Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, AC No.

6707, March 24, 2006

Facts: In 1995, while respondent Gutierrez was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID), Petitioner Huyssen and her three sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas.
Respondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the BID they
needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year.
Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with respondent on six different
occasions the total amount of US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he received the
amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies of official receipts despite her demands. After
one year, complainant demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who assured her that said amount would
be returned. When respondent failed to return the sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant
was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the immediate return of the money. Thereafter Respondent
enclosed two blank checks postdated and authorized complainant to fill in the amounts. When complainant
deposited the postdated checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped
payment on the same. Thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant in the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint claiming that having never physically received the money
mentioned in the complaint, he could not have appropriated or pocketed the same. He said the amount was used as
payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the Philippines.

Issues: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility in allegedly committing fraud by taking advantage of his public position.

Held: Yes. Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties. It is undisputed that respondent admitted having received the US$20,000 from complainant as
shown by his signatures in the petty cash vouchers and receipts he prepared, on the false representation that that it
was needed in complainants application for visa with the BID.

The said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from
promoting their private interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value
in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his
office. Respondents conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers,
especially from one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from
any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government; he must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this
Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral
conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude ; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
authority to do so.

The practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with
his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully
perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal
profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment. Thus, Atty.
Fred L. Gutierrez is DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the
complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until payment.

Olazo vs. Justice Tinga, *AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 07, 2010

Facts: The complainant Olazo filed a sales application covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower
Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig. The land (subject land) was previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that
was segregated and declared open for disposition pursuant to Proclamation No. 172. Respondent was one of the
Committee members whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation on the applications to
purchase the lands declared open for disposition. The complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainants sales
application because of his personal interest over the subject land. It alleged that the respondent exerted undue
pressure and influence over the complainants father, for the latter to contest the complainants sales application and
claim the subject land for himself. As a result of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the complainants
sales application was denied.

Issues: Whether or not respondent used his position to interfere in the sales application and thereby violated Rule 6
of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held: No. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties. Such provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public position to: (1) promote private
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We
previously held that the restriction extends to all government lawyers who use their public offices to promote their
private interests.

In the case at bar, the Court find the absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. First, the records do not clearly show if the complainants sales application was ever
brought before the Committee on Awards. By the complaints own account, the sales application was pending before
the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR due to the conflicting claims. Since the sales application was
not brought before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member, no sufficient basis exists to
conclude that he used his position to obtain personal benefits. Second, the complainants allegation that the
respondent orchestrated the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration was undertaken.
Third, the other documents that the complainant presented to support his claim that the respondent exerted undue
pressure and influence over his father do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure or force exerted by the
respondent. As the records show, no evidence exist showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales
application and the complaint failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law.
Thus, the administrative case is dismissed.
Tan and Pagayokan vs. Balajadia, GR No. 169517, March 14, 2006

Facts: A petition for contempt was filed by petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan against
respondent Benedicto Balajadia. Petitioners allege that in 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against them with
the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city
tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners from respondent. In paragraph 5 of
the complaint-affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City. However,
certifications issued by the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines showed that
respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent is liable for
indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer. Respondent avers that the allegation in the complaint-
affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino
prepared the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos complaint-affidavit the latter
against petitioners involving the same subject matter.

Issues: Whether or not Respondent Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt in misrepresenting himself as a lawyer

Held: NO. A review of the records supports respondents claim that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer
to the public. It was a clear inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The affidavit of the secretary
attesting to the circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the
documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of
respondents complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.

In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to
practice law. He did not perform any overt act that would show his intent to represent himself as a lawyer like
signing court pleadings on behalf of his client; appearing before court hearings as an attorney; manifesting before
the court that he will practice law despite being previously denied admission to the bar; or deliberately attempting to
practice law and holding out himself as an attorney through circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to
do so. Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally
practice law. Therefore, petition is DISMISSED.

Muoz vs. CA and Delia Sutton 53 SCRA 190

Facts: Respondent Delia T. Sutton has allegedly failed to meet the test of candor and honesty required of pleaders
when, in a petition for certiorari prepared by her to review a Court of Appeals decision, she attributed to it a finding
of facts in reckless disregard, to say the least, of what in truth was its version as to what transpired. In appealing a
decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a case of homicide through reckless negligence, the respondent alleged
that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the minimum penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day imposed by the lower
court, although, in fact, minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was four(4) months of arresto mayor.
Thereafter, the Court resolved to require counsel for the petitioner to show cause, within ten (10) days from notice,
why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court otherwise she shall be subjected to disciplinary action for
making aforementioned misrepresentations.

Issues: Whether or not Respondent should be held liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilities for her misrepresentations in the appeal

Held: Yes. The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and
fairness. It is not candid or fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote the contents of a paper, the testimony of a
witness, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the language of a decision or a textbook or; with
knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a decision that has been overruled, or a statute that has been repealed;
or in argument to assert as fact that which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening
and closing arguments to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening argument upon
which his side then intends to rely. However, the "Joint Apology" thus offered by the other members of the law firm
which respondent is part of did mitigate to some extent the liability. They expressly acknowledged that what
appeared in its petition for certiorari prepared by respondent Delia T. Sutton insofar as it did misrepresent what is
set forth in the Court of Appeals decision sought to be reviewed was reprehensible, and did make with the proper
spirit of humility the necessary expression of regret. Therefore, respondent Delia T. Sutton was severely censured.

