• YES. the State.
The State shall encourage appropriate
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
• On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments
confirmed the A. State Regulation of the Legal
Profession
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.
On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the
same day, he assumed office as Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. (5)
Chairman of the COMELEC.
• Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the
Commission on
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a
citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari
and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be
declared null Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy
and void. disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of
ISSUE:
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
WON Respondent, Christian Monsod possesses the 10
year practice of law qualification to be CHAIRMAN of
COMELEC.
Art. XII, Sec. 14
The sustained development of a reservoir of national
talents consisting of
RULING:
Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled
workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by
technology and regulate its transfer for the national
benefit.
• First, laying down the qualifications provided by 1987
Const. Under Sec. 1, Par. 1, Art. IX-C; - COMELEC
composed of a chairman and 6 commissioners who
shall be natural born citizens of the PH - At the time of
appointment 35 years old B. What constitutes the
Practice of Law
- Holders of any college degree - Not have been
candidates of any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. Cayetano v. Monsod,
G.R. No. 100113
- CHAIRMAN and the MAJORITY shall be MEMBERS
OF THE PH B AR who have been engaged in the
practice of LAW for at
Subject matter: Definition of the Practice of Law
least 10 years.
• Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine
Bar, having FACTS:
passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of
86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
• Respondent, Christian Monsod was nominated by
President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman
of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of
the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.
• Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying
his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten
years. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer- manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor, verily more than
satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
• The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court. A
1

2 OF LAW while BEING A GOVERNMENT
person is also considered to be in the practice of law when
he: “. . . for valuable consideration engages in the
business of advising person, firms, associations or
corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in
a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings
pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner,
referee, board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
engages in the business of advising clients as to their
rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act
or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose,
is engaged in the practice of law.”
Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos Sagucoi, A.C. No. 6705
Subject matter: Practice of Law
FACTS:
• Disbarment case against Atty. Sagucio for violating
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
for defying the prohibition against private of law while
working as a government prosecutor.
• The complainant herein, Ruth Lim Santiago is the
administratrix of the property of Alfonso Lim Santiago, a
stockholder and former president of Taggat Industries Inc.
• Atty. Sagucio was a former personnel manager and
retained counsel for the said company until he was
appointed as ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR of
Tugegarao, Cagayan in 1992
• What prompted this case was, sometime in July 1991,
21 employees of TAGAT filed a criminal case against the
complainant for non payment of THEIR SALARIES from
1996 – July 1997
• The respondent being the ASST. Pros. Was assigned
In the preliminary investigation of the case and filed 652
informations for TAGGAT’s violation of ART. 288 in rel to
ART. 116 of the Labor code.
• Now, SAGUCIO being formerly affiliated with
TAGGAT industries as PM and retained counsel,
complainant charges him with violations of the following
rules under CPR; - Rule 15. 03, representing conflicting
interests. Complainant contends that the respondent
instigated and decided the case filed by the employees,
and that HE SHOULD HAVE INHIBITED
FROM DOING SO BECAUSE HE WAS FORMERLY
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMPANY AND HE KNOWS
THE OPERATIONS. - ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE
PROSECUTOR. Complainant contends that respondent
received retainer fees in 1995 and 1996
• Complainant moves for the disbarment of the
respondent.
• RESPONDENT explains the 2 allegations; - On the
first, there is no conflicting interest because he was not
representing the employees of the company who filed the
complaint. That he was just doing his job as an ASST.
Pros - On the second, he did not deny that he indeed
received fees, but the payment he received are not
payment for representations but payments for the
consultancy job.
• THE IBP’s FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, 3
YEAR SUSPENSION FOR BEING
– Guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a
former client’s interest and, violating the prohibition
against private practice of law while being a government
prosecutor.
ISSUE:
WON RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF CONFLICT OF
INTERESTS and PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW WHILE
BEING A GOVERNMENT PROSECUTOR.
RULING:
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT and ETHICAL
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES or R.A. 6713
- Admitting that he received retainers fee even for a
‘consultancy job’ is already a proof that he was privately
practicing while being a government prosecutor – against
R.A 6713 - Violation of the R.A is also a violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 - HEREBY SUSPENDED FOR 6 months.
Spouses Eustaquio v. Atty. Edgar Novales A.C. No.
10465 FACTS:
• Complainants are the owners of an apartment in
Cavite, which the respondent is leasing.
• Respondent violated the terms of the contract when he
failed to pay the monthly rentals amounting to 139,000.00.
Despite the oral and written demands of the spouses,
respondent still did not pay.
• Because of this, spouses brought the matter to the
barangay where both parties agree to amicably settle.
• Respondent agreed to pay the amount of 131,000.00
on July 16, 2009 and agreed to vacate the place on July
31 of the same place.
• Respondent failed to fulfill the settlement which
prompted the spouses to file an ejectment case and also
filed a case before the COMMISSION on BAR
DISCIPLINE AND IBP contending that the respondent
failed to exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the
laws when he failed and refused to fulfill his obligations to
the complainants.
• On the pendency of the case, Respondent was
appointed as an ASST. PROS of QC
• METC ruled in favor of the complainants.
• IBP recommended for the respondent to be suspended
for 6 months for violating RULES 1.01 and 1.01, Canon 1
of CPR, which the board of governors concurred and the
• THE SC EXONERATES respondent from the charge
of VIOLATION OF RULE 15.03 of the CPR. - First, there
was no evidence provided by the respondent to prove
this allegation. The one who alleges must prove the
same - The participation of the respondent in the
PRELIM INVESTIGATION is only with respect to the
criminal case filed. This does NOT follow that HE USED
ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AGAINST
ACQUIRED THROUGH HIS PREVIOUS
EMPLOYMENT. - The case being labor related is not a
sufficient basis to charge respondent for representing
conflicting interests. A lawyers immutable duty to a
former client does not cover transactions that occurred
beyond the lawyer’s employment with the client.
• SC FINDS THE RESPONDENT GUILTY for violating
RULE 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR against unlawful
conduct when he violated section 7 (b) (2)
COURT made it final and executory after no MR was filed
by the respondent on Oct. 16 2014
• But on Sept;. 7 2015, upon request from the Office of
the Court Administrator, a certification was issued by the
METC of QC stating that the respondent has been
appearing as ASST. PROS since SEPT 2014 up to the
PRESENT.
• THE OCA wrote a letter to the OBC to inquire about
the suspension of the respondent. Notice was received
by the respondent but filed to file
3 his comment.
• OBC Recommended to increase his suspension from 6
months to 1 year after finding our that the respondent
indeed received his letter of suspension on Oct. 14, 2014,
did not file an MR, so the decision reached its finality after
15 days.
ISSUE: Is the respondent administratively liable?
RULING:
• Court ruled in the affirmative.
• The court has an exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law. When it orders a suspension of a member
of the bar, the person must desist from performing all
functions requiring the application of legal knowledge
within the period of suspension.
• The court defined practice of law as “any activity in or
out of court which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It
includes performing acts which are characteristic of the
legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which
requires the use of any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
• SC also cited Sec. 9 of RA 10071, Prosecution Act of
2010
• Sec. 27, rule 138 of ROC explains that disobedience
to a court order of a lawyer shall be grounds of
suspension and disbarment.
Natanauan v. Atty Roberto Tolention, AC. No. 4269
DOLORES NATUANAN v. ATTY. ROBERTO
TOLENTINO A.C. No. 4269
FACTS:
• Complainant and siblings own a parcel of land with an
area of 50,000.00 sqm in Tagaytay which they sold to
ALEJO TOLENTINO in installments. , At the time of the
selling, no title has been issued by the LRC yet.
• The agreement was this: 80,000.00 payment shall be
paid in the execution of the contract, the remaining 2
payments payable in 1 year
4
will follow after the issuance of the title and the last will
be on the year after.
• Alejo and wife filomena failed to pay after the
execution of the contract of sale.
• Complainant then filed a case against the spouses for
the recovery of the land, nullity of the deed of sale and for
damages, which the RTC ruled in favor of them.
• In june 1993, Dolores discovered the following: - TCT
107593 was issued not on the basis of Jan. 3, 1978
contract but an a DEED OF SALE dated AUGUST 3,
1979, purportedly executed by their father Jose
Natuanan and others. - Discovered a joint affidavit dated
august 6, 1979, purportedly executed by Jose et al,
attesting to the absence of tenants or lessees in the
property - Another deed of sale dated March 9, 1979
executed by Dolores et
al as vendors and Atty. Tolentino as vendee. - That the
property has been registered in the name of Buck Estate
where Atty. Tolentino is a stock holder and is mortgaged
to Rizal Commercial Bank for 10m
• Complainant avers that these documents were
falsified because; 1. Jose Natuanan died on June 12,
1977, therefore he couldn’t have
signed these documents 2. Deeds of Sale were notarized
Perfecto Fernandez whom she found out to be not
commissioned as notary public for City of Manila in 1979.
• Complainant filed a disbarment case against
respondent. Court gave 10 days for respondent to file his
comment but failed to do so.
• Copy of the resolution was not served on Atty. Tolentino
due to the lack of knowledge as to his whereabouts but he
was able to file the required comment through his counsel.
• He denied all allegations of falsification and accused
Alejo and Filomena instead but Complainant had proof
that Tolentino misrepresented before the SC that he is the
absolute owner of the property by virtue of March 9, 1979
DEED OF SALE notarized by Fernandez, citing the case
of BDO v. Bayuga which involved the same property.
• IBP recommended for the respondent’s suspension for
6 months to 3 years.
• Respondent filed a manifestation arguing that the case
was decided based on the complainants side only and that
he was not given due process to present his side.
ISSUE:
WON ATTY. TOLENTINO COMMITTED
FALSIFICATION WHICH CONSTITUTES DECEIT,
MALPRACTICE AND GROSS MISCONDUCT.
WON HIS DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED
RULING:
ON THE FIRST:
1. The court agrees with the findings of the IBP that the
totality of evidence consisting of falsified documents, the
detailed transactions in Doloros’ testimony, the
investigation conducted by the court leaves no doubt as
to Atty. Tolentino’s involvement. 2. He failed to counter
the evidence presented by the other side. 3. His denial
on his association to Notary Public Perfecto and
vehement denial on alleged falsifaction, demonstrates his
lack of candor which he violated under Canon 1, 7, and
10.
On the Second:
1. There was no denial of due process 2. He was given
the opportunity to be heard, clearly demonstrated when
he filed his comment and motion for reconsideration.
C. Requirements for Admission to the Practice of
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH year high school course, the
course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's
• In the respondent’s answer, the argued that he served
the US Army degree in arts or sciences with any of the
following subjects as major or field of
and took the general classifications test which is
equivalent to a high concentration: political science, logic,
english, spanish, history and economics.
school diploma. However, he never presented any proof
or certification of some kind that this information is
legitimate.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. —
All applicants for admission other than those referred to in
the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to
the examination, satisfactorily show that they have
• He explained further that his bar exam application was
erroneously certified because he is actually a graduate of
ARELLANO and not QUINSIMBING. This was due to
confusion as a graduate of QC in his high school records.
regularly studied law for four years, and successfully
completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
university, officially approved and recognized by the
ISSUE: Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the
candidate, accompanied by a
WON Respondent must be removed from the roll of
attorneys for falsely certificate from the university or
school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such
representing that he is qualified to take the bar exams in
1953. facts, and further evidence may be required by the
court. No applicant shall be admitted to the bar
examinations unless he has
RULING: satisfactorily completed the following courses in
a law school or university duly
• Court rules in the affirmative. recognized by the
Law
1. Educational Qualifications
Republic Act No. 7662 (1993) - AN ACT PROVIDING
FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION,
CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL
EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
ROC, Rule 138, Sec 6 - Pre-Law. — No applicant for
admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless
he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary
of Education that, before he began the study of law, he
had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized
and recognized university or college, requiring for
admission thereto the completion of a four-
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
• The confusion argument is unacceptable because of
the criminal law, public and private international law,
political law, labor and social
inconsistencies that the court discovered. According to
the legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal
ethics.
complainant he earned his AA april of 1949, which
means that he began going to law school on the second
semester of 1948-1949, which was six months before
obtaining his AA Degree.
In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo
A. Diao
• Given this information, he would not have been
permitted to take the exam because a candidate must
affirm that he has satisfactorily completed his pre law
education. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
DISBARMENT OF TELESOFORO DIAO v. PATRICK A.
CARONAN V. RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. “ATTY.
PATRICK A. SEVERINO MARTINEZ
CARONAN” A.C. No. 113116, July 12, 2016 A.C. No.
244
FACTS: FACTS:
· The complainant Patrick A. Caronan and respondent
Richard A. Caronan are siblings born to Porferio R.
Caronan Jr. and Norma A. Caronan.
• Complainant charged respondent of falsely
representing in his
· Respondent is two years older than complainant being
born on 1975. application for the 1953 bar examinations,
that he had the requisite
· Both finished their secondary education at the Makati
High School. academic qualifications.
• The matter was referred to the OSG and he moved to
have DIAO’s name removed from the roll of the
attorneys.
• According to complainant, DIAO never completed his
secondary and never obtained his ASSOCIATE degree
from Quinsimbing College. Given these 2 requisites
missing, he is not qualified to take the bar
· Respondent enrolled at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM) in 1991 where he stayed for a year before
transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA)
before being discharged in 1993.
· Complainant obtained degree in Business
Administration in 1997 at the University of Makati.
examinations which he took and passed 2 years before
this complaint
· Also in 1997, Respondent moved to Nueva Vizcaya
with wife Rosana and their 3 was lodged.
children. He never went back to earn a college degree.
5
· In 1999, respondent told complainant that he enrolled in
a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.
· In 2004, their mother informed complainant that
respondent enrolled at the St. Mary’s University’s College
of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Ecija using the
complainant’s name and college records from the
University of Makati.
· Complainant brushed these aside for he did not
anticipate the consequences to him.
· In 2009, after complainant was promoted as a Store
Manager of the 7-11 store in Muntinlupa, he was ordered
to report to the head office of Philippine Seven Corporation
(PSC) and was then requested at the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) in relation to an investigation involving
respondent, who at that points, was using the name “Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan”.
· He was asked to identify documents showing
respondent’s use of the “Patrick A. Caronan”. It was then
complainant was informed in a case of qualified theft and
estafa in which respondent was involved.
· Respondent’s use of the name “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”
continues to perpetuate crimes and commit unlawful
activities such as; almost victimizing fellow church-
member’s relatives, tricking someone into believing that
he was authorized to sell a parcel of land in Taguig City
when in fact, he was not.
· Further, he learned that respondent was arrested for
gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives
and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
· With this, complainant was eventually forced to resign
from PSC, hence, complainant filed the present
Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent’s alleged use of the
former’s name and identity, and illegal practice of law.
· On March 9, 2015, the IBP-CDB conducted the
scheduled mandatory conference where both parties
failed to appear. IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose
Villanueva Cabrera issued his Report and
Recommendation, finding respondent guilty of illegally
and falsely assuming complainant’s name, identity and
academic records.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
“Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys;
and (b) the name “Richard A. Caronan” be barred from
being admitted to the Bar.
HELD:
· The IBP is correct in ordering that the name “Patrick A.
Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The
respondent, Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A.
Caronan”, has failed to present any proof to prove his
identify.
6
· The respondent admitted, upon his arrest on August 31,
2012 that he is married to Rosana Halili-Caronan.
· This diverges to the official NSO records showing that
“Patrick A. Caronan” is married to Myrna G. Tagpis, not
to Rosana Halili-Caronan.
· In addition, the photograph of the respondent when he
was arrested as “Richard A. Caronan” on August 16, 2012,
shows the same person as the one in the photograph in
the IBP records of “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”.
· The IBP also did not err in ordering that the name
“Richard A. Coronan” be barred from being admitted in
the Bar.
· Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of the Court, no
applicant for admission to the Bar Examinations shall be
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed a bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences.
· The respondent never completed his college degree. He
did enrol at the PLM in 1991, but left a year later and
entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993
without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not
completed the requisite pre-law degree.
· The Court does not discount the possibility of the
respondent finishing his college degree and earn a law
degree under his real name.
· However, his false assumption of his brother’s name,
identity, and educational records renders him fit for
admission to the Bar. Respondent exhibited his
dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness.
· The acts of the respondent do not have a place in the
legal profession where one of the primary duties of its
members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
2. Citizenship and Residency
Art. XII, Sec 14 - The sustained development of a reservoir
of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists,
entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high- level
technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in
all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its
transfer for the national benefit.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH and resident of the Philippines;
and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.
3. Bar Examinations
ROC, Rule 138
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All
applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the
Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this
rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the
examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this
rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit
and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced
within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license
evidencing the fact of their admission to practice,
satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked,
and certificates as to their professional standing.
Applicants shall also file at the same time their own
affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications
for admission shall be published by the clerk of the
Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino,
English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the
beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not
otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall
be subjected to examinations in the following subjects:
Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law;
Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law
(Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil
Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal
Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and
Conveyancing).
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers,
and in writing. — Persons taking the examination shall not
bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms.
The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a
7 copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to
each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions
personally without help from anyone. Upon verified
8 given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15
per cent; Labor and Social
Legislation, 10 per cent;
ROC, Rule 138 Section 2. Requirements for all applicants
for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
moral character,
application made by an examinee stating that his
penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his
answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court
may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall
be allowed to be used. The committee of bar examiner
shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent
the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds.
Examinees shall not place their names on the
examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for
admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place
annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four
days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on
bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as
follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning)
and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day:
Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day:
Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);
Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations
shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to
be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee
shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court,
who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated
by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of
the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a
period of one year. The names of the members of this
committee shall be published in each volume of the
official reports. Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No
candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the
committee, and during examination the candidates shall
not communicate with each other nor shall they give or
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this
provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be
barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, and further disciplinary action,
including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the
discretion of the court.
Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate
may be deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general average of
75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent
in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects
in the examination shall be
Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent:
Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10
per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination
papers. — Not later than February 15th after the
examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable,
the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the
committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be
examined by the parties in interest, after the court has
approved the report.
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. —
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three
times shall be disqualified from taking another
examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court
that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year
review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review
course in a recognized law school.
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 712
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.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
· 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
· 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.
· 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 should be denied
admission to the Bar RULING:
· 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.
· 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.
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.
4. Good Moral Character
ROC, 138 Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission as
a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines,
at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character,
and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before
the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving
moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines.
Velez v. Atty Leonard De Vera
· In AC No. 6697, Complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez sought
the suspension or disbarment of Respondent Atty.
Leonard de Vera for misrepresentation through his
concealment of the suspension order rendered against
him by the State Bar of California; and for violation of the
“rotation rule” enunciated in Administrative Matter No.
491.
· The first ground concerned an administrative case filed
against Atty. de Vera before the State Bar of California.
The action arose from an insurance case he
9 had handled involving Julius Wills III, who had figured in
an automobile accident in 1986.
· To settle the case amicably, Atty. de Vera received -- on
his client’s behalf -- a $12,000 check, which he then
deposited in his personal account. Because of his irregular
deposit of his client's funds, respondent was suspended
from the practice of law for three years, upon the
recommendation of the hearing referee.
· The case was not decided on the merits, because Atty.
de Vera resigned from the California Bar. Later, his
resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of
California.
· On the second ground, complainant averred that
respondent’s transfer of membership from the Pasay,
Parañaque, Las Piñas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) IBP
Chapter to the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter was a
circumvention of the rotation rule.
· Allegedly, Atty. de Vera made the transfer for the sole
purpose of becoming IBP national president.
· Complainant stressed that respondent neither resided
in Agusan del Sur nor held office there.
· A companion case, Bar Matter No. 1227, referred to the
letter-request of respondent, asking the Supreme Court to
schedule his oath-taking as IBP national president.
· On the other hand, AM No. 05-5-15-SC referred to the
letter-report of IBP National President Jose Anselmo I.
Cadiz, furnishing the Court with the May 13, 2005, IBP
Resolution removing Atty. de Vera from the latter’s
positions as IBP board member and executive vice-
president, for committing acts inimical to the board and the
IBP in general.
· The controversy in these two consolidated cases started
when the IBP board approved the withdrawal of a Petition
docketed at the Supreme Court as “Integrated Bar of the
Philippines et al v. Senate of the Philippines et al. - SC-
R165108.
· Subsequently, during the plenary session held at the
10th National IBP Convention, respondent allegedly made
some untruthful statements, innuendos, and blatant lies in
connection with the IBP board's Resolution to withdraw
the Petition On May 12, 2005, IBP Governor Romulo A.
Rivera wrote to IBP National President Cadiz, praying for
the removal of the IBP board membership of Atty. de Vera,
who had allegedly committed acts inimical to the board
and the IBP in general.
· The following day, during its 20th regular meeting, the
IBP board resolved by a two-thirds vote to remove
respondent from his positions as a member of the board
of governors and as the executive vice-president (EVP) of
the IBP.
· On June 13, 2005, the IBP board took note of the
vacancy in the EVP position, brought about by the removal
of Atty. de Vera. In his stead, IBP Governor Pura Angelica
Y. Santiago was formally elected and declared as EVP.
· On June 20, 2005, Atty. Santiago voluntarily
relinquished that position.
· Thus, on June 25, 2005, during its last regular meeting,
the IBP board elected a new EVP in the person of IBP
Governor Jose Vicente B. Salazar.
· On June 28, 2005, IBP National President Cadiz
requested the Supreme Court's approval of Atty. Salazar's
election and assumption of office as national president, in
the event that Atty. de Vera would be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law; or should his removal
from his positions as member of the 2003-2005 board of
governors and as EVP of the IBP be approved by the
Court.
· Protesting the election of both Atty. Santiago and Atty.
Salazar, respondent also denied having committed acts
inimical to the IBP and its board. He maintained that his
removal from his two positions had been done without due
notice and due process.
ISSUES 1. Whether the judgment in AC No. 6052
constituted a bar to the filing of AC 6697 2. Whether, in
the course of his practice of law, Respondent Atty. de
Vera committed malpractice amounting to moral turpitude
in the State Bar of California and in the Philippines 3.
Whether on May 13, 2005, the board of governors validly
removed respondent from his positions as governor and
EVP of the IBP 4. Whether Governor Salazar was validly
elected as EVP on June 25, 2005, and whether he could
consequently assume the presidency of the IBP for the
term 2005-2007
HELD/RATIO First Issue: Res Judicata
· The Court unanimously held in a per curiam Decision
that AC No. 6052 did not constitute a bar to the filing of
AC No. 6697.
10
· The two administrative cases involved different subject
matters and causes of action.
· In AC No. 6052, the subject matter was the qualification
of Atty. de Vera to run for the position of IBP governor for
Eastern Mindanao.
· In the present Administrative Complaint, the subject
matter was his privilege to practice law.
· The two aforementioned cases did not seek the same
relief.
· In the first case, the complainants sought to prevent
respondent from assuming his post as IBP governor for
Eastern Mindanao; the cause of action referred to his
alleged violation of IBP bylaws.
· In the second case, what was principally sought was his
suspension or disbarment; the primary cause of action
was his alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Second Issue: Moral Turpitude
· In resolving the second issue, the Court cited Maquera,
according to which a judgment of suspension against a
Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction may transmute into
a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines, only if
the basis of the foreign court’s action included any of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension in our jurisdiction.
· The Court opined that by insisting that he was authorized
by his client’s father and attorney-in-fact to use the funds,
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
· He could not be deemed to be guilty of unethical
conduct or behavior.
disagreements of varying degrees of intensity are
inherent in the
· Neither the Code of Professional Responsibility nor the
Lawyer’s Oath punished
internal life of an organization. lawyers for aspiring to be
the IBP national president or prohibited them from
· Like that of any other organization, however, the
effectiveness of doing perfectly legal acts in
accomplishing that goal.
the IBP would be diluted if the conflicts are brought
outside its governing body. Third Issue: Validity of the
Removal
· The impression would be that the IBP, which speaks
through its board of governors, does not and cannot
authoritatively speak for
· The Court ruled that the constitutional provision on due
process
its members. safeguarded life, liberty and property.
· Its prestige and reputation with lawyers, as well as with
the
· The position of EVP of the IBP, however, was not a
property
general public, would diminish accordingly. within the
Atty. de Vera was impliedly admitting his use of the Willis
funds for his own personal use.
· Undoubtedly, his unauthorized use of his client’s funds
was highly unethical.
· Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
emphatic about this matter.
· The conduct of Atty. de Vera -- holding on to the money
of his client without the latter’s acquiescence -- was
indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.
· It was clear that by depositing the $12,000 check in his
own bank account and using it for his own benefit,
respondent was guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct,
and unethical behavior.
· He violated his oath to conduct himself with all good
fidelity to his client.
· Nevertheless, the Court decreed that, where any lesser
penalty could accomplish the end desired, disbarment
should not be decreed.
· Considering the amount involved in this case, the Court
considered the penalty of suspension for two years
appropriate.
· The Court found that the transfer by Atty. de Vera of his
membership to the Agusan del Sur IBP Chapter was
within his rights.
constitutional sense.
· Because of the importance of retaining group
cohesiveness and
· Further, there was no right to security of tenure over
that
unity, no fault was attributed to the expulsion from the
board of position, as all that was required to remove any
member of the
Atty. de Vera, who had insisted on bringing to the public
his board of governors for cause was a resolution
adopted by two
disagreement with a policy/resolution approved by the
majority thirds of the remaining board members.
after due discussion.
· Furthermore, in administrative proceedings, the
essence of due
· The cause for expulsion was legal, because the
effectiveness of the process was simply the opportunity
to explain one’s side.
board as a governing body was being lessened.
· The cross-examination of witnesses was not
indispensable to due process. Neither was an actual
hearing always essential,
Fourth Issue: Validity of Governor Salazar's Election as
EVP especially under the factual milieu of this case.
· Atty. de Vera’s actuations during the IBP National
Convention in
· The removal of Atty. de Vera from his membership in
the board of governors question had been witnessed by
all the members of the board,
ipso facto meant also his removal as EVP. upon whose
shoulders the determination of the cause for
· The IBP board had shown no grave abuse of discretion;
thus, the Court found removal of an IBP governor was
placed, subject to the approval of
no reason to interfere in the resolution to remove him. the
Supreme Court.
· The board had specific and sufficient guidelines in its
rules and bylaws on how
· Atty. de Vera received a copy of the Complaint against
him; indeed,
to fill the vacancies left by the removal of Atty. de Vera.
he was present in the meeting when the matter was
taken up.
· The 2003-2005 IBP board of governors’ election of a
new EVP, who would
· From the transcript of stenographic notes of the
meeting on May
assume the presidency for the term 2005-2007, was well
within the authority 13, 2005, in which he was removed, it
was patent that he had
and prerogative granted to the board by the IBP bylaws.
been given a fair opportunity to defend himself against
the
· According to Article VII, specifically Section 47, “[t]he
EVP shall automatically accusations of Atty. Rivera.
become president for the next succeeding term.”
· Under the IBP rules, the expulsion of an IBP governor
was done
· The phrase “for the next succeeding term” necessarily
implied that the EVP who via a Resolution adopted by
two thirds of the remaining
should succeed Atty. Cadiz as IBP president for the next
succeeding term members.
(2005-2007) should come from the members of the 2003-
2005 IBP board of
· The phrase “remaining members” excluded the
complainant and
governors. the respondent. Of the 7 remaining members
qualified to vote, 5
· Accordingly, the election of Governor Santiago, and
later of Governor Salazar voted for expulsion, while 2
voted against it.
upon the former’s relinquishment of her EVP position,
was valid.
· The five votes still added up to the two thirds vote
required for
· In Bar Matter 491, the Court said that it was the position
of EVP that was expulsion. Removal for Cause Removal
for Cause Conflicts and
actually rotated among the nine regional governors.
11
· The rotation with respect to the presidency was merely
the result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP.
· Thus, the rotation rule pertained in particular to the
position of EVP; the automatic succession rule, to the
presidency.
· Intrinsic to the IBP bylaws was the principle that one who
was to assume the highest position in its hierarchy must
have been exposed to the demands and responsibilities of
national leadership.
· By electing the replacement EVP from among the
members of the 2003-2005 board of governors, the IBP
stood to benefit from the experience of the 2003- 2005
EVP, who would have served in a national capacity prior
to the latter’s assumption of the highest position.
· Therefore, in electing Atty. Salazar as EVP and thus
ensuring a succession in the leadership of the IBP, its
board of governors acted in accordance with its bylaws.
Figueroa v. Barranco
FACTS:
· In a complaint made way back in 1971, Patricia Figueroa
petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be
denied admission to the legal profession.
· Respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on
the fourth attempt, after unsuccessful attempts in 1966,
1967 and 1968.
· Before he could take his oath, however, complainant filed
the instant petition averring that respondent and she had
been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to
them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry her.
· Respondent and complainant were townmates in
Janiuay, Iloilo. Complainant first acceded to sexual
congress with respondent sometime in 1960. Their
intimacy yielded a son, Rafael Barranco, born on
December 11, 1964
· It was after the child was born, complainant alleged, that
respondent first promised he would marry her after he
passes the bar examinations.
12
· Their relationship continued and respondent allegedly
made more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage. He
gave only P10.00 for the child on the latters birthdays. Her
trust in him and their relationship ended in 1971, when she
learned that respondent married another woman. Hence,
this petition.
· On September 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss
the complaint for failure of complainant to prosecute the
case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow
Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath upon
payment of the required fees.
· Respondents hopes were again dashed on November
17, 1988 when the Court, in response to complainants
opposition, resolved to cancel his scheduled oath-taking.
On June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.
· The IBPs report dated May 17, 1997 recommended the
dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to
take the lawyers oath.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be allowed to
take the lawyer’s oath
RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED. Respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. is
ALLOWED to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of
the proper fees.
RATIO:
· Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyers
oath in 1971 because of the charges of gross immorality
made by complainant.
· To recapitulate, respondent bore an illegitimate child with
his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who also claims that he
did not fulfill his promise to marry her after he passes the
bar examinations.
· SC find that these facts do not constitute gross
immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession.
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
· His engaging in premarital sexual relations with
complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful
moral character on his part but the same does not
constitute grossly immoral conduct.
· The Court has held that to justify suspension or
disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral.
· A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a
willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.
· Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
sexual relations were evidently consensual. We do not find
complainants assertions that she had been forced into
sexual intercourse, credible.
· She continued to see and be respondents girlfriend even
after she had given birth to a son in 1964 and until 1971.
All those years of amicable and intimate relations refute
her allegations that she was forced to have sexual
congress with him.
· Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and
actively pursued their relationship and was not an innocent
young girl who could be easily led astray. Unfortunately,
respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with
another woman.
· We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of
his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond
which should be entered into because of love, not for any
other reason.
· We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act
of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to
the end. It is also intended to make respondent suffer
severely and it seems, perpetually, sacrificing the
profession he worked very hard to be admitted into.
· Even assuming that his past indiscretions are ignoble,
the twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented
from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment
therefor.
· During this time there appears to be no other
indiscretion attributed to him.
13
· Respondent, who is now sixty-two years of age, should
thus be allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyers
oath.
Re: Petition of Al Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath
· Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar
examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred
his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.
· The criminal case which resulted in petitioner' s
conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte during
fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991.
· Petitioner and seven (7) other accused initially entered
pleas of not guilty to homicide charges.
· The eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas
and upon re- arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
· On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered
judgment dated 11 February 1993 imposing on each of the
accused a sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years
four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.
· On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein
petitioner's application for probation.
· On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order
approving a report dated 6 April 1994 submitted by the
Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge
from probation
· On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a
petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath based on
the order of his discharge from probation.
14
· On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior
Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a
resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to
the Court evidence that he may now be regarded as
complying with the requirement of good moral character
imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.
· In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner
submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters
executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial
court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders.
Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of Raul
Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the
latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal
case.
· On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty Gilbert
Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's
prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
ISSUE: Whether or not Argosino should be allowed to
take the lawyer’s oath
HELD: PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros
Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on
a date to be set by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys
and, thereafter, to practice the legal profession.
RATIO · The practice of law is a privilege granted
only to those who possess the strict intellectual and
moral qualifications required of lawyers who are
instruments in the effective and efficient administration o f
justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed
out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble
profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to
prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s oath, thereby
further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in
recent years has undoubtedly become less than
irreproachable.
· The resolution of the issue required a weighing and re-
weighing of the reasons for allowing or disallowing
petitioner's admission to the practice of law.
· The senseless beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan
constituted evident absence of that moral fitness required
for admission to the bar since they were totally
irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
· Before anything else, the Court understands and shares
the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert Camaligan. The death of
one's child is, for a parent, a most traumatic experience.
The suffering becomes even more pronounced and
profound in cases where the death is due to causes other
than natural or accidental but due to the reckless
imprudence of third parties. The feeling then becomes a
struggle between grief and anger directed at the cause of
death.
· Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court
manifesting his having forgiven the accused is no less
than praiseworthy and commendable. It is exceptional for
a parent, given the circumstances in this cases, to find
room for forgiveness.
· However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a
position to state if petitioner is now morally fit to be a
lawyer.
· After a very careful evaluation of this case, the Court
resolves to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take
the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice
the legal profession
· The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all
efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
(WEEK 1 )
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS
GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
- By the time he found the notice, he was already
working, doing
corporate and taxation work and that he was not actively
involved in litigation practice
5. The Lawyer’s Oath:
- In 2005, when Medado attended the Mandatory
Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide
his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be
credited but was not able to because he did not sign the
roll of attorneys I, do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
- Feb 6, 202, Medado filed an instant petition praying that
he be Philippines, I will support the Constitution and
obey the laws as well as
allowed to sign in the ROA the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
- Office of the Bar confidant conducted a clarificatory
conference and recommended that the petition be denied
for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and
utter lack of merit
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for
money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and
ISSUE: WON Medado may sign the Roll of Attorneys
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking
judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.
· We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT
a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according
to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's
oath.
· If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned.
· The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue
with the assistance he has been giving to his community.
As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render
legal and other services to the more unfortunate members
of society.
or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
HELD: YES
- Not allowing Medado to sign in the ROA would be akin
to imposing
upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment - Petitioner
demonstrated good faith and good moral character when
he finally filed the instant petition as he himself
acknowledged his 6. Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
own lapse, even after 30 years had passed - Petitioner
has not been subject to any action for disqualification
from
ROC, Rule 138, Section 17. Admission and oath of
successful applicants. — An applicant who has passed the
required examination, or has been otherwise found to be
entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe
before the
the practice of law, which shows that he adhered to the
requirements of ethics of the profession - While the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege, this Court will
not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals
who have Supreme Court the corresponding oath of
office.
shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the
rigors of the profession IN RE PETITION TO SIGN THE
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, MICHAEL MEDADO
- Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of
law by one’s assuming to be an attorney of officer of the
court, and acting as such
FACTS:
- Michael Medado graduated from the University of the
Philippines with
the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and the same
year, he passed the Bar exams (82.7 GWA) - May 7,
1980 – he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC - May 13,
1980 - He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Atorneys
but
failed to do so, allegedly because he had misplaced the
Notice to Sign the ROA given by the Bar Office - Years
later, he found the Notice to sign the ROA and was then
that he
without authority, may constitute indirect contempt of
court - Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of
law likewise
transgress Canon 9, CPR: “A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” -
Canon 9 warrants the penalty of Suspension from the
practice of law - As Medado is not yet a full-fledged
16 REPUBLIC ACT No. 6397 AN ACT PROVIDING
FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR,
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Section 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act,
the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as
it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and
enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively.
Section 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is
hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the
purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be
necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the
annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.
Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: September 17, 1971
In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the
Philippines January 9, 1973 PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
(December 1, 1972 – Commission on Bar Integration
submitted a report with the earnest recommendation that
“ this Honorable Court ordain the Integration of the Bar of
the Philippines as soon as possible through the adoption
and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule”)
- Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order
the integration of
the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition
as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial
and other local Bar associations - 1970 – the court
created the Commission on Bar Integration for
ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar
- September 1971 – Congress passed House Bill No.
3277 entitled “An
Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar,
and Appropriating Funds therefore” - Sept. 17, 1971 –
President Marcos signed the measure - Reports of the
Commission abounds with argument on the
constitutionality of Bar Integration and contains all
necessary factual
data bearing on the advisability (practicability and
necessity) of Bar Integration
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the
Philippine Bar? 2. Would the integration of the Bar be
constitutional? 3. Should the Court ordain the Integration
lawyer, we cannot suspend him
from practice of law → we see it fit to impose upon him a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the
ROA 1 year after receipt of this resolution
realized that he had not signed the roll and that what he
signed was the attendance at the entrance of the PICC
D. MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
15
of the Bar at this time?
HELD:
1. YES. Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution provides
that: “ to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the rule
of law”
- it is an inherent part of the Court’s constitutional
authority over the Bar
- RA 6307, in providing that the SC may adopt rules of
court to effect the integration of the Philippines Bar,
neither confers a new power nor restricts the court’s
inherent power → it is a mere legislative declaration that
the Integration of the Bar will promote public interest
2. YES. Courts have inherent power to supervise and
regulate the practice
- the practice of law is not a vested right, but a privilege
→ moreover, clothed with public interest, because a
lawyer owes duties not only to his brethren in the
profession, to the courts and to the nation
- because it is a privilege clothed with public interest, it is
far and just that the exercise of that privilege be
regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer’s public
responsibilities
3. YES. The Court is fully convinced that the integration
of the bar is “perfectly constitutional and legally
unobjectionable” within the context of contemporary
conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative
means to raise the standards of the legal profession,
improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar
to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER (WEEK 1 ) responsibilities
BY: RAE REPOSAR, BEA MARAVILLA, CHRISTINE TABALINGCOS GG02, DLSU, 7TH BATCH
o section 1 → states the organization, who will compose the
1. WON Atty. Edillion may be disbarred for the non-payment of IBP membership dues
IBP whose names may hereafter be included In the ROA; and
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 181, May 4, 1973
4. YES o section 9 → states the membership dues to be paid
2. WON the SC has the power to strike down his name from the ROA CONSTITUTING
- to compel a lawyer to be a member of the integrated bar is not - Respondent also
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES INTO A BODY
questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike down
3. WON Court Rule’s provisions requiring payment of membership fee CORPORATE AND
violative of his constitutional freedom to associate his name in the ROA contending that the
PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE THERETO FOR
matter is administrative in
is void THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS PURPOSES
- Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which nature, pertaining to
4. WON the Court is with power to compel him to become a member of the IBP
an administrative body
HELD: 1. YES In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial
he is not already a member
- it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial Edillion IBP Case No.
ISSUES:
MDD-1, AM No. 1928, August 3, 1978
- Edillion became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar exams
Edillion should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys FACTS: 17
- Respondent Edillion is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the
2. YES Philippines
- the Court’s jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by the 1973 - Nov. 29, 1975 – Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative
case No. MDD-1 recommending to the Court the removal of the name of respondent from
the Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the IBP
notwithstanding due notice
Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court the power to “promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice... and the admission to the practice of law and the Integration of the Bar”
- the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a - Jan. 21, 1976 – IBP
through its President, submitted the said
member of the legal profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the court resolution to the
Court for consideration and approval pursuant to Section 24, par. 2, Article III of the IBP’s
by-laws (which provides the authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the
SC the removal of a delinquent member’s name from the Roll of Attorneys) - Respondent
reiterated his refusal to pay membership dues - Respondent argued that the following
provisions constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being
3. NO
- there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the court, under its constitutional power
and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the IBP
(Art. X, Sec. 5, 1973 Constitution)
- the fee is imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds compelled to pay
dues, that the above provisions are void, and of no
for carrying out the objectives and purposes of the integration legal force and effect:
- the practice of law is a mere privilege, and as such, must bow to the o Section 24, par. 2,
Article III of the IBP’s by-laws, o Section 10 of the rules of court → authority of the Court to
issue the order applied for,

