2006 Legal Ethics Case Digest

MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his
indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It
was dishonored because the account against which is drawn is closed.
Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended
the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October
2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the
records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of
the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report
regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a
Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having
been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a
commercial document.

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of

checks drawn against a closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at
the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or
credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and
Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be
sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a
suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the
instant case, however, herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty
by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a
crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely
suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly
fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are
constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that
disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a
crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment
Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no
longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been

executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent

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

Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

AC-5365. April 27, 2005

Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes
for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty.
Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different
maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case
for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file
a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar
Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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

Held: Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with

conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the
law, but also known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oathbound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible
norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the
quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.
By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the
rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
publics faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of
Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act
of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to
be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of
falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices
that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The
standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely
enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the
depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law
to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is
reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of
one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely
from the practice of law effective immediately.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS vs. Atty. MACARIO D.

ARQUILLO
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts: Atty. Macatrio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case

before the before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional
Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants accuse
Atty. Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his
oath as attorney by representing conflicting interests. The case was filed with
the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the
charge and recommended a penalty of suspension for 6 months. The
governors of the IBP increased the penalty for 2 years.

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

Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe

candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their
clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests,
except with all the concerned clients written consent, given after a full
disclosure of the facts. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing
parties, there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined
by three separate tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is
required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for
another client; (2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an
attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when
called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge

acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of

a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorneys duty to give
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney
cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on
public policy that a lawyers representation of both sides of an issue is highly
improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with
respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It
applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.
In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended
for 1 year from the practice of law.

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA.

A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005

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

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

Held: Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass

the court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their
employment serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, they constitute direct
contempt of court or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the lawyers
oath and a transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As officer
of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of
the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.[24]
No less must this be and with greater reasons in the case of the countrys
highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last bulwark of justice and
democracy
Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to

the administration of justice, to which his clients success is wholly

subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascription can hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of
judicial forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a treasured
tradition that must at no time be lost to it. Hence, Atty. Sorreda has
transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and constructive
criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Free
expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones irrational
obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its
magistrates. Thus, ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is found guilty both of contempt
of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to
gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

Heirs of Herman Rey, represented by ARACELI Vda. DE ROMERO vs. Atty.

Venancio Reyes, Jr.
A.C. No. 6192 June 23, 2005

Facts: Atty. Venancio Reyes is counsel for Heirs of Herman Rey for which they
are intervenors in a civil case involving multiple sale of a piece of land. There
were three buyers however, and to settle the case, they had agreed to a
Compromise Agreement. The Compromise Agreement, dated June 16, 1995,
was signed in three stages, first by Elizabeth Reyes and her husband, then by
complainants and their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr., and last, by Antonio
Gonzales, Veronica Gonzales for and on behalf of V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc.
and by herein respondent. Later, the RTC which houses the records of the
case was destroyed by fire, thus The complainants filed a motion for
reconstitution of the records of the case, which was granted by the RTC of
Bulacan. The documents attached to the motion were the basis for the
reconstituted records. Because of the circumstances of signing of the
Compromise Agreement, the copy submitted to the RTC bore only the
signatures of Elizabeth Reyes, her husband, complainants, and that of their
counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte. After a lapse of two (2) years from the date of
the Compromise Agreement, V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. still has not
complied with its obligation toward complainants. Hence, complainants filed a
motion for issuance of writ of execution against V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc.
for such failure. Atty. Reyes filed a motion for the case was premature. Later
he raised the issue that the Compromise Agreement was not valid since it
was not signed by Veronica Gonzales. Hence, the RTC rued that the
Compromise as unenforceable. Thus, herein, complainants filed this

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

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

Held: Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon

taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of
law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as the
parties representatives but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus,
their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. In assailing the
legality of the Compromise Agreement, he claims good faith. He maintains
that he should not be faulted for raising an allegedly valid defense to protect
his clients interests. The records show, however, that his actions bear
hallmarks of dishonesty and doublespeak. Atty. Reyes is one of negotiating
panel in the compromise agreement. He impressed upon the parties and the
trial judge that his clients were bound to the Compromise Agreement. Then,
suddenly and conveniently, he repudiated it by falsely alleging that one of his
clients had never signed it. True, lawyers are obliged to present every
available remedy or defense to support the cause of their clients. However,
their fidelity to their causes must always be made within the parameters of
law and ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice. In Choa v.
Chiongson this principle was explained thus: While a lawyer owes absolute
fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of the law Thus, herein, Atty. Venancio Reyes, was ordered
suspended for 1 year.

JESUS M. FERRER vs. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN

A.C. No. 6590. June 27, 2005

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

Atty. Tebelin alleging that the said lawyer abandoned his case. However, Atty.
Tebelin expressed his willingness to return the money and denied having
abandoned the case. However, during the proceedings, herein Ferrer died.
Atty. Tebelin was nowhere to be found in his given address.

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

Held: The court held that Atty. Tebelin may still be held liable despite the
death of the complainant. The death of a complainant in an administrative
case notwithstanding, the case may still proceed and be resolved. As in the
case of Tudtud v. Colifores, the court ruled that The death of the complainant
herein does not warrant the non-pursuance of the charges against
respondent Judge. In administrative cases against public officers and
employees, the complainants are, in a real sense, only witnesses. Hence, the
unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an administrative
complaint, or even his death, as in the case at bar, does not prevent the
Court from imposing sanctions upon the parties subject to its administrative
supervision. This Court also finds respondent, for ignoring the notices of
hearing sent to him at his address which he himself furnished, or to notify the
IBP-CBD his new address if indeed he had moved out of his given address. His
actuation betrays his lack of courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer. This
Court faults respondent too for welting on his manifestation-undertaking to
return the P5,000.00, not to mention the documents bearing on the case, to
complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his reckless disregard of the
duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the
client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.
Thus, the court suspended Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin from the practice of law
for Two (2) Months and is ordered to return to complainants heirs the amount
of P5, 000.00, with legal interest.

