Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics Compiled Syllabi Final
Ethics Compiled Syllabi Final
Ethics Compiled Syllabi Final
2015) Ethics
LEGAL ETHICS
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Respondent Court Stenographer Monilla prepared an extra judicial settlement of
estate for the complainant Arienda and her siblings. In ruling that the respondent is
guilty of simple misconduct, the Supreme Court held that the preparation of an
extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes practice of law as defined in Cayetano
v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991) to wit: Practice of law means any activity, in or out
of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. - Leticia A. Arienda vs. Evelyn A. Monilla, Court
Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City, A.M. No.
P112980, June 10, 2013
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it
necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.
A lawyer who paid another with a personal check from a bank account which he
knew has already been closed exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment
to the oath he took when he joined his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the image
of the profession which he should hold in high esteem. - Cecilia A. Agno vs. Atty.
Marciano J. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14, 2008
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to
cover the same constitutes such wilful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to
undermine the public confidence in the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of
issuing worthless checks by his dire financial condition. Moya II should have
contracted debts which are beyond his financial capacity to pay. If he suffered a
reversal of fortune, he should have explained with particularity the circumstances
which cause his failure to meet his obligations. His generalized and unsubstantiated allegations as to why he reneged in the payment of his debts promptly
despite repeated demands and sufficient time afforded him cannot withstand
scrutiny. - Jerry T. Wong vs. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6972,
October 17, 2008
The Court have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for
having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the
trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good
moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a
series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent,
unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public
order. It also manifests a lawyers low regard to her commitment to the oath she has
taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of
the profession she should hold in high esteem. - Walter Wilkie vs. Atty. Sinamar
E. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008
Page 1 of 14
A lawyer has the responsibility to diligently prosecute the case of his clients to the
best of his ability within the bounds of law. A lawyer, when he undertakes his
clients cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until
its final conclusion. - Cesar Talento and Modesta Herrera Talento vs. Atty.
Agustin F. Paneda, A.C. No. 7433, December 23 2009
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 latters
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. - Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda vs. Atty.
Emmanuel F. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010
RE-ADMISSION TO THE BAR
It is well settled that the objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the
individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the
judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court.
Restorative justice, not retribution, is our goal in disciplinary proceedings. Constancia L. Valencia vs. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, A.C. No. 1302, June 30,
2008
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
By failing to comply with the conditions set for SC Circular No. 190 and violating the
provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, respondent judge failed to
conduct himself in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion. Judges are
enjoined by the Code of Judicial Conduct to regulate their extrajudicial activities in
order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. - Geronimo C.
Fuentes vs. Judge Romualdo G. Buno, A.M. No. MTJ991204, July 28, 2008
JUDICIAL ETHICS
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the timehonored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied. The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII,
mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission
within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon
3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to dispose of the courts business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the
disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court. - Re:
Judicial Audit Conducted In The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14,
Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14
Judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.
They are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Heirs of the Late Rev.
Fr. Jose O. Aspiras vs. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Agoo, La Union, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055,
December 17, 2009
The Rules of Court expressly prohibits the grant of preliminary injunction without
hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. In this case,
the judge has issued an order which was in effect a TRO ex parte in violation of the
rules, and thus, is found guilty of ignorance of law. - Mayor Hadji Amer R.
Sampiano, Somer Abdullah, Salic Tampugao, Anthony Abi, Saga Pole Inog,
Tororac Domato, King Maronsing, Margarita Solaiman, Hadji Acmad
Mamenting and Billie Jai Laine T. Ogka vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, Acting
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malabang, Lanao del Sur,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953, December 21, 2009
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the
law, high standards are expected of them. They are duty-bound to know and to
comply with the very basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of
execution. - Emma B. Ramos vs. Apollo R. Ragot, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Gingoog City, A.M. No. P-09-2600, December 23 2009
Absent any evidence showing outright bad faith, a judge should not be held liable
for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Thus, for committing acts that
manifested poor judgment and negligence, he is only guilty of simple misconduct
and a penalty of suspension for a period of three months shall be imposed upon
him. - Walter J. Aragones vs. Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Municipal Trial Court,
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752, March 10, 2010
A judge must not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor of a speedy
but reckless disposition of a case. A prudent judge should have ascertained the
facts before reaching conclusions and issuing orders. Thus, a judge is liable for
simple negligence in dismissing a case due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff on
the scheduled date for mediation, the latter being declared a regular holiday and
despite the request for the resetting of the same. - Cecilia Gadrinab Senarlo vs.
Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga, RTC, Branch 38, Cagayan De Oro City, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-2025, April 5, 2010
Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and
observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases
erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards
and brings it into disrepute. However, in imposing the penalty of fine, other
circumstances may be considered such as the judges continuous service in the
judiciary, his avowed dire need of funds, and his expressed willingness to abide by
whatever penalty the Court may impose upon him. - Re: Cases Submitted for
Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14
Page 9 of 14
The rule is that those involved in the administration of justice from the highest
official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and
integrity in the public service. As an officer of the court, Valente was duty-bound to
use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of her officially-designated
duties as clerk of court. If indeed Panaligan was at the MCTC office and was
personally furnished a copy of the notice of hearing by Valente herself, then Valente
should have required Panaligan to sign the original copy of said notice as proof of
receipt. Valentes failure to secure Panaligans signature as proof of receipt of a
copy of the notice of hearing exhibited lack of due diligence required by her position
as Clerk of Court. - Anecita Panaligan vs. Ethelda B. Valente, Clerk of Court II,
3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Patnogon, Antique, A.M. No. P-11-2952,
July 30, 2012
The Court holds that the mistakes or errors in the contents of the orders, subpoena,
and Minutes of the Hearing committed by respondents Lagman (Legal Researcher)
and Bassig (Stenographer) could be attributed to their lack of attention or focus on
the task at hand. These could have easily been avoided had they exercised greater
care and diligence in the performance of their duties. We find respondents Lagman
and Bassig liable for simple neglect of duty. - Memoranda of Judge Eliza B. Yu
issued to Legal Researcher Mariejoy P. Lagman and to Court Stenographer
Soledad J. Bassig, all of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City,
A.M. No. P-12-3033, August 15, 2012
Neither the Rules nor jurisprudence recognizes any exception from the periodic
filing of reports by sheriffs as pursuant to Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court.