16
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

18 7432, in the payment of taxes (ex. Income Taxes) and being thus exempt, honestly
- One is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of the IBP or vote or refuse to vote in believe, but only in a limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with the
its elections as he chooses - the compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption
annual dues and it is justified as it is an exercise of the police power of the State ti elevate - Respondent admitted that since 1992, he has been engaged in the practice of law without
the quality of professional legal service having paid his IBP dues and has likewise admitted that, as appearing in the pleadings
submitted by the complainant to his court, he indicated “IBP-Rizal 259060” in the pleadings
he filed in the court, at least for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997
Santos v. Atty. Francisco Llamas - while it is true that RA 7432 grants exemption to senior citizens, the exemption does not
include payment of membership or association dues to the IBP
Soliman Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas - Rule 139-A, Section 10 → ”default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall
warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for 1
year shall be a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the ROA
(This is a complaint for MISREPRESENTATION and NON-PAYMENT OF BAR
MEMBERSHIP DUES filed against Atty. Llamas) - Rule 139-A, section 9 → membership dues – every member shall pay annual dues as the
Board of Governors shall determine with approval of the SC

FACTS: - Respondent’s failure to pay his IBP dues and misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed
in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, his willingness to pay and plea for
- Santos write a letter-complaint to the Court alleging that Atty. Llamas, who, for a number a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of 1 year suspension from
of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, is appropriate
- Santos seeks clarification and appropriate action on the bar standing
of Atty. Llamas - Rule 138, sections 27 and 28, suspension of an attorney may be done
not only by the SC but also by the CA or RTC - Atty. Llamas’ city record:
o Dismissal as Pasay City Judgr, o Conviction for estafa per decision o No longer a
member in good standing with respect to using
the same OR no. o Delinquent in his dues - April 1997 – Complainant files a certification
by then president of the
IBP – Atty. Ida R. Macalinao-Javier, that respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues was in
1991 and since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees
up to the present - December 1998 – IBP Board of Governmors passed a resolution
adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner
which found respondent guilty, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law
for 3 months until he pays his IBP dues

ISSUE: WON Atty. Llamas is a delinquent member for non-payment of IBP dues and
misrepresentation in the pleadings filed in court

HELD: YES.
- Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his income tax return, up to the
present, that he had only a limited practice of law and in fact, in his income tax return, his
principal occupation is a farmer → respondent admitted that he is still in the practice of law
when he alleged this
- Respondent, being a senior citizen since 1992, is legally exempt under Section 4, RA

17
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
Rule 14.01 – Shall not decline to represent on account of race, sex, creed, status,
or opinion as to guilt
RULE 138 - Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be
deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
FRANCISCO v. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL
A.C.No. 6155
14 March 2006
DOCTRINE: Rule 14.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs
lawyers not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic
that it is the defense counsel that actually branded his own clients as being the culprits
that salvaged the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is
unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the Sandiganbayan had not
done so.
FACTS:
 This case involves an affidavit against Atty. Portugal for violation of Layer’s
Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence.
 SPO1 Francisco, SPO1 Tan and PO3 Joaquin were involved in a shooting
incident. Information were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan to
which they were found guilty for homicide and attempted homicide.
 Complainants engaged in the services of Atty. Portugal for the accused. The
latter then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an Urgent Motion for Leave
to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, as well as a Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
 Complainants never heard from Atty. Portugal again despite the frequent
telephone calls they made to his office. When no phone inquiries were
returned, complainants went to Atty. Portugal’s last known address only to find
out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
 More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were
constrained to personally verify the status of the petition as they had
neither news from Atty. Portugal about the case nor knowledge of his
18
whereabouts.
 Complainants were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a
Resolution denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.
They learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of
arrest had already been issued against the accused because respondent,
whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
 Atty. Portugal states that the Court should note that he was not the original
counsel of the accused. He was merely requested to be on hand, assist the
accused, and be present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.
He maintains that the petition was filed on time, claims that no formal
engagement was undertaken by the parties, and asserts that due to all the
efforts he put into this case, his other professional opportunities and
obligations were neglected, and it was done without remuneration.
 Atty. Portugal states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged
from the case and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the
latter to file with the Court. Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so.
 IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for 6
months
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling the
case of the accused.
RULING: YES. Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months.
RATIO:
 The ad cautelam petition was actually filed out of time.
 He fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must
perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. Had he truly intended to withdraw
his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in
court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal
himself instead of the accused.
 It is the client who has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw
or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted.
 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable
cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication
arises only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause.
 After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both
cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of
public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
 SC does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the
shooting incident that the accused was engaged in. He described the incident,
thus: “the accused police officers who had been convicted of homicide for the
salvage of F. Cabiling and J. Chua and attempted homicide of M. Macato.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Rule 14.02 Shall not decline appointment as counsel de officio or amicus curiae
RULE 138 - Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears
that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of
counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the
party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service,
unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.
RULE 116 - Arraignment and Plea
Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before
arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has
employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend
him. (6a)
Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court, considering the gravity of
the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel
de oficio only such members of the bar in good standing
who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused.
But in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint
any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend
the accused. (7a)
Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment. — Whenever a
counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the arraignment,
he shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment. (8)
RULE 124 - Procedure in the Court of Appeals
Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. — If it appears from the
record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is without
counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of
court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel
de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he establishes
his right thereto. (2a)
IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE E. ADRIANO
19
GR No. L-26868
27 February 1969
DOCTRINE: SC may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute
appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a
duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned “to render the required service”, A lawyer
so appointed” as counsel for an indigent prisoner”, our Canons of Professional Ethics
demand, “should always exert his best efforts” in the indigent’s behalf.
FACTS:
 R. Estebia was convicted of rape by CFI of Samar and was sentenced to suffer
the capital punishment.
 On Dec. 1966,, Atty. Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de oficio
when his case came up before the SC on review.
 Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice.
He sought a 30-day extension to file said brief in mimeograph form. After being
granted 4 extensions and a special extension of five days, no brief was still
filed.
 He was ordered to show explanation for failure to file brief but did not comply.
 Thus, SC resolved to impose upon Atty. Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning
that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further
non-compliance. Atty. Adriano still paid no need.
 He was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the
practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as
attorney.
 A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968 however
Adriano ignored the said resolution.
ISSUE: W/N certain acts and conduct of a Atty. Adriano deserves disciplinary action.
RULING: YES. Atty. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
RATIO:
 By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional
aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an
attorney.
 No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief.
And yet when he received notice of his appointment, and when the last show
cause order was issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was afforded
counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio.
 In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements
in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and
meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.
 It has been said that courts should “have no hesitancy in demanding high
standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons charged
with crime." For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self-
interest. acts
 Atty. Adriano’s exhibit willful disobedience of lawful orders of this Court.
Nothing was done by counsel for over a year despite the repeated orders of
the Court to file the brief and show cause for non-compliance.
 Disrespect is here present. Contumacy is as patent. Disciplinary action is in
order.
 Atty. Adriano’s pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to be numb
appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and
respect that should be accorded this Court.
RULE 14.02 – SHALL NOT DECLINE APPOINTMENT AS COUNSEL DE OFFICIO
OR AMICU CURIAE
People vs Rufino Mirandilla Bermas
G.R. No. 120420
April 21, 1999
Facts:
 Rufino Bermas was accused of raping his daughter, Manuela (15 years old)
on August 3, 1994 inside their house
 Court found the guilty of the crime and sentenced him to suffer DEATH
penalty and to indemnify the complainant of 75, 000 pesos.
 Counsel Fernandez & kasilag-Villanueva (in collaboration with the Anti-
Death Penality Task Force) appealed : that the accused was deprived of due
process and was deprived of his constitutional right to effective and vigilant
counsel
Facts:
 Case for new trial was granted and Court assigned Atty. Rose Elmira
Villamin of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to be the counsel de officio.
 Atty. Villamin asked Court to be relieved of her duty and Atty. Roberto
Gomez was appointed the new counsel de officio.
 Even after having the trial moved for more adequate preparation, Atty.
Gomez failed to appear for trial and Atty. Lonzame was appointed as
counsel de officio for accused but the latter asked himself to be relieved as
counsel de officio and ceased to appear for and in behalf of the accusd-
appellant
Held:
 The Court finds that accused-appellant has not properly and effectively been
accorded the right to counsel. Case REMANDED for trial.
 Atty. Ricardo Fernandez, Jr. of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force as
counsel de officio for the appellant
 Constitutional Right to counsel:
Sections 12 and 14, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution, states:
20
 Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
 The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections.
The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the
defense and acts accordingly.
 Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to
serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence.
 He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
this regard renders him administratively liable.
 Atty. Rosa Elmina Villamin of PAO Parañaque, Roberto Gomez and Nicanor
Lonzame are hereby ADMONISHED for having fallen much too short of their
responsibility as officers of the court and as members of the Bar
RULE 14.03 – VALID GROUNDS TO REFUSE REPRESENTATION
Nestor Perez vs Atty. Danilo de la Torre
A.C. No. 6160
March 30, 2006
**(misplaced case) should be under 15.03
 Letter complaint addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
complainant Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la
 Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing
conflicting interests.
 Perez is the Barangay Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur;
o That in December 2001, several suspects for murder and
kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila,
were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities;
o that respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where
Ilo and Avila were being detained and made representations that he
could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial
confessions;
o that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the
heirs of the murder victim;
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
o that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were
filed against them, including herein complainant who was implicated
in the extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the criminal
activities for which they were being charged.
 Respondent:
o Avila sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession
regarding his involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom,
murder and robbery
o Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in
executing his extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the
presence of his parents
Issue(s): Whether or not there was a conflict of interest on the part of the respondent
in handling the case
Held:
 There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests
of two or more opposing parties.
 The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
 The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste.
 Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He
is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz
A.C. No. 5485
16 March 2005
DOCTRINE: Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a 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 latter’s cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. He owes entire devotion to the interest of
the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld
from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
FACTS:
 Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former
employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines with the NLRC Regional Arbitration
Board VI in Bacolod City where Atty. Jose Max Ortiz appeared as his counsel.
 In 1998, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their position papers
so Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz
for the preparation of the same.
21
 Canoy made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case until he decided to it follow-up himself with the NLRC and
learned that his complaint was dismissed in 1998 for failure to prosecute.
o Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz never communicated to him about the
status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit the
position paper.
 In his defense, Atty. Ortiz informs the Court:
o that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at
considerable financial sacrifice to himself and Canoy was among
those low-income clients;
o that he prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could
submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order
dismissing the case;
o that the period within which to file the position paper had already
lapsed and attributes this failure to the fact that after his election as
Councilor, “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a
local government official and as a practicing lawyer;”
o that eventually, “his desire to help was beyond physical limitations,”
and he withdrew from his other cases and his “free legal services;”
o that it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones to
follow-up their cases with his office;
o that he cannot remember whether he immediately informed Canoy
of the dismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall, Canoy
told him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office did
not insist on re-filing the same.
 Canoy filed a complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant accusing Atty.
Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice.
 IBP ruled that Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise that degree of competence and
diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients’ claim,” and recommended
that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded.
 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the recommendation, with the
slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the
same negligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated Rule 14.03 of the CPR.
RULING: YES. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is SUSPENDED for 1 month.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of a client if:
1. He is not in position to carry out the work effectively and competently.
2. He labors under conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 A lawyer’s 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.
 A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
 If indeed Atty. Ortiz’s schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that
he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should have informed Canoy.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present
the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments
of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in
which his/her interests are being defended.
 There could have been remedies undertaken such as a request for more time
to file the position paper, or maybe even the hiring of collaborating counsel or
substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel.
People v. Daeng
G.R. No. L-34091
30 January 1973
DOCTRINE: The Court caution all courts against the frequent appointment of the same
attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic reasons: first, it is unfair to the attorney
concerned, and, second, the compensation provided for might be considered by some
lawyers as a regular source of income, something which the Rule does not envision. In
every case, the accused stands to suffer because the overburdened counsel would
have too little time to spare for his de officio cases, and also would be inordinately eager
to finish such cases in order to collect his fees within the earliest possible time.
FACTS:
 The defendants-appellants George Daeng, Conrado Bautista, Gerardo
Abubin and Rolando Castillo were indicted for the crime of murder before the
Circuit Criminal Court holding sessions in Pasig, Rizal.
 Said accused while then confined at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal,
conspiring with each other and each armed with improvised deadly weapons,
assault and wound one Basilio Beltran, another convicted prisoner serving
final sentence in the same institution, then in the process of serving the
accused breakfast, causing his death.
 All the four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial judge
remarked that the court is giving them time to make a thorough soul searching
as to the consequence of their act and the life they will face in the future that
is death.
 On the following day, the defendants, assisted by counsel de oficio, withdrew
their former plea of "not guilty" and substituted that of "guilty." All the four
defendants were sentenced to death.
22
 Atty. L.M. Cabasal (counsel de oficio) avers that the circumstances attending
their change of plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" generate serious doubt
regarding the said defendants' ability, at the time, to appreciate fully the import
and consequences of their turn-about. The Solicitor General joins this view.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Galvan violated Rule 14.03 of the CPR.
RULING: The case is remanded to the court of origin for a new arraignment of the
defendants.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of a client if:
3. He is not in position to carry out the work effectively and competently.
4. He labors under conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client.
 In at least three criminal cases appealed to the SC, including the present,
involving prisoners charged with and convicted for participation in prison gang
wars, Atty. Jose O. Galvan has been appointed to act as counsel de oficio
for the defendants. In every case, the defendants either pleaded guilty on
initial arraignment or later changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty."
 The appointment of Atty. Galvan as counsel de oficio in all three cases might
just have been a coincidence since there is no evidence before us that would
show that he had applied for and been granted such appointment.
 The Court caution all courts against the frequent appointment of the same
attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic reasons:
1. it is unfair to the attorney concerned, considering the burden of his regular
practice that he should be saddled with too many de officio cases; and,
2. the compensation provided for by section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court (a fixed fee of P500 in capital offense) might be considered by some
lawyers as a regular source of income, something which the Rule does
not envision.
 In every case, the accused stands to suffer because the overburdened
counsel would have too little time to spare for his de officio cases, and also
would be inordinately eager to finish such cases in order to collect his fees
within the earliest possible time.
Rule 14.04 – A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano, supra.
DOCTRINE: The Court does not accept the paradox that responsibility is less where
the defended party is poor. It has been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in
demanding high standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons
charged with crime." For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice
is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self-interest.
Because of this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he
defends.
FACTS:
 One Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the CFI of Samar and
sentenced to death.
 On December 14, 1966, Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was appointed
by this Court as Estebia's counsel de oficio.
 In the notice of his appointment, Adriano was required to prepare and file his
brief within 30 from notice. Adriano received this notice on December 20,
1966.
 He asked for extension 5 times and all these were granted. The brief was due
on April 26, 1967. But no brief was filed.
 On September 25, 1967, Adriano was ordered to show cause why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for failure to file appellant's brief despite
the lapse of the time. Adriano did not bother to give any explanation.
 For failing to comply with the September 25, 1967 resolution, this Court
resolved to impose upon him a fine of P500 payable to this Court within 15
days from notice with a warning that upon further non-compliance with the
said resolution within the same period, "more drastic disciplinary action will be
taken against him." Still, counsel paid no heed.
 On December 5, 1968, this Court ordered Adriano to show cause why he
should not be suspended from the practice of law "for gross misconduct and
violation of his oath of office as attorney." By express order of this Court, the
resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968. He ignored
the resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lope E. Adriano violated Rule 14.04 of the CPR.
RULING: Atty. Lope E. Adriano is SUSPENEDED from the practice of law throughout
the Philippines for a period of 1 year.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
 By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional
aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an
23
attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to
render the required service."
 A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", the Canons of
Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his best efforts" in the
indigent's behalf.
 No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief
despite more than sufficient time afforded to him.
 It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do say that as such
counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed
and paid by defendant himself. Because, as in the case of the latter, he
must exercise his best efforts and professional ability in behalf of the
person assigned to his care. He is to render effective assistance. The
accused defendant expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory
representation.
 Attorney Lope E. Adriano has violated his oath that he will conduct himself as
a lawyer according to the best of his "knowledge and discretion."
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz, supra.
DOCTRINE: Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants
who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of
public service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the
consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should
be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality representation as well.
FACTS:
 Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former
employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines with the NLRC Regional Arbitration
Board VI in Bacolod City where Atty. Jose Max Ortiz appeared as his counsel.
 In 1998, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their position papers
so Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz
for the preparation of the same.
 Canoy made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case until he decided to it follow-up himself with the NLRC and
learned that his complaint was dismissed in 1998 for failure to prosecute.
o Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz never communicated to him about the
status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit the
position paper.
 In his defense, Atty. Ortiz informs the Court:
o that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at
considerable financial sacrifice to himself and Canoy was among
those low-income clients;
o that he prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could
submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order
dismissing the case;
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
o that the period within which to file the position paper had already
lapsed and attributes this failure to the fact that after his election as
Councilor, “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a
local government official and as a practicing lawyer;”
o that it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones to
follow-up their cases with his office;
o that he cannot remember whether he immediately informed Canoy
of the dismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall, Canoy
told him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office did
not insist on re-filing the same.
 Canoy filed a complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant accusing Atty.
Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice.
 The matter was referred to the IBP. Canoy eventually submitted a motion
withdrawing the complaint, but this was not favorably acted upon.
 IBP ruled that Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise that degree of competence and
diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients’ claim,” and recommended
that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded.
 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the recommendation, with the
slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the
same negligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated Rule 14.04 of the CPR.
RULING: YES. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is SUSPENDED for 1 month.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
 The efforts of private practitioners who assist in providing legal representation
for those who could not otherwise afford the services of lawyers are especially
commendable, owing to their sacrifice in time and resources beyond the call
of duty and without expectation of pecuniary reward. Yet, the problem of
under-representation of indigent or low-income clients is just as grievous as
that of non-representation.
 Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a 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
latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. He owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability
to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules
of law, legally applied.
 A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
 If indeed Atty. Ortiz’s schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that
he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should have informed Canoy
of such fact. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there
24
is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of
the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode
and manner in which his/her interests are being defended.
Canon 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN
ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as
soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another
client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Lim v. Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa,
A.C. No. 5303
15 June 2006
DOCTRINE: The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of
the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes
professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.
FACTS:
 Complainant Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena
married to her daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the
herein complainant married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
 Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the Penta Resorts Corporation
(PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven percent (97%).
o Penta Resorts Corporation is a single proprietorship belonging to
Jalandoni. That the only property of the corporation is as above-
stated, the Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely through the effort of
the spouses Jalbuena on that parcel of land now claimed by the
Cabiles family.
 Respondent Atty. Nicanor Villarosa is a practicing lawyer and a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC,
 Jalandoni engaged in the legal service of Atty. Villarosa who formally entered
his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A.
Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles
 Respondent, as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship,
represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case.
 Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were
entrusted to the respondent.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Respondent was provided with all the necessary information relative to the
property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting the corporation
(PRC) particularly involving problems which affect Hotel Alhambra.
o Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the
corporation/hotel.
 Respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing, filed a Motion to
withdraw as counsel, one day before its scheduled hearing on.
 Respondent alleged that his grounds for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot
A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena
and the Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc.
 Respondent further alleged that it was Dennis G. Jalbuena who recommended
him to be the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni,
o Respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law
of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen
J. Jalbuena.
 Respondent already appeared for and in behalf of the Sps. Carmen and
Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin while concurrently representing Lumot A.
Jalandoni, et al. in the civil case.
o However, despite being fully aware that the interest of his client
Lumot A. Jalandoni [holding an equivalent of Eighty-two (82%)
percent of PRCs shares of stocks] and the interest of PRC are one
and the same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot A. Jalandoni was
still his client in the other civil case, respondent opted to represent
opposing clients at the same time.
ISSUE: W/N there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled
by respondent
HELD: YES. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year, effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts
that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of
conflicting interests is reprehensible.
 Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner: There is representation
of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection
25
 The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties
in the same action or in totally unrelated cases.
 The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties connection to PRC,
even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-
litigant in some of the cases mentioned. An attorney owes to his client
undivided allegiance.
 After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for his client and
for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with that of his client in the
same general matter.
 The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it
material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have been honest
 The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the
written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary
action.
Hornilla v. Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat
A.C. No. 5804
1 July 2003
Doctrine: There is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
FACTS:
 Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort were members of the Philippine
Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA).

