2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
JOFREY Q. BOTOR, JR.
/ Legal Ethics /
1
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /
Henry G. Funda, Jr.
Maricon Jaranilla
Lawyerly
Project Jurisprudence
SCRIBD
Supreme Court E-Library
/ Legal Ethics /
2
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
SUMMARY
ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR. vs. AFP
The confidentiality rule requires only that "proceedings against attorneys" be kept
private and confidential. It is the proceedings against attorneys that must be kept
private and confidential. This would necessarily prohibit the distribution of actual
disbarment complaints to the press. However, the rule does not extend so far that it
covers the mere existence or pendency of disciplinary actions.
Some cases are more public than others, because of the subject matter, or the
personalities involved. Some are deliberately conducted in the public as a matter of
strategy. A lawyer who regularly seeks attention and readily welcomes, if not invites,
media coverage, cannot expect to be totally sheltered from public interest, himself.
ATTY. JOSELITA C. MALIBAGO-SANTOS vs. JUANITO B. FRANCISCO, JR.
Those serving in the judiciary must carry the heavy burden and duty of preserving
public faith in our courts and justice system by maintaining high ethical standards.
They must stand as "examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they
must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence since they are officers
of the court and agents of the law." We do not tolerate any misconduct that tarnishes
the judiciary's integrity.
PNB vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE IRENEO AND CARIDAD ENTAPA
We take this opportunity to remind judges and justices of their solemn duty to uphold
and defend the Constitution and the principles it embodies. This duty is so basic that
it appears in the Oath of Office of every public officer and employee and is stated only
in the third whereas clause of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. When the law is
basic and the rules are elementary, the duty of a judge is simply to apply it. Failure
to do so constitutes gross ignorance of the law. It entails additional expenses on the
part of the party-litigants and creates an undeserved public impression of the lack of
competence of the entire judiciary.
SIMEON TRINIDAD PIEDAD vs. CANDELARIA LINEHAN BOBILLES
Counsels for respondents are reminded that as officers of the law, they are mandated
by Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to "not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes." While counsels for
respondents are expected to serve their clients to the utmost of their ability, their
/ Legal Ethics /
3
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
duty to their clients does not include disrespecting the law by scheming to impede
the execution of a final and executory judgment. As members of the Bar, counsels
for respondents are enjoined to represent their clients "with zeal within the bounds
of the law."
JUN B. LUNA vs. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA
Lawyers should maintain, at all times, "a high standard of legal proficiency, morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society,
the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and
norms embodied in the Code [of Professional Responsibility]."
Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves "according to the best of
[their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
[their] clients[,]" and to "delay no man for money or malice[.]"
These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients considering
the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship. Clients entrust their causes—life,
liberty, and property—to their lawyers, certain that this confidence would not be
abused.
This court has held that "any money collected for the client or other trust property
coming into the lawyer's possession should promptly be reported by him [or her]. In
several cases, we have disciplined lawyers who failed or refused to remit amounts
received for and on behalf of their clients. "The penalty for violation of Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility usually ranges from suspension for six
months,
to
suspension
for
one
year,
or
two
years,
and
even
disbarment[,]" depending on the circumstances of each case.
Administrative proceedings require only substantial evidence. This court accepts and
adopts the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, but
with modification increasing the period of suspension from the practice of law to two
(2) years considering that respondent Atty. Galarrita not only compromised litigation
without complainant Luna's consent, but also refused to turn over the settlement
proceeds to date.
The "[disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not involve a trial of an action, but
rather investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its officers." Thus,
disciplinary proceedings are limited to a determination of "whether or not the
attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar."
/ Legal Ethics /
4
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
Later jurisprudence clarified that this rule excluding civil liability determination from
disciplinary proceedings "remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are
purely civil in nature — for instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the
lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct [from] and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement." This court has thus ordered in
administrative proceedings the return of amounts representing legal fees.
This court has also ordered restitution as concomitant relief in administrative
proceedings when respondent's civil liability was already established.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. IMELDA R. MARCOS
This Court will not require a judge to inhibit himself in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that he will dispense justice in
accordance with law and evidence. This Court will also not allow itself to become an
instrument to paper over fatal errors done by the petitioner and the prosecution in
the lower court.
