’s marrying her first cousin
Imelda Soriano, respondent’s marriage with
Carolina Agaton being still subsisting. The IBP
recommended the dismissal of the complaint, which
was adopted and approved by the Board of
Governors. Hence, this petition. Complainant
maintains that (1) Respondent violated Rule 1.01
when he contracted a second marriage with Imelda
Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage
with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on
December 17, 1967, is still subsisting; (2)
respondent used his influence as the Municipal
Legal Officer of Meycauayan to oppose his wife’s
application for building permit, in violation of Rule
6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
(3) And for engaging in the practice of law while
serving as the Municipal Legal Officer of
Meycauayan,
complainant
maintains
that
respondent violated Rule 7.03.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cruz violated the CPR?
HELD:
YES on first ground only, last two grounds
dismissed. Respondent married Soriano on
September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada,
USA, when the Family Code of the Philippines had
already taken effect. He invokes good faith,
however, he claiming to have had the impression
that the applicable provision at the time was Article
83 of the Civil Code In respondent’s case, he being
out of the country since 1986, he can be given the
benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of
the Civil Code was the applicable provision when
he contracted the second marriage abroad. From
1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him,
an allegation which was not refuted, until his
marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no
showing that he was romantically involved with any
woman. Respondent did not deny he contracted
marriage with Imelda Soriano. The community in
which they have been living in fact elected him and
served as President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter
from 1997-1999 and has been handling free legal
aid cases. However, respondent may not go scotfree. The act of contracting a second marriage
while the first marriage was still in place is contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality
Also, respondent violated Canon 5 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He claim that
he was not aware that the Family Code already
took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the
United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
came back to the Philippines together with his
second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as
"ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.” The primary duty of lawyers
is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for the law and legal processes. They are expected
to be in the forefront in the observance and
maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries
with it the obligation to be well-informed of the
existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments,
recent
enactments
and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be
able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they
may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
year.
DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988)
FACTS:
The firewall of a burned out building owned
by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring
shop occupied by the family of the private
respondents resulting in injuries to private
respondents had been warned by petitioners to
vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the
weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the
RTC, petitioners were found guilty of gross
negligence. On the last day of the 15 days period to
file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration which was again denied. The
Supreme Court finds that Court of Appeal did not
commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. It correctly
applied the rule laid down in Habulaya’s vs Japzon.
Counsel for petitioner contends that the said case
should not be applied non-publication in the Official
Gazette.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Supreme Court decisions
must be published in the Official Gazette before
they can be binding.
HELD:
There is no law requiring the publication of
Supreme Court decision in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding and as a condition to
their becoming effective. It is bounden duty of
counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep
abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court as
embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly where issues have been
clarified, consistently reiterated and published in
the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions
and in such publications as the SCRA and law
journals.
Re: Resolution Of The Court Dated 1 June 2004
In G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty. Avecilla
(A.C. No. 6683, July 21, 2011)
FACTS:
After the resolution of a petition questioning
the constitutionality of B.P. 883, Supreme Court
through its JRO took custody of such rollo (where
herein respondent Avecilla was involved). Now, in
order to check on the management of the Judicial
Development Fund, herein respondent Atty.
Avecilla made a claim as through the
abovementioned rollo. When the Supreme Court
asked the JRO to inquire, the said rollo was
missing. Later on, such whereabouts where found
with Atty. Avecilla, having custody through his legal
work with a retired Supreme Court Justice. Through
the report and recommendation of the Office of the
Chief Attorney (OCAT), it was found out that such
rollo was used for a personal agenda (and only
returned after 12 years), but borrowed through a
certain Atty. Banzon, another then legal researcher
with the same abovementioned Justice. However,
respondent Atty. Avecilla asserted that such was
not through his fault and only found out that it was
with him when he was contacted to for retrieval.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), for its report
and recommendation, agreed with the OCAT,
making Atty. Avecilla liable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Avecilla be
held administratively liable.
HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Rule 6.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a lawyer
in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests
XXX”. Being a court employee, they should not to
take any court records, papers or documents
outside the court premises. Also, the act of the
respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial
business entailed the employment of deceit not
becoming a member of the bar.
SAMALA v. ATTY. PALANA
(A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005)
FACTS:
This is a complaint files by Joseph Samala
against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana for
alleged fraudulent activities which violate the Code
of Professional Responsibility. In February 2001,
complainant was looking for a company wherein he
could invest his dollar savings and subsequently
was introduced to employees of First Imperial
Resources, Inc. (FIRI), including Atty. Palana
(respondent). Due to the personal representations
and assurances of respondent, – claiming that
complainant would be directly putting his
investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited
which is a reputable company based in Virgin
Islands and has been in the foreign exchange
business for 13 years – complainant was convinced
to invest his dollar savings with FIRI on March 9,
2001. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull
out his investment by sending a letter requesting
the withdrawal of his investment of US$10,000 and
gave FIRI 10 days to produce such fund. On April
15, 2001 complainant was given a check
amounting to P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent
to complainant’s investment however the check
was dishonored because it was drawn against
insufficient funds. On June 1, 2001, respondent as
the legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant
P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount of
P3229,045.09. Respondent assured complainant
that the check was signed by FIRI President Paul
Desiderio in his (respondent’s) presence and that
the check would be funded. However, the check
was again dishonored for the same reason as the
first. On July 14, 2001, complainant charged Paul
Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas
PambansaBilang 22. However, Paul Desiderio
could not be located when sought to be served a
warrant of arrest because his identity was unknown
and his residential address was found to be
fictitious. Complainant alleged that respondent’s act
of representing himself to be the legal officer of
FIRI and his assurance that the check he delivered
to him which was signed by the President of FIRI in
his (respondent’s) presence when in reality no such
person exists, is fraudulent and violative of the
Canons of Professional Ethics. Respondent was
also one of those who assured the complainant that
his dollar savings would be directly invested in a
reputable company (Eastern Vanguard Forex
Limited).
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Palana has violated
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
affidavit of desistance made by complainant) which
was granted by the Court on August 20, 1982.
However, on February 14, 1983, complainant filed
an Administrative case and prayed for respondent’s
disbarment on the grounds that: Respondent used
his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage;
he mirepresented himself in his application to take
the bar exam; lack of good moral character; and
that complainant was deceived into signing the
affidavit of desistance and that the only reason why
he reconciled with her is so that she would
withdraw the complaint against him. Complainant
also claimed that respondent sent her a letter which
proves all of her allegations where the respondent
states that their marriage was actually void form the
beginning. Respondent denied that he had sent
such letter.
On March 26, 1984, the Bar
Confidant’s
report
recommended
indefinite
suspension of respondent until the status of his
marriage is settled.