 In 1997, they accused the Board of Directors of PPSTA of unlawfully spending
the funds of PPSTA.
 However, since the PPSTA was not initiating a complaint against the Board of
Directors, the two then filed a suit on behalf of PPSTA against the Board of
PPSTA.
 In the said suit, the Board of Directors were represented by Atty. Ernesto
Salunat. Hornilla et al were against the legal representation being made by
Salunat for and on behalf of the Board of Directors because of the fact that
Salunat is part of the ASSA Law Offices.
o The ASSA Law Offices happen to be the retained law firm of the
PPSTA.
o In short, Hornilla et al alleged that there is conflict of interests.
ISSUE: W/N there is a conflict of interest
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Rule 15.02 - Shall be bound by rule on privileged communication

HELD: YES. Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the
practice of his profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing parties.
 The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
o If he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client.
 This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have
been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
will be used.
 Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
 Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
 Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their
frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or
unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a stockholder may sue on behalf
of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation, to
bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and
indirectly to the stockholders.
 This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a
derivative suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder
filing suit for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. The corporation
should be included as a party in the suit.
 In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled
Philippine Public School Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of
Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers Assn. (PPSTA), et al., was
filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors.
 Respondent admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing
Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA.
o Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of
Directors in the said case.
 Clearly, respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the
parties against whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.
Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, supra.
Hadjula v. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda
AC No. 6711
July 3, 2007
DOCTRINES
 The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek
legal advice, a veritable attorney-client relationship evolved between the two.
Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed
by the ethics of profession.
 Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer to keep
inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal
consultation.
 The purpose of the rule on confidentiality is to protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
FACTS
 Case started when complainant charged Atty. Madianda with violation of Art.
209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney/revelation of secrets) and Rules
15.02/21.02 of CPR.
 Complainant and respondent were friends and both worked at the Bureau of
Fire Protection (BFP)
o Respondent – Chief Legal Officer
o Complainant – Chief Nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing
Services
 1998 – Complainant approached respondent for some legal advice and
eventually disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage
contract, birth certificate and baptismal certificate, only to be informed by
respondent that she would refer the matter to a lawyer friend.
o She said that it was malicious of respondent to have refused handling
her case only after she had already heard her secrets.
 2000 – Their friendship soured after she filed criminal and disciplinary actions
against respondent.
o What precipitated the filing was when respondent (then a member of
the BFP Promotion Board), demanded cellphone in exchange for her
promotion.
 Respondent, in retaliation, filed a counter complaint with the Ombudsman
charging her with violations of Sec, 3(a) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act), falsification of public documents and immorality (last two
charges being based on complainant’s disclosures)
 A disciplinary case was also instituted against complainant before the PRC.
She now seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of the respondent for the

26
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
latter’s acts of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she
revealed in the course of seeking respondent’s legal advice.
 Respondent:
o Denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed the idea
about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them.
o Said that the supposed confidential data and sensitive documents
adverted to are in fact matters of common knowledge in the BFP
o Said that complainant never delivered legal documents
o She never entertained legal questions or consultations regarding
personal matters since she was not allowed to privately practice and
it would result to Conflict of Interest.
o Said that the present complaint was filed to get even with her so she
would withdraw the case she filed against complainant.
 IBP CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded;
o Stated that the information related by the complainant to the
respondent is “protected under the attorney-client relationship
privilege communication.”
o Respondent violated legal ethics when she revealed information
given to her during a legal consultation.
 IBP BOG approved and adopted the aforementioned.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent breached his duty of preserving the confidence of
a client (YES)
RULING
 Respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED and admonished to be circumspect in
her handling of information acquired as a result of a lawyer-client relationship
and she is STERNLY WARNED against repetition of the same act complained
of.
RATIO
 The documents shown and information revealed in confidence to the
respondent in the course of the legal consultation in question were used as
bases in the criminal and administrative complaints against the complainant.
 In the case of Burbe v. Magulta:
o A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first
moment complainant asked respondent for legal advise.
o It is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally
on any previous occasion.
o A lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal
relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the non-
payment of attorney’s fees.
 8 essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege
communication:
1. Where the legal advice of any kind is sought
27
2. From a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
3. The communications relating to that purpose
4. Made in confidence
5. By the client
6. Are at his instance permanently protected
7. From disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor
8. Except the protection be waived
Rule 15.03 - Shall not represent conflicting interests
See cases under Rule 15.01
Rule 15.04 – May act as mediator/conciliator/arbitrator
Rule 15.05 - Shall give candid and honest opinion
CONSORCIA S. ROLLON vs. Atty. CAMILO NARAVAL
A.C. No. 6424
4 March 2005
DOCTRINES:
Rule 15.05 of the CPR requires that lawyers give their candid and best opinion
to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor
understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some
prospect of success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.
If they find that their clients’ cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible.
FACTS:
 Sometime in October 2000, Rollon went to Atty. Naraval to seek
assistance for a case filed against her by Rosita Julaton for collection of
sum of money.
 After going over the documents brought to Atty. Naraval, the latter agreed
to be Rollon’s lawyer and received 8,000 as payment for filing and partial
service fee.
 The son of Rollon returned to Atty. Naraval’s office to make follow-ups
but he was informed that Atty. Naraval was not able to act on her case
because he was so busy.
 Sometime in November 2001, Rollon decided to withdraw the amount
paid and retrieve the documents pertaining to the case for his failure to
comply with their mutual agreement that Atty. Naraval will assist her in
her case.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 However, Atty. Naraval always said that he cannot return the documents
because they were in their house, and that he could not give us back the
amount we paid him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money
 IBP Board of Governors: Atty. Naraval should be suspended for 2 years
from practice of law for violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the CPR
ISSUES: W/N Atty. Naraval should be suspended
HELD: YES. He is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years; also ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant 8,000
plus interest within 30 days from notice of this Decision
RATIO:
 Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and refuse to accept
representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or
competently.
 But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the CPR to
undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
 Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
 Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of importance.
 After receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee,
respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of
complainant.
o His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals
his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his clients
cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
o Despite repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return the
files of the case that had been entrusted to him and the money given
to him
 After going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid,
honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case.
o He withheld vital information from Rollon but instead demanded
8,000
 The case had been decided against Rollon which had long
become final and executory.
 Rule 15.05 of the CPR: lawyers should give their candid
and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit
of the case, neither overstating nor understating their
evaluation thereof.
o If they find that their clients’ cause is defenseless, then it is their
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
than to traverse the incontrovertible.
28
 The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation
of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
 Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their clients’ money and property that may
come into their possession.
o His failure to return her money upon demand gave rise to the
presumption that he had converted it to his own use and thereby
betrayed the trust she had reposed in him.
Rule 15.06 - Shall not state or imply ability to influence
ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA
A.C. No. 11350
9 August 2016
DOCTRINES:
"A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body." By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the
sum of P8,000.00, respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and
eroded confidence on the judiciary. This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows
that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his character. The
practice of law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to
exercise it.
FACTS:
 This is a disbarment case against Atty. Rivera filed by Plumptre
 Plumptre asked for help from Atty. Rivera in his application for work permit
from the Bureau of Immigration who paid the latter the following amounts:
o 10,000 as professional fee
o 10,000 for the processing of his work permit together with his
passport
 Atty. Rivera also asked for 8,000 for the other case being handled by Atty.
Rivera. Plmptre gave him the full amount.
o 5,000 would be given to Las Pinas judge to reverse the MR against
Plumptre
o 3,000 for the processing of the MR
 After giving the money, Plumptre never received any update on the status of
his work permit and the pending court case.
 Plumptre was able to get back his passport but Atty. Rivera refused to return
the 28,000.
 IBP Board of Governors: Atty. Rivera violated Canons 1, 7, 16, Rules 18.04 of
the CPR thus should be disbarred; ordered to return the 28,000 to Plumptre
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
ISSUES: W/N Atty. Rivera should be disbarred
HELD: NO. Atty. Rivera is SUSPENDED for 3 years.
RATIO:
 Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence and diligence.
 He neglected the attorney-client relationship, acted in a reprehensible manner
towards Plumptre i.e., cussing and threatening Plumptre and his family with
bodly harm, hiding from complainant and refusing without reason to return the
money entrusted to him.
 Respondent’s act of soliciting money to bribe a judge served to malign the
judge and judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won by the
party with the deepest pockets and not on their merits.
 By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling, respondent trampled
upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the
judiciary.
Rule 15.07 – Shall impress compliance with the laws
Rural Bank of Calape v. Atty. James Benedict Florido
A.C. No. 5736
18 June 2010
Doctrine:
Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their
professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they
appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and
foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients’ interests is
secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their
fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics,
never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice.
Facts:
 18 April 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI
alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code).
 Apri 1, 2002, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr.
Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel
(Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force and intimidation, with the use
of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI.
o They forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank manager,
destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the
bank.
29
 respondent denied RBCIs allegations
o explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted
upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and
validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI.
o he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management.
o alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to
comply.
 He also alleged that on April 1, 2002, to ensure a smooth transition of
managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group
went to the bank to ask Garay to step down.
o Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guards long
firearm.
o Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into
the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the
bank.
o Through the orders of the Nazareno-Relampagos group, also
changed the locks of the banks vault.
 He added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him
by RBCI was already dismissed
o the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of
the existence of a prejudicial question
o the disbarment complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the
administrative cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial
court judges of Bohol.
 claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their
allegations. Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint
were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and that none of
the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies.
 IBP ruled that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected
of him as vanguard of law and justice.
 And recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that the
repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.
o The respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could
not just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI
without a valid court order.
o the right to manage and gain majority control over RBCI was one of
the issues pending before the trial court in Civil Case No. 6628.
 respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover of
RBCI and that it was a naked power grab without any
semblance of legality whatsoever.
 the administrative complaint against respondent before the IBP is independent
of the dismissal and suspension of the criminal cases against respondent.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Issue: Whether or not the respondent’s action did not comply with the standards expected of him as vanguard of
law and justice

Ratio: Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.

Ratio Decidendi:

Supreme Court affirmed IBP ruling.

duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the
laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyers’ duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain
from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Rule
15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness.

A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel
his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to
their adversaries.

A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly
subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means,
not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients
cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Chu v. Atty. Jose Guico, Jr.

A.C. No. 10573
13 January 2015

Doctrine:
Grave misconduct is “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment.”28 There is no question that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private capacity
renders him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension
or disbarment, because good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney and for
the continuance of such privilege.

Facts:
 Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San
Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC).
o Atty. Guico’s legal services included handling a complaint for illegal dismissal brought against
CVC in a NLRC Case.
 September 7, 2006, Labor Arbiter Herminio V. Suelo rendered a decision adverse to CVC. 3 Atty. Guico
filed a timely appeal in behalf of CVC
 During a Christmas party held on December 5, 2006 at Atty. Guico’s residence in Commonwealth,
Quezon City, Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable decision.

30
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o June 10, 2007, Chu called Atty. Guico to inform him that he had raised P300,000.00 for the
purpose. Atty. Guico told him to proceed to his office
o and to give the money to his assistant, Reynaldo (Nardo) Manahan.
 Chu complied, and later on called Atty. Guico to confirm that he had delivered the money to Nardo.
 Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC.
 the latter told Chu to raise another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the
decision. But Chu could only produce P280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guico’s office on July 10,
2007.
 it was Nardo who received the amount without issuing any receipt.
 Chu followed up on the status of the CVC case with Atty. Guico in December 2007
o Atty. Guico referred him to Nardo who in turn said that he would only know the status after
Christmas
 Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money, but Nardo replied in the
negative and simply told Chu to wait. Nardo assured that the money was still with Atty. Guico who
would return it should the NLRC Commissioner not accept it.
 January 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who
in turn referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
 Atty. Guico described the administrative complaint as replete with lies and inconsistencies, and insisted
that the charge was only meant for harassment. He denied demanding and receiving money from Chu, a
denial that Nardo corroborated with his own affidavit.

IBP Ruled: Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years with
Warning and Ordered to Return the amount of Five Hundred Eighty Thousand (P580,000.00) Pesos with legal
interest

Issue:
Whether Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from the
NLRC?

Ratio:
Atty. Jose S. Guico, Jr. GUILTY of the violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him from membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
His name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi:
The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal processes under the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility is a continuing condition for every lawyer to retain membership in the Legal Profession.
To discharge the obligation, every lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client that would
involve defiance of the very laws that he was bound to uphold and obey, for he or she was always bound as an
attorney to be law abiding, and thus to uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession. Any lawyer found
to violate this obligation forfeits his or her privilege to continue such membership in the legal profession.

Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money to
obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He
compounded his violation by using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that he soon
appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant

31
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as
well as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice
of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.

Dr. Gamilla, et al. v. Atty. Eduardo Jr. Mario, Jr.

A.C. No. 4763
20 March 2003
DOCTRINES:
 Test of Conflict of Interest: whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the
full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
or double-dealing in the performance thereof
 it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest
tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client
 a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of
his client
 an attorney or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly
disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management

FACTS:
 Disbarment case from an intra-union leadership dispute seventeen (17) years ago that spilled over to
the instant complaint alleging impropriety and double-dealing in the disbursement of sums of money
entrusted by the UST to respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mario Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union
and his core of officers and directors for distribution among faculty members of the university
 1986 – Atty. Mario Jr., as president of the UST Faculty Union and other officers entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the management of UST for provision of economic benefits (P35 Million)
 the CBA engendered disputes arising from the interpretation and implementation thereof
 1986 CBA expired in 1988 and efforts to form a new one failed
 1989 – faculty members of UST went on strike and UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and
directors of the UST faculty union including the respondent
 lower court resolved the issue in favor of the dismissed faculty and ordered their reinstatement with
back wages
 1990 – Secretary of Labor Ruben D. Torres prescribed the terms and conditions of a five (5)-year
collective bargaining agreement between UST and the UST Faculty Union retroactive to 1988 when the
1986 collective bargaining agreement expired
 The administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a compromise agreement for
the payment of:
o P7,000,000.00 from which P5,000,000.00 was intended to settle the back wages and other
claims of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union
o P2,000,000.00 to satisfy the remaining obligations of UST under the 1986 collective bargaining
agreement
 only P5,000,000.00 for the back wages and other claims of respondent Atty. Mario and other concerned
union officers and directors was paid immediately by UST while the satisfaction of the balance
of P2,000,000.00 was apparently deferred
 1992 - UST and the UST Faculty Union executed a memorandum of agreement to settle the salary
increases and other benefits under the collective bargaining agreement effective 1988 for the period 1
June 1991 to 31 May 1993 for a total of P42,000,000

32
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o it was also agreed that the benefits accruing from June 1 1991 to October 31 1992 were to be
taken from the sum of P42,000,000 to be released directly to the faculty members
o the remainder of the P42 M would be ceded by UST to the UST faculty union which would then
disburse the balance to cover the benefits
 In accordance with the memorandum of agreement, UST took care of the disbursement
of P20,226,221.60 from the total commitment of P42,000,000.00 to pay for the following expenses:
o P 2M – unpaid obligations to faculty members under the 1986 CBA
o P 13, 833, 597.96 – salary increase
o P 192, 623.64 – telephone, electricity and water billings
o P 4.2M – attorney’s fees
 The expenses left P21,773, 778.40 from the obligation
 UST relinquished only P18,038,939.37 to the UST Faculty Union which was P3,734,839.03 short of the
balance of P21,773,778.40
 The expenses left a balance of P5,050,140.13
 1994 – the money left in the possession of the UST Faculty Union was P6,389,154.04 which it
distributed among the faculty members
 Complainants as members of the UST Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of transparency
among the officers and directors of the union in the management and disbursement of the monetary
benefits for the faculty members
o Prayed for the expulsion of the officers and directors of the union led by respondent for failure
to account for the P4.2M balance
 1997 – Complainants filed for disbarment against Atty. Mario for:
o compromising their entitlements under the 1986 collective bargaining agreement without the
knowledge, consent or ratification of the union members, and worse, for only P2,000,000.00
when they could have received more than P9,000,000.00
o failing to account for the P7,000,000
o lack of transparency in the administration and distribution of the remaining balance of
the P42,000,000 package under the 1992 memorandum of agreement
o refusal to remit and account for the P4,200,000 in favor of the faculty members
 Complainants asserted that Atty. Mario violated rules 1.01, 1.02, 15.08, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, and 20.04
of the CPR
 Respondent alleged that the issue raised herein are the same issues involved in the former cases filed
before the Bureau of Labor Relations  constituted forum shopping
 IBP  found the complaint meritorious and suspended Atty. Mario from the practice of law until such
time that the required detailed accounting of the questioned remittances made by UST to the UST
[Faculty Union] during his incumbency as President and Legal Counsel has been officially submitted
and reported to the UST [Faculty Union] and to the IBP
 Subsequently, the regional director ordered the expulsion of respondent and other defendants for their
failure to account for the P42M and P4.2M balance
 BOLR  set aside the order of the regional director and found that the balance of the P42,000,000.00
which UST delivered to the UST Faculty Union had been fully and adequately accounted for by
respondent and the other officers and directors of the union
 CA  affirmed BOLR decision
 IBP  recommended the lifting of Atty. Mario’s suspension since he had sufficiently accounted for the
funds in question

ISSUE: WON Atty. Mario violated Rule 15.08 of the CPR

HELD: Yes. Atty. Mario is REPRIMANDED for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will
be imposed on him upon a repetition of the same act.

33
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RATIO:
 Although the record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations found respondent as having adequately
accounted for the disbursement of the funds which the UST Faculty Union received through the series
of agreements with the management of UST, this Court believes that Atty. Mario failed to avoid conflict
of interests
o when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of
union president, union attorney and interested party being one of the dismissed employees
seeking his own restitution
o when he obtained the attorneys fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the
circumstances justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union
 As one of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the University of
Santo Tomas for their illegal dismissal, respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in
addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the
compromise agreement
 Test of Conflict of Interest: whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the
full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
or double-dealing in the performance thereof
 it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest
tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client
 an attorney or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly
disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management
 a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding against a party even with
the client’s consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is
uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments
 a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of
his client
 Respondent omitted the basic sense of fidelity to steer clear of situations that put his loyalty and
devotion to his client  Atty. Mario, both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound to protect
and advance the interest of the union members
 His personal interest as one of the dismissed employees of UST complicated the negotiation process
and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement
 Also, there was lack of notice and transparency in respondents dual role as lawyer and president of the
UST Faculty Union when he obtained P4,200,000.00 as attorneys fees
 Clearly, he violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requiring every lawyer
to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients  Lawyers
are vanguards in the bastion of justice so they are without doubt expected to have a bigger dose of
service-oriented conscience and a little less of self-interest
 Atty. Mario failed to disclose at crucial moments significant information about the manner by which he
secured the P7,000,000.00 by virtue of the compromise agreement and the P4,200,000.00 attorneys
fees under the memorandum of agreement
 A simple accounting of the money that he and others concerned received from UST, as well as an
explanation on the details of the agreements, would have enlightened the faculty members about the
probability of conflict of interests on respondent’s part and guided them to look for alternative actions to
protect their own interests
 a possible mitigation of his actionable conduct was that the attorneys fees and the compromise
agreement were negotiated and finalized under the most strenuous circumstances where his leadership
and that of his core officers and directors were incessantly challenged by complainants allegedly aided
by factions within UST itself
 Atty. Mario is admonished to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including
circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and

34
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and loyalty in all
transactions with his client

Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
profession.

CIVIL CODE
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in
person or through the mediation of another:

xxx

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an
execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property
and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession;

xxx

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Salomon v. Atty. Joselito C. Frial

A.C. No. 7820
12 September 2008

DOCTRINES:
 A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the courts order
and processes
 The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes
advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
 Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the
lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be
commingled with his own or be used by him

FACTS:
 A writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favor of Lucy Lo, Atty. Frial’s client
 The writ was used to attach two (2) cars of complainant’s black 1995 Volvo and a green 1993 Nissan
Sentra
 Atty. Salomon alleged that the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the attached cars in the
court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial, Los counsel
 Atty. Salomon also claimed that on several occasions, the Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by
unauthorized individuals
 Atty. Salomon further alleged, when the misuse of the car was reported, paving for Liquigans
apprehension, Atty. Frial, in a letter, acknowledged having authorized Liquigan to bring the car
in custodia legis to a mechanic
 As to the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that during mediation, Atty. Frial deliberately withheld
information as to its whereabouts
 It turned out that the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, but the court was not immediately notified

35
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Atty. Frial admitted taking custody of the cars thru his own undertaking, without authority and knowledge
of the court  the vehicles were parked near the YMCA building for 4 months and when he checked
the condition of the vehicle, he found it to be deteriorating
 Atty. Frial denied personally using or allowing others the use of the cars, stating in this regard that if
indeed the Nissan Sentra was spotted in Quezon City, it could have been the time when the car was
being transferred from the YMCA, that it was brought to the gas station to be filled up
 Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon, Jr. charged respondent Atty. Joselito C. Frial with violating his Lawyers Oath
and/or gross misconduct arising from his actuations with respect to the former’s vehicles before the IBP
and prayed that the latter be disbarred

ISSUE: WON Atty. Frial violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR

HELD: Yes. Atty. Joselito C. Frial is adjudged guilty of grave misconduct and infidelity in the custody of
properties in custodia legis. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year
effective upon his receipt of this Decision

RATIO:
 The commission observed that while there is perhaps no direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial with the use
of the Nissan Sentra, the unyielding fact remains that it was being used by other persons during the
time he was supposed to have custody of it
 whoever drove the Nissan Sentra on those occasions must have received the car key from Atty. Frial
 When Atty. Frial took custody of the Nissan Sentra and Volvo cars, he was duty bound to keep and
preserve these in the same condition he received them so as to fetch a good price should the vehicles
be auctioned
 As to the Volvo, Atty. Frial admitted receiving it in excellent condition and that there was no court order
authorizing him to remove the car from the YMCA premises, that he secured the release of the Volvo on
the strength alone of his own written undertaking and that the car was almost totally destroyed  Atty.
Frial did not give information as to the whereabouts of the cars
 IBP Commission concluded that Atty. Frial committed acts clearly bearing on his integrity as a lawyer,
adding that he failed to observe the diligence required of him as custodian of the cars  recommended
that Atty. Frial be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year
 A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the courts order
and processes  Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as such officer because he trifled with the
writ of attachment the court issued
 Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the attached cars  he allowed the use of
the Nissan car by persons who had no business using it, he did not inform the court or at least the
sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car and he took custody of them without so much as informing the
court, let alone securing, its authority
 For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in the
custody of the attached cars and grave misconduct
 the victorious parties in the case are not without legal recourse in recovering the Volvos value from Atty.
Frial should they desire to do so
 With the view we take of the case, there is no compelling evidence tending to show that Atty. Frial
intended to pervert the administration of justice for some dishonest purpose  disbarment is not proper
- a year suspension from the practice of his legal profession will provide him with enough time to ponder
on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.

DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR. vs ATTY. MINTERVO T. LANGIT

AC No. 7057
July 25, 2006

36
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

FACTS:
The case was filed by Almendarez, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty. Langit on May 5, 2004 for acts unbecoming
of a lawyer.

Almendarez, Jr., who was the attorney-in-fact of his mother, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case. His counsel
was Atty. Langit.

In the ejectment case, defendant Bumanlag continued depositing with the Clerk of Court for monthly rentals for the
property in dispute.

The MTC eventually rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement executed by Almendarez, Jr. and
Bumanlag. The MTC thus granted an Omnibus Motion for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed by
Atty. Langit as counsel of Almendarez, Jr.

3 years later, Alemdarez, Jr. learned that respondent was able to withdraw the rentals deposited by Bumanlag
(Php 255,000.00 total) which was evidenced by 2 receipts signed by Atty. Langit. The withdrawals were made
through Felicidad Daroy, Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, who personally delivered the money to Atty. Langit.

Atty. Langit did not inform Almendarez, Jr. of such transactions.

Thus, Almendarez, Jr., through his new counsel, Atty. Larida, sent a demand letter to Atty. Langit for the return of
the Php 255,000.00, but Atty. Langit did not respond.

Almendarez, Jr. thus filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Langit for failing to account for complainants funds.

IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio Vinluan ordered Atty. Langit to submit his answer to the complaint, but he
did not file an answer despite receipt of notice.

Finding and recommendation of the IBP

IBP Commissioner Dulay found that Atty. Langit failed to account for the money he held in trust for complainant,
Almendarez, Jr. A violation of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

It was recommended that Atty. Langit be declared guilty of gross misconduct and be suspended for one year, aside
from being ordered to render an accounting of the money he had received.

This was approved by the IBP Board of Governors, except increasing his suspension to two years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Langit violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
The Court sustained the decision of the IBP. They held that Atty. Langit committed a flagrant violation of his oath
when he received the money representing rentals for his client, without accounting for and returning the money to
his client, Almendarez, Jr.

37
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

The court held that Atty. Langit should have immediately notified Almendarez, Jr. of the MTC’s approval of the
motion to withdraw the rentals.

A lawyer is not entitle to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes
him attorneys fees.

The fact that Atty. Langit failed to return the money to Almendarez, Jr. despite demands gives rise to the
presumption that he had used it for his personal benefit. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics, which impairs public confidence in the legal profession.

Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 25 — Unlawful retention of clients funds; contempt — When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money
of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal
prosecution.

WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for two yearseffective upon finality
of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to RESTITUTE, within 30 days from finality of this Decision, complainants
P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum from 30 June 2003 until fully paid. We DIRECT respondent to submit to
the Court proof of payment within 15 days from payment of the full amount.

CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED vs. NICOLAS C. TORRES

AC No. 10438
Sept. 23, 2014

FACTS:
CF Sharp is a duly organized corporation existing under Philippine laws, engaged in overseas maritime
employment.

CF Sharp hired Torres — a doctor and a lawyer by profession — as their Legal and Claims Manager, and to serve
as their legal counsel in legal cases and in medical related claims.

Among the cases Torres handled were those of seafarers Mangi, Sampani, Delgado, and Chua.
In the complaint, it was alleged that CF Sharp issued checks in the amounts of Php 524,000.00, Php 652,013.20,
Php 145,650.00, Php 97,100.00, and Php 296,808.40 as settlement for the claims of the above mentioned
seafarers.

However, CF Sharp discovered later on that the only check delivered was that which amounted to Php 145,650.00
issued in favor of Delgado. Torres never gave the checks to the seafarers and instead, had them deposited at
International Exchange Bank.

