CASTRO V. GALING (A.C. NO.

6174 NOVEMBER 16, 2011)

FACTS:

In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection
with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional
fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.Respondent advised
complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation that was
filed for the respondent on behalf of the opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting
interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a demand letter
for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason
of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the
services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of
another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A.
Ao.respondent stated that the movants in these cases are mother and daughter while complainants are likewise
mother and daughter and that these cases arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants
will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered.
Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the
practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his
daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure

of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a
controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant and
respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant sought legal advice from respondent
regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The
fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually
engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of
the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence

of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.The excuse proffered by
respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him
from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause
of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not
only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client
relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to
be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP,respondent is suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year.
DEL MUNDO V. ATTY. CAPISTRANO (A.C. 6903, APRIL 2012)

FACTS:

An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Suzette Del Mundo charging respondent Atty.
Arnel C. Capistrano of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend
Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their
respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement2
was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00,
appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano
allegedly advised her to prepare an additional amount as payment for the filing fee, summons, fiscals, psychiatrist
and commissioner.In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of
PhP78,500.00.For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her
case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court
of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and
discovered that no petition has yet been filed for her. Suzette called for a conference where she demanded the
refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of
PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparans case, to which she
agreed.However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 thereafter, refused to communicate
with her.

In the Report and Recommendation dated April 11, 2007, the IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found
that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and
to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the
amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation
and Petition for Review,he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzettes case as well as to account and
return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention
to breach his lawyers oath; that this is his first offense; and that his profession is the only means of his and his
familys livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00
representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.Respondent
Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.when
a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights.
Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the
legal profession, the courts and society.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality,
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing and should act in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this standard is subject for
discipline by the court by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in
consideration of the surrounding facts.

They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance
with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, has SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely and he is ordered to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full
amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days.
BELLEZA V MACASA A.C. NO. 7815, JULY 23, 2009

FACT:

Complainant went to see respondent to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son
who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for ₱30,000. The following day, complainant made a partial payment to
respondent thru their mutual friend. She gave him an additional ₱10,000 and ₱5,000 as payment for the balance.
Both payments were also made thru Chua. Respondent received ₱18,000 from complainant for the purpose of
posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. When complainant went to the court
the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant demanded the
return of the ₱18,000 from respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent
failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against
respondent in the Negros Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. IBP Negros Occidental
chapter transmitted the complaint to the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline. The CBD required respondent to
submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to
file an answer for three times but failed to send an answer. In its report and recommendation the CBD ruled that
respondent failed to rebut the charges against him. He never answered the complaint despite several chances to
do so. The CBD found respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent violated his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and must be barred to
practice law.

HELD:

Yes, the court affirmed the CBD’s finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors but we modify the
IBP’s recommendation as to the liability of respondent. The Respondent disrespected the legal processes.
Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed
indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusations of professional misconduct
against him. Respondent grossly neglected the cause of his client. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal
case against complainant’s son, but neglected them. A lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations
arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice
the rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a
lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical. Respondent failed to
return his Client’s money. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such
as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the client
how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it
to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the
money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him. Instead of using the money for the bond
of the complainant’s son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his
client.34 He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that
he would facilitate the release of complainant’s son, respondent showed lack of moral principles. His transgression
showed him to be a swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the legal profession. Therefore considering all the
violation and infraction of the respondent, the court DISBARRED him from the practice of law.
BOBBY ROSE FRIAS VS. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA

A.C. NO. 6656

(FORMERLY CBD-98-591)

MAY 4, 2006

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was formerly found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision of the Court of
Appeals. She was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Court, contending that, pursuant to Rule VIII of
the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
the complaint against her was already barred by prescription. She also asserts that her December 7, 1990 loan
agreement with complainant complied with Rule 16.04 because the interest of complainant was fully protected.

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not the administrative complaint is barred by prescription?

b. Whether or not Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP is valid?

RULING: a. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP provides:

SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2)
years from the date of the professional misconduct.

However, as early as 1967, the Court has held that the defense of prescription does not lie in
administrative proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, the Court declared that an
administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.

Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense, respondent raised it only at this late stage. We
presume she was familiar with that rule yet she failed to invoke it at the earliest opportunity. Instead she opted to
insist on her innocence.

b. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive period for the
filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court. It should therefore
be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.

Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is hereby declared null and void.
CONRADO N. QUE, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., RESPONDENT

A.C. NO. 7054, 11 NOVEMBER 2014

FACTS:

Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent
successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a
petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the
lower court’s decision against his client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).

HELD:

Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the
execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the
complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico
who was the previous counsel of the respondent’s clients. The respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond
legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his clients. The respondent
violated his duty as an attorney “never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement
of fact or law.”

Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the
violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01
Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon
Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
the practice of law.
CPR, and is found liable for professional misconduct for
and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 10;
19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); and
Court. The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent from
JIMENEZ V. FRANCISCO 2004 A.C. NO. 10548, DECEMBER 10, 2014

FACTS: Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint for estafa filed by Jimenez
against her. She felt even more betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, on whom she relied as her
personal lawyer and Clarion’s corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to file a disciplinary
case against Atty. Francisco for representing conflicting interests. According to her, she usually conferred with
Atty. Francisco regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. More significantly, the principal documents
relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion’s property were all prepared and drafted by Atty. Francisco or the
members of his law office.7 Atty. Francisco was the one who actively participated in the transactions involving the
sale of the Forbes property. Without admitting the truth of the allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that
its execution clearly betrayed the trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason,
complainant prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.

