Cayetano vs.

Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

September 1991

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the
COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. 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: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: 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
proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the
foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice
of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily
more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
 CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Facts: Renato Cayetano questioned Christian Monsod’s nomination by President Corazon Aquino as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). Cayetano stated that Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary requirement of practicing law for at least 10
years. However, despite Cayetano’s objection, the Commission on Appointments (COA) still confirmed Monsod’s appointment.

Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming Monsod’s appointment.

Held: No. COA’s power to give consent to the nomination of the COMELEC chairman by the President is mandated by the
Constitution under Article IX, Section 1 (2), Sub Article C. It provides:

“The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members
for five years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

The power of appointment is essentially within the discretion to whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee
should possess the qualification required by law. Therefore, there is no occasion for the Supreme Court to exercise its corrective
power since COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion based on the evidence presented.
Fernandez vs Benjamin Grecia

42 SCA D 438 –Legal Ethics– Gross Misconduct.

In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who

treated her was Dr.Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home

but then

The next day she died togetherwith her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then

filed a damage suit against the hospital and heimpleaded the attending doctors which

included Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to representhim.Grecia requested

St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves. St.

Lukecomplied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the

morning of July 16, 1991,Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said

medical records. While Grecia wasexamining the said medical records, he tore in front of

the Clerk and one office staff two pages from themedical records and then handed it back

to the Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia walkaway. She then reported

the incident to the judge. The judge immediately took action and the torn pageswere

eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone

else.Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has

been disbarred before.However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court

hence he was reinstated to theprofession.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.

HELD:

Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he

should not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall

at all times uphold the integrity anddignity of the legal profession and support the activities

of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of thecourts; he is “like the court itself, an

instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice”. Considering thatthis is his second

offense, an incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited

todischarge the role of “an instrument to advance the ends of justice.” By descending to

the level of acommon thief, respondent

Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has

demonstratedhis moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of

lawyers. He has forfeited hismembership in the BAR.

A.C. No. 1392 OBUSAN v. OBUSAN 128 SCRA 485
OBUSAN v. OBUSAN

A.C. No. 1392

128 SCRA 485

April 2, 1984

FACTS: Respondent Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation, and
became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo presented to be a widow, in which they had a child named John. Later, it was
known Natividad’s marriage was still subsisting.

Four days after the birth of John, Generoso married Preciosa (petitioner) and lived for more than a year. Respondent took
a vacation in Camarines Norte but he has never returned.

Preciosa looked for him and discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad in Quezon City.

The housemaid, neighbors and several other persons known to Natividad and Obusan testified and confirmed their
relationship.

He answered that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he married Preciosa and he only goes to Quezon
City to provide financial support to Jun-Jun. He also denied the testimonies of the maid, the plumber and several other
persons and contended that he does not live together with Natividad.

He also contended that he only left the conjugal home for he cannot contain the nagging of his wife and her interference
with his professional obligations.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Obusan should be disbarred.

RULING: Yes. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar

Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning
one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within "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"

Thus, lawyer shall be disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne
him a child.
 PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN, complainant,
vs.
GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR., respondent.

Adm. Case No. 1392 April 2, 1984

FACTS:

One year before Atty. Generoso Obusan admitted in the bar, he had an affair with one Natividad Estabillo who represents
herself as a widow. This affair beget him a child until he found out that Estabillo’s marriage was yet undissolved and still
subsisting. Hence, he married Preciosa Razon.

However, the following year, Atty. Obusan disappeared, Preciosa and her mother knew all along that he was just in his
home province but only to found out that he was already cohabiting with Natividad.

This prompt Preciosa to file a case for disbarment against his husband on the ground of adultery or gross immoral
conduct. On the strenght of evidence presented, the OSG filed a complaint for his disbarment and to this, Atty. Obusan
nor his lawyer did not even dare to answer nor present their rebuttal evidence.

Supreme Court found him guilty as charge based on the evidence of the wife. She has proven that his abandonment of
her and his adulterous relations with a married woman separated from her own husband.

RULING:

Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within "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"

Thus, a lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him
a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar

WHEREFORE, respondent is disbarred. His name is stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
 PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JESUS B. TOLEDO, respondent.

A.C. No. 266 April 27, 1963

FACTS:

While Jesus Toledo was on his second year at the college of law, he married Paz Arellano. Paz sustained her education,
supported and spent for his studies. However, after passing the bar examination and becoming a full-fledged member of
the Bar he abandoned her. While working in Bureau of Mines Cagayan De Oro City, he cohabitted with another woman
with whom he begot 3 children. To this, a letter complaint praying for his disbarment was filed by his wife Paz.

As expected, all the allegations were denied technically and substantially, countered that the complaint was not in due
form, with irregularity of filing, that the children were not his, and that the witness was not credible. After due investigation,
the Solicitor general proceed with disbarment case on the ground of abandonment of his wife and immorality for
cohabiting with another woman. Appearing on his own behalf, he made cross examination of witness and filed a motion
to dismiss at the closing of the hearing without stating that he intended to present evidence in his behalf, thereby waiving
his right.