38
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

It was also discovered that Sampani received Php 225,239.00 out of the requested Php 652,013.20, and that the
checks were not issued by CF Sharp.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline received an instant complaint and required Torres to file an answer. Torres
did not file an answer, nor did he appear in the mandatory conference or file his position paper.

IBP Report and Recommendation

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Torres administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional
responsibility, recommending that he be suspended from the practice for a period of one year.

Torres belatedly field his answer with a Motion to Re-Open Investigation. He claimed that he was not able to file
an answer because CF Sharp supplied a wrong address to the IBP and filed non-bailable criminal cases against
him which caused his detention in a regular prison cell.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation, increasing the period of suspension from
the practice of law to two years, and ordering Torres to return the full amount of money due to the seafarers, with
legal interest within 30 days of notice.

Torres filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Torres should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
The Court sustained the decision of the IBP as to the recommended penalty and the monetary award in favor of
CF Sharp.

The Court held that it is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is formed out of trust
(“fiduciary”) and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith.

It has been held that a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives
rise to the presumption that he has used the same for his personal use or benefit. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as professional ethics.

It is well-settled that “when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound
to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does
not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.”

Clearly, respondent’s acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence reposed in him
by the complainant, and betrayal of his client’s interests which he is duty-bound to protect.

They are contrary to the mandate of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance is not only unacceptable,

39
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it also reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to
practice law.

The Court, however, deems it proper to modify the penalty recommended by the IBP. In similar cases where a
lawyer misappropriated their client’s money, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

The Court also cannot concur with the IBP’s recommendation for the return of the settlement money received from
CF Sharp, considering that it was not specifically prayed for in the latter’s administrative complaint.

WHEREFORE, respondent Nicolas C. Torres is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and
16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.

Rule 16.02 - Shall keep client’s fund separate

Hernandez v. Atty. Jose C. Go

A.C. No. 1526
31 January 2005

RECIT-READY: Hernandez was left behind by her husband and her husband’s creditors ran after her. She
engaged the services of Go to prevent her properties from being foreclosed. Go told Hernandez to sell him her
properties at no cost and got the titles to her lots so that he could sell it to the creditors. He didn’t sell the lots, and
he paid off the loan. Hernandez was now deprived of her properties.

DOCTRINE: An attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of his clients. This
includes holding in trust the client’s properties and ensuring that the client’s funds are separate from his own.

FACTS:
1. Disbarment case against Atty. Jose C. Go
2. The complainant, Nazaria Hernandez (deceased as of the case; substituted by her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez), was abandoned by her husband.
3. This husband incurred loans with multiple creditors and those creditors had demanded payment from
Nazaria after she had been abandoned by her husband.
4. Fearing the foreclosure of her properties to satisfy the debt of her husband, Nazaria engaged the services
of Atty. Go, in 1961.
5. Atty. Go “instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation”.
He asked her to give him her land titles covering three lots in Zamboanga for him to sell, after which the
proceeds would (supposedly) cover the loan amount demanded by the numerous creditors.
 Atty. Go asked Nazaria to execute deeds of sale in his favor, without monetary or valuable
consideration.
 *At this juncture, the titles of the parcels of land were in his possession; he also held deeds of
sale which would (ordinarily) present proof of acquisition of ownership
6. Atty. Go employed the same procedure for three more parcels of land. After this, it seems that all of
Nazaria’s lots were registered in favor of Atty. Go.
7. In 1974 (or 13 years after the whole transaction), Nazaria discovered that:
 The properties were not sold by Atty. Go, and were now registered in his name; and
 The loan was paid by Go from his own personal funds.

40
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

8. Nazaria filed the disbarment case. This was opposed by Go, who stated that he (a) had acted in good
faith; and (b) had even extended financial assistance to her.
9. The SC referred Nazaria to the OSG. The IBP only acted on the case in 1990, or after 13 years, 1 month
and 26 days, after referral by the OSG.
a. The IBP recommended suspension for six months
b. The IBP Board of Governors increased the recommended suspension to three years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Go’s actions warranted sanction or discipline by the Court

RULING: YES. Atty. Go’s actions deplorable actions were contrary to Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He was DISBARRED and his name was ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys.

RATIO:
 Go’s acts of acquiring for himself Nazaria’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting
gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies
a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
 The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and confidence in herein
respondent, that when she engaged his services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to
sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors.
 Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others
but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations.
 Go was duty-bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold Nazaria’s lots
and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could
have earned more.
 Records show that Nazaria did not receive any amount from respondent. Clearly, Go did not adhere
faithfully and honestly in his duty as Nazaria’s counsel.
 Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of
his clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects his clients cause;
he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession.

Tarog v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort

A.C. No. 8253
15 March 2011

RECIT-READY: Sps. Tarog had their properties foreclosed. They engaged the services of Ricafort. Ricafort told
them to consign Php 65,000 in court to counter the auction sale purchase price of Php 60,000. They told them to
address the check to his name. Later on, the Tarogs also paid Ricafort Php 15,000 to file the memoranda, which
he did not do. By appropriating the money for himself, Ricafort breached his fiduciary duties as a lawyer
and was disbarred.

DOCTRINE: Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for lawyers to issue receipts,
even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records. By virtue of the fiduciary duty of a
lawyer to his client, lawyers are burdened with the legal duty to promptly account for all the funds received from or
held by him for them. Moreover, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.

FACTS:
1. Sps. Tarog’s properties were foreclosed by a bank in Bicol.
2. In order to get their properties back, they engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort.

41
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

a. Atty. Ricafort was a well-trusted lawyer in the community, and the Dean of the College of Law of
Aquinas University, where the son of Sps. Tarog was studying.
3. Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained
the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio
Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property.
4. After Sps. Tarog informed him that they had only P60,000.00, he required them to add some more
amount (dagdagan niyo ng konti).
5. To raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, Vidal solicited a loan from one Sia with the guarantee of his
brother Atty. Miralles. Sia issued a check in that amount in the name of Arnulfo.
6. On November 7, 1992, the Tarogs and Vidal went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00.
When Arnulfo said that he had first to encash the check at the bank, Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to
entrust the check to him instead so that he (Atty. Ricafort) would be the one to encash it and then
deposit the amount in court. On that representation, Arnulfo handed the check to Atty. Ricafort.
7. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort
informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but in his own account. He promised
to return the money, plus interest.
8. Despite several inquiries about when the amount would be returned, however, the Tarogs received mere
assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in good hands.
9. The Tarogs further claimed that the RTC where their complaint for annulment of sale was being heard,
had required the parties to file their memoranda. Accordingly, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty.
Ricafort for that purpose, but he did not file the memorandum.
10. When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning
the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arnulfo demanded that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest,
and the P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the memorandum. They did not receive any reply from Atty.
Ricafort.
11. In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in court, insisting
that the amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal," that is, the amount
included his acceptance fee, attorney’s fee, and appearance fees from the filing of the complaint
for annulment of sale until judgment, but excluding appeal.
12. He claimed that the fees were agreed upon as professional fees. Moreover, he argued that Arnulfo,
being a retired school principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallen for any scheme
like the one they depicted against him. Also, he mentioned that he did not receive any demand letter from
Arnfulo, although he had earlier admitted receiving the same through a househelp.
13. The IBP recommended that Ricafort be disbarred and ordered to return the Php 65,000 and Php 15,000
(total 80,000) to Sps. Tarog.
14. Commissioner Reyes concluded that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and
16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the vulnerability
of his clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing to return the amount of
P65,000.00 to them.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ricafort’s acts in keeping the money entrusted to him constituted a violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

RULING: YES. Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his acts constituted
gross misconduct. He was DISBARRED.

RATIO:
 Being non-lawyers, the Tarogs had no idea about the requirement for them to consign any amount in
court, due to the substantive and procedural implications of such requirement being ordinarily known only
to lawyers.

42
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Their ready and full reliance on Atty. Ricafort’s representations about the requirement to consign that
amount in court was entirely understandable in view of their awareness of Atty. Ricafort’s standing in the
legal community of the place.
 Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for him to issue receipts, even if
not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records. Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
 Definitely, Atty. Ricafort had a highly fiduciary and confidential relation with the Tarogs. As such, he was
burdened with the legal duty to promptly account for all the funds received from or held by him for them.
 Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his clients that came
into his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed
in him.
 Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional employment, he had
the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients:
(a) when they became due; or
(b) upon demand.
 For him to deposit the amount of P65,000.00 in his personal account without the consent of the Tarogs
and not return it upon demand, and for him to fail to file the memorandum and yet not return the amount
of P15,000.00 upon demand constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney,
and violated Rule 16.02. He reneged on his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he
had spent the amounts for the particular purposes intended. He was thereby presumed to have
misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of his clients and in violation of the
clients’ trust reposed in him.
 Moreover, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 16.03 - Shall deliver funds on demand; lien

Busiños v. Atty. Francisco Ricafort

A.C. No. 4349
22 December 1997

RECIT READY: Ricafort was the counsel of Busios. Busios executed an SPA allowing Ricafort to demand,
collect, and receive money from the defendant in a civil case. The RTC awarded the rental payments subject of
the civil suit to Busios, and Ricafort received it on Busios’ behalf. Instead of depositing the money, Ricafort used
the money “for personal use” and failed to return the money to Busios even after demand.

DOCTRINE: Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to them. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his client that has
come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes
without his client’s consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust.

FACTS:
1. Disbarment case against Francisco Ricafort1.
2. Complainant Lourdes R. Busios is one of the heirs of Pedro Rodrigo who are the defendants in Civil Case
No. 1584, apparently a case involving the properties of the late Pedro Rodrigo, father of herein
complainant.
3. Ricafort was the counsel of record for Busios in the said case. On July 10, 1994, complainant representing
her co-heirs, executed a special power of attorney, appointing and constituting respondent and/or Pedro
Rodrigo, Jr. to be her true and lawful attorney-in-fact which included the power “To demand, collect and

1
The earlier case was about Romulo Ricafort. I don’t know if they’re related, but they’re both from Bicol. They might be.

43
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

receipt for any and all sums of money that may now be deposited in said court by the defendant x x x
or hereafter be deposited by said defendant, x x x”.
4. On August 10, 1994, the RTC Albay issued an order, directing the Clerk of Court to release any and all
deposits of rentals made in connection with this case (Civil Case No. 1584) to the defendants Heirs of
Pedro Rodrigo through Lourdes Rodrigo Businos.
5. In a letter dated August 10, 1994, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Ligao informed herein complainant that
respondent had already received the rental deposit. The said sum was entrusted to respondent with an
obligation on his part to deposit the same in the account of complainant’s husband at PNB, Ligao Branch.
6. Instead, however, of depositing the money, respondent converted the money to his own personal
use, and despite several demands, he failed to return the same to complainant.
7. Ricafort was charged with estafa for misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00
was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00
represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in a civil case,
when no such bond was required. Ricafort was also charged with an administrative case.
8. The IBP recommended suspension for a period of one year.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ricafort was liable for violation of Rule16.03 of the CPR

RULING: YES. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to them. Ricafort was DISBARRED.

RATIO:
 It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice
and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the
money of his client that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property
or use it for his personal purposes without his client’s consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty
and fidelity to private trust.
 Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be
immediately turned over to them.
 Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent, and by
deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond
which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing,
he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients.
 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his
clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing.
 Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member
of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the profession.

44
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

CELEDONIO QUILBAN, ROMUALDO

DALAGAN, FORTUNATO RAMIREZ,
AMADOR ALARCON and LUIS
AGAWAN vs. ATTY. SANTIAGO R.
ROBINOL
Adm. Case No. 2144

April 10, 1989

DOCTRINE
Atty. Robinol is guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct for having retained in his possession his clients’
funds intended for a specific purpose.

FACTS
Colegio de San Jose used to own a parcel of land, -
 it sold said land to the Quezon City Government as the site for the Quezon City General Hospital
 but reserved an area as a possible development site.
 Squatters have settled in the area since 1965 or 1966.
Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters, Congressman Taruc
 broached to Father Escaler the idea of donating or selling the land cheap to the squatters.
 advised the squatters to form an organization and choose a leader.
The squatters formed the “Samahang Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala”, with Bernabe Martin as President.
But instead of working for the welfare of the Samahan,
 Martin went to realtor Maximo Riverawith whom he connived to obtain the sale to the exclusion of the other
Samahan members.
Land was sold to Rivera at P15 per square meter.
 prevailing price was P100 to P120 per square meter.

45
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Father Escaler had been made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters.
Thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed Civil Case
 to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of them
 after reimbursement by the latter of the corresponding amount paid by Rivera to the Colegio.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
To prosecute the appeal, the Samahan members hired as their counsel
 Atty. Robinol who was paid P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and
 was also to be given by the members a part of the land.
The Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision ordering Rivera to execute a deed of conveyance of the land in
question in favor of plaintiffs.
To raise the amount of P41,961.65 ordered paid by the Court of Appeals,
 the five officers of the Samahan collected P2,500.00 from each head of family.
 turned over the sum of P68,970.00 to Atty. Robinol.
The five officers discovered that Atty. Robinol made no payment to Rivera.
Atty. Robinol replied that
 there was an intervention filed in the civil case and
 that a Writ of Execution had not yet been issued.
Twenty-one out of 32 plaintiffs
 arrived at a “first consensus” to change their counsel,
 sent Atty. Robinol a letter informing the latter of their decision, and
 demanding the return of the P75,000.00.
Atty. Robinol turned deaf ears to the demand.
Atty. Montemayor formally entered his appearance.
Atty. Robinol
 manifested that he had no objection to the appearance of and his substitution by Atty. Montemayor.
 however, he still questioned the first consensus.
Another document labelled the “second consensus” was signed by 21 plaintiffs.
Administrative Case No. 2144
The Samahan officers filed this Administrative Complaint before this Court requesting
 the investigation of Atty. Robinol for refusal to return the P75,000.00 and
 the Court exercise its power of discipline over members of the Bar unworthy to practice law.
In his defense, Atty. Robinol maintains that
 their agreement as to attorney’s fees was on a contingent basis—if he obtains a reversal of the lower Court
Decision, they will give him a portion of the property subject matter of the litigation equal to the portion that
will pertain to each of the 32 plaintiffs;
 he did not receive P70,000.00 from Complainants but only P56,470.00;
 he prepared and signed the receipt showing that he received P70,000.00 only to save complainants from
embarrassment and shame should their co-plaintiffs ask for proof that they have paid their shares, which
they have not;
 the correct amount in his possession is only P62,470.00—it would really be P75,000.00 had the five
Complainants paid their shares in the amount of P12,500.00 at P2,500.00 each and one Fortunato Ramirez
paid his balance of P30.00;
 he had the right to hold the money in his possession as guarantee for the payment of his attorney’s
fees—instead of getting a portion of the property that will pertain to each of the plaintiffs, he wants his
portion converted to cash;
 he is ready to give back the amount of P12,470.00, representing the difference between P50,000.00 and the
amount of P62,470.00 in his possession;
 complainants cannot make this Court a collection agency;

46
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 while this Court has the exclusive disciplinary power over members of the Bar, it is equally true that the
Court cannot pass judgment on Complainants’ plea that the amount deposited by respondent be returned to
them as this prayer should be ventilated in an ordinary action;
 he does not have the slightest intention to appropriate the money in his possession for himself,
 but he is holding it until his attorney’s fees are satisfied there being no guarantee for its satisfaction because
of Complainants’ adamant refusal to pay him;
 that there was no previous notice to him of his discharge; and
 that Atty. Montemayor accepted the case without his formal withdrawal and conformity.
Atty. Robinol filed a complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Anacleto R. Montemayor for
 alleged gross unethical conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
 in that Atty. Montemayor readily accepted the case without his (Robinol’s) formal withdrawal and conformity
and
 knowing fully well that there was no consensus of all the plaintiffs to discharge him as their counsel.
Atty. Montemayor
 denied that the attorney’s fees agreed upon by plaintiffs and Atty. Robinol were purely on a contingent basis,
 the attorney’s fees were payable on a cash basis of P2,000.00 retainer fee, as evidenced by the receipt;
 the contingent fee referred to by Atty. Robinol was the result of his insistent demand after the Court of
Appeals Decision was already final;
 21 out of 32 members of the Samahan signed the agreement to discharge Atty. Robinol which is a majority
of the membership and, therefore, a valid consensus;
 he agreed to act as counsel if only to arrest the growing belief of the Samahan that most members of the
Philippine Bar are unprincipled;
 although there was no formal Motion for substitution, there was substantial compliance with Sec. 26, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S
Whether Atty. Robinol has been guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct.

RULING
Yes.
He has not only violated his oath not to delay any man for money and to conduct himself with all good
fidelity to his clients.
He is declared to have forfeited his rights to attorney’s fees and is ordered to return the amount of
P75,000.00 to the plaintiffs.

47
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RATIO DECIDENDI
No basis to claim that since he was unjustly dismissed by his
clients.
 There was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel.
 His clients had lost confidence in him.

No basis to claim that he had the legal right to retain the money in
his possession
 bereft of any legal right to retain his clients’ funds intended for a specific purpose.
 obliged to return the money immediately to their rightful owners.

Principle of Quantum Meruit

 applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services
 he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has earned.
In this case, however,
 there was an express contract and
 a stipulated mode of compensation.
 The implied assumpsit on quantum meruit is inapplicable.
The complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Robinol against Atty. Montemayor is absolutely without merit.

Rule 16.04 – Shall not borrow money

48
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION and BLESILDA

S. CONCEPCION vs. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA

A.C. No. 10681

February 3, 2015

DOCTRINE
The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over his client.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. This “trust and
confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use
all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

Facts
From 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as complainants’ retained lawyer and counsel. In this
capacity,
 respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters,
 among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005.
Said business failed to materialize.
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed business venture
 respondent borrowed the amount of P2,500,000.00,
 which he promised to return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter.
Complainants issued 3 checks in respondent’s name:

49
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper containing:

 photocopies of the checks, and
 an acknowledgment that he received the originals of the checks;
 personally encashed the checks.
 he failed to pay complainants.
Complainants
 began demanding payment
 but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay soon.
 Blesilda sent a demand letterto respondent, which the latter did not heed.
Respondent
 denied borrowing any money from the complainants;
 claimed that Jean Charles Nault, one of his other clients, was the real debtor.
 complainants had been attempting to collect from Nault, and that
 he was engaged for that specific purpose.
Complainants maintained that
 they extended the loan to respondent alone,
 as evidenced by the checks issued in the latter’s name.
 denied knowing Nault and
 pointed out that it defies common sense for them to extend an unsecured loan in the amount of
P2,500,000.00 to a person they do not even know.
Nault
 explicitly denied knowing complainants and
 alleged that it was respondent who incurred the subject loan from them.

Issue
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

Ruling
Yes.
Respondent’s receipt of the P2,500,000.00 loan from complainants is amply supported by substantial evidence.
Atty. Dela Rosa is found guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.

50
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ratio
A lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan is very unethical.
 It comes within those acts considered as abuse of client’s confidence.
 The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on her obligation.

The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the

exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding
facts.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
 the ONLY issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of
the Bar.
 the Court’s only concern is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability;
 it should NOT involve his civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct,
and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement.

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

51
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ANTERO M. SISON vs. ATTY. MANUEL

N. CAMACHO
A.C. No. 10910

January 12, 2016

DOCTRINE
A lawyer’s failure, to return upon demand, the funds
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for
his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him
by his client.
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose should be immediately returned.

facts
Atty. Camacho was the counsel of Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc. (MDAHI) in an insurance claim
against Paramount Insurance.
The initial insurance claim was P14,863,777.00.
Atty. Camacho
 met with Atty. Enrique Dimaano, corporate secretary of MDAHI
 and proposed to increase their claim to P64,412,534.18 by taking into account the interests imposed.
 clarified that the increase in the claim would require additional docket fees in the amount of P1,288,260.00,
as shown in his handwritten computation.
 promised to issue a receipt for the said amount, but never did.

52
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

MDAHI (through its President Atty. Sison)

 agreed and granted the said amount,
 which was evidenced by a Payment Request/Order Form.
 later discovered that RTC had already rendered a decision in favor of MDAHI granting its insurance claim
plus interests in the amount of P65,000,000.00.

Atty. Camacho
 sent a letter to MDAHI recommending a settlement with in the amount of P15,000,000.00
 allegedly to prevent a protracted appeal with the appellate court.
MDAHI refused the offer of compromise.
Atty. Camacho
 filed the Satisfaction of Judgment before the RTC,
 stating that the parties had entered into a compromise agreement;
 replied to MDAHI that he simply gave it to the clerk of court as the payment period had lapsed.
Atty. Sison sent a letter to Atty. Camacho stating that
 he was alarmed that the former would accept a disadvantageous compromise;
 it was against company policy to bribe any government official with respect to the P1,288,260.00 given to
the clerk of court;
 MDAHI would only pay P200,000.00 to Atty. Camacho as attorney’s fees.
Atty. Camacho denied all the allegations against him. He stressed that
 he had the authority to enter into the compromise agreement.
 the alleged docket fees given to him by MDAHI formed part of his attorney’s fees.
 the judgment debt was paid and accepted by MDAHI without any objection, as duly evidenced by an
acknowledgment receipt.
 the compromise agreement was valid because MDAHI did not reject the same, and that
 the amount of P1,288,260 formed part of his attorney’s fees.

issue
Whether Atty. Camacho violated Rules 1.01 and 16.01 of the CPR.

ruling
Yes.
He is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Atty. Camacho is ordered to RETURN to MDAHI the P1,288,260.00

53
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Failing to account for the money of the

client
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.
Lawyers are NOT entitled to unilaterally appropriate their clients’ money for themselves by the mere fact that the
clients owe them attorney’s fees.
Moreover, Atty. Camacho failed to issue a receipt to MDAHI from the moment he received the said amount.
Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for a lawyer to issue receipts, even if
not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records.

Entering into a compromise agreement

without written authority of the client
Although MDAHI subsequently received the payment of P15M from Paramount Insurance, it does not erase Atty.
Camacho’s transgression.

MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 3195. December 19, 1989

DOCTRINE
"Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s
cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client; he also
serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance explains the public concern for the maintenance of an
untarnished standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client." When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby
covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence
or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him.
The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. Lawyers are an
indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when strong and disturbing
criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance with one’s oath of office and the canons of
professional ethics is an imperative.

FACTS
 Subject of this administrative complaint is Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano

54
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of
acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
 Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an action for "ejectment" and
"reconveyance with damages."
 When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party.
 Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan which introduced them to
herein Respondent, Atty. Potenciano.
 A petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and/or Status Quo Order, etc." was prepared by respondent to forestall the execution of the order to
vacate
 October 9, 1987, the complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "hastily prepared,
poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed" petition for annulment of judgment.
 Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the necessary restraining order would be secured if only
because the judge who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend).
 Thereupon, the petition was filed and Respondent demanded from the complainant one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) as attorney’s fee which the latter paid that same afternoon.
 October 11, 1987: Respondent went to the house of complainant and asked her to be ready with two thousand
pesos (P2,000.00) to be given to another judge who will issue the restraining order in the ejectment case
 Respondent informed the complainant and her sister that he could not locate the judge who would issue the
restraining order. The parties, then, instead went to the Max’s Restaurant where respondent ordered some food
— including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be given to the judge who would issue the restraining order.
 Respondent asked for the remaining balance of the two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) which he earlier demanded.
Complainant gave her last money - a ten dollar ($10.00) bill
 Sometime after the filing, respondent informed complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another
case with the RTC to enable them to retain possession of the apartment.
 For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another
one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to cover the expenses of the suit.
 October 26, 1987: the money was handed over to the Respondent, then a complaint for "Specific Performance,
Annulment of Simulated or Spurious Sale with Damages," was filed by respondent
 October 30, 1987: respondent, contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order, withdrew his
appearance as counsel for complainant.
 Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement .
 Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained.
 As a consequence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.
 It came to complainant’s knowledge that there was really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00). After further inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made.
 December 23, 1987: complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of the total amount
of eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00) which the former earlier gave to the latter.
 However, this letter was never answered and the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this
administrative complaint against herein Respondent.
 Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of the civil cases was done in good faith and that the
allegations of complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all lies, product of one’s
imagination and only intended to harass him.

55
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pontenciano violated the CPR

RULING: YES. “WHEREFORE, after considering the entirety of the circumstances present in this case, this Court
finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to
deserve to resume the practice of law.

Finally, respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00)
with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is actually returned.”

RATIO
 SC agrees that the petitions appear to be poorly prepared and written.
 Having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant
respondent should have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his
representation.
 The little time involved is no excuse.
 Complainant reposed full faith in him.
 His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability.
 Apparently respondent was more interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a
hopeless situation.
 He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to "buy" the
restraining order in the other.
 Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he pocketed
the same.
 When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution
until its final conclusion.
 The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy
of the trust which the client had reposed on him.
 The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics.
 The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interests.
 Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No.
55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge,
respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.
 Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge that he would be asked to withdraw, the record
is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction respondent already filed
a motion therein withdrawing as complainant’s counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent attacks
of pain due to hemorrhoids.
 Despite this void, respondent failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire another
lawyer in his stead.
 His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his
client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his client.

56
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 More so in this case, whereby reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her
cases.
 The filing of a civil case on the same day that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for
complainant reveals his lack of good faith as an advocate.
 He also failed to appear for the complainant in said case.
 It was all a show to get more money from her. This adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
 When confronted with this evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he did not physically appear
for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the pleadings.
 His duty was not only to prepare the pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the
cases. This he failed to do.
 His representation that there was an immediate need to file when he already knew that he could no longer
physically handle the same is an act of deception of his client. It shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office
as a member of the Philippine bar.
 The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his
services, is simply incredible.
 Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered.
 And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of complainant all the more bolster
the protestation of complainant that respondent does not deserve to remain as an officer of the court.

FULGENCIO A. NGAYAN, TOMASA K. NGAYAN and BELLA AURORA NGAYAN, complainants, vs. ATTY.
FAUSTINO F. TUGADE, respondent.
A.M. No. 2490 February 7, 1991

DOCTRINE
The inaction of respondent to the resolutions of this Honorable Court requiring him to file his Answer to the Complaint
filed against him and his subsequent failure to attend the hearings on the said complaint indicate that respondent has not
obeyed the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities and he has not conducted himself as a lawyer according to the
best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Further, lawyers are
particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes. They should stand foremost in complying with the court's
directives or instructions being themselves officers of the court. This lack of concern shown by respondent regarding the
matter that involved the very foundation of his right to engage in the practice of law would show how much less he
would regard the interest of his clients.

FACTS
 This case refers to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainants against respondent lawyer for
violation of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines.
 Complainants alleged that they asked respondent to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to
be filed against Mrs. Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized entry
into complainants' dwelling.
 Without thoroughly reading the same, Mrs. Tomasa A. Ngayan allegedly signed it because she was rushed to
do the same.
 After signing, Mrs. Ngayan noted a paragraph which did not mention that Robert Leonido was with Rowena
Soriano when both suddenly barged into complainants' residence.

57
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Mrs. Ngayan allegedly told respondent about his omission and in front of her, respondent crossed out the
paragraph she complained about and promised to make another affidavit. In the meantime, complainants filed
motions to discharge the respondent as their counsel.
 Complainants allegedly made a follow up after discharging respondent and found that the name of Robert
Leonido was not included in the charge.
 Since the omission was remedied by their new counsel and the case was subsequently filed in court, the adverse
parties filed a motion for reinvestigation
 Complainants averred that the motion was filed by Atty. Apolo P. Gaminda, a former classmate of respondent.
 They further said that respondent was also a lawyer of the brother of Robert Leonido in an insurance company.
 Complainants further alleged that the motion for reinvestigation was set for hearing before Assistant City Fiscal
Milagros F. Garcia-Beza where respondent himself executed and submitted an affidavit as exhibit for Robert
Leonido and Rowena Soriano controverting the affidavit of complainants notwithstanding the fact that he
prepared the latter's affidavit when he was still their counsel.
 They further alleged that before he executed and submitted his affidavit, respondent sent a personal letter to
Fiscal Beza denouncing complainants and stating that he is filing criminal and civil cases against them.
 Complainants charged respondent for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court,
which provide:

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept
no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witnesses, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

 Complainants claim that paragraph (e) was violated by respondent when the affidavit he prepared for
complainants but subsequently crossed-out was submitted as evidence against complainants in the motion for
reinvestigation.
 As to paragraph (f), complainants averred that respondent violated it when he sent a letter to the fiscal saying
that his name was being adversely affected by the false affidavits of complainants and for that reason,
respondent was contemplating to file a criminal and civil action for damages against them
 SolGen recommended that the respondent lawyer be disbarred and his name dropped from attorney's roll.
 In this report, he averred that the conduct of respondent constitutes unprofessional conduct and an outright
violation of the provisions of Section 3 and paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Tugade is guilty of betraying the trust and confidence of his clients

RULING: YES. “We have fully scrutinized and evaluated the records of this case and We cannot but find that strong and
unassailable reasons exist to render it Our irremissible duty to impose a disciplinary sanction on respondent. But We feel
that disbarment is too harsh considering the circumstances of the case. We hold that suspension from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year should be imposed on respondent for the aforestated misconduct.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Faustino F. Tugade is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, effective from receipt of this resolution.”