If it is true that Judge Pampilo told news reporters that he was expecting the Court
of Appeals Temporary Restraining Order to be lifted within the day, this could suggest
that Judge Pampilo was coordinating with respondent Imelda's lawyers. However, no
evidence was presented to support this allegation. Allegation does not substitute
proof, so this claim must be rejected.
This petition arose from what appears to have been such an important case for the
government, which involves accountability for millions of pesos spirited away by
respondent, filed in the lower court. Yet, it appears that the government's resolve to
prosecute has been lackadaisical, to say the least. The prosecution and their witness
appear to have requested several postponements on grounds which, to this Court,
do not outweigh the grave public interest suggested by the various Informations filed
against respondent.
The lower court's liberality in granting the various continuances does not seem to
have been met by the presentation of evidence with a depth and quality that would
have shown the diligence and seriousness of the prosecution.
Prosecutors for the government should always remember that their work does not
end with public announcements relating to the filing of Informations against those
who have committed nefarious raids on our public coffers. Their work is to
professionally present the evidence marshalled through painstaking and fastidious
investigation. Prosecutors should avoid the soundbite that will land them the
/ Legal Ethics /
5
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
headlines in all forms of media. Instead, they should do their work and attain justice
and reparations for our people wronged by selfish conniving politicians who do not
deserve their public offices.
Apathetic prosecution allows impunity. It is difficult as enough as it is to discover
wrongdoing, protect key witnesses, preserve the evidence, and guard against the
machinations of powerful and moneyed individuals. Prosecutors must not only be
courageous but must also show their dedication to public interest through their
competence. Otherwise, the system will invite suspicion that there had been unholy
collusion.
Fatal errors that should have been avoided by veteran litigators, such as a habit of
postponements and a lack of preparation, cannot be papered over by a labyrinth of
appeals that reaches this Court. That is a fool's strategy that will only contribute to
increasing the dockets of this Court, thereby denying time and resources from
deserving petitioners.
The prosecution could have done better in this case. Sadly, it failed.
/ Legal Ethics /
6
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
CASE DIGESTS
TERESITA P. FAJARDO vs. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ
Summary: Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the
practice of their profession. Respondent violated the oath he took when he proposed
to gain a favorable outcome for complainant's case by resorting to his influence
among staff in the Office where the case was pending.
FACTS: Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of
San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty.
Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental
Health. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did
not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings.
Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez
said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and
acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against
Teresita dismissed.
However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of the
Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending the filing of a criminal
complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively.
Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount
she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed
to fulfill this promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he failed
to heed.
ISSUES: First, whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as a lawyer working in
the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of
Health, is authorized to engage in the private practice of law.
Second, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable
under the principle of quantum meruit.
HELD: We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.
Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the context of this
/ Legal Ethics /
7
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
case, his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only did he do unauthorized
practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in the Office of the
Ombudsman.
In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National
Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of
Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of 1999.
However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman
and against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict
of interest.
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the
requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center
and the Philippine government as a whole There is basic conflict of interest here.
Respondent is a public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the
Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the Office of the
Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same employer he swore to serve.
Likewise, we find that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it
appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who
could help them get a favorable decision in complainant's case.
Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules
1.01, and 1.02 prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct. Respondent's act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed
because of his personal relationships with officers or employees in the Office of the
Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires lawyers to always "uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession."
In relation, Canon 13 mandates that lawyers "shall rely upon the merits of his [or
her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court."
A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a favorable
outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
/ Legal Ethics /
8
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the
records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence
peddling.
Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of P500,000.00 with
legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.
/ Legal Ethics /
9
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
DAVID YU KIMTENG vs. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG
Summary: A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who
appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits indirect
contempt of court.
FACTS: Through this Petition, petitioners ask that law firm, Young Revilla Gambol &
Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo), be cited in contempt of court under
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (Revilla) was disbarred on
December 2009 in an En Banc Resolution of the court in A.C. No. 7054 entitled Que
v. Atty. Revilla, Jr.