RULING:

The testimony of the two witnesses that plaintiff presented are worthy of credence.

The annexes attached to the respondent's memorandum cannot be taken into consideration for they were not properly
introduced in evidence during the investigation.

The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child,
has failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the Bar.

THEREFORE, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.

Barrientos vs. Daarol

A.C. No. 1512

Facts:

1) Victoria Barrientos, was about 20 years old during the time of her relationship with respondent; while
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol, married, General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative,
and 41 years old at the time of the said relationship.
2) That respondent is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom be has a son; and that said respondent had
been separated from his wife for about 16 years at the time of his relationship with complainant;
3) The respondent promised to marry Victoria in six months of the in relationship. However, complainant became
pregnant.
4) They agreed that complainant would deliver her child in Manila, where Daarol admitted to her that he is not
capacitated to marry because of the previous marriage. But he promised to fix things. Later on, Victoria decided
to deliver the child in Cebu City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City. During her stay here in Manila and later
in Cebu City, the respondent defrayed some of her expenses; that she filed an administrative case against
respondent with the National Electrification Administration; which complaint, however, was dismissed; and
then she instituted the present disbarment proceedings against respondent.
ISSUE:
Should Daarol be disbarred?

Holdings:

1) Victoria was never informed of the status of Daarol and was led to believ that he is single. It was deception that Daarol
promised to marry her when he knew as an Attorney that he is not capacitated to marry.
2) Daarol’s claim that he embraced the Muslim religion does not excuse him since his first marriage is under the Christian
religion, therefore it follows the Civil Code. This is also contradicting to his reason to Victoria that he will be charged with
bigamy if he marries her.
3) Grounds for his disbarment:
a) Deceit and grossly immoral conduct under Section 27 of Rule 138
b) Lack of good moral character under Section 2 of Rule 138.
155 BARRIENTOS v DAAROL

FACTS

Victoria BARRIENTOS is single, a college student and about 20 years and 7 months old during her relationship with Transfiguracion
DAVID, a lawyer and the General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative who was about 40 years old and married to
SUMAYLO.

DAVID had been known by the BARRIENTOS family for quite sometime being the former student of Victoria BARRIENTOS’ father
and a former classmate of Victoria BARRIENTOS’ mother. DAVID courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship,
BARRIENTOS accepted DAVID’S love. At this time, DAVID was separated from his wife for 16 years.

BARRIENTOS, with her parent’s permission, was DAVID’S partner during the Chamber Commerce affair. After the event
and before going home, they parked the jeep at the beach and after the usual preliminaries (what a term), they consummated
the sexual act. This was their set up until BARRIENTOS got pregnant. DAVID suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS
disagreed. During her pregnancy until she gave birth, it was BARRIENTOS’ family who took care of her.

BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case against DAVID with the National Electrification Administration which was however
dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE W/N DAVID SHOULD BE DISBARRED

HELD YES, LACK GOOD MORAL CHARACTER --- A CONTINUING REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO
PRACTICE LAW

RATIO

From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID of his real status as a married individual.
The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by DAVID only after BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, DAVID
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been separated from his wife for 16 years and even dangled a
marriage proposal.

Interestingly enough, DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same area. Moreover, he never
introduced his son and went around with his friends as though he was never married. These circumstances belie DAVID’S
claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his marital status at the very start of the courtship.

But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVID’S moral values when he said that “I see nothing wrong with this
relationship despite my being married”. Worse, he even suggested abortion.

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral fitness.
DAVID having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action ---
disbarment.
VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty Daarol, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student, single. Atty. Daarol went to her house because he was a friend
of her sister, hence they also became friends. She knew Daarol to be a single and as a General Manager of ZANECO (electic cooperative).
On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos’ house and asked her to be one of the usherettes in the Mason’s convention so the
latter said he should ask for the permission of her parents. They consented and so she served as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and
taking her home everyday.
In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioner’s house and invited her for a joy ride, with the permission of her mother (who was
Daarol’s former classmate). They went to the beach and Daarol proposed his love for Barrientos and told her that if she would accept
him, he would marry her within 6 months from her acceptance. After a few days of courting, she accepted the offer of love. Visitations
continued and they agreed to get married in Dec 1973.
In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left, he took her for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab where there
were no houses around. There, he pressured her into having sexual intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and that he would marry her
and that December was very near anyway they would marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation because she loved him. She cried
after the deed.
This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October 1973, where she consented because she loved him.
Eventually, she became pregnant and informed Daarol. He however suggested that she have the baby aborted. She refused. He told her
that she didn’t have to worry because they were getting married soon anyway.
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and told them that he could not marry her because he was
already married. He reassured them though that he has been separated from his wife for 16 years and that he would work for the
annulment of his marriage and subsequently marry her. So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually wasn’t able to contact
Daarol anymore (he went MIA).