RATIO

58
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 In the case at bar, complainants claim that respondent furnished the adverse parties in a certain criminal case
with a copy of their discarded affidavit, thus enabling them to use it as evidence against complainants.
 This actuation constitutes betrayal of trust and confidence of his former clients in violation of paragraph (e),
Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
 Inasmuch as respondent failed to answer the complaint filed against him and despite due notice on four
occasions, he consistently did not appear on the scheduled hearing set by the Office of the Solicitor General,
this claim remained uncontroverted.
 Court tends to believe the said claim of complainants when it is taken together with their other claim that
respondent's actuations from the beginning tend to show that he was partial to the adverse parties as he even
tried to dissuade complainants from filing charges against Robert Leonido.
 This partiality could be explained by the fact that respondent is the former classmate of Atty. Apolo P. Gaminda,
the adverse parties' counsel and the fact that respondent is the lawyer of the brother of Robert Leonido in an
insurance company.
 Respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and Rowena Soriano
advancing facts prejudicial to the case of his former clients such as the fact that the crime charged in
complainants' affidavit had prescribed and that he was asked to prepare an affidavit to make the offense more
grave so as to prevent the offense from prescribing demonstrates clearly an act of offensive personality against
complainants, violative of the first part of paragraph (f), Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
 Likewise, respondent's act of joining the adverse parties in celebrating their victory over the dismissal of the
case against them shows not only his bias against the complainants but also constitutes a degrading act on the
part of a lawyer. It was meant only to titillate the anger of complainants.
 Additionally, respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the
investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court

IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G.
MAQUERA
B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004

DOCTRINE

Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed
in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
continuing requirement to maintain one’s goods standing in the legal profession.

FACTS
 August 20, 1996: the District Court of Guam informed SC of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera)
from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of
Guam on May 7, 1996 a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera.
 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his
disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign courts action is by reason of an act or omission
constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the
lawyer’s oath.
 the Bar Confidant sent a letter dated November 13, 1997 to the District Court of Guam requesting for certified
copies of the record of the disciplinary case against Maquera and of the rules violated by him.

59
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Hearing requiring him to appear before the IBPs Commission on Bar
Discipline on July 28, 1998.
 However, the notice was returned unserved because Maquera had already moved from his last known address
in Agana, Guam and did not leave any forwarding address.
 October 9, 2003: the IBP submitted to the Court indefinitely suspending Maquera from the practice of law
within the Philippines until and unless he updates and pays his IBP membership dues in full.
 He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client’s property as
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling
his client’s case[
 August 6, 1987: Edward Benavente, the creditor of a certain Castro, obtained a judgment against Castro in a
civil case. Maquera served as Castro’s counsel in said case. Castro’s property subject of the case, a parcel of land,
was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente.
 December 21, 1987: Castro, in consideration of Maquera’s legal services in the civil case involving Benavente,
entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter.
 January 8, 1988: Maquera exercised Castro’s right of redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction
of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property transferred in his name.
 December 31, 1988: Maquera sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for $320,000
 Committee’s claims:
o that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services.
o that Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model
Rules “that a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a
pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyers
acquisition of such interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and
understood by the client and reduced in writing.”
 May 7, 1996: the Superior Court of Guam suspended Maquera from the practice of law in Guam for a period of
two (2) years and ordering him to take the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within
that period.
 The court found that the attorney-client relationship between Maquera and Castro was not yet completely
terminated when they entered into the oral agreement to transfer Castro’s right of redemption to Maquera on
December 21, 1987.
 It also held that Maquera profited too much from the eventual transfer of Castro’s property to him since he was
able to sell the same to the Changs with more than US$200,000.00 in profit, whereas his legal fees for services
rendered to Castro amounted only to US$45,000.00.
 The court also ordered him to take the MPRE upon his admission during the hearings of his case that he was
aware of the requirements of the Model Rules regarding business transactions between an attorney and his
client in a very general sort of way.
 On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said court
found Maquera liable for misconduct, there is no evidence to establish that Maquera committed a breach of
ethics in the Philippines.
 the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP
since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll
of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court.
 The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of
the ground for disbarment or suspension

60
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ISSUES:

W/N Atty. Maquera violated Canon 17 of the CPR

W/N Maquera’s acts, namely: acquiring by assignment Castro’s right of redemption over the property subject of the civil
case where Maquera appeared as counsel for him; exercising the right of redemption; and, subsequently selling the
property for a huge profit, violate Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar
and thus constitute grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction

RULING: YES & YES.

“WHEREFORE, Atty. Leon G. Maquera is required to SHOW CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
this Resolution, why he should not be suspended or disbarred for his acts which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings
against him in the Superior Court of Guam and his subsequent suspension in said jurisdiction.

The Bar Confidant is directed to locate the current and correct address of Atty. Maquera in Guam and to serve upon him
a copy of this Resolution.

In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he shall have paid
his membership dues, whichever comes later.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Maqueras personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies
be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the land.”

RATIO
 The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired his client’s property by exercising the right of
redemption previously assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal services.
 Such transaction falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyers acquisition by assignment of the client’s
property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer.
 The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 is founded on public policy because,
by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and
unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.
 The Superior Court of Guam also hinted that Maquera’s acquisition of Castro’s right of redemption, his
subsequent exercise of said right, and his act of selling the redeemed property for huge profits were tainted with
deceit and bad faith when it concluded that Maquera charged Castro an exorbitant fee for his legal services.
 The court held that since the assignment of the right of redemption to Maquera was in payment for his legal
services, and since the property redeemed by him had a market value of US$248,220.00 as of December 21,
1987 (the date when the right of redemption was assigned to him), he is liable for misconduct for accepting
payment for his legal services way beyond his actual fees which amounted only to US$45,000.00.
 Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2)-year suspension from the practice of law in that
jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines.
 Such acts are violative of a lawyer’s sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients.
 They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states that [a]
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed in him; and
Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The

61
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but
is also a continuing requirement to maintain one’s goods standing in the legal profession.
 It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment ordering Maquera’s suspension from the practice of
law in Guam does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam are
mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign courts
action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
 Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of Maqueras
unethical acts as a lawyer
 More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and to present
testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with
Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court.
 Said rule mandates that a respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him.
 The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the charges of
unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of Hearing earlier
sent by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline.
 Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera’s current and correct address in Guam in order that another notice,
this time specifically informing him of the charges against him and requiring him to explain why he should not
be suspended or disbarred on those grounds (through this Resolution), may be sent to him.

62
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

A. State Regulation of the Legal Profession

Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. (5)

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

Art. XII, Sec. 14

The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino

scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical
manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by
the State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its
transfer for the national benefit.

B. What constitutes the Practice of Law

Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113

Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos Sagucoi, A.C. No. 6705

Spouses Eustaquio v. Atty. Edgar Novales A.C. No. 10465

Natanauan v. Atty Roberto Tolention, AC. No. 4269

C. Requirements for Admission to the Practice of Law

63
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

1. Educational Qualifications

Republic Act No. 7662 (1993) - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL
EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.

ROC, Rule 138, Sec 6 - Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be
admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that,
before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized
and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-
year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science,
logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All applicants for admission other than
those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully
completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and
recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a
certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further
evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the
following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law,
commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law,
labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao

Patrick Caronan v. Richard A. Caronan
2. Citizenship and Residency

Art. XII, Sec 14 - The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents

consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-
level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be
promoted by the State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and

64
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

regulate its transfer for the national benefit.

ROC, Rule 138 Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar.
— Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident
of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving
moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

3. Bar Examinations

ROC, Rule 138

Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for admission shall file with the
clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15)
days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule
they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and
if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their
admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates
as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits
as to their age, residence, and citizenship.

Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for admission shall be published by

the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at
least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination.

Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of
this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial
Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in
Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. — Persons taking the
examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions

65
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to
each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will
be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such
examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be
allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on
the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.

Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall
take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the
chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First
day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon);
Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning)
and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (afternoon).

Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar

examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice
of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to
serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a
period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each
volume of the official reports.
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of
the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other
nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be
taken in the discretion of the court.

Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects,
without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the
examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social
Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and

66
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics
and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.

Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. — Not later than February 15th
after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its
report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee
shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court
has approved the report.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who have failed the bar
examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they
show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year
review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.

Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 712

4. Good Moral Character

ROC, 138 Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant
for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before
the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Velez v. Atty Leonard De Vera

Figueroa v. Barranco

Re: Petition of Al Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath

5. The Lawyer’s Oath:

67
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the

Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

6. Signing of the Roll of Attorneys

ROC, Rule 138, Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — An applicant who has
passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the
bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.

IN RE PETITION TO SIGN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, MICHAEL MEDADO

D. MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6397

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

Section 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of
court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in
order to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and
enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

Section 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in
the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the annual
appropriations for the Supreme Court.

68
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: September 17, 1971

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 181, May 4, 1973

CONSTITUTING THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES INTO A BODY CORPORATE
AND PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE THERETO FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
ITS PURPOSES

In re: Atty Marcial Edrillon

Santos v. Atty. Francisco Llamas

69
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

In re: Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Michael O. Medado (BM No. 2540, Sept. 24, 2013)

FACTS:
- Michael Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of Bachelor
of Laws in 1979 and the same year, he passed the Bar exams (82.7 GWA)
- May 7, 1980 – he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC
- May 13, 1980 - He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Atorneys but failed to do so, allegedly
because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the ROA given by the Bar Office
- Years later, he found the Notice to sign the ROA and was then that he realized that he had
not signed the roll and that what he signed was the attendance at the entrance of the PICC
- By the time he found the notice, he was already working, doing corporate and taxation work
and that he was not actively involved in litigation practice
- In 2005, when Medado attended the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be
credited but was not able to because he did not sign the roll of attorneys
- Feb 6, 202, Medado filed an instant petition praying that he be allowed to sign in the ROA
- Office of the Bar confidant conducted a clarificatory conference and recommended that the
petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit

ISSUE: WON Medado may sign the Roll of Attorneys

HELD: YES
- Not allowing Medado to sign in the ROA would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
penalty of disbarment
- Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant
petition as he himself acknowledged his own lapse, even after 30 years had passed
- Petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law,
which shows that he adhered to the requirements of ethics of the profession
- While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, this Court will not unwarrantedly
withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to
withstand the rigors of the profession
- Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be an
attorney of officer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect
contempt of court
- Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgress Canon 9, CPR: “A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.”
- Canon 9 warrants the penalty of Suspension from the practice of law
- As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from practice of law  we
see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the ROA
1 year after receipt of this resolution

70
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines January 9, 1973
PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
(December 1, 1972 – Commission on Bar Integration submitted a report with the earnest
recommendation that “ this Honorable Court ordain the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines as
soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule”)
- Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar,
after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial
and other local Bar associations
- 1970 – the court created the Commission on Bar Integration for ascertaining the advisability
of unifying the Philippine Bar
- September 1971 – Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled “An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds therefore”
- Sept. 17, 1971 – President Marcos signed the measure
- Reports of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of Bar Integration
and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability (practicability and
necessity) of Bar Integration

ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?
2. Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
3. Should the Court ordain the Integration of the Bar at this time?

HELD:

71
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

1. YES. Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution provides that: “ to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the rule of law”
- it is an inherent part of the Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar
- RA 6307, in providing that the SC may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippines Bar, neither confers a new power nor restricts the court’s inherent power  it is a mere
legislative declaration that the Integration of the Bar will promote public interest

2. YES. Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice
- the practice of law is not a vested right, but a privilege  moreover, clothed with public
interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his brethren in the profession, to the courts and to
the nation
- because it is a privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and just that the exercise of that
privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities

3. YES. The Court is fully convinced that the integration of the bar is “perfectly constitutional and
legally unobjectionable” within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become
an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial Edillion IBP Case No.
MDD-1, AM No. 1928, August 3, 1978

FACTS:

72
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

- Respondent Edillion is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines

- Nov. 29, 1975 – Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted Resolution No.
75-65 in Administrative case No. MDD-1 recommending to the Court the removal of the name
of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to
the IBP notwithstanding due notice
- Jan. 21, 1976 – IBP through its President, submitted the said resolution to the Court for
consideration and approval pursuant to Section 24, par. 2, Article III of the IBP’s by-laws
(which provides the authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the SC the
removal of a delinquent member’s name from the Roll of Attorneys)
- Respondent reiterated his refusal to pay membership dues
- Respondent argued that the following provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional
rights in the sense that he is being compelled to pay dues, that the above provisions are void,
and of no legal force and effect:
o Section 24, par. 2, Article III of the IBP’s by-laws,
o Section 10 of the rules of court  authority of the Court to issue the order applied for,
o section 1  states the organization, who will compose the IBP whose names may
hereafter be included In the ROA; and
o section 9  states the membership dues to be paid
- Respondent also questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike down his name in the ROA
contending that the matter is administrative in nature, pertaining to an administrative body

ISSUES:
1. WON Atty. Edillion may be disbarred for the non-payment of IBP membership dues
2. WON the SC has the power to strike down his name from the ROA
3. WON Court Rule’s provisions requiring payment of membership fee is void
4. WON the Court is with power to compel him to become a member of the IBP

HELD:
1. YES
- it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial Edillion should be as he
is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys

2. YES
- the Court’s jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by the 1973 Constitution when it explicitly
granted to the Court the power to “promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice… and the
admission to the practice of law and the Integration of the Bar”
- the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the legal
profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the court

3. NO
- there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the court, under its constitutional power and
duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the IBP (Art. X, Sec. 5,
1973 Constitution)

73
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

- the fee is imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the
objectives and purposes of the integration
- the practice of law is a mere privilege, and as such, must bow to the inherent regulatory
power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities

4. YES
- to compel a lawyer to be a member of the integrated bar is not violative of his constitutional
freedom to associate
- Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a
member
- Edillion became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar exams
- One is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of the IBP or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses
- the compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues and it is justified as it
is an exercise of the police power of the State ti elevate the quality of professional legal service

Soliman Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas

(This is a complaint for MISREPRESENTATION and NON-PAYMENT OF BAR MEMBERSHIP DUES

filed against Atty. Llamas)

FACTS:
- Santos write a letter-complaint to the Court alleging that Atty. Llamas, who, for a number of
years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings
- Santos seeks clarification and appropriate action on the bar standing of Atty. Llamas
- Rule 138, sections 27 and 28, suspension of an attorney may be done not only by the SC but
also by the CA or RTC
- Atty. Llamas’ city record:
o Dismissal as Pasay City Judgr,
o Conviction for estafa per decision
o No longer a member in good standing with respect to using the same OR no.
o Delinquent in his dues
- April 1997 – Complainant files a certification by then president of the IBP – Atty. Ida R.
Macalinao-Javier, that respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991 and since then
he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present
- December 1998 – IBP Board of Governmors passed a resolution adopting and approving the
report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner which found respondent guilty,
and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3 months until he pays his IBP
dues

ISSUE: WON Atty. Llamas is a delinquent member for non-payment of IBP dues and
misrepresentation in the pleadings filed in court

74
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

HELD: YES.
- Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his income tax return, up to the
present, that he had only a limited practice of law and in fact, in his income tax return, his principal
occupation is a farmer  respondent admitted that he is still in the practice of law when he alleged
this
- Respondent, being a senior citizen since 1992, is legally exempt under Section 4, RA 7432,
in the payment of taxes (ex. Income Taxes) and being thus exempt, honestly believe, but only in a
limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar is covered by such
exemption
- Respondent admitted that since 1992, he has been engaged in the practice of law without
having paid his IBP dues and has likewise admitted that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by
the complainant to his court, he indicated “IBP-Rizal 259060” in the pleadings he filed in the court, at
least for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997
- while it is true that RA 7432 grants exemption to senior citizens, the exemption does not
include payment of membership or association dues to the IBP
- Rule 139-A, Section 10  ”default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall
warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for 1 year shall
be a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the ROA
- Rule 139-A, section 9  membership dues – every member shall pay annual dues as the
Board of Governors shall determine with approval of the SC
- Respondent’s failure to pay his IBP dues and misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in
court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, his willingness to pay and plea for a more
temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of 1 year suspension from the practice of law
or until he has paid his IBP dues, is appropriate

75
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
A.M. No. 491 (6 October 1989)


FACTS:
 In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention Center, the newly-
elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4,1989 before the Supreme
Court en banc
 However, disturbed by the widespread reports received by some
members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the
proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers
about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the main
protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo
Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes,and
the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which
were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities

 Supreme Court en banc exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated
Bar,resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into
the veracity of the reports.
 Media reports done by Mr.Jurado, Mr. Mauricio and Mr. Locsin in
the newspapers opened the avenue for investigation on the anomalies in the IBP
Elections.

 The following violations are; Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of

votes by the candidates for president, executive vice-president, the officers or
candidates for the House of Delegates and Board of Governors, Use of PNB plane in
the campaign, Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates,
Formation of tickets and single slates, Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks,
and entertainment to delegates, Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon,
Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any member, Distribution of materials other
than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet of paper, Causing
distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by
the officer presiding at the election and Inducing or influencing a member to withhold
his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate

 The prohibited acts are against the IBP By-Laws more specifically Article I, Section 4

76
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, Sec. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections
and Section 12[d] of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules:
Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited
acts and practices defined in Section 14 [Prohibited Acts and Practices Relative to
Elections) of the By-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification
of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition
of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar
ISSUE:

WON THE CANDIDATES VIOLATED SEC 14 OF THE IBP BY LAWS and MADE A
TRAVESTY OF THE IDEA THAT “NON POLITICAL BAR” ENSHRINED IN SEC 4 OF THE
BY LAWS

RULING:

 It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987
Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of
seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked
to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the
judiciary.
 Court explains that because of this task, the positions in the IBP have become an
avenue for members to gain power.

 The Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby annulled.
2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of
Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No.
287) of the following national officers:
(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
(b) the IBP president; and
(c) the executive vice-president, be repealed, this Court being empowered to
amend, modify or repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said By-
Laws.
3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President elected by
the Board of Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from

77
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be
restored. The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the
presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this Court's
resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.

4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President shall
automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming board of governors shall then
elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position of Executive Vice-
President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president
may not run for election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the
rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have been completed;
whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President
and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9)
regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex
oficio Vice-President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Board.

6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-
at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of Delegates.'

7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman,

Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed

8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be
governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9)
regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one
(1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from
that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in
the region.

9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:

78
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1) month before the
national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region,
the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.

10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following provision as part of

the first paragraph:
No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior
to any election in an election year.

11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI should be as they are
hereby deleted.
All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the Resolution en banc of
this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed or modified.

12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP regions
within three (3) months, after the promulgation of the Court's resolution in this case. Within
thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in
Manila to elect from among themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-
president. In these special elections, the candidates in the election of the national officers
held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled
"Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those identified in this Resolution as
connected with any of the irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may
not present themselves as candidate for any position.

13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed by the Court to
administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are
without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other measures as are
warranted in the premises.

Santos, Jr. v. Llamas (2000) (nonpayment of IBP membership dues)

Doctrines:

79
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay his annual dues. Subject to the provisions of
Section 12 of Rule 139-A, default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for 1 year
shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys.

Facts:

 This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues

filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas
 In a letter-complaint to SC, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a member of the
bar, alleged that Llamas, also a member of the bar, has not been indicating his
proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date and place of issuance) in his
pleadings; that he only indicates “IBP Rizal 259060”; that he has been using this for
at least 3 years already; and that he has not been paying his IBP dues as evidenced
by a certification from the President of IBP that Llamas” last payment of his IBP dues
was in 1991.
 Llamas admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without having paid
his IBP dues.
 He likewise admits that he indicated “IBP-Rizal 259060” in the pleadings he filed in
court, at least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such
was his IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which those
pleadings were filed.
 He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice and that he
believes in good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such as income
tax, under R.A. No. 7432, §4 as a senior citizen since 1992.
 Being thus exempt, he honestly believes in view of his detachment from a total
practice of law, but only in a limited practice, that the subsequent payment by him of
dues with the Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption. In fact, he never
exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
 IBP passed a resolution finding him guilty and ordering his suspension for three
months. Issues:

80
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ISSUE: W/N Llamas is guilty.

Held/Ratio:

1. YES. Llamas is guilty of misrepresentation in his pleadings and of failure to pay his IBP
dues.

a. Llamas can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does not matter
that his practice 
 is “limited.” 


Rule 139-A provides: 
 Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the

Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
determine with the approval of the Supreme Court

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of

this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment
for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys. 


b. His tax exemption does not include the payment of membership or association dues.

 While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens “exemption from the
payment of individual income taxes” subject to conditions, the exemption does not
include payment of membership or association dues. 


c. Llamas has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

By indicating “IBP-Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

81
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

While still recognizing that Llamas” failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in
the pleadings indeed merit the most severe penalty, in view of Llamas” advanced age, his
express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the
Court imposed upon him the penalty of 1- year suspension from the practice of law or until
he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, B.M. 1222 (4 February 2004)

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
September 23, 2003.

"Bar Matter No. 1222.- Re: 2003 Bar Examinations.- Acting on the report and recommendation
by the Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee concerning the examination
conducted on the morning of September 21, 2003 on the subject of Mercantile Law, the Court
Resolved to:

(a) NULLIFY the examination on this subject, in view of the Court's findings which affect
the integrity of the examination in Mercantile Law; and

(b) HOLD another examination in Mercantile Law on Saturday October 4, 2003, eight
o'clock in the evening (being the earliest available time and date) at the same venue (De
La Salle University, Taft Avenue, Manila.)
This resolution is without prejudice to any further action the Court may take on the matter."

82
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Rule 7.01 – Shall be answerable for false statement in application to Bar Rule 7.02 - Shall
not support any unqualified Bar applicant
 Rule 7.03 - Shall not engage in conduct
adversely affecting the profession

Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo, A.C. No. 4921 (6 March 2003)

 DOCTRINE: Definition of Gross Immorality: Immoral conduct is defined as that

conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
the common sense of decency

FACTS:

 Disbarment case against the complainant for gross immoral conduct.

 Respondent, being married with 3 children had an affair with the complainant from
1995-1997 when both were working In NBI and complainant was reviewing for the
bar, which he passed.
 Complainant found out that respondent Is already married when the wife visited the
office and confronted her.
 The complainant got pregnant. Castillo was already a lawyer during this time,

83
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

executed an affidavit of acknowledgment of his child with the complainant and his
promise for support, however he suddenly started to refuse giving support to the kid.
 Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what transpired between
them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he never represented himself as single
since it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children,
complainant is almost 10 years older than him and knew beforehand that he is
already married, the child borne by complainant is not his, because the complainant
was seeing other men at the time they were having an affair.
 He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10, 1997 but explains that he
only did so to save complainant from embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the
time that complainant was seeing other men.
 IBP – recommended indefinite suspension after finding him guilty of gross immoral
conduct, which the court concedes to.

ISSUE:

WON Respondent is guilty if gross immoral conduct:

RULING:

 Yes.
 Code of professional responsibility provides:
- Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
- CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
- Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private

84
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal

profession.
 Immoral conduct is defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency
 Court also finds the complainant showing of gross immorality after examining the
letter which states “Ayoko ng umabot tayo sa kung saan-saan pa. All your
officemates, e.g., Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and others (say) that I am the look like(sic) of
your daughter. Heres my bargain. I will help you in supporting your daughter, but I
cannot promise fix amount for monthly support of your daughter. However it shall not
be less than P500 but not more than P1,000”
 In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating a judge
stated that:
...even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict standard of
conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering children by a
woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards
 Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards
of morality required of every lawyer.
 Lastly, The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the
rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required
for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law.

Pacao v. Atty. Sinamar Limos, A.C. No. 11246 (14 June 2016)

85
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

 Complainant’s wife was former VAULT COSTUDIAN AT BHF Pawnshop who was
charged with qualified theft.
 Atty Limos here was the lawyer for BHF.
 Complainant initiated a negotiation with BHF through atty. Limos to buy peace. So
the negotiation went on and the parties agreed that that complainant’s wife will pay
an amount of 530, 000.00 and will pay an initial amount of 200,000.00 which will be
received by the counsel of BHF.
 October 2009, complainant gave the initial amount to Atty Limos who gave him an
acknowledgment receipt.
 June 2010, complainant met with the BHF’s representative who informed him that
Atty. Limos was no longer representing them and that he isn’t authorized to receive
any amount and settle for them and that BHF never received the initial amount of
200,000.00
 Complainant now sent a demand letter for the return of the initial payment but the
latter refused to do so.
 Hence, a disbarment case was filed with IBP.
 Respondent failed to file an answer, did not attend the mandatory conference, also
did not submit her position paper.
 Investigating commission recommends the disbarment of Atty. Limos for committing
fraud and deceit by not informing the complainant that she no longer represents
BHF.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Limos committed grave misconduct and willful insubordination and therefore should
be disbarred

RULING:

 YES. The court notes this this is the 3rd administrative case against the respondent
and she has already been suspended twice.
 Obviously, the fact that she has been suspended twice, the third case exacerbates
her offense.

86
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Court notes that she fails to demonstrate the integrity and morality demanded for
legal profession. This was shown when she chose to ignore the court’s notices to
that warrants her explanation.
 Clearly, the present case falls under sec 27, rule 138.
 Court stressed that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege.

87
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

E. Non-lawyers allowed to appear in Court

Rule 138-A, Rules of Court

Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular
four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program
approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case
before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct
supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any
and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and
client shall apply to similar communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student shall comply with the standards of professional
conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice
may be a ground for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).

Cruz v. Mina, GR No. 154207, April 27, 2007

FACTS:
● Petitioner filed a formal Entry of Appearance, before the MeTC, as private prosecutor in a criminal case
for grave threats, where his father is the complaining witness
● Petitioner described himself as a 3rd year law student, justifying his appearance as private prosecutor,
based on:
○ section 34, rule 138 of the Rules of Court
○ the ruling in the case of Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. → that a non-lawyer may appear
before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant
● Petitioner also avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a
written authority of Mariano Cruz
● MeTC denied permission on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in
conjunction with Rule 138-A of the ROC should take precedence over the ruling in the Cantimbuhan case
● Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that Rule 138-A (Law Student Practice Rule) does
not have the effect superseding Section 34 of rule 138, for the authority to interpret the rule is the source
itself of the rule → Supreme COurt alone
● MeTC Judge resolved to deny because the crime of grave threats does not carry with it a claim for civil
indemnity, therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable
● Petitioner → nowhere does the law provide that the crime of grave threats has no civil aspect, citing Bar
Matter No. 730 expressly providing that the appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, as an
agent or friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of the bar

ISSUE: WON petitioner, a 3rd-year law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a
party litigant

HELD: YES
● The law student practice rule as encapsulated in rule 138-A ROC, prohibits the petitioner, as a law
student, from entering his appearance in behalf of his father, the private complainant in the criminal case
without the supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school

88
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

● In BM 730 - the rule is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and
procedure are relatively simple
● Rule 138, section 34 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed,
irrespective of WON he is a law student
● Rule 138-A provides for the conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant,
may appear before the courts
● Petitioner anchored his appearance on section 34, rule 138 of the ROC
● As to the civil liability, under art. 100 RPC, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable
except in instances where no actual damage results from an offense
● Petitioner is corret in stating that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior institution of the civil aspect,
it follows that the civil aspect arising from grave threats is deemed instituted with the criminal action

Rule 116, secttion 7, ROC

Section 7.Name of the accused. — The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused
or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be
described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the
court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. (7a)

Labor Code, Article 222

Art. 222. Appearances and Fees.

a. Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:
1. If they represent themselves; or
2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.
b. No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining
agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, However, that attorney’s
fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement
or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691,
May 1, 1980)

Act No. 2259, section 9

Section 9. All Acts or parts of Acts, Executive Orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act, are hereby repealed.

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, sections 18-19 (Feb. 1, 2016)

Section 18. Non-appearance of Parties. - Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to judgement on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as failure to file a Response under
Section 12 of this Rule. This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under a
common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the claim and
counterclaim.

Section 19. Postponement When Allowed. - A request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon
proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may
avail of only one (1) postponement.

F. Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Private Practice of Law by Public Officials

89
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

1. Prohibitions

Art. VII, sec. 13, Const.

Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall
not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They
shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or
any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall
not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

Art. IX (A), sec. 2, Const.

Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business
which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Art. XI, sec. 8, Const.

Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of
their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of the
Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election.
The Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for
in Section 2 of Article 1X-A of this Constitution.