ISSUE: Whether respondent’s actively and passively allowing Clarion to make untruthful representations to the
SEC and in other public documents, still constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney.

HELD: Yes, While the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of interests and disclosure of privileged
communication, the acts of Atty. Francisco, in actively and passively allowing Clarion to make untruthful
representations to the SEC and in other public documents, still constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his
office as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months is warranted. Atty. Francisco
could have prevented his entanglement with this fiasco among the members of Jimenez’s family by taking an
upfront and candid stance in dealing with Jimenez’s children and complainant. He could have been staunch in
reminding the latter that his tasks were performed in his capacity as legal counsel for Clarion and Jimenez. Be that
as it may, Atty. Francisco’s indiscretion does not detract the Court from finding that the totality of evidence
presented by the complainant miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving that Atty. Francisco was her
lawyer. At most, he served as the legal counsel of Clarion and, based on the affirmation presented, of Jimenez.
Suffice it to say, complainant failed to establish that Atty. Francisco committed a violation of the rule on conflict of
interests.
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

EFREN T. UY, NELIA B. LEE, RODOLFO L. MENES AND QUINCIANO H. LUI VS. JUDGE ALAN L. FLORES,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE, A.M. No. RTJ-
12-2332 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3393-RTJ), June 25, 2014.

“x x x.

When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance
of the law. There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was gross or patent,
deliberate or malicious. It may also be committed when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law
and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or
incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.[1] When an error is so gross and patent, such error
produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.[2]

In Republic v. Judge Caguioa,[3] we said that the rules on jurisdiction are basic and judges should know them by
heart.

Here, Judge Flores assumed jurisdiction over the Rule 65 petition assailing Hefti’s order when he should have
dismissed the petition for Gandarosa’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. An employee who questions the
validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil Service Commission per Section 26(3), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book
V of the Administrative Code of 1987, which reads:

SEC. 26. Personnel Actions. – x x x

xxxx

(3) Transfer. x x x

x x x. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the [Civil
Service] Commission.

Citing said provision of the Administrative Code of 1987, we ruled in Hon. Vinzons-Chato v. Hon. Natividad[4] that:

Moreover, under the law, any employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil Service
Commission. Respondent judge should have dismissed the action below for failure of private respondent to
exhaust administrative remedies.

We reiterated the above rule in Rualo v. Pitargue,[5] to wit:

Being [Bureau of Internal Revenue] employees, Perez and Vasquez focused their objections on security of tenure.
In the case of Perez, respondents object to the specter of a transfer. In the case of Vasquez, respondents object
to the place of transfer. Under the law, any employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to
the Civil Service Commission. The trial court should have dismissed the case as to Perez and Vasquez, who both
failed to exhaust administrative remedies x x x.

The law is basic and jurisprudence is clear but Judge Flores failed to apply them. Judge Flores committed a gross
and patent error which makes him liable for gross ignorance of the law notwithstanding his claim of good faith.
Judge Flores even mentioned in the Order dated November 21, 2008 the contention of the Office of the Solicitor
General that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Judge Flores’s gross and patent error produces an
inference of bad faith on his part, considering that the issue of jurisdiction was raised.
ALEX NULADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent.

FACTS:

On September 30, 2005 complainant alleged that, respondent issued in his favor a check in the amount of
P650,000.00 as payment for the latter's debt. Because of respondent's standing as a respected member of the
community of the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo, complainant accepted the check without question.
Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficient fluids. Respondent
failed to make good the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, prompting
complainant to file a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against him, before the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-637, which issued a Resolution
dated May 26, 2006 recommending the filing of the appropriate information against respondent before the
Municipal Trial Court of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC).

Subsequently, said information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604. After due proceedings, the MTC rendered
a Decision dated October 30, 2008 finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and ordering him to pay the
amount of P150,000.00 as fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay. Respondent was also
ordered to pay the amount representing the checks, appearance and attorney’s fees. In his
defense, respondent denied that he committed dishonesty against complainant, as prior to September 30, 2005,
he informed the latter that there were insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed
that he merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the loan,
stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds thereof. Respondent appealed his conviction to the
Regional Trial Court of Guimbal Iloilo Branch 67 if which it affirmed in toto the MTC ruling and which became
final and executory on April 16 2009.

Thereafter, the Court, in its Resolution dated November 14, 2011, referred this administrative case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its investigation, report, and recommendation, which
subsequently suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for having violated the
lawyer's oath and the CPR, as well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral
turpitude.

RULING: Yes, The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as approved, adopted, and
modified by the IBP Board of Governors. Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22
indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary
action. In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral turpitude, had been
indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already become final. Consequently, respondent violated the
lawyer's oath, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to
disciplinary action.

In Heenan v. Espejo, the Court suspended therein respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years when the latter issued checks which were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. As a final
word, it should be emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions.
A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a public or private
capacity.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.
IN RE: ARGOSINO, 270 SCRA 26

FACTS:

Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the
Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” from a hazing incident. Later
in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he
be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral
character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2)
senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the
others who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice
law.

HELD:

YES. Petition granted.

RATIO:

Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral
character as required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court
considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr.
Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyer’s Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of
law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate
members of the society.