ISSUE:
W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

HELD/RATIO:
YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even
then, respondent misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years and
dangled a marriage proposal on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first marriage. It was a deception
after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered to annul said marriage.
Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the expense of the gullible complainant. He is perverted.
He says that: "I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages
and has inquired into the possibility of marrying complainant. As records indicate, however, his claim of having embraced the Islam
religion is not supported by any evidence save that of his self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated
his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct is in order.
 AGUIRRE vs. RANA

B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003

FACTS: Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. Respondent, while not yet a lawyer,
appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon,
Masbate and filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes
in some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice
Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. Furthermore, respondent also signed as
counsel for Emily Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as
the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful
bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar. On 22 May 2001, respondent was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath but was disallowed from signing the Roll of
Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied Admission to the Bar.

RULING: Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself
"counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no
authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with
special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has
passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license. True, respondent here passed the
2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-
fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. 
 AGUIRRE VS RANA

EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ]

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant
Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not
signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election.

On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government employee, being a
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for
a client in any court or administrative body.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent
filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the
Philippine Bar

Ruling:

the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually
performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires
the use of legal knowledge or skill.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral
character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession
of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a
privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the
Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two
essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this
Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
AGUIRRE VS RANA (2003)

22 Oct 2017

Legal Ethics| Practice of Law| Signing of the Roll of Attorney’s| Oath-Taking

FACTS:
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.

A day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examiners, petitioner Donna Marie Aguirre filed a complaint charging
Rana of unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar at the PICC, however, the respondent cannot sign the Roll of
Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus, respondent passed the bar, took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled
date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys.

Petitioner alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel of a political candidate, signed pleadings as well as
represent himself as counsel in proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.

HELD:
Yes. In Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the
use of legal knowledge or skill.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with
special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal
knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust4 since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire
the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one
who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

It is true that the respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the
bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a
lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

Edwin Rana is denied Admission to the Philippine Bar.

 MAGSALANG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His counsel,
Atty. Castellano, filed for apetition for certiorari through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the
court dismissed the petition and a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the
President where he accused the five justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering
unjust judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing
the Filipinopeople genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who was
impleaded in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary
men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to show cause why he should not be
cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaint was constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the
erroneous and very strict practices of the justices concerned. He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act
and that they should just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and improper conduct and ordered to
pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months suspension.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Castellano’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of constructive
criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client. They castaspersion on the Court’s integrity as a neutral
and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies before it.

The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not render his negligence
excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members
of the Court, but his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.

As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to keep the
confidence of his client.

Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government – separation of power - has been lost.
He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass judgment on any of the Court’s acts.
Cesar Lantoria v. Atty. Irineo Bunyi (1992)

Facts:
 An administrative complaint was filed by Lantoria against Bunyi, a member of the Philippine Bar, on the ground that Bunyi
committed acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the IBP, and corruption of the
judge and bribery
 This is in relation to Bunyi’s handling of a civil case wherein Bunyi was counsel of Mrs. Mascarinas. The latter was the owner of
the farm and Lantoria is the supervisor and manager of the said farm. The 3 civil cases presided by Judge Galicia involved an
ejectment suit of squatters in the said farm. The defendants in the said cases were declared in default.
 Correspondences between Lantoria and Bunyi showed that Bunyi initially enclosed a letter in an envelope addressed to Judge
Galicia in a confidential and private manner. Judge Galicia thru the mediation of Lantoria informed Bunyi that he is willing to let
Bunyi write the decisions for th 3 civil cases. Lantoria informed the same to Bunyi which later delivered the 3 decisions thru
Lantoria.
 Three years later, Lantoria file the present case against Bunyi alleging that they won the said cases because Bunyi wrote the
decisions in those cases.
 Bunyi contends that Lantoria had knowledge of the request of Judge Galicia to Bunyi as the said judge had two salas before him.
Also, Bunyi contends that the drafting of the decision was not an idea spawned by him. Furthermore, he contends that his
participation is merely on revision.
 The solicitor general investigated the matters and found that Bunyi prepared the draft of the decisions and that he had previous
communications with the judge regarding drafting the same. Moreover, Bunyi admitted that he prepared the said decisions and
that the subject letters do exist.
 The Solicitor General found Bunyi guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an
officer of the court, to help promote the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would
influence judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. The Solicitor General recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
 Lantoria did not attend hearing of the case and later filed his withdrawal of the same. Bunyi gave an apology but he denied the
allegations of offering a gift to judge Galicia.

Issue: WON Bunyi violated the code of professional responsibility for lawyers?

Held: YES.
 The determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed notwithstanding withdrawal of complaint due to the Bunyi
having admitted that the letters in question truly exist, and that he even asked for an apology from the Court, for whatever
effects such letters had on his duty as a lawyer.
 Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on attempts to exert personal influence on the
court - A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves
rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special personal consideration or favor.
 In the new Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer's attempt to influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13
and Rule 13.01. CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges.
 Court finds Bunyi guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case. Suspended
for 1 year.