Local Government Code, Sec. 90 (a)

Section 90. Practice of Profession. -

(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any
occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except
during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office,
agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government
unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the government.
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of
emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

90
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

People v. Villanueva, GR No. L-19450, May 27, 1965

FACTS:
● Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna charged Villanueva with the crime of Malicious Mischief
● Villanueva was first represented by a counsel de officio but later on replaced by a counsel de parte
● Complainant was also represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his
appearance as private prosecutor after securing the permission of the secretary of justice
● Condition of his appearance: he will always be considered on official leave of absence and he would not
receive payment for his services
● Atty. Fule’s appearance as the private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel of the accused
● Justice of Peace issued an order sustaining the legality of the atty. Fule’s appearance
● Counsel for the accused filed a motion for inhibition against Fule, invoking Section 35, Rule 138 ROC,
which bars certain attorneys from practicing, that atyy. Fule is one of which
● JPC upheld Fule’s right to appear, stating that Fule is not really engaged in private practice of law

ISSUE: WON Atty. Fule may appear as a private prosecutor of the complainant in a case of the crime of
Malicious mischief against Villanueva

HELD: YES
● There being no reservation by the offended party of the civil liability, the civil action was deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal action
○ Therefore, the right to intervene in the case and be represented by a legal counsel because of
her interest in the civil liability of the accused
● Assistant City Atty. Fule appeared in the JPC as an agent of friend of the offended party
● As an assistant city attorney of San Pablo City, he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the
prosecution of crimes committed in that municipality
● There could be no possible conflict in the duties of Atty. Fule as an assistant city attorney of san pablo
city and as private prosecutor in this criminal case
● Rule 138, sec. 35 → no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the office of the
solicitor general, shall engage in the private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice
to clients
● Private Practice → active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional
services are available to the public for compensation as a source of livelihood
○ The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of
engagement in the practice of law
● It was also not refuted that Atty. Fule had been given the permission by his immediate superior, the
Sec. of Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar

Rule 138, Section 35, ROC

Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients.

2. Restrictions

Art. VI, sec. 14, Const.

SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before
any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-

91
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account
of his office.
Local Government Code, Sec. 90 (b)

Section 90. Practice of Profession. -

(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any
occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except
during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office,
agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government
unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the government.

(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of
emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 910

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREMENT OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, AND TO REPEAL COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED FIVE HUNDRED
AND THIRTY-SIX

Section 1. When a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals who has rendered at least twenty
years' service either in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both, (a) retires for having
attained the age of seventy years, or (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office,
he shall receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was
receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation. And when a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of
Appeals has attained the age of fifty-seven years and has rendered at least twenty-years' service in the
Government, ten or more of which have been continuously rendered as such Justice or as judge of a court of
record, he shall be likewise entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner also
hereinafter prescribed, the salary which he was then receiving. It is a condition of the pension provided for herein
that no retiring Justice during the time that he is receiving said pension shall appear as counsel before any court
in any civil case wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in
any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office, or collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an
interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers.
Section 2. In case a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals dies while in actual service, his
heirs shall receive a lump sum amounting to the salary that said Justice was receiving at the time of his demise
for five years if by reason of his length of service in the Government he were already entitled to the benefits of
this Act; otherwise his heirs shall only receive a lump sum equivalent to his last salary for two years, in addition
to a reimbursement of all premiums that he may have paid under this Act. The same benefits provided in this
Section shall be extended to any incumbent Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals who,
without having attained the length of service required in section one hereof, shall have to retire upon reaching the
age of seventy years, or for other causes, such as illness, to be certified to by the tribunal to which the Justice
concerned belongs, which render him incapacitated to continue in his position.

92
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Section 3. Upon retirement a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals shall be automatically
entitled to a lump sum payment of the monthly salary that said Justice was receiving at the time of his retirement
for five years, and thereafter upon survival after the expiration of this period of five years, to a further annuity
payable monthly during the residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of the monthly salary he was
receiving on the date of his retirement.
Section 4. A retiring Justice who is entitled to the benefits of any prior retirement gratuity Act shall have the
option to choose between the benefits in such Act and those herein provided for, and in such case he shall be
entitled only to the benefits so chosen: Provided, however, That a Justice retired under any prior Act and who is
thereafter appointed to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals, shall be entitled to the benefits of this Act
on condition that, in case he has not fully refunded to the Government the gratuity previously received by him,
there shall be deducted from the amount payable to him under this Act such monthly installments as are required
in section six of Act Numbered Four thousand and fifty-one, as amended, until the gratuity already received by
him shall have been refunded in full.lawphil.net
Section 5. The Government Service Insurance System shall take charge of the enforcement and operation of
this Act, and no Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals shall be entitled to receive any gratuity
or pension herein provided unless from the month following the approval of this Act, in case of an actual Justice
of any of said courts, or from the month following his appointment, and qualification as such Justice, in case of
future appointment, he shall have contributed to the funds of the System by paying a monthly premium of fifty
pesos.
Section 6. Commonwealth Act Numbered Five hundred and thirty-six and any other provision in conflict with this
Act are hereby repealed.
Section 7. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 20, 1953

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Canon 1 - A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law
and legal profession.

Rule 1.01 - Shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, deceitful conduct

Ecraela v. Pangalangan, AC No. 10676, Sept. 8, 2015

FACTS:
● Petition for disbarment filed by Atty. Ecraela with the IBP-CBD against Atty. Ian Pangalangan for his
illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and other unscrupulous
activities
● Complainant claims that these acts involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and grossly immoral
conduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and an embarrassment to the legal profession
● Parties were bestfriends and graduated from UP College of Law
● Respondent was formerly married to Sheila Jardiolin with whom he has 3 children
● Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had several illicit relations with married
and unmarried women
● Aside from these illicit affiars, respondent also has:
○ Sabotaged the Manila International Airport Authority case
○ Bribed then Solicitor general Rolando Martin
○ Attempted to conceal evidence material to the Senate Inquiry
○ Abused his authority as an educator in several prestigious and known institutions where he
induced his male students to engage in “nocturnal preoccupations” and entertained the
romantic gestures of his female students in exchange for passing grades
● Respondent simply denied all these allegations and accusations, allegedly for lack of knowledge and
information sufficient to form belief as to the truth or falsity thereof

93
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

● IBP Investigating Commissioner → there is more than sufficient evidence establishing respondent’s
gross misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of the court and member of
the bar
○ In engaging in illicit relationships, respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the COnstitution
○ Respondent violated rule 1.01 Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 Canon 7 of the CPR
○ IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years
with a stern warning that he should reform his conduct in a manner consistent with the norms
prescribed by the CPR
● IBP board of governors adopted the IBP-CBD resolution with modification that respondent be disbarred
and his name be stricken off from the ROA

ISSUE: WON respondent committed gross immoral conduct, which would warrant disbarment

HELD: YES
● Practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for the profession
● Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to
maintain one’s good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity
● IBP-CBD report sufficiently shown by preponderant evidence the grounds by which respondent has
been found committing gross immorality in the conduct of his personal affairs
● For a lawyer to be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with
which his license and the law invest him
● IBP-CBD report was correct in finding that respondent violated Art. XV, section 2 of the 1987 Const.
That in engaging in such illicit relationships, respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the COnstitution
● Respondent is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violation of the COnstitution (Art. XV, sec. 2),
Canon 1, 7 and 10
● DISBARRED from practice of law and his name is ordered STRICKEN FROM THE ROA

Carri-Anne Reyes v. Atty. Ramon Nieva, AC No. 8560, Sept. 6, 2016

FACTS:
● Complainant alleged that she has been working at the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP)
as and administrative Aide on a Job Order basis
● She was re-assigned at the CAAP Office Board Secretary under the supervision of the respondent, who
was then acting as CAAP Acting Board Secretary
● Complainant stated that she would notice that during office hours, respondent would watch
pornographic videos saved in his laptop, and at times respondent would hold her hand and give it a kiss
● Respondent also offered her a cellular phone with load as a means for their private communication but
complainant refused
● Respondent would call on complainant asking her to encode a memorandum and suddenly, he would
place his hand on her waist area near her breast and started caressing the later’s torso and the
complainant would call his attention
● Respondent even told her that he would give P2,000 a month and even gave her a note stating “just
between you and me, xxx kahit na si mommy”
● When they were both left alone, respondent suddenly close the door, grabbed her arm and said “let’s
seal it with a kiss”
● Complainant alleged that she was traumatized and was even diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder with recurrent major depression

94
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

● Respondent denied all of complainant’s allegations, that he being a 79 years old retiree, was very
unlikely for him to do the acts imputed against him
● IBP investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint as the complainant failed
to substantiate her allegations
● IBP board unanimously reversed the report and recommendation

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD: YES
● Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to posses
● Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the bar but also
throughout their legal career
● Respondent never refuted complainant’s allegation that he would regularly watch pornographic videos,
even during office hours and with the knowledge of his staff
● Respondent’s act of habitually watching pornogprahic vidoes tarnished the reputation of the government
agency he works for and it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light

Sebastian v. Calis, AC No. 5118, Sept. 9, 1999

FACTS:
● For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer,
respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment
● Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the
respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required for complainant's trip to the
USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00)
● complainant had several conferences with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel
documents. To facilitate the processing, respondent demanded an additional amount of Sixty Five
Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign from her job as stenographer
with the Commission on Human Rights
● When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she will be
assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao
Marketing, Inc. The complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity.
● Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of
her money, however she was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has
been engaged in the business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if
something goes wrong.
● When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant that it will be given
to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6, 1994. On said date complainant was
given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with
Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel who were also recruits of the respondent.
● Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with Jennyfer Belo and Maribel
were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious travel documents;
Complainant contacted the respondent through overseas telephone call and informed him of by her
predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore.
● On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent fetched
her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
Respondent took complainant's passport with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for
complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her
money in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
● Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the complaint,
there was no response.

95
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

● CBD: recommended that ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he
fully refunds the fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar
Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6, of the Rules of Court.
● IBP board resolved to adopt CBD’s recommendation

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct

HELD: YES
● Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral
flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer's relationship with others should be
characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor.
● The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege.
● the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the
summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find
no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical,
unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
● respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys

Delos Reyes v. Atty. Aznar, A.M. No. 1334, Nov. 28, 1989

FACTS:
● complaint for disbarment filed against respondent on the ground of gross immorality.
● Complainant, a second year medical student of the Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her
verified complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of said university, had carnal
knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would
not submit to respondent's lustful desires
● Complainant further alleged that when she became pregnant, respondent, through a certain Dr. Gil
Ramas, had her undergo forced abortion
● respondent filed his Answer denying any personal knowledge of complainant as well as all the
allegations contained in the complaint and by way of special defense, averred that complainant is a
woman of loose morality
● Complainant Rosario delos Reyes testified that:
○ second year medical student of the Southwestern University, the Chairman of the Board of
which was respondent Jose B. Aznar
○ She failed in her Pathology subject which prompted her to approach respondent in the latter's
house who assured her that she would pass the said subject
○ despite this assurance, however, she failed
○ respondent told her that she should go with him to Manila, otherwise, she would flunk in all her
subjects
○ both respondent and complainant boarded the same plane for Manila; from the Manila
Domestic Airport, they proceeded to Room 905, 9th Floor of the Ambassador Hotel where they
stayed for three days
○ complainant consented to the sexual desires of respondent because for her, she would
sacrifice her personal honor rather than fail in her subjects
○ complainant told respondent that she was suspecting pregnancy because she missed her
menstruation
○ upon reaching the clinic of Dr. Ramas she was given an injection and an inhalation mask was
placed on her mouth and nose

96
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

○ She lost consciousness and when she woke up, abortion had already been performed

ISSUE: WON respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct

HELD: YES
● The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not render
respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to
bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission
thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the
practice of law.
● Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment or
suspension from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has
been defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
● In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken advantage of his position in
asking complainant to go with him under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she
refused
● Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, A.C. No. 4690. August 29, 2000

SUBJECT: ELECTION FRAUD under RA 6646, 27 (b)

Facts:

1. May 8, 1995 elections, Salayon was designated as the Chairman of the BOARD OF Canvassers by COMELEC
in Pasig City while LLORENTE was ex officio VICE CHAIR.
2. Complainant herein was a senatorial candidate in the said elections.
3. Pimentel Jr. Alleged that the respondents tampered the votes received by him as shown by the statement of
votes; and this act constitutes betrayal of public trust and the lawyer’s oath.
- Senatorial candidates; Enrile, Coseteng, Honasan, Fernan, Mitra, Biazon, were credited with votes
higher than the number of votes received, while that of the petitioners were reduced
- Enrile’s votes in 101 precincts were higher than that of those who actually voted.
- The votes from 22 precints were recorded twice in 18 SOV’s
4. Respondents denied arguing that the SOVs were made by 12 canvassing committees which they only assisted
and errors therein could be attributed as honest mistake, oversight due to fatigue.
5. Other than the administrative case for disbarment, Pimentel also filed a criminal case of election fraud under RA
6646.
6. IBP recommended dismissal of the case because the committee believes they didn’t take part in the tabulation
because it’s not their job, the possibility of committing it is unlikely given that the canvassing is public, and it is a
crime of mala in prohibita.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents are held guilty of misconduct.

97
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RULING:

1. YES. A Lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.
2. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the
lawyer’s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency
on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
3. Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule
1.01 of the Code, which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.”
4. By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In
addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.” It may be added that,
as lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe this basic
tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust.

Rule 1.02 - Shall not counsel defiance of the law

GABRIELA CORONEL, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN,

A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015

Facts:

1. Gabriela filed a complaint against Atty. Nelson Cunanan, alleging that he proposed to her the transfer by direct
registration of OCT No. 9616 and TCT No. T-72074, both registered in the names of their grandparents to her
name and to the names of her co-heirs in violation of the proper legal procedures.
2. Following the engagement, he received from her the amount of P70,000.00 and the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-
72074, which upon demand he failed to return. During the pendency of the case, Gabriela executed an Affidavit
of Desistance, alleging that the case was based on a misunderstanding between them.
3. From the pleadings submitted, the Investigating Commissioner found out that when Gabriela engaged the
services of Atty. Cunanan, he advised her that there are two ways to transfer the titles to their names: one by
“ordinary procedure” and the other by direct transfer.
4. Ordinary procedure would entail execution of Dee of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estafa, publication, payment of
capital gains tax, etc and registration with the Registry of Deeds, which may take about five months. Direct
transfer would involve preparation of documents upon advise of the officials from the Registry of Deeds, as well
as an estimated cost to be negotiated with the officials from the RD to a flat amount of P50,000.00, which will
take about one month. For OCT No. 9616, the way to do it according to respondent, was by filing a petition for
issuance of owner’s duplicate copy and thereafter proceed with transfer in the same manner as TCT No. T-
72074.
5. It appears that she and Atty. Cunanan agreed to do the direct transfer method as she paid P50,000.00 for direct
transfer of title for TCT No. T-72074, another P50,000.00 for OCT No. 9616, P5,000.00 for litigation fees,
P5,000.00 for professional fees,
6. Atty. Cunanan also sent her a copy of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate which they singed, along
with duplicate copy of TCT No. T-72074. However, she did not hear anything anymore from the respondent.
Her demand to return the P70,000.00 as well as copy of TCT No. T-72074 went unheeded, hence she filed the
disbarment complaint.
7. In his defense, respondent admitted most of the allegations in the complaint. He averred, however, that there
was no deceit on his part as clearly outlined to the complainant the available procedure and afford her
opportunity to think about the options. There was nothing wrong in suggesting the direct registration scheme as
it was advised to him by the officials of the Registry of Deeds. However, the transfer could not be effected as
there were lacking documents, and the officials and employees with whom he transacted were transferred to
different offices. The new officers have yet to approve the transfer.

98
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

8. IBP recommends his suspension for 6 months.

ISSUE:Whether or not Atty. Cunanan should be held administratively liable.

RULING:

1. YES. SC Affirms IBP’s recommendation but modifies the penalty to 1 year suspension
2. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.⁠1 He shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct;⁠2 or counsel or abet
activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a lessening of confidence in the legal system. ⁠3 He should advise
his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not recommend to his client any
recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and public morals.
3. Although the respondent laid out the 2 options; Ordinary or direct procedure, HE STILL PROPOSED DIRECT
PROCEDURE as an option which is a shortcut and a way to circumvent the law. This option is illegal and
contrary to law because;
- It bypasses the immediate heirs of the grandparents
- Deprives the state of the estate taxes
- Required other fees which meant bribing officers for this procedure to be successful.

4. Obviously, even if respondent argues that he in fact informed the complainant the steps, there is still deceitful
misrepresentation on his part, taking advantage of the little legal knowledge that the client has, by proposing a
procedure which is illegal.
5. Even if there is an affidavit of desistance from the complainant, an administrative case proceeds independently
from the interest or a lack thereof of the complainant. The disciplinary proceeds against a lawyer does not
involve private interests but only how the lawyer conducts himself in his public and private life.
6. The desistance of the complainant is only binding upon the parties but not the court.

Fernando Chu v. Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr., A.C. No. 10573
 (13 January 2015)

1. Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San
Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). Atty. Guico’s legal services included handling a complaint for illegal
dismissal brought against CVC. NLRC rendered a decision against CVC but Atty. Guico filed a timely
appeal.
2. According to Chu, during a Christmas party held on December 5, 2006 at Atty. Guico’s residence in
Commonwealth, Quezon City, Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be
given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable decision.
3. On June 10, 2007, Chu called Atty. Guico to inform him that he raised an amount of 300,000.00, there
after he complied and gave it the money to his assistant, Nardo.
4. Subsequently, Atty. Guico instructed Chu to meet him on July 5, 2007 at the UCC Coffee Shop on T.
Morato Street, Quezon City. At the UCC Coffee Shop, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged
draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC being in favor of him and his company.
5. Atty. Guico Chu to raise another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the
decision. But Chu could only produce P280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guico’s office on July 10,
2007 accompanied by his son, Christopher Chu, and one Bonifacio Elipane. However, it was Nardo
who received the amount without issuing any receipt.
6. Chu followed up on the status of the CVC case with Atty. Guico December 2007. However, Atty. Guico
referred him to Nardo who in turn said that he would only know the status after Christmas.
7. On January 11, 2008, Chu again called Nardo, who invited him to lunch at the Ihaw Balot Plaza in
Quezon City. Once there, Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money, but
Nardo replied in the negative and simply told Chu to wait. Nardo assured that the money was still with
Atty. Guico who would return it should the NLRC Commissioner not accept it.8chanroblesvallawlibrary

99
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

8. On January 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC.9 Chu confronted Atty. Guico,
who in turn referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of the
motion for reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the preparation and filing of an appeal in the Court of
Appeals. Finally, Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel on May 25, 2009.
9. In Guico’s comments, he said contends that the complaint was filed only to harass him and it is full of
lies and inconsistencies.
10. IBP recommends his suspension for 3 years for violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu.

ISSUE:Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from the
NLRC?

RULING:

1. YES. COURT AFFIRMS IBP but DISBARS him.

2. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish respondent attorney’s
liability by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Indeed, this Court has consistently required clearly
preponderant evidence to justify the imposition of either disbarment or suspension as penalty.
3. Chu had submitted affidavit of witnesses and the draft decision that Atty. Guico made.
4. Atty. Guico did not directly deny but only argued that Chu must have gotten the used paper “scattered in his
office”
5. Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money
in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption.
He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from the
client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit,
and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money
or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal
Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

5. Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession. Grave misconduct is “improper
or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction
of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.” 28 There is no question
that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private capacity renders him unfit to manage the
affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment, because good
moral character is an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such
privilege.

Rule 1.03 Shall not encourage corruptly motivated suit, or delay any man’s cause

Saburnido v. Madroño, A.C. No. 4497 (26 September 2001)

FACTS:

1. Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florante
Madro Complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them,
in addition to committing acts of dishonesty.

100
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

The cases filed were:

- Adm. Case No. 90-0755, for serious irregularity, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido.

- Adm. Case No. 90-0758, for falsification, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido and two others.

- Crim. Case No. 93-67, for evasion through negligence under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by
respondent against Venustiano Saburnido.

- Adm. Case No. 95-33, filed by respondent against Rosalia Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.

2. Complainants allege that respondent filed those cases against them in retaliation, since they had earlier filed
administrative cases against him that resulted in his dismissal from the judiciary. Complainants assert that due to
the complaints filed against them, they suffered much moral, mental, physical, and financial damage. They claim
that their children had to stop going to school since the family funds were used up in attending to their cases.
3. For his part, respondent contends that the grounds mentioned in the administrative cases in which he was
dismissed and his benefits forfeited did not constitute moral turpitude. Hence, he could not be disbarred therefor.
He then argues that none of the complaints he filed against complainants was manufactured. He adds that he was
so unlucky that Saburnido was not convicted. He claims that the complaint for serious irregularity against
Venustiano Saburnido was dismissed only because the latter was able to antedate an entry in the police blotter
stating that his service firearm was lost. He also points out that Venustiano was suspended when a prisoner
escaped during his watch. As for his complaint against Rosalia Saburnido, respondent contends that by mentioning
this case in the present complaint, Rosalia wants to deprive him of his right to call the attention of the proper
authorities to a violation of the Election Code.
4. After evaluating the evidence before it, the IBP concluded that complainants submitted convincing proof that
respondent indeed committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant the imposition of administrative
sanction. The IBP recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Madrono’s act of filling multiple complaints constitute gross misconduct that will warrant the
imposition of administrative sanctions.

RULING:

1. YES. Clearly, respondents act of filing multiple complaints against herein complainants reflects on his
fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable
trait whether in a lawyer or another individual, as complainants were instrumental in respondents
dismissal from the judiciary. We see in respondents tenacity in pursuing several cases against
complainants not the persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who
is trying to exact revenge
2. Respondent’s action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal profession. It constitutes
gross misconduct for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds

therefor. -- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for
a party to a case without authority so to do. xxx

101
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672
 (4 September 2009)

FACTS:

1. In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that
Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later
executed an affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangan’s allegations.
2. Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling card which contains the phrase “with financial
assistance”
3. In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing of such calling
cards.
4. IBP found that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.0210 and
other canons11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 13812 of the
Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any
repetition would merit a heavier penalty.

ISSUES.

1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.

On the first issue:

1. Yes. Not only he is guilty of encroachment but guilty of Ambulance chasing.

Atty. Tolentino violated the following rules:

*CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.
* RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT
OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.

Complainant presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed
by Labiano and referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as
profited from referrals’ suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory
hearing.
2. Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce a more favorable result
3. Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter
to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Again the Court notes
that respondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labiano’s
“referrals.” Furthermore, he never denied Labiano’s connection to his office.21 Respondent committed an
unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

102
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

On the second issue:

1. There is no substantial proof the calling cards originated from the respondent, hence he cannot be punished with
severity.
2. However, we note that the card is improper because the card made it appear that the law office will finance legal
actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
3. The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may
not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire
devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s
case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.
Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his
duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.
4. The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“, was clearly used to entice clients (who already
had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions

Rule 1.04 Shall encourage client to avoid or end controversy

De Ysasi III v. NLRC

(Father and son feud, illegal dismissal, Counsels should try to avoid litigation)

Rule 1.04: A lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end, or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

1. In 1980, De Ysasi III (employee-son) was employed by his father, who is the private respondent in this case. It
is safe to assume that the employer-father is De Ysasi II.

2. TDe Ysasi III was working as farm administrator for his father in Hacienda Manucao in Negros Occidental.
Starting in 1982, De Ysasi III, the employee son, started suffering from various illnesses which required
hospitalization.

- First, he underwent fistulectomy which is the removial of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. He had to
recuperate for 4 months.

- Second, he was confined for acute gastroenteritis.

- Third, he was also confined for infectious hepatitis for 2 months.

3. During the entire period of the illnesses, De Ysasi II, the father-employer, took care of the medical expenses of his
son and continued to give him his salary. However, in April 1984, without due notice, the father stopped paying
his son”s salary.

4. The son made oral and written demands for an explanation for the sudden stop of his income flow. The demands
were not heeded. So, De Ysasi III, the employee-son, filed an action with the NLRC against his father for
illegal dismissal.

Issue:W/N the father illegally dismissed his son

1. YES, there was illegal dismissal.

103
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

De Ysasi III, the son, maintains that his dismissal was illegal because there was no just cause and that due process
was not observed. On the other hand, De Ysasi II, the father-employer, says that the dismissal was based on a
just cause. He says that his son was guilty of abandonment of his functions as farm administrator, therefore giving
him a ground to terminate employment.

2. The Supreme Court ruled that the absences of De Ysasi III from work cannot be considered as abandonment
because he has a justifiable excuse. He was suffering from the scientific mumbo jumbo illnesses mentioned
above. During the period of his illness and recovery, De Ysasi III did not stay in the farm in Negros Occidental.
However, he performed his job as manager which did not require him to stay in the farm itself. Work from home,
kumbaga. The father”s contention of abandonment cannot be sustained because it is not mere absence that is
needed to warrant abandonment. There must be deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment which
was not present in this case.

De Ysasi III was also refused due process because there is no factual question that he was never given any notice
of his impending dismissal and the grounds therefor, much less a chance to be heard. The father was
ordered to pay his son back wages and separation pay.

RELEVANCE TO ETHICS:

This does not have anything to do with the facts mentioned above. Neither was it elaborated on in the case. The
Supreme Court merely stated its disappointment with the respective counsels of the petitioner and
respondent for not trying hard enough to avoid litigation between a father and a son. They did not initiate
steps which would lead to the reconciliation of the family. The Court reminded the counsels that it is their duty to
avoid litigation as much as possible, as long as justice would still be served.

This is what the court said:

The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties sorely disappoints the Court...It is their responsibility to exert all
reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration
of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients. The useful function of a lawyer is
not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit.

Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that “(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to
avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.”

On this point, we find that both counsel herein fell short of what was expected of them. The records do not show that
they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their clients.

Canon 2 - A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the profession.

Rule 2.01 - Shall not reject the cause of the defenseless or oppressed
Rule 2.02 - Shall not refuse to render legal advice
Rule 2.03 - Shall not solicit legal business

104
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Tan Tek Beng vs David

FACTS

● In the agreement, lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half of his professional fees to an
intermediary or commission agent but he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.
● The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were mutual
accusations of doublecross.
● For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to Presidential
Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this Court. He did
not file any civil action to enforce the agreement.
● In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan
Tek Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier.
● When Jacinto became ill and the costs of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek
Beng should also invest some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng
refused.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
● This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings
were scheduled from 1974 to 1981.
● It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts but that did not materialize because
the scheduled hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of Tan Tek Beng and his counsel.
● On September 16, 1977 Tan Tek Beng died at the Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa,
Caloocan City but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor
General’s Office was informed of that fact.
● A report on this case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the Solicitor General to this Court.

ISSUE: W/N disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
non-lawyer one-half of the attorney’s fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng

RULING: WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.

RATIO:

● Said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule
138, Rules of Court).
● Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section
27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of
Act No. 190).
● That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so
would be unprofessional"
● We censure lawyer David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We
discountenance his conduct, not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal
ethics) but because David should have known better.chanrobles law library

● "Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession
or which is unbecoming a member of that profession"

Ulep vs Legal Clinic

SUMMARY: Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the
law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and
that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. Respondent

105
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines.

DOCTRINE: The services offered by respondent include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of
legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these
services are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Only a person duly admitted as a
member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.

FACTS:

● Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays for the Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to
cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and
`B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.”
● Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements.
● Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with
the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
● Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and
Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June
7, 1977.
● The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously
considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it
has been offering.
● While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and
technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice
to justify an exception to the general rule.
● It is palpably clear that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real.
● In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains
the credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a
copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore
● It is clear that services offered by respondent fall within the ambit of the practice of law. And only a
person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular stading is entitled to
practice law.

ISSUE: W/N the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of
law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of

RULING: The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose
as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or
transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

RATIO:

106
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

YES The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and such practice is not allowed. Respondent is composed
mainly of paralegals; the services it offers include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services
from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the
practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Q: Is the rule on advertisements absolute?

A: No. The following are considered permissible advertisements: (ROOELY)

● Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data, are allowed
● Ordinary simple professional card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced
● A simple announcement of the Opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm
name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable
● Advertisements or simple announcement of the Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere it
is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and government buildings.
● Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines.
● Yellow pages/telephone directories containing the firm name, addresses and contact numbers

Atty. Ismael G. Khan vs Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo

Facts
● This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of
the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-
4333/521-2667.
● Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court,
called up the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party.
● She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the case
will not involve separation of property or custody of children.
● Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time
of filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
● Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that
similar advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and
August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
● On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo
for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
● In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation
per se are not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views about the prohibition on
advertising and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute prohibition on
lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the
decades-old prohibition should be abandoned.
● Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a
ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and
public order as long as it is dignified.

107
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

● The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
● On June 29, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306 finding
respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with
the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was
noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Simbilo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the CPR

RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation
of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is
likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

RATIO
● It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration.The duty to public service and to the administration of
justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
what they owe to themselves.
The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity
and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
with their clients.
● There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused
the publication of the advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence,
his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal services again after he pleaded
for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing
his answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free
Ads Newspaper.
● Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy
& Sell. Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.
● What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled Annulment of
Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness
in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six
months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise
been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
● Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be
proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous
manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar. Thus, the use of simple signs stating the
name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling

108
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

cards is now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable.