Wicker vs. Arcangel 252 SCRA 445

Facts: Kelly Wicker brought suit in the Regional Trial Court of Makati against the LFS Enterprises, Inc. and others,
for the annulment of certain deeds by which a house and lot at Forbes Park, which the plaintiffs claimed they had
purchased, was allegedly fraudulently titled in the name of the defendant LFS Enterprises and later sold by the latter
to codefendant Jose Poe. Thereafter, Wickers counsel, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition
of respondent judge from the consideration of the case. They alleged that Judge Capulong who had full grasp of this
case was eased out of his station and that the Acting Presiding Judge Arcangel was personally recruited by Atty.
Benjamin Santos and/or his wife, Atty. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos. In one hearing, the Acting Presiding Judge had not
yet reported to his station and in that set hearing, counsel for defendant LFS Enterprises, Inc. who must have known
that His Honor was not reporting did not likewise appear while other counsels were present. This resulted to doubts
on the partiality and integrity of the Presiding Judge and complainants assert that he should immediately move for
his inhibition. Considering the allegations to be malicious, derogatory and contemptuous, respondent judge ordered
both counsel and client to appear before him. Atty. Rayos claimed that the allegations in the motion did not
necessarily express his views because he merely signed the motion in a representative capacity, in other words, just
lawyering, for Kelly Wicker, who said in a note to him that a young man possibly employed by the Court had
advised him to have the case reraffled. Finding petitioners explanation unsatisfactory, respondent judge held them
guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P100.00.

Issues: Whether or not petitioner and his counsel should be held guilty of contempt

Held: Yes. The allegations are derogatory to the integrity and honor of respondent judge and constitute an
unwarranted criticism of the administration of justice in this country. They suggest that lawyers, if they are well
connected, can manipulate the assignment of judges to their advantage. The truth is that the assignments of Judges
Arcangel and Capulong were made by this Court, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 154-93, precisely in the
interest of an efficient administration of justice and pursuant to Sec. 5 (3), Art. VIII of the Constitution. Atty. Rayos
claims that he merely did what he had been bidden to do by his client of whom he was merely a mouthpiece is
untenable. Based on Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rayos bears as much responsibility
for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhibition as his client. His duty to the courts is not secondary to
that of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins him to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct by others and not to attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have materiality to the case.

However, the Court believes that consistent with the rule that the power to cite for contempt must be exercised for
preservative rather than vindictive principle and the jail sentence on petitioners may be dispensed with while
vindicating the dignity of the court. Therefore, the ruling against petitioners is modified by DELETING the sentence
of imprisonment for five (5) days and INCREASING the fine from P 100.00 to P200.00 for each of the petitioners.
Bondoc v. Judge Simbulan

Facts: Juan Pablo P. Bondoc (complainant) charged Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan (respondent) with
partiality, gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct in the handling the Criminal Case of "People of the
Philippines v. Salvador Totaan and Flordeliz Totaan. The complainant alleged that during the initial pre-trial
conference on June 16, 2003, the respondent asked the lawyers of the parties "to approach the bench and suggested
that the cases be settled because she did not want the accused (the spouses Totaan) to be administratively suspended.
The complainant further alleged that the respondent strongly requested the complainants counsel to exert all efforts
to convince the complainant and his family to settle the cases. Also, the complainant claimed that aside from
showing partiality, bias, concern, sympathy and inclination in favor of the accused, the respondent humiliated Atty.
Lanee David (wife of Private Prosecutor Stephen David, was co-counsel for complainant in the criminal cases) in
open court. Lastly, the complainant alleged that the bias, partiality, prejudice and inclination of the respondent for
the accused culminated in her order on the demurrer to evidence dismissing the charges against the accused despite
the fact that the prosecution was able to prove by testimonial and documentary evidence the irregularities committed
by the accused, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Salvador Totaan and Senior Agrarian Reform Technologist
Flordeliz Totaan; they processed and approved the applications of at least thirteen (13) persons who were not
qualified to become farmer-beneficiaries as they were neither farmers nor residents of the barangay or the
municipality where the subject property is located.

The respondent submitted her comment and pointed out that an examination of the complaint would readily show
that it was prepared by the private prosecutors. She denied brokering a settlement of the cases and fast-tracking the
hearing of the cases in favor of the accused as her only objective was to have a weekly hearing. The respondent
likewise denied the charge of partiality for her failure to act on the suspension of the accused, contending that it was
the duty of the private prosecutors to file a motion to cite the responsible heads of the government agencies for
indirect contempt for their failure to implement lawful orders of the court. She claimed that in the absence of such
motion, she assumed that the accused had already been preventively suspended.

Issues: Whether or not Attys. Stephen David and Lanee David be held liable for contempt of court

Held: Yes. The allegations in the complaint were unfounded and baseless and should be dismissed. Other than the
bare allegations of the complainant, no proof was presented to corroborate the charge that the respondent sought to
have the criminal cases settled; neither was there a showing that the respondent fast tracked the cases to favor the
accused. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. While the complaint
was filed in the name of former Representative Juan Pablo P. Bondoc, he never really appeared in court and it is
reasonable to conclude that the two lawyers crafted the complaint and incorporated therein all the unfounded
accusations against the respondent in order to conceal their inadequacies in the handling of their clients cases. The
defense of Attys. Stephen and Lanee David that what they did is just a consequence of their commitment to their
client can hardly exculpate them as a clients cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line between liberty and
license. Lawyers must always keep in perspective that since they are administrators of justice, oath-bound servants
of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, but to the administration of justice. As a lawyer, he
is an officer of the court with the duty to uphold its dignity and authority and not promote distrust in the
administration of justice

Thus, Attys. Stephen L. David and Lanee S. Cui-David GUILTYof Indirect Contempt and accordingly impose on
each of them the FINE of P2,500.00 with the STERN WARNING that a commission of a similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.