HELD:
The court held that Atty. Antonuitti K.
Palana is guilty of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is thus suspended
from the practice of law for a period of three years,
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. The court also
held that “the representations of respondent as
legal officer of FIRI caused material damage to the
complainant” hence “respondent failed to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
lessened the confidence of the public in the
honesty and integrity of the same”.
LEDA v. ATTY. TABANG
(A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992)
FACTS:
Evangeline Leda (complainant) challenges
Atty. TrebonianTabang’s (respondent) good moral
character in two complaints she filed against him,
one docketed as Bar Matter No. 78 instituted on
January 6, 1982 and the case at hand. It appears
that complainant and respondent contracted a
marriage in Tigbauan, Iloilo on October 3, 1976
under as one of the exceptional character under
Article 76 of the Civil Code. The parties agreed to
keep their marriage a secret until respondent had
finished his law studies and had taken the Bar
examinations. Complainant admits that they have
not lived together as husband and wife. After
respondent’s law studies and bar examinations,
complainant blocked his oath-taking (by instituting
Bar Matter No. 78) claiming that respondent had
acted fraudulently when he filled out his application
declaring he was “single” and is thus unworthy to
take the lawyer’s Oath for lack of good moral
character. Respondent filed his explanation
claiming that he was “legally married” to
complainant but the marriage was not yet made
and declared public so that he may finish his
studies as well as take the bar exams and he
therefore believed that he was still single.
Respondent also alleged that he and the
complainant has reconciled and prayed that the
case be dismissed (on the ground that complainant
confirmed with his explanation as evidence by the
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. TrebonianTabang
violated Rule 7.01 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The court held that Atty. TrebonianTabangis
guilty of violating Rule 7.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is thus suspended
from the practice of law until further notice.The
Court held that respondent’s “declaration in his
application for Admission to the 1981 Bar
Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter
bad faith, for which he should be made answerable.
Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of
Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A
lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppression of a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the
bar." That false statement, if it had been known,
would have disqualified him outright from taking the
Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of
good moral character.”
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for
disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong
because of the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with
the idea that lawyers should treat each other with
courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not
appear upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga
issued a subpoena for their preliminary
investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal
complaint for estafa against said client. After which
Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the
warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil
complaint and collection for a sum of money and
damages against
Atty.
Reyes, Xu (the
complainant’s client) and the Prosecutor. Upon
their confrontation, no settlement was reached.
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect
impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil
Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the
suit was groundless. He argues that he impleaded
the Prosecutor because the criminal investigation
had irregularities due to the action of the
Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency
for his client’s motion for an opportunity to submit
counter affidavit and evidence.
ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility?
found enough evidence to prove his violation of
Canon 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. On June 29, 2002 the IBP board of
governors accepted the recommendations of the
investigation commissioner with the reduction of
one (1) year from the suspension.
ISSUES:
1.
Did the IBP err in finding Atty. Ferrer guilty
of the charges set against him?
2.
In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed
on him justified?
HELD:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that
defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit
with damages was to be able to obtain leverage
against the estafa case of his client. Clearly there
was no need to implead complainant and
Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any
participation in the business transactions between
Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere harassment
of the two. Chiong was suspended for two (2) years
from the practice of law and was implemented
immediately.
ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR.
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010)
FACTS:
On January 11, 2001 Atty.Barandon filed a
complaint-affidavit with the IBP seeking the
disbarment, suspension or proper disciplinary
action against Atty.Ferrer,Sr. for offenses such as
the use of offensive language when insinuating
that the complainant presented a falsified document
in court, filing a fabricated charge against Atty.
Barandon, the usage of threatening phrases before
the start of a hearing such as “…patayan kung
patayan, kasamaang lahat ng pamilya.”, accusing
Atty. Barandon without bothering to check the facts
and lastly the plethora of cases he was facing that
time predominantly the one that deals with sexual
harassment.
Atty. Ferrer filed an answer concomitant
with his motion to dismiss. In his answer contains
the improbability of the charges against him
because he could have not said those remarks
without being reprimanded while the court was in
session. Also, the offended party in the falsification
case vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the
document has been falsified and other conflicting
stories against what Atty. Barandon filed.
While there was this constant clash
between the complainant and the respondent on
December 29, 2000, Atty. Barandon boarded a taxi
that was owned by defendant’s son and it was
involved in an accident, the incident was shady
because no help was given to the victims and that
respondent denied knowing the driver of said taxi.
Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from
reporting the accident to the proper authorities.
On October 10, 2001 the IBP investigation
commissioner recommended the suspension of
respondent for two (2) years because they have
HELD:
No, there was no reason to disagree with
the findings of the IBP because it can be seen that
there was an appropriate and tedious investigation
set upon him for administrative purposes and it can
be inferred that the decision went through a
rigorous process.
Yes, because as stated in Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, all lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor towards their fellow lawyer and more
specifically in Rule 8.01 a lawyer shall not in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It was
clearly seen in this case that there was a violation
of this Canon and also Canon 7 which dealt with
the proper conduct of a lawyer and how he should
not behave in a scandalous manner that would
discredit the legal profession, appearing drunk and
having multiple cases piled against him would be
very clear that there is a clear-cut violation of said
Canon.
CAMBALIZA v. ATTY. CRISTAL-TENORIO
(A.C. No. 6290, July 14, 2004)
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment filed with the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. Complainant Cambaliza, a
former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B.
Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter
with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
Complainant alleged that the respondent has been
falsely representing herself to be married to
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and
subsisting marriage with another woman.
Furthermore,
Respondent
caused
the
dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit
derogatory to Makati City; cooperated in the illegal
practice of law by her husband, who is not a
member of the Philippine Bar; converted her client's
money to her own use and benefit, which led to the
filing of an estafa case against her; and threatened
the complainant and her family on 24 January 2000
with the statement "Isang bala ka lang" to deter
them from divulging respondent's illegal activities
and transactions. Respondent denied all the
allegations against her. The Case referred to this
case to Investigating Commissioner as the
complainant bolstered her claim that the
respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law
by her husband by submitting: (1) the letterhead of
Cristal-Tenorio Law Office where the name of
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior
partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio
Group identification card signed by the respondent
as Chairperson where her husband is identified as
"Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr." She added that
respondent's husband even appeared in court
hearings. Respondent averred that she neither
formed a law partnership with her husband nor
allowed her husband to appear in court on her
behalf. If there was an instance that her husband
appeared in court, he did so as a representative of
her law firm. The letterhead submitted by the
complainant was a false reproduction to show that
her husband is one of her law partners. But upon
cross-examination, when confronted with the
letterhead ofCristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her
signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio,
Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A.
Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as
senior partners because they have investments in
her law office
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon
9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held Respondent failed to live up
to the exacting standards expected of him as a
vanguard of law and justice. for culpable violation of
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Respondent was suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable
for gross misconduct and is suspended from the
practice of law. The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at
the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized
practice of law is founded on public interest and
policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law
be limited to those individuals found duly qualified
in education and character. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar
from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a
lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus,
the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him
not to permit his professional services or his name
to be used in aid of, or to make possible the
unauthorized practice of law by, any agency,
personal or corporate. And, the law makes it
misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice
of law.
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA v. ATTY.
REVILLA, JR.
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009)
FACTS:
A Petition for Disbarment was filed by Plus
Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty.
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for committing a willful and
intentional falsehood before the court; misusing
court procedure and processes to delay the
execution of a judgment; and collaborating with
non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.
On November 15, 1999, a decision was
rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
(PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders,
Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de
Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent
Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found
that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and
not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land.
The case was elevated all the way up to the
Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining
complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to
pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was
found to have committed intentional falsehood; and
misused court processes with the intention to delay
the execution of the decision through the filing of
several motions, petitions for temporary restraining
orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite
the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed
non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice
of law – holding themselves out as his
partners/associates in the law firm.
Respondent denied all allegations and
believes that the courses of action he took were
valid and proper legal theory designed to protect
the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et.
al. The lawyer-client relationship with the former
lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de
Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did not
explain/argue their position very well, refused to
listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As
the new counsel, respondent relied on what the
tenants/farmers told him in the course of his
interview. He avers that he merely exhausted all
possible remedies and defenses to which his
clients were entitled under the law. He submitted
that if he was indeed guilty of violating the rules in
the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients,
he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind
consideration, pardon and forgiveness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent guilty of violating
the attorney’s oath, Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.
is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct. Taking
the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is
rather commendable, but respondent should not
forget his first and foremost responsibility as an
officer of the court. In support of the cause of their
clients, lawyers have the duty to present every
remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
This obligation, however, is not to be performed at
the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion
that must be borne in mind in every exertion a
lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a
case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
misusing court processes. After a careful
consideration of herein respondent’s motion for
reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his
misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to extend a
degree of leniency towards the respondent by
reducing his suspension period from two years to
six months.
RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORP. & ATTY.
TACORDA v. ATTY. CAMACHO
(A.C. No. 6403, August 31, 2004)
FACTS:
On September 3, 1998, Sisenando Singson,
represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Quezon City a complaint against herein
complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for
damages and reconveyance, docketed as Civil
Case No. Q-98-35444. The case was originally
raffled to Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City but was
eventually re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same
court. On September 21, 1998, Singson, again
represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch
78, RTC, Quezon City a “Motion for Intervention
(With Attached Answer in Intervention With
Affirmative
Defenses
and
Compulsory
Counterclaim)” in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326,
entitled,
“Rudecon
Management
Corporation,plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M. Veluz,
defendant-appellant,” a case for unlawful detainer
on appeal before said court. On October 1, 1998,
Rudecon filed a motion before Branch 78 seeking
to cite Singson and his counsel, Atty. Camacho, for
contempt for having allegedly violated the rule
against forum shopping. And the court, in its
dispositive portion found them guilty. On the basis
of the above-cited order, Rudecon and Tacorda
filed the instant complaint for disbarment or
suspension against Atty. Camacho.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is
liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Although respondent was held to be guilty in
forum shopping, the court agreed with respondent
that there was no intention on his part to mislead
the court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case
No. Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the
Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention
in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Indeed,
the first paragraph of the said Answer in
Intervention shows that respondent and his client
called the trial court’s attention with respect to the
pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein
complainant, which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
Q-98-35326, does not dispute respondent’s
allegation that the latter and his client attached to
their Answer in Intervention a copy of their
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.
Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension
of respondent from the practice of law for his
having allegedly violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility,
however,
in
administrative cases for disbarment or suspension
against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an
administrative case against a lawyer must show the
dubious character of the act done as well as of the
motivation thereof. In the present case,
complainant failed to present clear and
preponderant evidence to show that respondent
willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and
unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the
standards of honesty as provided for by the Code
of Professional Responsibility which would have
warranted the imposition of administrative sanction
against him.
Wherefore, Resolution No. XVI-2004-43
dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines is SET ASIDE and the instant
administrative case filed against Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. OSCAR
PAGUINTO
(A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010)
FACTS:
On October 10, 2001, complainant, who
was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez
Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a
Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO
on October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four
members of the Board of Directors (the Board),
including her and the General Manager. The notice
was signed by respondent. At the October 14, 2001
Special General Assembly presided by respondent
and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco
(Gerangco), who were not members of the then
current
Board,
Gerango,
complainant’s
predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board,
declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace
the removed directors, and appointed respondent
as Board Secretary.
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group
took over the GEMASCO office and its premises,
the pump houses, water facilities, and operations.
On even date, respondent sent letter-notices to
complainant and the four removed directors
informing them of their removal from the Board and
as members of GEMASCO, and advising them to
cease and desist from further discharging the
duties of their positions.Complainant thus filed on
October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint
for annulment of the proceedings taken during the
October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly.
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by
Resolution of February 21, 2002, declared the
questioned general assembly null and void for
having been conducted in violation of GEMASCO’s
By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines. The RD’s Resolution of February 21,
2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction of
CDA. Thus, complainant files a disbarment case
against respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is liable for
violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is "not to be
construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied
with
partially,
inadequately,
or
selectively". Respondent’s obstinate refusal to
comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful
orders which is only too deserving of reproof.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and
processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold
the integrity of the courts and to show respect to
their processes.
The Court notes that respondent had
previously been suspended from the practice of law
for six months for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he having been found
to have received an acceptance fee and misled the
client into believing that he had filed a case for her
when he had not. It appears, however, that
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more
severe penalty this time is thus called for.
Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar
Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from
practice of law for violation of Canon 10 of
Code of Professional Responsibility and
Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately.
P.
the
the
the
FERNANDEZ v. DE RAMOS-VILLALON
(A.C. No. 7024, February 27, 2009)
FACTS:
In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati,
sought the help of Fernandez to help him in a land
grabbing case. Palacios won the case and he
allegedly agreed to pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005,
Palacios bumped into one Mrs. Lirio and to his
surprise, he found out that Fernandez was trying to
sell HIS Makati property. Fernandez has for his
basis an alleged deed of donation that Palacio
executed in favor of Fernandez. Palacios, with the
help of Atty. Villalon, filed a complaint in order to
nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez answered
that he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor
from Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by
Palacios for violation of rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03
among others. He claims that Villalon suppressed
and excluded in the complaint the existence of an
unregistered but notarized deed of absolute sale.