Rule 2.04 - Shall not charge rates lower than customary

Canon 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified, and
objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 - Shall not use false or unfair claims on his qualifications
Rule 3.02 - Shall not use false, misleading, or assumed firm name
Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie

FACTS
● Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin
Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a
law firm organized in Illinois.
● In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker &
McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares
of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.
● Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He
requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your
purpose in using the letterhead of another law office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant
complaint.
ISSUE: W/N the use of a foreign law office name is allowed
RULING: WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
● We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities
around the world.
● Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero
& Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
● As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes
a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality
to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment.”
● This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.

PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO,
HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO." LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO, BENILDO G.
HERNANDEZ. GREGORIO R. CASTILLO. ALBERTO P. SAN JUAN, JUAN C. REYES. JR., ANDRES G.
GATMAITAN, JUSTINO H. CACANINDIN, NOEL A. LAMAN, ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANGELITO C.
IMPERIO, EDUARDO R. CENIZA, TRISTAN A. CATINDIG, ANCHETA K. TAN, and ALICE V. PESIGAN,

FACTS
● Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip,
who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February

109
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners
who had passed away.
● Petitioners herein now seek a re-examination of the policy thus far enunciated by the Court.
ISSUE: W/N the surviving partners may be allowed by the court to retain the name of the partners who already
passed away in the name of the firm
RULING: NO. ACCORDINGLY, the petitions filed herein are denied and petitioners advised to drop the names
"SYCIP" and "OZAETA" from their respective firm names. Those names may, however, be included in the listing
of individuals who have been partners in their firms indicating the years during which they served as such.

RATIO
● Article 1825 of the Civil Code prohibits a third person from including his name in the firm name under pain
of assuming the liability of a partner.
● The heirs of a deceased partner in a law firm cannot be held liable as the old members to the creditors of
a firm particularly where they are non-lawyers.
● Thus, Canon 34 of the Canons of Professional Ethics "prohibits an agreement for the payment to the
widow and heirs of a deceased lawyer of a percentage, either gross or net, of the fees received from the
future business of the deceased lawyer's clients, both because the recipients of such division are not
lawyers and because such payments will not represent service or responsibility on the part of the recipient.
"
● "The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or
franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but
also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust."
● It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or
former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom
but the Canon warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this
use.
● It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a
deceased or former partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names, under our custom,
Identify the more active and/or more senior members or partners of the law firm.
● A glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners and of other law firms in this country would show how
their firm names have evolved and changed from time to time as the composition of the partnership
changed.
● The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partner
continues to be used cannot be ruled out.
● A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing
in a firm title.
● The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly related to the administration of justice and should not be
considered like an ordinary "money-making trade."
● In fine, petitioners' desire to preserve the Identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal
and ethical impediment.

110
Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

111
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Canon 4: Propriety

Section 1. Judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance thereof.

1. Perfecto vs. Desales-Esidera

641 SCRA 1, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270
January 31, 2011

DOCTRINE: “In Castillo vs. Calanog, Jr., 199 SCRA 75 (1991), the Supreme Court said that the Code of Judicial Ethics
mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of
his official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality.
A public official is also judged by his private morality being the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge should freely
and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” ~ Jorge C.
Coquia

FACTS:
 Eladio D. Perfecto charges Judge Alma Consuelo Esidera, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Northern Samar,
Branch 20, of:
1. Impropriety (FOCUS HERE): soliciting and receiving at the Prosecutor’s Office the amount of P1,000.00
from practitioner Atty. Albert Yruma, and the same amount from Public Prosecutor Rosario Diaz,
purportedly to defray expenses for a religious celebration and barangay fiesta;
*Proof: Affidavit of Public Prosecutor Ruth Arlene Tan-Ching who claimed to have witnessed the first
incident, without respondent issuing any receipt and that she “heard” that respondent also solicited the
same amount from Prosecutor Diaz.
 Defense of R:
i. It was a donation (for the purchase of a Sto. Niño image) coursed through her by Atty.
Yruma.
ii. Prosecutor Ching is of “dubious personality” and has a “narcissistic personality
disorder.”
 OCA:
i. The fact that she is not the principal author of the solicitation letter or that the solicitation
is for a religious cause is immaterial. Going to the Prosecutor’s Office to receive
“donations” from a private lawyer and a public prosecutor does not bode well for the
image of the judiciary.
 Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the Judiciary explicitly provides
that “judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
of their activities.”
ii. Judge Esidera virtually gave Public Prosecutor Atty. Ruth Arlene Tan-Ching a verbal
lashing for the affidavit the latter executed relative to the solicitation incident. The use
of acerbic words was uncalled for considering the status of respondent Judge Esidera.
 Atty. Guanzon, et al. v. Judge Rufon, the Court found respondent Judge
Rufon guilty of vulgar and unbecoming conduct for uttering discriminatory
remarks against women lawyers and litigants.
2. Ignorance of the law and usurpation of authority: issuing an Order directing the petitioner in a special
proceeding “for Cancellation of Birth Registration of Alpha Acibar,” to publish said Order in a newspaper of
general circulation, instead of in the Catarman Weekly Tribune;
 Defense of R: She only arrived at the decision to direct the publication of her orders in a
newspaper of national circulation after repeated failure of the Catarman Weekly Tribune to meet
the publication requirements.
 OCA: That Catarman Weekly Tribune is the only accredited newspaper of general publication in
Catarman does not bar the publication of judicial orders and notices in a newspaper of national
circulation. A judicial notice/order may be published in a newspaper of national circulation and
said newspaper does not even have to be accredited.

112
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

3. Impropriety: scolding her staff in open court, treating in an “inhuman and hostile” manner practitioners
“who are not her friends” and even arrogantly treats public prosecutors assigned to her sala.
 Defense of R: denies and claims that she has been maintaining a professional relationship with
her staff and the lawyers who appear in her court.
 OCA RECOMMENDS that respondent be faulted for Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct for which a
fine in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) should be imposed, with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Esidera is guilty of impropriety.

HELD: YES, Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera is, for Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct, ORDERED to pay a
fine of P10,000.00 and WARNED.

RATIO:
 Respondent’s admission of having received the money from Atty. Yruma and her failure to disclaim the
same act with respect to Prosecutor Diaz, only confirms her lack of understanding of the notion of propriety
under which judges must be measured.
 Respondent’s act of proceeding to the Prosecutor’s Office under the guise of soliciting for a religious cause
betrays not only her lack of maturity as a judge but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an
impartial dispenser of justice, held in high esteem and respect by the local community, which must be
preserved at all times.
 It spawns the impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure Atty. Yruma, a
private lawyer appearing before her sala, and Prosecutor Diaz into donating money through her charismatic
group for religious purposes.

2. Favor vs. Untalan, A.M. RTJ-08-2158, July 30, 2009

DOCTRINE: Like a religious ministry, the judicial office imposes a demand on the lifestyle of the occupant, and anyone
who accepts a judicial appointment must be deemed to have agreed to such imposition.

FACTS:
 Alfredo Favor charges respondent Judge Cesar Untalan of the MeTC Branch 39, of Quezon City with:
 (1) illegal trespass to dwelling;
(2) taking advantage of his office and position to act as an agent to sell real property;
(3) assisting a private individual to settle a case;
(4) harassment/coercion; and
(5) violation of Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Consolacion Abando was the registered owner of Lots 7, 8 and 9 at Halcon Street, Mandaluyong City.
o She mortgaged two of these lots to Francisco Lozada by way of accommodation for the principal
debtor. Lozada eventually foreclosed Lots 8 and 9.
o Abando, instead of occupying Lot 7, which had not been foreclosed, took up residence at Lot 9.
 Manolita Sta. Maria and Rosalina Guillarte were real estate agents who responded to an advertisement put up
by Lozada for the sale of Lots 8 and 9.
o When they learned that Abando hailed from Pangasinan, they thought of asking respondent Judge,
who was also from Pangasinan, to help them convince Abando to exchange Lot 9, which was in her
possession, with Lot 7, which was in Lozada’s possession.
o They asked respondent Judge to accompany them to the residence of Abando and persuade her to
agree to exchange said lots for P100,000.00.
 Respondent Judge, Sta. Maria and Guillarte went to Abando’s house, where complainant Alfredo Favor, who
was Abando’s son-in-law, also resided. Complainant alleged that respondent judge:

113
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o pushed open the door of the house and placed his right foot inside so complainant could not close the
door;
o told him, “Mr. Favor, mali ang tinitirahan niyo.” While saying this, respondent Judge, Sta. Maria and
Guillarte entered the house and sat on the sofa;
o asked him to sit beside him, then told him to vacate the house because Sheriff Doblada and Lozada
made a mistake in ejecting complainant and his family from their former residence;
o complainant and respondent Judge talked on the telephone and arranged to meet at the latter’s office
and during their meeting, respondent Judge told complainant that Lozada had rejected their demand
and would not pay them and informed complainant that they would be ejected from their house in two
months’ time.
 Defense of R: At the time of the alleged meeting (a Sunday), he is in a prayer assembly
meeting of the Elder’s Core Group of the Couples for Christ and added that even if
complainant went to respondent Judge’s house on a Monday, the latter would not have been
there, because he left the house every Monday at 7:00 a.m. in time for the flag ceremony at
8:00 a.m.
 Complainant filed a Complaint against respondent Judge, Sta. Maria and Guillarte with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City. While filing his complaint, complainant saw respondent Judge, who asked him
about the estafa case filed by Lozada against the complainant. Complainant also alleged that respondent Judge
offered him P100,000.00.
o Defense of R: It was only a coincidence that he met respondent at the Fiscal’s Office of Mandaluyong
City, where he went to pay a courtesy call to the new city prosecutor. Denied allegation on bribery.
 Respondent judge denied allegations and explained that he had gone to complainant’s house only to reconcile
people, as it was his nature to mediate controversies of his neighbors. When the complaint against him was
filed, he stopped assisting them.
 The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City dismissed the complaint filed by complainant against
respondent Judge.
 OCA recommended that the instant complaint be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA)
for investigation, report and recommendation.
 Associate Justice Guariña:
o Taking advantage of his office to act as an agent to sell real property.
 This charge is totally negated by the evidence. The respondent was not acting as Lozada’s
agent to sell property. He accompanied his lady friends to the complainants’ mother-in-law
not to sell property to her but to convince her to swap lots as a way of correcting the error in
the sheriff’s execution.
o Assisting a private individual to settle a case.
 As a leftover from the days when he was an official of the Mandaluyong city government
entrusted with the duty of settling land disputes, he continued as a judge to assist neighbors
and friends in settling their land differences. He admitted that in view of the events that
happened, it was a mistake on his part to have gone to the house of the complainant’s
mother-in-law.

ISSUE: W/N respondent judge is guilty of impropriety.

HELD: YES. Respondent Judge Cesar Untalan is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
and ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 with a stern warning.

RATIO:
 Canon 3, Canons of Judicial Ethics: A judge’s…personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life should be beyond reproach.

 Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct: A judge shall so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

114
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Rule 2.03. Code of Judicial Conduct. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to carry the impression that they are in a special position
to influence the judge.
 The respondent must understand that he cannot divorce himself, whether in and out of court, from his public
persona as a judge. Thus, he must comport himself at all times in accordance with the canons of judicial ethics.
 The action of the respondent, even unwittingly, in helping private persons settle a legal dispute may result in
allowing the prestige of judicial office to be used to advance the private interests of others. This is a situation
that judges must seek to avoid.
 While there was no categorical finding of bad faith or malice on the part of respondent Judge, who was motivated
by the noble intention of settling the property dispute between Lozada and Abando, however, he must bear in
mind that his office demands an exacting standard of decorum to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
 Respondent Judge should be more prudent in the observance of his dealings with the public to obviate the
mistaken impression of impropriety in that he is probably using his position as a judge to impose improper
pressure or exert undue influence so as to obtain the desired result in a given situation.

3. Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123
464 SCRA 250, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891
July 28, 2005

DOCTRINE: Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.

FACTS:
 OCA received a Letter from “Concerned citizens of the lower court” reporting the alleged “practices” of Judge
Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123:
1. Respondent Judge conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced accused while on official leave from
August 15, 2001 to September 15, 2001.
o Defense of R:
 he was issued an Authority to Travel dated August 14, 2001 duly approved and signed by
then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida Elepaño allowing him to travel to Toronto, Canada
to visit his brother, who unfortunately passed away before he could leave;
 as evidenced by the entries in the daily time records/logbook, he was not yet on leave from
August 15, 2001 to August 21, 2001. As such, he had the “right and duty to come to court
and conduct trials, sign orders and issue sentences;”
2. Aside from listing the respondent’s “dialogues,” his “favorite expressions” were likewise listed, as follows:
 Putris
 Anak ng pating
 Putang Ina
 Pogi, beauty
 Tulungan nyo naman ako, hirap na hirap na ko.
 Mali ka na naman.
o Defense of R: Admitted that “putris, putang-ina, beauty and pogi” were among his favorite expressions,
but clarified that he did not use them often, certainly not in open court.
3. Respondent Judge also “spends much of his energy talking” and loves to berate and embarrass people, not
caring whether he speaks in open court, as long as he has an audience.
o Defense of R: Admitted having made some of them while he was discussing the performance ratings
of his staff. He insisted, however, that he had been misquoted, and dismissed as mere fabrication
some of the statements attributed to him.
4. Respondent’s decisions usually take about seven to ten drafts, as he “changes his mind so many times.” It was
further alleged that the respondent loves to “glorify himself,” and that his behavior was weird.
o Defense of R: He was still mourning the loss of his eldest son who died of a fatal aneurism and
surmised that the unknown complainants may have seen and observed him at the “second phase of
his recovery,” a time when he was depressed and angry.

115
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Defense of R: The writers of the letter were actuated by improper motive, and sent the letter with no other
purpose than to harass him. Furthermore, the allegations in the letter were fabricated, exaggerated, or
misquoted.
 OCA recommended that the instant administrative case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter,
and that the respondent be reprimanded for ignorance of a policy on leave of absence…a judge on leave
of absence “would have absolutely no authority to discharge his duties or exercise the powers of a judge.”
(Court in Paz v. Tiong)
 The OCA made the following evaluation:
o Judge Acuña had an approved application for leave covering the period from 21 August 2001 to
21 September 2001. This application for leave of absence was approved on 3 August 2001. In
view of this approved application for leave, it was a natural expectation that Judge Acuña would
cease from exercising his functions during the said period. However, judge presided over criminal
cases on 21 August 2001.
o We state that not even his overzealousness to work can shield him from administrative liability
for ignorance of the consequences of his approved application for leave of absence.
 Court of Appeals Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zeñarosa recommends the complaint be dismissed for
lack of merit.
o There was nothing repulsive in deferring the date of his leave. Moreover, there was no showing
that the respondent was actuated by any ulterior motive other than to lessen his workload.
 Respondent’s decision to report for work that day appears to have been motivated by
his honest belief that he could defer his leave and make the necessary adjustments
later; he had no clear intent to deliberately ignore the rules regarding vacation leaves.
 Nobody was prejudiced by the respondent’s appearance during that day.
 However, respondent should bear in mind that approved leaves are filed through official
documents and in the future, such act may obliterate the validity of the issuances he
made while on official leave when his orders, decisions and other promulgations reflect
a date when he is already supposed to be on leave. Thus, he should exercise utmost
caution regarding these matters.
o As to the use of humiliating and insensitive expressions, the Investigating Justice agreed with the
OCA that the use of “putris” and “putang ina” were unfit expressions for men of the robe. It did
not matter that they were not directed to any person in particular, as they give the impression of
a person’s ill manners. Considering that the respondent is not an ordinary citizen, such
intemperate language detracts from how a judge should conduct himself.

ISSUE: W/N respondent judge is guilty of impropriety.

HELD: YES. Respondent Judge Edmundo T. Acuña is found GUILTY of impropriety and is REPRIMANDED and
STERNLY WARNED.

RATIO:
 The Court agrees with the Investigating Justice’s observation that the respondent’s use of such expletives
is improper for the extolled office of a magistrate of the law.
o By virtue of the very office he holds, the public expects more of the respondent as he undeniably
occupies an exalted yet delicate niche in the administration of justice. Those who don the judicial
robe and wield the judicial gavel ought to impress in their consciousness that appearance is an
essential manifestation of reality.
o Thus, the respondent’s claim that his “favorite expressions” were not directed at anyone in
particular is unacceptable.
 Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.
Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of
all the activities of a judge.

116
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o We recognize, of course, that judges are also human beings, with their own burdens and private
affairs. However, having accepted the esteemed position of judge, the respondent ought to have
known that more is expected of him than an ordinary citizen.
o Thus, while we commiserate with the respondent Judge for the loss of his brother and son, we
cannot spare him from the consequences of his unacceptable behavior.
 In Ignacio v. Valenzuela, a judge who heard a motion while he was on vacation was held guilty of
impropriety and was meted a fine of one month’s salary.
 Considering, however, that no bad faith or ill motive can be attributed to the respondent, the Court deems
it proper to reprimand him for his actuations.

4. Vidal vs. Dojillo, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591, July 14, 2005.*

DOCTRINE: A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a price one has to pay for
occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture.

FACTS:
 Rodrigo “Jing” N. Vidal charges Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of
Manaoag, Pangasinan with “Misconduct.”
o The charge stemmed from an Election Protest filed by the brother of Judge Dojillo to protest the
proclamation of herein complainant as Barangay Captain in the 2002 election.
o During the hearings of the Election Protest, Judge Dojillo “sat beside the counsel of his brother” and
“actively coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something,
handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting something to the
court, and other similar acts.”
o Respondent’s “assertive presence and display of partisan activities in full public view could not have
been ignored or unnoticed by the court a quo and would give the impression and suspicion of partiality
of the said court in favor of respondent’s brother.”
 Defense of R: Admitted that he was present during the mentioned hearings but explained that he did not sit
beside his brother’s lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main reason why he was there
was to observe how election protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His other reason was to
give moral support to his brother.
 Hon. Tita Rodriguez-Villarin: Respondent’s presence did not stir any impression or suspicion of intention to
influence [the] court’s ruling.
 OCA: Recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed but respondent judge should be
advised to be more circumspect in his actions in the future.

ISSUE: W/N respondent judge is guilty of impropriety.

HELD: YES. Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is
hereby REPRIMANDED with a WARNING.

RATIO:
 Respondent stated that he attended the hearing of his brother’s election protest case just to give moral support
and, in the process, also observe how election protest proceedings are conducted.
 Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, respondent, being a judge,
should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the
entire judiciary.
 Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere
appearance of impropriety in all activities.
 Even if respondent did not intend to use his position as a judge to influence the outcome of his brother’s election
protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during the hearing of his brother’s case would

117
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

immediately give cause for the community to suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary would influence
the judge trying the case to favor his brother.
 The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to the presence of respondent during the hearing is
immaterial.
 Respondent himself should have refrained from publicly showing his seemingly active interest and participation
in the case, for he does not deny that he whispered and passed notes to his brother’s lawyer during the course
of the hearing.
 “This reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal trial court judges like respondent because they are the
judicial frontliners who have direct contact with the parties. They are the embodiments of the people’s sense of
justice. . . .”

Section 2. Personal restrictions and conduct consistent with the dignity of the judicial office

5. DULAY and MGA UMAASANG MAMAMAYAN NG QUIRINO v.

JUDGE ELIAS O. LELINA, JR.
FACTS:
 Respondent Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr., stands administratively charged for gross misconduct in two separate
administrative complaints filed by the Mga Umaasang Mamamayan ng Quirino, and Onofre G. Dulay
 February 25, 1998: An anonymous letter was sent by the Mga Umaasang Mamamayan ng Quirino to the NBI
requesting for an investigation on the alleged violation of the Anti-Graft Law and other illegal activities committed
by respondent judge in the province of Quirino.
 June 1, 1998: through an Indorsement Letter from the OCA, the matter was referred to the NBI for discreet
investigation.
 The report stated that respondent judge usually asked for money or parcels of land in exchange for favorable
decision.
 There were incidents when respondent judge would carry his .45 caliber pistol while inside the courtroom, tucked
in his waist, for the purpose of intimidating others.
 According to the NBI, respondent judge was guilty of serious misconduct as a judge and committed the following
acts:
o Extorting money from a party litigant who has a case before his court;
o Using intemperate language unbecoming of a judge;
o Failure to pay debt;
o Oppression or unwarranted display of authority;
o Acting as counsel for all the parties with opposing interest on a parcel of land in pursuance of his
personal self-interest.
 The NBI recommended disbarment and the filing of administrative charges for serious misconduct and
inefficiency.
 The second case stems from the letter-complaint filed by Onofre G. Dulay with the OCA dated July 11, 1998.
Onofres charges against respondent
 February 12, 1999: respondent judge denied the allegations and insisted that Onofre initiated the complaint in
retaliation for an unfavorable judgment removing him as administrator of the estate of former Governor Dulay.
 On the complaint filed by Mga Umaasang Mamamayan ng Quirino, Justice Vasquez reported that the alleged
complainants never came forward nor did they execute any affidavit or sworn statement to substantiate their
claims. The only evidence submitted to support the complaint was the uncorroborated sworn statement of Editha
Dumlao, who was not presented as a witness during the investigation, and the report of the NBI, which was
based on second-hand information. Thus, he recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
 Anent the complaint filed by Onofre Dulay, Justice Vasquez reported:
o that Onofres statement of facts were not accurate;
o that Onofre failed to prove that he was ordered to give 160 square meters of home lot to respondent
judge.
o On the contrary, evidence shows that Agnes Mariano is the registered owner of the lot after Onofre
gave her the property as payment for his debts.
o Neither was Onofre able to prove that respondent judge prepared the pleadings filed by his opponents.

118
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 However, the investigating justice found adequate evidence showing that respondent judge committed
improprieties in dealing with Onofre which warrants disciplinary sanctions.
 Based on his findings, the investigating justice recommended:
o For violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. be dismissed from service
with forfeiture of all of the benefits as the High Court may determine, and be disqualified from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
ISSUE: W/N Judge Lelina violated the Code of Judicial Conduct
RULING: YES. “WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for six
(6) months without salary and other benefits. He is WARNED that the commission of the same or similar infractions in
the future will merit a more severe penalty.”

RATIO:
 Although the investigation revealed that most of the allegations were based on misrepresentation of facts by
Onofre, sufficient evidence however exists which shows that respondent judge was guilty of gross misconduct.
 Although every office in the government is a public trust, no position exacts greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.
 A magistrate of law must comport himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can
bear the most searching scrutiny of the public.
 The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary prescribes that judges shall ensure that not only
is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
 Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
 Likewise, 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.
 The Code clearly prohibits judges or members of their families from asking for or accepting, any gift, bequest,
loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with
the performance of judicial duties.
 Respondent judge failed to live up to these standards. Despite knowledge of Onofre and Marianos intentions in
offering the business to his daughters, respondent judge allowed his daughters to accept the offer of business
partnership with persons who have pending cases in his court.
 Respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for which
he is administratively liable.

6. SELUDO v. Judge ANTONIO J. FINEZA

FACTS

 Complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Atty. Antonio D. Seludo charged Judge Antonio
J. Fineza of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131, with violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
 During the hearing on July 8, 2003, respondent judge uttered vulgar and insulting words against complainant,
Such as:

“If the respondent knows how to read English…”

“Putang-ina mo eh!”

“He promised in his answer, that he has remedied the situation.”

119
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

“…. I dont know if this guy is really stupid.”

 The respondent judge admitted that he uttered derogatory words during the proceeding held on July 8, 2003. He,
however, explained that he has been suffering from a heart ailment and diabetes since November, 2002, causing
him considerable anxiety and pain. This must be the reason why he could not control his outburst. And the conduct
of the complainant and the Executive Judge. Complainant was unkind and impolite to him. He kept on interrupting
him
 Also, he answered that he is aware that there is no justification for his use of improper language, and for this, he is
sincerely contrite and penitent. But as a member of the bench for over twenty years, he expected the complainant
to respect him, to treat him with politeness, dignity and courtesy, and to give him his due as a magistrate.
 Under the evaluation of Court Admin.:
o The respondent has indeed consciously ignored to heed the Courts advice and warning when he was
admonished for using intemperate language. And his attention was called several times by the
Investigating Executive Judge to stay calm and be civil. In fact, his attitude was generally antagonistic not
only to complainant but also to the Executive Judge who dared to question his motives/oppose his view.
Such, is a glaring display of haughtiness and arrogance of respondent. His choice of words, aside from
being inflammatory and uncalled for, betrays a lack of judicial decorum.
o The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with
respect to his performance of official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
individual. The Code dictates that a judge must behave with propriety at all times.
 Since respondent has already retired from the service, dismissal or suspension is no longer feasible as a penalty
for the present charges. They recommend respondent judge be fined in the amount ofP20,000.00 for violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, the amount to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Issue: Whether Judge Antonio J. Fineza is guilty of violation of Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling: The respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza is hereby found GUILTY of gross violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. He is ordered to pay a FINE of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P21,000.00) to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.

Ascribing the words "moronic attitude," "stupid", "if he knows how to read English" and putang ina mo to
complainant during the proceeding before the Executive Judge, respondent displayed a conduct so unbecoming of a
magistrate. The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and outrageous. That respondent was suffering from heart
ailment and diabetes is not an excuse. He could have asked the assistance of a lawyer to represent him in prosecuting
the case. As correctly observed by the Court Administrator, his disgraceful behavior tainted the good image of the judiciary
he is expected to uphold at all times.

The judges are to observe judicial decorum which requires that they must at all times be temperate in their
language,[13] refraining from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric[14] or from resorting "to the language of
vilification”.

Respondent judges behavior is incompatible with judicial temperament expected of him. He was discourteous, not
only to complainant, but also to the trial judge. His actuation constitutes palpable violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01, and
Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

7. ANTONIO LORENZANA V. JUDGE AUSTRIA

FACTS:

FACTS:

120
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Administrative complaints filed by Antonio M. Lorenzana (complainant) against Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria
(respondent), Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Batangas City.
 The records show that the administrative complaints arose from the case "In the Matter of the Petition to have
Steel Corporation of the Philippines Placed under Corporate Rehabilitation with Prayer for the Approval of the
Proposed Rehabilitation Plan," where the respondent was the presiding judge.
 The complainant was the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Steel Corporation of the
Philippines (SCP), a company then under rehabilitation proceedings.
 January 21, 2008: the complainant alleged that in the course of SP. Proc. No. 06-7993, the respondent
committed Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Grave Incompetence,
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Bias and Partiality, Lack of Circumspection, Conduct Unbecoming
of a Judge, Failure to Observe the Reglementary Period and Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as shown by the following instances:
o respondent committed an act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social
networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly
for the purpose of finding a compatible partner.
o She also posed with her upper body barely covered by a shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was
worn underneath except probably a brassiere.
 Respondent vehemently denied the allegations against her:
o that the photos she posted in the social networking website "Friendster" could hardly be considered
vulgar or lewd.
o that an "off-shouldered" attire is an acceptable social outfit under contemporary standards and is not
forbidden.
o that there is no prohibition against attractive ladies being judges;
o she is proud of her photo for having been aesthetically made
 July 4, 2008: the complainant filed a reply, insisting that the respondent’s acts of posting "seductive" pictures
and maintaining a "Friendster" account constituted acts of impropriety
 OCA:
o found that the respondent was not guilty of gross ignorance of the law as the complainant failed to
prove that her orders were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption
o that the charges of bias and partiality in handling the rehabilitation proceedings were not supported
by evidence.
o It accepted the respondent’s explanation in the charge of failure to observe the reglementary period.
o that the allegations of grave abuse of authority and gross incompetence are judicial in nature, hence,
they should not be the subject of disciplinary action.
o that the respondent’s act of posting seductive photos in her Friendster account contravened the
standard of propriety set forth by the Code

ISSUE: W/N Judge Austria violated the Code of Judicial Conduct

RULING: To an extent, yes. But not completely. “Judge Austria's record shows that she had never been administratively
charged or found liable for any wrongdoing in the past. Since this is her first offense, the Court finds it fair and proper to
temper the penalty for her offenses.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria guilty of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW for which she
is FINED Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000,00). Judge Austria is likewise hereby ADMONISHED to refrain from
further acts of IMPROPRIETY and to refrain from CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE, with the STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.”

RATIO:
 While judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and from taking part in social networking activities,
SC reminds that they do not thereby shed off their status as judges.
 They carry with them in cyberspace the same ethical responsibilities and duties that every judge is expected to
follow in his/her everyday activities.
 It is in this light that we judge the respondent in the charge of impropriety when she posted her pictures in a
manner viewable by the public.