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply to the Opposition stating that the firm
opted to retain Revilla's name in the firm name even after he had been disbarred,
with the retention serving as an act of charity. Judge Calo overruled the opposition
to the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty. Young could
still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law
Firm and not under Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. However, Young Law Firm does
not exist.
On April 16, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Reply. This
was granted in the Resolution dated June 18, 2014. In the same Resolution, the court
denied petitioners' Motion to Consider Case Submitted without Comment from Judge
Calo and ordered the parties to await Judge Calo's comment.
Counsel for petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation, informing this court that
they have yet to receive a copy of Judge Calo's Comment. No Comment was filed by
Judge Calo.
Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm is derailing the liquidation of
Ruby Industrial Corporation by filing this Petition for contempt because the Balgos
Law Firm resents that its nominee was not elected as liquidator. Private respondents
add that petitioners have continuously blocked Ruby Industrial Corporation's
unsecured creditors from obtaining relief, as shown by the number of times that Ruby
Industrial Corporation's cases have reached this court.
Moreover, Private respondents also raise the issue of forum shopping in their
Comment because petitioners allegedly filed a disbarment Complaint against them
before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines. One of
the grounds for disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of Revilla's name in their
firm name.
/ Legal Ethics /
10
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate from disciplinary action;
hence, no forum shopping was committed. Also, petitioners did not address private
respondents' allegations regarding the delay in the liquidation of Ruby Industrial
Corporation.
ISSUES: (a) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito
Gambol, and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt of court when they
continued to use respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.'s name in their firm name even
after his disbarment.
(b) Whether private respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and
Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are in contempt of court for deliberately allowing a
disbarred lawyer to engage in the practice of law.
(c) Whether private respondent Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is in contempt of court for
continuing to practice law even after disbarment.
(d) Whether public respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is in contempt of court when she
held that respondent Atty. Walter T. Young can appear in court as long as it is under
the Young Law Firm, which is a non-existent firm.
(e) Whether the filing of the Petition despite the pendency of a disbarment complaint
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines constitutes forum shopping.
HELD: (a) Respondents Atty. Walter T. Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are
found in contempt of court for using a disbarred lawyer's name in their firm name
and are meted a fine of P30,000.00 each.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself
or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt.
In this case, respondents committed acts that are considered indirect contempt under
Section 3 of Rule 71. In addition, respondents disregarded the Code of Professional
Responsibility when they retained the name of respondent Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:
/ Legal Ethics /
11
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
Rule 3.02. 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.
Respondents argue that the use of respondent Revilla's name is "no more misleading
than including the names of dead or retired partners in a law firm's name."
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is different from using a
deceased partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows the use of a
deceased partner's name as long as there is an indication that the partner is
deceased. This ensures that the public is not misled. On the other hand, the retention
of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may mislead the public into believing
that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
(b) The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is DISMISSED. This is without
prejudice to any disciplinary liabilities of respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Atty.
Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
(c) The counsels are ordered to make the necessary amendments in relation to the
use of the disbarred lawyer's name including changes in their signage, notice of
appearances, stationeries, and like material within a period of five (5) days from
receipt.
(d) The Complaint against respondent Judge Ofelia L. Calo is also ordered redocketed as an administrative matter.
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SECTION 11. The Supreme Court en bane shall have the power to discipline judges
of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, provides that
the administrative functions of this court include "disciplinary and administrative
matters involving justices, judges, and court personnel.
(e) As to the allegation of forum shopping, petitioners do not deny that they filed a
Complaint for disbarment. They argue, however, that they did not mention the
disbarment proceedings against respondents in view of Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the
Rules of Court, which states that disbarment proceedings are private and confidential.
In addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a Complaint for disbarment
are different from each other. The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the filing of the Petition for contempt under Rule
/ Legal Ethics /
12
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as: when a
party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions
and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. The
elements of forum shopping are:
(i) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions.
(ii) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts.
(iii) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered
in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata
in the action under consideration.
The Supreme court has explained that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and
are not akin to civil or criminal cases. A disbarment proceeding "is intended to cleanse
the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts." Also, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' findings are
recommendatory, and the power to sanction erring members of the bar lies with
Supreme court.
/ Legal Ethics /
13
2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
Case Digests for Bar Exams
/ Legal Ethics /
14