Villalon counters that as counsel of Palacios she is
under no duty to include the fact that there existed
a deed of sale because only her client’s operative
facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to be
included n the complaint. The deed of sale was a
matter of defense that Fernandez, as defendant
could raise as a matter of defense.
ISSUE:
Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in
the complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02,
03?
HELD:
No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all
his dealings, however this duty does not require
him to advance matters of defense on behalf of his
or her client’s opponent. Villalon was not duty
bound to build the case for Fernandez. The cause
of action chosen by Palacios was for the annulment
of the deed of donation. Palacios had told her that
the deed of sale was void for lack of consideration.
It was not a necessary fact for his case. Only the
client’s operative facts and not the other evidentiary
facts need to be included in the Complaint. It is
correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out
the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute
Sale was a matter of defense which the defendant
in said civil case can freely point out to the trial
judge through his own pleadings. It cannot be
argued that there was suppression of evidence on
the part of the respondent as she is not the only
person who had access or possession of the said
Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document readily
available to the general public through the Notarial
Office. Moreover, it was a document which was
fully known to herein complainant as he was
supposed to be a party to the said Deed of
Absolute Sale. In other words, a person cannot
possibly suppress the existence of a document
which everyone else, especially the opposing partylitigant, knows about.
NG v. ALAR
(ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)
FACTS:
Ng is one of the respondents in a labor
case, Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the
labor case. The case was filed when employees of
the Ng Company alleged that they did not receive
their service incentives because the Ng Company
refused to pay because a strike was conducted on
company premises hampering entrance and exit
into the area. It was later found that the incentive
pay had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed the
appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit,
where Alar used scandalous, offensive and
menacing language to support the complaint. He
called the labor arbiter crossed-eyed in making his
findings of fact and that the NLRC commissioner
acted with malice in ruling that the labor arbiter
decided correctly. He also alleged that NLRC
retiring commissioners circumvent the law when the
money claims involved in the cases are large.
Because of this a disbarment case was filed
against him saying that he violated canons 8 and
11. Alar argues that he did not violate them
because: 1) NLRC is not a court contemplated by
the rules; 2) NLRC commissioners are not judges;
3) the complaints in labor cases are bound to be
heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He
counterclaimed that the lawyers of Ng are the ones
in violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits from
the same cause of action and that they deliberately
lessened the number of complainants in the labor
case. The commission on bar discipline found Alar
guilty of violating the CPR.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.
due to the courts and judicial officers. While he is
expected to bring forth irregular and questionable
practices of those sitting in court it is important that
this criticism shall be bona fide and shall not spill
over the walls of decency and propriety. His
statements bear badges of falsehood because the
version of the witnesses disputes his statements.
He
maliciously
made
these
declarations
irresponsibly. The libelous attack on the integrity
and credibility of Justice Tinga degrade the dignity
of the court and erode public confidence in it. He is
hereby fined P 3,000.00.
CANON 11
by Aristotle Cruz
HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults
attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and
intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be
bought. He used improper and offensive language,
which cannot be justified. Though a lawyer’s
language may be forceful and emphatic, it must
always be dignified and respectful. He deserves not
only a warning but also a fine of P 5,0000. The
counter-complaint is dismissed because there was
no position paper submitted to substantiate the
claims.
FUDOT v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC.
(G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007)
FACTS:
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga,
the ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited
because it was alleged that he received 10 million
pesos from Chan in exchange for a favorable
decision. De La Serna suggests that Tinga
abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to
accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga
prioritized the case and that Chan already knew of
the outcome of the case before the decision was
promulgated. Chan related that he approached De
La Serna for the purpose of amicably settling the
case, and offered him to be their retainer in Bohol.
He denied having said to De La Serna that he had
already spent so much money for the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect
contempt.
HELD:
Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience
to the court by setting up opposition to its authority,
justice and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard
or disobedience of the court’s orders but it also
brings authority of the court and administration of
law into disrepute or in some manner impedes the
due administration of justice. Indirect contempt is
one committed out of or not in the presence of the
court but tends to be little, degrade obstruct or
embarrass the court and justice. Improper conduct
tending to directly or indirectly impede obstruct or
degrade the administration of justice is also indirect
contempt. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer
of the court and it is his duty to maintain the respect
GUERRERO v. VILLAMOR
(A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998)
FACTS:
Carlos and his counsel, Guerrero, charged
respondent with gross ignorance of the law and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they
lost a civil and a criminal case tried by respondent.
They were also thwarted on appeal. However, in
the pleadings before the CA, they used abusive
language in describing the respondent’s acts,
hence, respondent judge cited them for direct
contempt, which was later set aside by the SC.
ISSUE:
Must the respondent be held liable for
violation of the Code for Professional Ethics?
HELD:
The case was dismissed. The order of
direct contempt may only be considered as an error
of judgment. A judge may not be administratively
charged for mere errors of judgment, in the
absence of showing of any bad faith, malice or
corrupt purpose. Moreover, judges cannot be held
to account criminally, civilly, or administratively for
an erroneous decision rendered by them in good
faith.
PEOPLE v. JARDIN
(G.R. No. L-33037-42, August 17, 1983)
FACTS:
The criminal prosecutions originated from a
letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the
necessary criminal action under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for
malversation of public funds thru falsification of
public documents on six counts. The cases were
assigned to Assistant Fiscal Meliton V. Angeles
who set them for preliminary investigation. The
accused moved to postpone the investigation four
times but the accused and his counsel failed to
appear every time. Inspire of their absence, the
preliminary investigation was conducted and shortly
afterwards, the six information’s were filed against
the accused before the Court of First Instance of
Quezon City. The arraignment was set for May 9,
1967. On the records it was show that from May 9,
1967, the arraignment was re-set for June 6; then
re-set for June 26; then from August 16, the same
was re-set for September 5, all because of the
motions for postponement filed at the instance of
the accused. When the arraignment of the accused
was called on September 5, 1967, counsel for the
accused verbally moved for reinvestigation on the
ground that the accused was not given the
opportunity to present his defense during the
preliminary investigation. This was granted by the
court and the first reinvestigation was set on
November 24, 1967. Accused moved to postpone
many times, failed still to appear. When he finally
appeared with his counsel, they asked for 15 days
to file memorandum. The memorandum was never
filed, so the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation
before the court that the records of these cases be
returned and the trial on the merits of the same be
set. The court transferred the case to new branch
of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation.