If only Sheriff Roxas submitted such periodic reports, he could have brought his
predicament to the attention of the RTC and FGU and he could have given the RTC
and FGU the opportunity to act and/or move to address the same. - Astorga and
Repol Law Offices, represented Atty. Arnold B. Lugares vs. Leodel N.
Roxas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, A.M. No. P12-3029, August 15, 2012
Page 10 of 14
Judges should remember that they must not only avoid impropriety, but the
"appearance of impropriety" as well.
Also, the previous Code of Judicial Conduct specifically warned the judges against
seeking publicity for personal vainglory. Vainglory, in its ordinary meaning, refers to
an individuals excessive or ostentatious pride especially in ones own
achievements. - Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug vs. Judge Erwin
B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental, A.M.
No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012
When a motion to quash a writ of execution was filed by the petitioner and such
motion was already set for a hearing, the Court ruled that the prudent course of
action of the Sheriff was to defer implementation of the writ of execution until a
determination of the motion to quash. However, when a motion to quash the Writ
was just filed and was not yet even set for hearing, in the absence of a court order,
Sheriff has to proceed without haste and to employ such means as necessary to
implement the subject Writ of Execution and to put complainant in possession of the
disputed properties.
Also, it is worthy to note that once the RTC has rendered a decision in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, such decision shall, under Rule 70, Section 2120 of the
Rules of Court, be immediately executory, without prejudice to an appeal via
petition for review before the Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court. The decision
of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a
further appeal that may be taken therefrom. - Lucia Nazar Vda. De Feliciano vs.
Romeo L. Rivera, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of
Court, Valenzuela City, A.M. No. P-11-2920 September 19, 2012
In this case, there is absolutely no showing that Judge Sario was motivated by bad
faith or ill motive in rendering the decision in Civil Case No. CEB27778. Thus, any
error Judge Sario may have committed in dismissing Civil Case No. CEB-27778 may
be corrected by filing an appeal of respondents decision before the Court of
Appeals, not by instituting an administrative case against the respondent before
this Court. Moreover, records show that Magdadaro did file an appeal before the
Court of Appeals. Said appeal, is still pending before the appellate court. An
administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with
the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or
judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial
review where such review is available to aggrieved parties and the same has not
yet been resolved with finality. For until there is a final declaration by the appellate
court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be
no basis to conclude whether respondent judge is administratively liable. Marcelino Magdadaro vs. Judge Bienvenido Saniel, Jr., A.M. NO. RTJ-122331, December 10, 2012
Page 11 of 14
As clerk of Court and administrative assistant of the judge, one is tasked is tasked to
keep a calendar of cases for pre-trial, trial, and those with motions to set for hearing
and to give preference to habeas corpus cases, election cases, special civil actions,
and those required by law. Here, the clerk of court showed carelessness and
indifference in the performance of his duties. He cannot simply reason that he had
nothing to do with the resetting and the setting of the hearings. That is an
unacceptable excuse, especially in light of Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel which requires that court personnel shall at all times
perform official duties properly and diligently. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon
the clerk of court to regularly check not only the status of the cases but also the
functions of the other court personnel and employees under his supervision. - Raul
K. San Buenaventura vs. Timoteo A. Migrino, Clerk of Court III,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, Pasig City, A.M. No. P-08-2574,
January 22, 2014
Page 12 of 14
A judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the
resolution of the Supreme Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.
Thus, when it took three directives and three years for a judge to submit his
Comment on an administrative matter against him and another, and failure to offer
any apology and/or explanation for his long delay in complying with the
directives/orders of the OCA and this Court, said conduct constitutes no less than a
clear act of defiance, revealing the judges deliberate disrespect and indifference to
the authority of the Court. It is completely unacceptable especially for a judge. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon. Cader P. Indar, Al Haj, Presiding
Judge and Abdulrahman D. Piang, Process Server, Branch 14, Both of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2287,
January 22, 2014
This Court has always emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the
constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. Any delay in the administration of justice,
no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his
case. Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it undermines the
peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it to
disrepute. A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day
requirement he/she should instead persevere in its implementation. Heavy
caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the
mandatory period for disposition of cases. The Court usually allows reasonable
extensions of time to decide cases in view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts.
If a judge is unable to comply with the 90day reglementary period for deciding
cases or matters, he/she can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such
request is generally granted. But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in
any of these cases. Having failed to decide a case within the required period,
without any order of extension granted by the Court, Judge Bustamante is liable for
undue delay that merits administrative sanction. In Office of the Court Administrator
v. Garcia-Blanco, the Court held that the 90-day reglementary period is mandatory.
Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a ground for
administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay. - Office of
Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14