JUDGES; UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING JUDGMENT , A VIOLATION OF RULE 70

SECTION 11 OF THE RULES OF COURT
DORCAS PETALLAR VS. JUDGE JAUNILLO PULLOS

A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484. January 15, 2004

Facts: Complainant Dorcas Petallar averred that after the preliminary

conference in a case for forcible entry, he, as plaintiff and the defendants
were ordered to submit their respective position papers and evidence. Two
months from the submission of their position papers, complainant personally
went to the Court to verify the judgment had been rendered. He caused his
lawyer to file a motion for rendition of judgment which was duly received by
the court on August 6, 2001 but still no judgment was rendered on December
27, 2001 when the complaint was filed. Hence, complainant Petallar charged
Judge Juanillo Pullos, former presiding judge of the MCTC of Surigao del Norte
of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.02 & Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct as well as Rule 140, Section 4 & Rule 70, Section 10 & 11 of the
Rules of the Court for undue delay in rendering a decision in a case for
forcibly entry.

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

Held: Respondent is guilty of undue delay in rendering judgment. The records

show that the parties had filed their respective position papers as early as
February 2, 2000. thus, respondent had until March 4, 2000. Had there been
circumstances which presented him from handling down his decision within
the prescribed period, respondent should have at least requested from the
Court for an extension within which to render judgment. Failure to resolve
cases submitted for decisions within the period fixed by law constitutes
serious violation of Article III, section 16 of the Constitution. Judges must
perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the
judiciary is to be preserved. A judge cannot by himself prolong the period for
deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without any order of extension
granted by the court, failure to decide a case within the prescribed period
constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT; FORMAL INVESTIGATION

MERCEDES NAVA VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN SORONGON
AC No. 5442. January 26, 2004

Facts: Respondent Atty. Sorongon had been the counsel of complainant

Mercedes Nava for years. The former informed her of his intention to
withdraw as her counsel in two of her cases due to a stroke that paralyzed his
right body but proposed to be retained in two other criminal cases with lesser
paper works. He filed his withdrawal on December 4, 1996 and was granted
by the court. Complainant alleged that while she continuously paid for the
respondents services, the latter represented other clients with hostile
interests and cases filed against her. Complainant cried that respondent
assisted one Francisco Atas in filing a formal complaint for 11 counts of
violation of B.P. 22 against her. She sent a letter to respondents expressing
her disbelief and reminding him of his ethical and moral responsibility as a
lawyer. Complainant prayed that an investigation be conducted regarding this
unfortunate actuation and deplorable behavior as well as respondents
double standard attitude.
Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a resolution
suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year considering his
clear violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interest.

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

disbarment.

Held: In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory

requirement. The court may dispense with the normal referral to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines if the records are complete and the question
raised is simple. Similarly, if no further, factual determination is necessary,
the court may decide the case on the basis of the extensive pleading on
record.
Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the
Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in
merit, it out rightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it
necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter
could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a
referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which
the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte
investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite
reasonable notice.

ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS

GROUND FOR DISBARMENT
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO
and MARICRIS VILLARIN
AC No. 4256. February 13, 2004

Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between

her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and
concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy
of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they
were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the
complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution,
complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with
notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was
required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents under
pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents
address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both
respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be
disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was
returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the
resolution requiring comment was never deemed served upon her as it was
upon Atty. Alejandro.

Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit

relationship with another woman are grounds for disbarment.

Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully

married to complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent
Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he
co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as member of the
bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons
his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who
had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro
even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.

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

VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; FAILURE OF

COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEF
BIOMIE SARENAS-OCHAGABIA VS. ATTY. BALMES OCAMPOS
AM No. 4401. January 29, 2004

Facts: Complainant Biomie Sarenas-Ochagabia and her aunts engaged the

services of respondent Atty. Balmes Ocampos in a civil case for recovery of
possession and ownership of a parcel of land. An adverse decision was
rendered against complainants. Atty. Ocampos filed a Notice of Appeal at
their behest. The Court of Appeals gave them 45 days from notice to file their
brief but Atty. Ocampos was granted a 90-day extension. The extended
period lapsed without an appellants brief being filed, hence their appeal was
dismissed. The dismissal was not challenged, but complainants filed a
complaint contending that respondent violated his duty to inform them of his
failure to file appellants brief and of the dismissal of the appeal.

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

Held: A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility

of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence. By failing to file
appellants brief, respondent was remiss in the discharge of such
responsibility. He thus violated the Code of Professional which states:
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after attaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
That respondent accepted to represent complainants gratis et amore does
not justify his failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty.
Every case deserves full attention, diligence, and competence regardless of
its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free.

Until his final release from the professional relation with a client, a counsel of
record is under obligation to protect the clients interest. If a party has a
counsel of record, a court does not recognize any other representation in
behalf thereof unless in collaboration with such counsel of record or until a
formal substitution of counsel is effected. Since respondent had not then
withdrawn as counsel as he in fact filed a motion for extension of time to file
brief, he was under obligation to discharge his professional responsibility.
POSTED BY UNC BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2007 AT 3:16 AM
1 COMMENT:

Pat said...
Disbarment from law should be the least of worry by attorneys who commit
larceny, embezzlement, and murder, or aid those who do.

The ABA is critically remiss in allowing attorneys the mere penalty of

disbarment while other citizens face the severity of a legal system attorneys
are bound to honor. Dishonor may be grounds for disbarment, but
knowledgeable illegality should be grounds for ordinary criminal application
of laws. In addition, practiced against clients, it should and could be tortious
and abusive, given the structure of the profession and code of ethics to which
all are bound.