Arraignment date was set but more postponements
was filed at the instance of accused; moved for
reinvestigation again. Arraignment finally happened
on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY
and asked for trial to be postponed. On postponed
date, accused asked for another postponement.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts of the accused and his
counsel obstruct the administration of justice.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory
tactics of the defense counsel and the failure of
both judge and the fiscal to take effective counter
measures to obviate the delaying acts constitute
obstruction of justice. An attorney as an officer of
the court is called upon to assist in the due
administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is
an instrument to advance its cause. For this
reason, any act on the part of a lawyer that
obstructs perverts or impedes the administration of
justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.
Acts which amount to obstruction in the
administration of justice may take many forms.
They include such acts as instructing a complaining
witness in a criminal action not to appear at the
scheduled hearing so that the case against the
client, the accused, would be dismissed. asking a
client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer
knows his client did not commit, advising a client
who is detained for a crime to escape from prison
prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to
drain the resources of the other party and compel
him to submit out of exhaustion and filing multiple
petitions or complaints for a cause that has been
previously rejected in the false expectation of
getting favorable action.
GARCIA v. FRANCISCO
(A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993)
FACTS:
In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on
October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the
disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco. On
March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her
husband Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and
Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leased a parcel of
land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years
beginning May 1, 1964. Despite repeated verbal
and written demands, Lee refused to vacate after
the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that he had
an option to extend the lease for another 5 years
and the right of pre-emption over the property. In
this disbarment case, the complainant claims that
Lee’s counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced
various suits before different courts to thwart
Garcia’s right to regain her property and that all
these proceedings were decided against Lee. The
proceedings stemmed from the said lease contract
and involved the same issues and parties, thus
violating the proscription against forum-shopping.
The respondent, in his comment, says that he
asserted in defense of his client’s rights only such
remedies as were authorized by law. That On
March 29, 1989, Lee, through Francisco, filed a
complaint against Garcia and the other lessors for
specific performance and re-conveyance with
damages. Thus began more filing of complaints
and dismissals of cases as follows: On June 9,
1989, Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The case was dismissed on August 10,
1989. On May 29, 1989, Garcia and the other
lessors filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against Lee. On September 5, 1989, judge Bautista
issued a resolution rejecting this allegation on the
ground that the issues before the two courts were
separate and different. On October 24, 1989, Lee,
through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge
Bautista, Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6,
1990, Lee through Francisco filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction with the Court of Appeals against Judge
Vera, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors.
On June 14, 1990, Judge Singzon decided
the case in favor of complainant Garcia and the
other lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead, on, June
21, 1990, through Francisco again, he filed a
petition against Judge Singzon and the other
lessors for certiorari and annulment of the decision
of such case. On September 27, 1991, Lee,
through Francisco, filed a motion to inhibit Judge
Singzon and to defer the hearing of the motion then
finally, Lee, still through Francisco, filed a petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction against
Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside
and declare the writs of execution in Civil Case No.
1455. This was dismissed on August 4, 1992, and
Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of
recourse to the courts.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice.
The cause of the respondent’s client is obviously
without merit. The respondent was aware of this
fact when he willfully resorted to the gambits
summarized above, continuously seeking relief that
was consistently denied, as he should have
expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse
to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause
that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was
disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain
only such actions or proceedings as appear to him
to be just and such defenses only as he believes to
be honestly debatable under the law. By violating
his oath not to delay any man for money or malice,
he has besmirched the name of an honorable
profession and has proved himself unworthy of the
trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the
Court.
CAPT. CABAGUI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD DIVISION
(G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975)
FACTS:
Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974,
the Court, acting on a third petition for review of a
Court of Appeals decision affirming petitioner’s
conviction of the crime of malversation of public
funds, as filed on November 13, 1974 by his
attorney, Eugenio M. Millado, with address at
Koronadal, South Cotabato, ordered that said
petition be expunged from the records and required
“Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause within ten
(10) days from notice hereof why disciplinary action
should not be taken against him for trifling with the
Court by filing this third petition despite previous
resolutions of this Court.” In its previous Resolution
of May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions
filed by respondent Millado on behalf of the same
petitioner,
the Court had dismissed the
secondpetition (filed on March 18, 1974) by
respondent Millado in the guise of a new petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction but which
merely raised again the same questions in his first
petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to set
aside petitioner’s conviction for malversation of
public funds, by decision of the court of first
instance of Misamis Oriental dated June 20, 1963
as affirmed with modification by the Court of
Appeals’ decision dated June 8, 1973, for alleged
lack of jurisdiction and praying for reversal of the
conviction or for a reduction of his criminal liability
by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of technical
malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65.
Said first petition had been denied on January 15,
1974 by virtue of the petition having been filed late
by 4 months and 25 days beyond the last date for
filing which fell due since August 15, 1973.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty
of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court finds respondent, Attorney
Eugenio M. Millado, guilty of gross negligence in
not having complied with a “show cause” resolution
and of abusing the right of recourse to the Court by
filing multiple petitions for the same cause in the
false expectation of getting favorable action from
one division as against the adverse action of the
other division. The Court deems his suspension
from the practice of law since February, 1975 as
sufficient penalty and now lifts his suspension with
the warning that the commission in the future by
respondent of the same or other infractions shall be
dealt with severely.
VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON.
ROVIRA
(G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
FACTS:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is the
registered owner of a residential land known as lot
No. 3508 situated at La Paz, Iloilo City many years
back, petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon
Bacaling, with the acquiescence of private
respondent Laguda, constructed a residential
house on a portion of said lot fronting Huevana
Street, paying a monthly rental of P80.00. Unable
to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to
September 1961, otaling P2,160.00, an action for
ejectment (Civil Case No. 6823) was filed by private
respondent Laguda against petitioner in her
capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate of
her late husband, Dr. Bacaling, in the City Court of
Iloilo City. The filing of said case spawned various
court suits. Petitioner on July 23, 1962, filed
certiorari proceedings in this Court (G.R. No. L20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit on
August 3, 1962. Petitioner on November 12, 1962,
filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
(Civil Case No. 6162) but the same was dismissed
on December 1, 1962. Unsuccessful in her motion
for reconsideration, petitioner went to the Court of
Appeals by way of certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 31882R) but her petition was dismissed by that Court on
March 7, 1967.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as
judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or
removal are valid and binding upon her successor.
HELD:
Such a view is not tenable. Under Section 3,
Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioner’s lawful
acts before the revocation of her letters of
administration or before her removal shall have the
same validity as if there was no such revocation or
removal. It is elementary that the effect of
revocation of letters testamentary or of
administration is to terminate the authority of the
executor or administrator, but the acts of the
executor or administrator, done in good faith prior
to the revocation of the letters, will be protected,
and a similar protection will be extended to rights
acquired under a previous grant of administration.
The petitioner is not entitled to the writ of certiorari.
In the case at bar, there is absolutely no showing
that the respondent courts acted so “arbitrarily”,
“despotically” or “capriciously” as to amount to lack
of jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders.
“Grave abuse of discretion” which is a ground for
certiorari means “such capricious and arbitrary
exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the eyes of
the law, to lack of jurisdiction.” Even mere abuse of
discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the
issuance of a writ of certiorari. For that purpose the
abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and
it must be shown that it was exercised arbitrarily or
despotically, which is not the case made out by the
present petition.
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO,
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007)
FACTS:
The administrative case has its roots from
the case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard
before the sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan,
Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis
Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide and not
murder with the evidence as basis. Counsel of the
defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that amount
of bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor and
deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z.
Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is nonbailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion
for reconsideration which was consequently denied.
Hence, instead of resorting to his available judicial
remedies, respondent caused the publication of an
article in the August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao
Gold Star Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to
the media, after he was ordered arrested and put
up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station
DXKS. He attacked once again Judge Tan and his
disposition on the proceedings of People v. Luis
Bucalon Plaza.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated
the Code of professional conduct.
HELD:
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating
the code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule
13.02 which states that “a lawyer shall not make
public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against
a party.” That instead of resorting to the available
judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has
degraded the dignity and authority of the court and
the presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in
the administration of justice when he resorted to
media and declared his complaints there. Atty.
Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11,
when he disrespected the courts and the judicial
officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit
grievances against a judge to proper authorities
only.
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)
FACTS:
Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the
business of meat processing and manufacture of
canned goods of “CDO” filed an administrative
complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for
violation of the code of professional responsibility.
The case at hand involved a certain Alberto
Cordero who purportedly found a colony of worms
inside the can of liver spread by CDO and
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The
Cordero family sued the company for P150,000 for
damages, but the companies did not agree to the
demands. The Cordero’s thereafter threatened to
resort to the media, if their demands are not met.
Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the
Cordero’s, was involved in various media
productions such as being a writer/columnist of
tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong
TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a
television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS
telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double
B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty.
Mauricio, in many cases utilized these media
outlets to place the said company in a bad light by
declaring to the masses the liver spread of worms;
even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him
to desist from “further publishing, televising and/or
broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in
the instant case more specifically the imputation of
vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products”.
Even after the parties have performed an
agreement, signed by the Cordero’s and
Atty.Mauricio himself – resulting in the dismissal of
the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably
launched a media offensive to the companies.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of
professional responsibility. His recourse to the
Media, even after being told to desist from such
was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, “A
lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party”. His action has
put not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in
a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity and
authority of the legal system. Besides the above, he
has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in
deceitful conduct taking advantage of the complaint
against CDO to advance his own interests, and
Canon 8, when he used abusive and offensive
language in his dealings.
FRANCISCO, TAN & JOAQUIN v. ATTY.
PORTUGAL
(A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006)
FACTS:
SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato
F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin were involved
in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of
two individuals and the serious injury of another.
Informations were filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder.
The Sandiganbayan found the accused guilty of
two counts of homicide and one count of attempted
homicide. Complainants engaged the services of
herein respondent for the accused. Respondent
then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but it was denied. They, then, filed
an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion
for Reconsideration, with the attached Second
Motion for Reconsideration and a petition for
Review on Certiorari. However, complainants never
heard from respondent again despite the frequent
telephone calls they made to his office. When
respondent did not return their phone inquiries,
complainants went to respondent’s last known
address only to find out that he had moved out
without any forwarding address. More than a year
after the petition was filed, they learned that the
Court had already issued a Resolution dated 3 July
2002, denying the petition for late filing and nonpayment of docket fees and that the said
Resolution had attained finality and warrants of
arrest had already been issued against the accused
because
respondent,
whose
whereabouts
remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration
from lapsing. Thus, complainants filed before the
Supreme Court an affidavit-complaint against the
Atty. Jamie Portugal, respondent, for violation of
Lawyer’s Oath, gross misconduct, and gross
negligence for the alleged failure which led to the
denial of the petition with finality. Respondent
states that he was not the original counsel of the
accused. He was merely requested by the original
counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be
present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan
decision. Respondent claims that there was no
formal engagement undertaken by the parties.
Though admitting its highly irregular character,
respondent also made informal but urgent and
personal representation with the members of the
Division of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated
the decision of conviction. He asserts that because
of all the efforts he put into the case of the accused,
his other professional obligations were neglected
and that all these were done without proper and
adequate remuneration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of
violation of Canon 14 of Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
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. In not
so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of
the accused. Respondent ought to know that he
was the one who should have filed the Notice to
Withdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent
a registered letter to the accused and gave them
instructions on how to go about respondent’s
withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should
have been respondent who undertook the
appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of
his representation. He should not have relied on his
client to do it for him if such was truly the case. He
could relieve himself of his responsibility as counsel
only first by securing the written conformity of the
accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule
138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. The rule in
this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right
to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime
with or without cause. The respondent violated
Canon 14 of CPR. Thus, Supreme Court ordered
the suspension of the respondent from the practice
of law for three (3) months.
LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. SAGUCIO
(A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006)
FACTS:
Respondent, Atty. Sagucio was a former
Personnel manager and Counsel of Taggat
Industries Inc. Thereafter in 1992, he was
appointed as Asst. Provincial prosecutor of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Employees of Taggat filed
criminal charges against the complainant who took
over the management and control of Taggat,
withheld the payment of their wages and salaries
without a valid cause. The complainant charges
respondent with the engaging in private practice of
law while working as a government prosecutor and
for violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule
15.03 of CPR.
2.
Whether or not being a former lawyer of
Taggat posits conflict of interests with his work as
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor.
HELD:
The Court finds that there is no conflict of
interest on the part of the respondent when he
handled the preliminary investigation of the criminal
charges filed by the Taggat Employees. The issue
of the matter of the criminal complaint was
pertaining to the withholding of the wages and
salaries of the Taggat employees which occurred
from April 1, 1996 to July 15, 1997. Evidently, the
respondent was no longer connected with the
Taggat Inc during such period since he is working
as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor since 1992.
Should there be apparent conflict of interest, it must
be supported by sufficient evidence that Taggat,
respondent’s former client, used any confidential
information from his preceding employment with
Complainant in resolving the filed criminal
complaint.
As the former Personnel Manager and
Retained Counsel of Taggat together with the case
he handled as government t prosecutor was laborrelated case which fact, is not a sufficient basis to
charge respondent for representing conflicting
interests. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s
absolute duty to his former client does not cover
transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s
employment with the client. It is apparent that the
intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the
duty to protect the interests of his clients only on
matters that he has previously handled for the
former client and specifically not for issues and
cases that arose after the lawyer-client relationship
has ended.
Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
GONZALES v. ATTY. CABUCANA
(A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006)
FACTS:
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to
Gonzales’s residence and harassed the latter.
Gatcheco asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance
regarding
her
filed
complaint.
Thereafter, Gonzales filed criminal cases for
trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation,
simple coercion and unjust vexation against
Gatchecos. Respondent Cabucana represented the
Gatchecos and his law firm was representing the
Gonzales. Gonzales alleged that the respondent
should be disbarred from the practice of law since
the latter’s acceptance of the cases of Gatcheco
violates the lawyer-client relationship between the
complainant and respondent’s law firm and shall be
liable for violation of Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02,
15.03, 21.02 and 21.02. On the other hand,
Respondent averred that he never appeared to
represent such case since it was his brother who
attended such case. However, he admitted that he
is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the
cases filed against the Gonzales but claimed that
the couple had pleaded him to represent them as
there is no other counsel willing to take their cause.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule
15.03 of CPR.
HELD:
The Court held that the respondent is guilty
violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. While
it is a well-settled principle that lawyer is barred
from representing conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. The prohibition is founded
on precepts of public policy as the inherent nature
of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and
confidence of the utmost degree. Lawyers are
expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence but also to avoid the appearance of
double-dealing for there would be difficulties that
may arise in entrusting their secrets of the cause to
their lawyers, which is of supreme significance in
the administration of justice. The prohibition against
representation of conflicting interests is applicable
to a situation where the opposing parties are
present clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action. The court finds that there is no merit to
Respondent’s allegation that it was his brother who
represented Gonzales, thus there could be no
conflict of interest. Furthermore, it was an
admission from the respondent himself that it was
their law firm which represented Gonzales in the
civil case. Being the case, it is apparent that there
could be conflicting interest which may affect the
duty of administration of justice, and specifically,
will strain the lawyer-client relationship. However, In
consideration of the facts, the Court considered as
mitigating circumstances the fact that the
respondent is representing the Gatcheco spouses
pro bono and that it was his firm and not
respondent personally which handled the civil case
of Gonzales. Hence, it was observed that there
was no malice and bad faith in respondent’s act of
acceptance of the Gatchecos’s plead to represent
them. Thusly, the Court ruled that the respondent is
guilty of violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR
and
taking
consideration
of
mitigating
circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount
of P 2,000 with stern warning that a commission of
the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
JUSTO v. GALING
(A.C. No. 6174, November 16, 2011)
FACTS:
Sometime in April 2003 complainant Justo
sought the services of respondent Atty. Galing in
connection with dishonored checks issued by
Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa. Respondent
in pursuance to such drafted and sent a letter to
Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks. But
since Ms. Koa still failed to pay, complainant filed a
criminal complaint against her for estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. But on July
2003, a Motion for Consolidation was filed by
respondent on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in
the criminal case, and the latter’s daughter Karen
Torralba. Also, respondent appeared as counsel for
Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila. Because
of said acts complainant submits that by
representing conflicting interests, respondent
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
But respondent contended that when he drafted the
demand letter for complainant it was made only in
respect to their long standing friendship and not by
reason of a professional engagement. He
maintained that the filing of the Motion for
Consolidation which is a non-adversarial pleading
does not evidence the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between him and Ms. Koa and Ms.
Torralba. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client
relationship existed between him and complainant
because there was no professional fee paid for the
services he rendered. Likewise, his appearance in
the joint proceedings should only be construed as
an effort on his part to assume the role of a
moderator or arbiter of the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of respondent by
representing conflicting interests has violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The court resolved to Suspend Atty. Rodolfo
T. Galing from the practice of law for one (1) year,
with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
They found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by representing conflicting interests
and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced
malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03, Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “[a]
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.” Respondent
was therefore bound to refrain from representing
parties with conflicting interests in a controversy.
By doing so, without showing any proof that he had
obtained the written consent of the conflicting
parties, respondent should be sanctioned. The
prohibition against representing conflicting interest
is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship,
the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the
client’s case, including the weak and strong points
of the case. The nature of the relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. Lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
MENESES v. MACALINO
(A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006)
FACTS:
Complainant Edgardo Meneses filed a
disbarment case against respondent Atty. Rodolfo
Macalino for violation of lawyer’s oath. Complainant
alleged that respondent offered his legal services to
help the former claim his car from the Bureau of
Customs for a package deal amounting to P60,
000.00. In order to expedite the case, complainant
entrusted to respondent lawyer initial amounts of
P10, 000.00 and P30, 000.00 on two separate
instances respectively, without the issuance of a
receipt. Yet respondent promised to furnish
complainant with a receipt from the Bureau of
Customs. After receiving an amount of P40,
000.00, respondent failed to give complainant an
update on the matter. Complainant repeatedly went
to respondent’s house to inquire on the status of
the release of the car. Complainant was always told
that respondent was not around and to just return
another day. This went on for more than a year.
ISSUE :
Is respondent guilty of violating the Code of
professional Responsibility?
HELD:
The Court finds respondent is guilty of
violating of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03,and
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, respondent Atty.
Rodolfo Macalino shall be suspended from the
practice of law for one year effective upon finality of
decision. Respondent failed to inform and to
respond to Inquiries of the complainant regarding
the status of the case. As it was held in Tolentino v.
Mangapit, The relationship of lawyer-client being
one of confidence, it is the lawyer’s duty to keep the
client regularly and fully updated on the
developments of the client’s case. The Code
provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information." Moreover, respondent failed to
account a and return the money he received from
complainant. The Code provides that “The Code
mandates that every “lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.” The Code further states that
“[a] lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.”
Furthermore, “[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due and upon demand.”
CELAJE v. SORIANO
(A.C. No. 7418, October 9, 2007)
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed against Atty.
Santiago C. Soriano (respondent) for gross
misconduct, for failure to return complainant’s
money to be put up as an injunction bond, which
complainant found out later, to be unnecessary and
for other several occasions wherein herein
respondent asked for complainant’s money
allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge
handling their case, Judge Milagros Quijano, of the
Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36.
In the Report and Recommendation dated January
24, 2006, IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa found respondent
guilty of Gross Misconduct in his relations with his
client and recommended that respondent be
suspended for three years from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct and have violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court sustained the IBP’s resolution.
Respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found
guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years from notice, with a stern warning that
a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. The code mandates that
a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
possession. He shall account for all money or
property collected or received from his client and
shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand. Respondent’s failure to
return the money to complainant upon demand
gave rise to the presumption that he
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice
of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. It is a gross violation of general morality and
of professional ethics and impairs public confidence
in the legal profession which deserves punishment.
As the Court has pronounced, when a lawyer
receives money from the client for a particular
purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money
was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does
not use the money for the intended purpose, the
lawyer must immediately return the money to his
client. The Court has been exacting in its demand
for integrity and good moral character of members
of the Bar who are expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen
the trust and confidence reposed by the public in
the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal
profession.
Indeed, membership in the legal
profession is a privilege. The attorney-client
relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. As such, it
requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity and
disinterestedness on the part of the lawyer.
SMALL v. ATTY. BANARES
(A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007)
FACTS:
Melvin Small sought for the services of Atty.
Jerry Banares on August of 2001 in connection with
several complaints against a certain Lyneth Amar.
P20,000 as acceptance fee was made.
Complainant gave another P60,000 payment as
filing fee on September of 2001. Respondent then
informed complainant that he shall be preparing
documents for the cases they are to file.
Complainant made several inquiry on the status of
the cases but respondent repeatedly told
complainant to wait as respondent was still
preparing the documents.
A complaint for disbarment before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines against the
respondent was filed after the respondent failed to
refund the initial payments made. The request for
refund was due to the failure of the respondent to
present all the documents for the cases against
Amar the complainant has demanded. October 15,
2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A.
Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to
the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer
despite receipt of the order. Mandatory conferences
were set on March 3, March 30, April 14 of 2005
but respondent failed to appear. On April 14, 2005
conference, only complainant appeared despite
respondent’s receipt of the notice. The Commission
on Bar Discipline considered the case submitted for
resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canons
16, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is subject for disbarment.
HELD:
Yes. The Report considered complainant’s
evidence sufficient to find respondent guilty of
violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Code provides that
a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. The Code states that a lawyer shall keep
the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.
IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended
the imposition on respondent of a penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for two years
and that respondent be ordered to return
complainant’s P80,000. The court sustained the
findings and recommendations of the IBP.
ATTY. PENTICOSTES v. PROSECUTOR IBAÑEZ
(A.C. No. 167, March 9, 1999)
FACTS:
Encarnacion Pascual, the sister-in-law of
Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes was sued for nonremittance of SSS payments in 1989. In the course
of the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave
P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her Social
Security System (SSS) contribution. Respondent,
however, failed to remit the amount to SSS. The
fact of non-payment was certified to by the SSS on
October 2, 1989.
The complaint was initially filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Tarlac for professional misconduct
but was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Tarlac Chapter. The Tarlac Chapter
forwarded the same to IBP’s Commission on Bar
Discipline.
In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of
accommodating Encarnacion Pascual’s request to
make payment to the SSS did not amount to
professional misconduct but was rather an act of
Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the
action was moot and academic, the amount of
P1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the
SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground
that the acts complained were not done by him in
his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account
of his office as a prosecutor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s act of non
remittance of the money entrusted to him is a
violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. This Court has repeatedly admonished
lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and
fair dealing is expected and required of a member
of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.” This Court adopts the recommendation of
the IBP and finds respondent guilty of professional
misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment
of the contested amount had been effected to the
SSS on November 23, 1990, it is clear however,
that the same was made only after a complaint had
been filed against respondent. Respondent’s claim
that he may not be held liable because he
committed such acts, not in his capacity as a
private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing.
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides: “These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.”
The IBP recommended that the respondent
be reprimanded, with a warning that the
commission of the same or similar offense would
be dealt with more severely in the future. The court
sustained the findings and recommendations of the
IBP.
BAUTISTA v. GONZALES
(A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990)
FACTS:
In complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista
respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation
of lawyer's oath. Complainant submitted an
amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that
respondent prepared a document entitled "Transfer
of Rights" which was signed by the Fortunados (his
client). The document assigned to respondent onehalf (1/2) of the properties of the Fortunados , for
and in consideration of his legal services to the
latter. At the time the document was executed,
respondent knew that the abovementioned
properties were the subject of a civil pending before
the Court of First Instance of Quezon City since he
was acting as counsel for the Fortunados in said
case.In executing the document transferring onehalf (1/2) of the subject properties to himself,
respondent violated the law expressly prohibiting a
lawyer from acquiring his client's property or
interest involved in any litigation in which he may
take part by virtue of his profession. It should be
noted that the persons mentioned in Art. 1491 of
the Civil Code are prohibited from purchasing the
property mentioned therein because of their
existing trust relationship with the latter. He
reasoned that while a purchase by a lawyer of
property in litigation is void under Art. 1491 of the
Civil Code, such purchase is no longer a ground for
disciplinary action under the new Code of
Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether he violated Canon 17 stating "a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him."
HELD:
A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by
purchase the property and rights in litigation
because of his fiduciary relationship with such
property and rights, as well as with the client. It
cannot be claimed that the new Code of
Professional Responsibility has failed to emphasize
the nature and consequences of such relationship.
Canon 17 states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him."
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code are prohibited from
purchasing the property mentioned therein because
of their existing trust relationship with the latter. His
contentions that such purchase is no longer a
ground for disciplinary action under the new Code
of Professional Responsibility is unmeritorious.
Finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A.
Gonzales committed serious misconduct, the Court
Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for SIX (6) months.
SPOUSES ARANDA v. ELAYDA
(A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010)
FACTS:
The case from complaint filed by the
spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda , before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)charging their
former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda with
gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling
their case. That on February 14, 2006 hearing of
the said case Atty. Elayd] did not appear. That the
order setting this case for hearing on February 14,
2006 was sent only to Atty. Elayda and no notice
was sent to spouses Aranda that they were
unaware of said hearing and respondent never
informed them of the setting; That they were totally
unaware of said judgment as respondent had not
again lifted any single finger to inform them of such
adverse judgment and that there is a need to take a
remedial recourse thereto, they were deprived of
their right to present their evidence in the said case
and of their right to appeal because of the gross
negligence of respondent. Atty. Elayda filed his
Answer that the spouses did not bother to contact
respondent to prepare for the case and in fact on
May 30, 2005, he had to ask for postponement of
the case for reason that he still have to confer with
the spouses Aranda who were not around and that
he cannot be faulted for what had happened during
the hearing on February 14, 2006 because he was
just at the other branch of the RTC for another case
and left a message with the court stenographer to
just call him when the spouses Aranda come.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Elayda guilty of
violation of Canon 17 in relation with Canon 18 of
the Canon of professional responsibility.
HELD:
Lawyers are expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency and of
morality which includes honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and their
clients in accordance with the values and norms of
the legal profession, as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care, and devotion. Accordingly, respondent
ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of SIX (6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt
with more severely.