121
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Lest this rule be misunderstood, the New Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judge from joining or
maintaining an account in a social networking site such as Friendster.
 Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes that judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression.
 This right "includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas through
any media regardless of frontiers."
 Joining a social networking site is an exercise of one’s freedom of expression. The respondent judge’s act of
joining Friendster is, therefore, per se not violative of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, however, also imposes a correlative restriction on
judges: in the exercise of their freedom of expression, they should always conduct themselves in a manner that
preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.
 This rule reflects the general principle of propriety expected of judges in all of their activities, whether it be in
the course of their judicial office or in their personal lives. In particular, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 4 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves
in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
 Based on this provision, we hold that the respondent disregarded the propriety and appearance of propriety
required of her when she posted Friendster photos of herself wearing an "off-shouldered" suggestive dress and
made this available for public viewing.
 To restate the rule: in communicating and socializing through social networks, judges must bear in mind that
what they communicate – regardless of whether it is a personal matter or part of his or her judicial duties –
creates and contributes to the people’s opinion not just of the judge but of the entire Judiciary of which he or
she is a part.
 This is especially true when the posts the judge makes are viewable not only by his or her family and close
friends, but by acquaintances and the general public.
 Thus, it may be acceptable for the respondent to show a picture of herself in the attire she wore to her family
and close friends, but when she made this picture available for public consumption, she placed herself in a
situation where she, and the status she holds as a judge, may be the object of the public’s criticism and ridicule.
 The nature of cyber communications, particularly its speedy and wide-scale character, renders this rule
necessary.
 We are not also unaware that the respondent’s act of posting her photos would seem harmless and inoffensive
had this act been done by an ordinary member of the public.
 As the visible personification of law and justice, however, judges are held to higher standards of conduct and
thus must accordingly comport themselves.
 This exacting standard applies both to acts involving the judicial office and personal matters.
 The very nature of their functions requires behavior under exacting standards of morality, decency and propriety;
both in the performance of their duties and their daily personal lives, they should be beyond reproach.
 Judges necessarily accept this standard of conduct when they take their oath of office as magistrates.

Section 3. Relationship with members of the legal profession

8. OCA V. PADERANGA

FACTS:

 Petitioner was counsel for the plaintiffs in the case entitled, spouses Gregorio and Pelegrina Babatido v. Elnora and
Teodoro Abella and respondent Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga was the presiding judge.

122
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 case was scheduled for continuation of pre-trial before the lower court. petitioner filed a motion to approve
compromise agreement entered into by the parties pointing out that the compromise agreement was reached before
a barangay captain. Counsel for the defendants opposed the motion because the defendants were placed in a
disadvantageous condition, arguing that the case was before the court not before the barangay. The court ruled that
the compromise agreement was not before the barangay captain but before the court. The parties settled before the
barangay captain. At this point, petitioner informed the court that the compromise agreement was signed and was
explaining further when the court told him repeatedly to shut up. Then petitioner requested the court to stop shouting
at him. The court rhetorically asked: why should the court precisely not cite you for contempt for doing that, that is,
for settling the case before the barangay captain.

 ----- presiding judge cited petitioner in contempt of court and imposed on him a fine of P1,000.00.

 Petitioner remarked that the presiding judge was becoming very arrogant.

 respondent judge declared: I will put you in jail. Get a policeman. At that moment, the court issued a verbal order
holding petitioner for direct contempt of court and sentencing petitioner to serve one (1) day in jail and to pay a fine
of P1,000.00. Petitioner indicated that he would challenge the ruling. Then, respondent judge issued a detention
commitment to the Jail Warden, City Jail, Cagayan de Oro City, committing the person of petitioner Conchito J.
Oclarit for direct contempt.

 ---- respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court,
sentencing him to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to serve one day in jail. It was respondent judge who first shouted
successively at petitioner to shut up. When petitioner persisted in making his explanation, the court declared him in
direct contempt, to the extent of stating that the judge had absolute power. The lawyers remarks explaining his
position in the case under consideration do not necessarily assume the level of contumely that justifies the court to
exercise the power of contempt. Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic power must be used
sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in facie curiae.

 OCA:
charged Judge Paderanga with gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority.
 SC’S RESOLUTION:
 NOTE the compliance of respondent judge with the directive in the Decision dated January 24, 2001 to
reimburse petitioner Conchito J. Oclarit the amount of P1,000.00;
 DECLARE the explanation for failure to file comment on the administrative complaint NOT
SATISFACTORY and to ADMONISH Judge Paderanga and Atty. Arcol to be more prudent in dealing with the
Court;
 DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to furnish Judge Paderanga and Arcol and Musni Law Offices with copies
of administrative complaint; and
 REQUIRE Judge Paderanga to file COMMENT thereon within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
receipt hereof, with warning that upon failure to file his comment within said period, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to comment and the complaint of the Office of the Court Administrator shall be deemed
submitted for resolution of the Court.

 Report and Recommendation by Justice de Leon:

 the desistance of private complainant from participating in this administrative case, coupled with respondent Judges
affirmation that they have long come to terms, a determination of the veracity of the administrative charge against
respondent Judge must still be made.

 respondent Judges action in forthwith declaring and punishing Atty. Oclarit in direct contempt of court constituted
misconduct and an abuse of authority. The same was all the more highlighted by his failure to state in the written
order of direct contempt the specific cause thereof. Respondent Judges defense that his resort to such a drastic

123
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

action was prompted by the manner by which Atty. Oclarit argued as to the propriety of submitting for approval a
compromise agreement reached before a Barangay Captain is not well-taken.

 nothing in the records to show that Atty. Oclarit was disrespectful to the trial court at the inception of the hearing
where respondent Judge cited Atty. Oclarit in direct contempt of court. Atty. Oclarit was only trying to explain the
propriety of obtaining a settlement before a Barangay Captain but respondent Judge would not listen. The Supreme
Court even found that it was respondent Judge who first shouted successively at Atty. Oclarit to shut up, an act
unbecoming of an impartial and a neutral judge.

 Respondent Judge should have given Atty. Oclarit the opportunity to fully present his side and only if his explanation
was found unmeritorious or his manner clearly spiteful should respondent Judge have acted according to what was
called for by the circumstances. A lawyers remarks explaining his position in a case under consideration do not
necessarily assume the level of contempt that justifies the court to exercise the power of contempt.

 Justice de Leon recommended that respondent be reprimanded for drastically resorting to his contempt powers with
a warning

 SC:
 does not entirely agree with the findings of the investigating Justice but adopts the recommended penalty for the
infraction committed by respondent. However, we agree with Justice de Leon that the withdrawal of the complaint or
the execution of an affidavit of desistance does not automatically result in the dismissal of the instant administrative
case.

 ISSUE:
 whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority on the basis of the findings of
this Court in G.R. No. 139519, the Comment of respondent, and the Report and Recommendation of Justice de
Leon.

 SC:
we find no error in Justice de Leons finding that there is nothing on record to evidence Atty. Oclarits contumacious
behavior towards respondent or the office or court he represents.

 respondent judges act of unceremoniously citing Atty. Oclarit in contempt while declaring himself as having absolute
power is a clear evidence of his unjustified use of the authority vested upon him by law. He has lost sight of the fact
that the power to cite persons in contempt is at his disposal for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is
intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. Respondent is guilty
of grave abuse of authority.

 considering that respondent judge is not to be totally blamed for his reaction to the apparently belligerent attitude of
Atty. Oclarit, and since there is no showing that respondent has been previously charged and found guilty of the
same or similar administrative offense, we find it proper to impose on him the penalty of reprimand, as recommended
by Justice de Leon, with stern warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.

 WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga is found guilty of grave abuse of authority and simple
misconduct. He is hereby REPRIMANDEDand STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or similar acts shall
be dealt with more severely.

Section 3. Relationship with members of the legal profession

124
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Omaa v. Yulde
A.M. MTJ-01-1345 (26 August 2002)

RECIT-READY: Case of the judge na nakipag-inuman with counsel who had pending cases in his sala. Fundador daw.
Guilty of impropriety; FINE of Php 10,000, to be subtracted from retirement benefits.

DOCTRINE: It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that judges should live in retirement or seclusion;
it is desirable that, so far as the reasonable attention to the completion of their work will permit, they continue to mingle
in social intercourse, and that they should not discontinue their interests in a or appearance at meetings of members of
the bar. A judge should, however, in pending or perspective litigation before him be scrupulously careful to avoid such
action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendship constitute an
element in determining his judicial course.

FACTS
1. Atty. Omaa claims that Judge Yulde, complained about two things:
a. Instead of setting a civil case for hearing within the seventy-two (72) hour effectivity of the TRO for the
purpose of determining whether the same should be extended or not, set the hearing beyond said period
in violation of the Rules;
b. Judge Yulde failed to act upon the motions filed by Atty. Omaa;
c. Atty. Omaa also assails the validity of respondents Order of September 18, 1998 granting the Ex-Parte
TRO with twenty (20) day effectivity.
d. Judge Yudle allegedly had drinking sessions during office hours with counsels who have pending
cases in his sala.
2. Recommendations of the OCA:
a. On the first allegation: Judge Yulde neither denies nor confirms this accusation. The Court mentioned,
however, that Atty. Omaa failed to support her claim. The questioned TRO and order setting the summary
hearing beyond the prescribed period were not submitted. Given this failings, Judge Yulde has in his favor
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
b. On the second allegation: Judge Yulde cannot justify his inaction on mere allegation that there are still
unresolved conflicting claims of facts raised by the parties. It is incumbent upon him to resolve motions
within the period of ninety (90) days from submission thereof. Delay in resolving motions and incidents
pending before a judge within the reglementary period of 90-days fixed by the constitution and the law is
not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.
c. On the third allegation: Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not
complementary or suppletory of nor a substitute for the judicial remedies which are available.
Resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action
or proceedings, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges
concerned, whether of civil, administrative or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies
have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into
his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the drinking sessions in Judge Yulde’s sala constituted a violation of Section 3 of the Judicial
Code of Conduct

RULING: YES. But he’s retired, so the Court saw it proper to just subtract the fine from his retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Prudencio A. Yulde guilty of inefficiency and impropriety, in violation of Rule
2.01, Canon 2 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A fine of P10,000.00 is imposed on him, to be
deducted from his retirement benefits, subject to the final resolution of A.M. No. 01-3-51-MTC.

RATIO:

125
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Respondent Judge admitted in his Comment that on said date, he joined a drinking spree with counsels with pending
cases before his court (the Supervising Inspector of Superlines Bus offered him a Fundador and… nag-inuman sila)
 Members of the Judiciary are expected to so conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and be
free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior not only in the discharge of their official duties
but also in their private capacities. (Rule 2.01)
 As soon as respondent Judge had noticed the presence of lawyers who have pending cases in his sala, he should
have excused himself from engaging in a drinking spree. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Respondent Judge should have avoided fraternization
with lawyers in a drinking session or attending the party tendered by the ex-mayor. The conduct of a judge
must be free from any whiff of impropriety not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties but also to
his behavior outside his sala and even as a private individual.
 Rule 30. Social Relations. - It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that judges should live in
retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as the reasonable attention to the completion of their work will
permit, they continue to mingle in social intercourse, and that they should not discontinue their interests in a or
appearance at meetings of members of the bar. A judge should, however, in pending or perspective litigation before
him be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or
business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his judicial course. (Canon of Judicial Ethics)

Perfecto v. Desales-Esidera, supra.

Sections 4 and 5. Propriety as to litigations involving family members; use of residence

Section 6. Rights to be exercised in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Magtibay v. Indar
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2271 (24 September 2012)

RECIT-READY: Magtibay is party to a special proceeding (then later on, to a criminal proceeding). Indar is a judge who
thought it proper to delay disposition on the motions of Magtibay, AND called Magtibay’s counsel all sorts of unsavory
things, claiming that they were wasting the Judge’s time, etc. FINED 20,000 because he was already dismissed from
service.

DOCTRINE: Judge Indar’s behavior does not speak well of his position as member of the bench. (seryoso, walang actual
doctrine-doctrine)

FACTS:
1. Magtibay is one of the heirs of the late Jose Olarte, who was one of the original stockholders of Olarte Hermanos y
Cia.
2. Upon the death of the stockholders/owners, the surviving heirs, including Magtibay, filed a Petition for Involuntary
Dissolution of the company before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City. During the course of the
proceedings, an Intervention was filed by Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao (Dumlao), acting as attorney-in-fact of one
Vicente Olarte, who was allegedly an heir of the late Jose Olarte.
3. Thereafter, the DPWH constructed a national highway that traversed about four kilometers of its distance within the
property of Olarte Hermanos y Cia. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City granted
Magtibay’s motion to direct the Regional Director (Region XII) of the DPWH to cause the payment of the partial
consideration of the road right-of-way of the Magtibays.
4. Magtibay claimed that Dumlao collected a huge amount of money from the DPWH as compensation for the road
right-of-way claims of the heirs of Olarte Hermanos y Cia by forging, manufacturing, falsifying documents and even
fraudulently misrepresenting a non-existent person. Thus, complainant filed several criminal cases against
Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao before the Department of Justice.

126
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

5. Magtibay also filed a Manifestation with Motion for Correction or Amendment of Caption, accusing Dumlao of
employing machination by making it appear in the pleadings that Magtibay’s name was “Lucia Olarte-Ong,” and
praying that the caption in Special Proceedings No. 2004-074 be amended to reflect her legal and true name “Lucia
Olarte-Magtibay.”
6. In the disputed Order dated March 26, 2009, Judge Indar denied the Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Temporary Restraining Order for utter lack of merit and berated Magtibay for having allegedly filed
libelous pleadings and threatened her with imposition of fine if the same allegations are repeated.
7. Magtibay argued that there was no hearing on the Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO that
would determine the veracity of their allegations. Magtibay, hence, suspected that respondent judge was denying
complainant's motions and request in order to favor the intervenors.
8. Magtibay also pointed out that the context of Judge Indar’s March 26, 2009 Order appeared as if he was
“lawyering” for Dumlao and Vicente L. Olarte.
9. Magtibay further claimed that they filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition of respondent judge,
but the said motion was left unresolved by respondent judge. It likewise did not help that Judge Indar exhibited
rude behavior against Magtibay’s counsel and authorized representative, Victoria S. Tolentino and Jommel
L. Valles (Valles). Complainant claimed that said representatives, particularly Valles, experienced
unwarranted boorish and scurrilous treatment from respondent judge.
10. Valles claimed that Judge Indar confronted them and argued that they have no legal personality to acquire
said documents, thus, denied their request. He further narrated that while they were explaining that they
were the same people who filed for certain motions, respondent judge said, “Denied na ung motion nyo.”
Valles added that when Delos Santos insisted on their request, respondent judge retorted “Huwag mo ng
ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa inyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema.” He claimed
that Judge Indar even stated: “Ireklamo ninyo na ako ng administratibo sa Supreme Court at sila ang
magsabi kung pwede ko kayong bigyan ng kopya ng records.”
11. In his Comment, Judge Indar denied the allegations, claimed that his actions were proper, and called Valles and
Tolentino “demented persons”.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Indar exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge

RULING: YES. He was FINED in the amount of Php 20,000, because he was already dismissed from service.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent CADEL P. INDAR, Al. Haj. GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order
and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, and he is accordingly FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00), tobe deducted from his leave credits, if there is any.

RATIO:
 Re. delayed disposition on the motions of Magtibay: guilty; “An unwarranted slow down in the disposition of cases
erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.”
 Judge Indar exhibited rude behavior in dealing with the public. Whether complainant and her counsel were entitled
to the requested documents is not the issue, but the manner of how he declined the request. Certainly, his statement
which he did not deny: “Huwag mo ng ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa inyo lumayas na kayo marami
akong problema” does not speak well of his position as member of the bench. Noticeably, even in his Comment,
Indar’s choice of words was likewise inappropriate (“demented”)
 However, during the pendency of this case, we note that in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, Judge Indar has already been
dismissed from the service that already attained finality considering that respondent did not file any motion for
reconsideration. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the same does not render the instant case moot and
academic because accessory penalties may still be imposed.

Capco-Umali v. Acosta-Villarante
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124 (27 August 2009)

127
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RECIT-READY: This was a b****-spat basically. This started when Mayor Gonzales was confused with the payroll and
allowances for executive judges. Judge Capco-Umali was orienting them; Judge Acosta-Villarante was calling Capco-
Umali a liar; Capco-Umali retaliated by saying that Acosta-Villarante was old and should probably die. They were both
FINED Php 11,000.00.

DOCTRINE: Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges and employees necessarily
diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding is a disgraceful occurrence reflecting adversely on the good
image of the Judiciary. By fighting within the court premises, respondent judges failed to observe the proper decorum
expected of members of the Judiciary.

FACTS:
1. Judge Acosta-Villarante wrote a Memorandum of March 27, 2007[6] addressed to Executive Judge Maria Cancino-
Erum of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City.
2. The Memorandum, copies of which were furnished the Offices of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, the Judicial and Bar Council, Representative Benhur Abalos, Mayor Neptali Gonzales II, the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong, the Clerk of Court of Mandaluyong RTCs, and the other judges of Mandaluyong City.
The Memorandum stated that
Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali marred the event by conduct very unbecoming of a judge by uttering
unsavory remarks and epithets or words of the same import designed to humiliate the undersigned
in the presence of fellow judges and assistant clerk of court Atty. Leynard Dumlao, coupled with her
attempt to inflict physical harm to the undersigned which you, as the newly appointed executive Judge,
miserably failed to control and dominate and opted to take a passive stance.

The conduct of the newly appointed vice executive judge does not speak well of her being a judge who is
expected to conduct herself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
3. On account of the underlined statements of Judge Acosta-Villarante in her Memorandum, Judge Capco-Umali filed
a complaint for libel before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City.
4. Judge Acosta-Villarante countered by also filing an Administrative Complaint of April 26, 2007 charging Judge
Capco-Umali with violation of Canon 4, Sections 1 and 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and a complaint
for Grave Oral Defamation and Grave Threats, before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Mandaluyong City.
5. Judge Capco-Umali’s libel complaint says:
 Argument about payroll: when the matter of giving to the new executive judge the increased allowances of
Executive Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante and that the latter would revert back [sic] to the authorized
amount for Executive Judges was discussed, respondent Villarante was angered and blurted out
addressing the new Executive Judge: “Kayo, simula ng maupo sa pwesto, wala ng ginawa kundi kutkutin
at maghanap ng evidencia para ako masira, nagsusumbong, nagmamanman. Wala naman pakialaman sa
allowance kanya kanya yan dapat”
 Capco-Umali was enlightening everyone in the Mayor’s Office about the allowances in the payroll, but
Acosta-Villarante “kept talking too and even shouting at the top [of] her voice towards complainant visibly
irked by complainants revelation on the matter. Respondent even called complainant a
liar (sinungaling) repeatedly[;] when complainant demanded from respondent her basis for saying that
complainant is a liar, respondent was not able to answer it but continued calling her sinungaling. Even
telling her to stop talking because her (complainant) voice is so sharp to her ear (nakakahiwa boses
mo). Respondent continued verbally attacking complainant with words connoting malicious imputations of
being an incorrigible liar and of being in cahoots with Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum in peddling lies [that]
the complainant got upset by the verbal aggression made by Judge Villarante that she told the latter,
thus: Matanda ka na, halos malapit ka na sa kamatayan gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan, madadamay
pa kami. Judge Villarante fought back: Bog, sana mangyari sa iyo, bog!.
 More heated exchanges ensued because Judge Villarante kept o[n] saying sinungaling to the complainant.
6. In her Comment, Judge Acosta-Villarante denied that she wrote the Memorandum to maliciously impute a crime,
vice or defect on Judge Capco-Umali as she merely requested for the suspension of the holding of the monthly
meeting of judges to avoid a repetition of the incident and to afford the parties an opportunity to cool off.
7. In causing the circulation of the Memorandum, Judge Acosta-Villarante explained that she had an obligation to bring
to the attention of concerned officials the personal demeanor of another member that would put the Judiciary in

128
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

constant public scrutiny and disrespect. According to her, Judge Capco-Umali stood up and in a mode of anger
pointing a finger against Judge Acosta-Villarante and said “Matanda ka na! Mamamatay ka na!... at iba pa na may
kahalintulad.”
8. Judge Capco-Umali, admitting having uttered the remarks matanda ka na, halos malapit ka na sa kamatayan
gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan, madadamay pa kami to Judge Acosta-Villarante, explained that it was due to
exasperation as Judge Acosta-Villarante called her an incorrigible liar or sinungaling. Also admitting having
uttered Judge ako! Judge ako!, she explained that it was to remind Judge Acosta-Villarante that she deserved
respect and courtesy, for while she was speaking on the topic of allowances, Judge Acosta-Villarante kept
interrupting her by making interjections and unnecessary comments.
9. Judge Acosta- Villarante, admitting calling Judge Capco-Umali sinungaling, explained that she was only
constrained by the situation, adding that Judge Capco-Umali is a pathological liar
10. The OCA said that both judges should be liable, but also said that “The respective acts for which the herein
respondents have been charged do not amount to gross misconduct. Thus, the charges against them cannot be
considered serious.” The recommendation was suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. In the
case of Judge Capco-Umali, however, the imposable penalty should be tempered because it is clear from
the record that she was dragged into the tiff by an act of provocation

ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of the judges in this case constituted gross misconduct

RULING: NO. However, the Court found that they should both be fined equally, P11,000
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judges Rizalina T. Capco-Umali and Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante GUILTY of
violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, for which they
are each FINED in the amount of Eleven Thousand (P11,000) Pesos.

RATIO:
 Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges and employees necessarily
diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding is a disgraceful occurrence reflecting adversely on the
good image of the Judiciary. By fighting within the court premises, respondent judges failed to observe the proper
decorum expected of members of the Judiciary. More detestable is the fact that their squabble arose out of a mere
allowance coming from the local government.
 Under Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC[19] (September 11, 2001), a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct is classified as a serious charge only if it amounts to gross misconduct. Since, as correctly found by the
OCA, the same does not constitute gross misconduct, it should be considered only as a violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives and circulars, which is classified as a less serious charge, in which case, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed: (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor
more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.

Section 7. Personal fiduciary and financial interests

Section 8. Prohibition against using the prestige of the judicial office to advance private interests

Manansala III v. Asdala

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 (10 May 2005)

RECIT-READY: Manansala was the aggrieved party in a case where Herbst broke Manansala’s window. Asdala was
Herbst’s judge friend, who helped Herbst with the case.

DOCTRINE: Rightly or wrongly, the public identifies the abstract precept of justice, and the administration of justice, with
the persona and actuations of the visible human judge that they see, and with whom they come in contact, or deal with.

FACTS:

129
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

1. Before noon of February 1, 2003, Winfried Herbst, a German national, was detained at Police Station 10 in
Kamuning, Quezon City for breaking a glass wall in the office of Melencio P. Manansala III (complainant) at PM
Building at 24 Matalino St., Diliman, Quezon City.
2. By Manansala’s account, in late afternoon of even date, Judge Fatima G. Asdala (respondent) of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, called up by telephone the Station Commander of Station 10 Police
Superintendent Atty. Joel Napoleon Coronel, requesting for the release of Herbst to her custody.
3. Atty. Coronel, however, did not accede to Judge Asdala’s request, he informing her that complainant was
adamant in filing criminal charges against Herbst and they were just waiting for the arrival of the inquest fiscal.
4. Manansala further relates that on February 3, 2003, Mark Cabigao, the sheriff assigned at Judge Adala’s sala,
together with two policemen, went to PM Building and requested that the Mercedes Benz car of Herbst which
he parked within the vicinity be turned over to their custody.
5. On February 4, 2003, Manansala, together with retired Quezon City Regional Trial Court Judge Marcelino
Bautista appeared at the DIRECT CONNECT, a television show of Atty. Batas Mauricio, wherein
Manansala aired Judge Asdala’s alleged meddling in the case against Herbst. In the same show, Judge
Asdala’s side was, through telephone, likewise aired.
6. The following day or on February 5, 2003, Judge Asdala filed before the Quezon City Prosecutors Office a
complaint for libel against Manansala and Judge Bautista for allegedly defaming her in the television
show of Atty. Mauricio.
7. Subsequently, on February 13, 2003, Manansala filed a complaint-affidavit, with a supplemental complaint-
affidavit, against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman charging her with violation of Section 3(a) of
Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly Persuading, inducing or influencing
another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
8. Asdala’s version of the events is that Herbst asked Asdala for help through the phone, saying that he was
arrested upon the complaint of Manansala after he broke some glass in the latter’s office on provocation; that
he did so because he was fed up with Manansala’s refusal and delay in paying what he (Manansala) owes him,
that he was detained at the Kamuning Police Station at about 11:00 in the morning and that his complainant,
who seems to be very popular with the police officers thereat, would call every now and then, oftentimes, leaving
threatening words, through his cohorts at the station, for Herbst.
9. When Herbst asked if he could already be released, that was the time I decided to give the needed advice and
information, such as: that if there has been a formal complaint, for sure, he will be brought to inquest, and that
since it is Saturday, an inquest prosecutor is on duty and so, I then asked Herbst to find out from the investigator
when inquest will take place. As Herbst had a sideline conversation with someone, I heard someone in the
background ask Herbst who he was in conversation with. Before I knew it, someone other tha[n] Herbst was on
the line and he introduced himself as some police officer whose name I cannot recall and asked what is it I
wanted to know and who I am. I introduced myself as Mrs. Asdala, a friend of Herbst
10. Herbst’s car wheels got slashed. Asdala asked the sheriff to check if he can do anything. The sheriff was all too
willing to help that he immediately proceeded to where the car could be found only to be met by an irate
Manansala and his bosom lawyer Marcelino Bautista
11. Findings of Investigating Justice Dacudao:
Respondent judge can be faulted for having called up that early evening of February 1, 2003, Atty.
Joel Napoleon Coronel, station commander of the Kamuning Police Station No. 10, to request for the
release to her custody of the German national Winfried Herbst, who was scheduled to undergo inquest
investigation at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, for malicious mischief (or vandalism),
which the latter apparently committed, after he had allegedly smashed the window glass at the PM
Building at 24 Matalino Street, Diliman, Quezon City, where the complainant Melencio P. Manansala
III was living or holding office; as well as in asking for the compounding or amicable settlement of the
malicious mischief (or vandalism) case against the German national. For, it can hardly be doubted
that in making both requests respondent judge, one way or another, wittingly or unwittingly, subtly or
blatantly, brought to bear, or sought to bring to bear, upon the precinct commander, the influence
of her office as a judge, in an irregular and improper manner. Rightly or wrongly, the public
identifies the abstract precept of justice, and the administration of justice, with the persona and
actuations of the visible human judge that they see, and with whom they come in contact, or deal with.
Respondent judges plea of good faith thus becomes tenous when it is remembered that as a former

130
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

fiscal or prosecutor, respondent judge ought to know that there is no legal or statutory warrant or basis,
at that time, for her requests/ actions in seeking to obtain (temporary) custody of the still-[to] be-
inquested Winfried Herbst, or for the compounding or amicable settlement of the malicious mischief
(or vandalism) case, against the latter. However one looks at it, either course of action amounted
to an unjustified, if not unlawful, interference or meddling, (or persuading, inducing or influencing
another public officer to borrow the language of the statute) with the work of the police precinct
commander at the time.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Asdala was liable for unjustified/unlawful interference/meddling with the case

RULING: YES.

RATIO:
 In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary to hold a respondent liable for the charge is substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
 The pertinent provisions of THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT read:
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
RULE 2.01. A Judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.
xxx
RULE 2.04. A Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
 Above-quoted Rule 2.04 is reproduced as CANON 2, Sec. 3 in the NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY which took effect on June 1, 2004.
 In the case at bar, respondent denies having talked to Atty. Coronel. She admits though that she talked to
one Maceren who, by her claim, butted in during her phone conversation with Herbst. She proffers, however,
that when she conversed with Maceren, she identified herself as Mrs. Asdala and merely asked him if a
complaint had been filed against Herbst, for what offense, and when the case would be inquested. Judge
Asdala’s plain denial of the charge of influencing does not suffice to discredit the straightforward claim of Atty.
Coronel, however. [Atty. Colonel: “I received a phone call from a person who introduced herself as Judge Asdala of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City concerning the investigation of a criminal complaint being conducted by our
office against Mr. Herbst.”], etc.
 Moreover, Judge Asdala’s vacillating version regarding the phone conversation with the police officer flaws her
credibility. In her COMMENT to the complaint at bar, she stated that during her phone conversation with Herbst, she
heard someone in the background ask Herbst who he was in conversation with and [b]efore she knew it, someone
other tha[n] Herbst was on the line and he introduced himself as some police officer whose name [she] cannot recall
and asked what is it [she] wanted to know and who [she was] xxx.[17] And during her interview on air by Atty.
Mauricio, she likewise admitted having talked to a police officer in Station 10.
 As for respondents act of ordering her sheriff to engage the assistance of policemen and retrieve Herbsts car, this
Court finds that respondent should also be faulted therefor. For by such act, she availed of the services of a
government employee inutusan niya for private concerns. In any event, that her sheriff was even ordered to engage
the services of policemen could not have been intended other than to demonstrate her perceived might as a judge
in order to hopefully secure an unimpeded release of the car. Her claim that the sheriff was all too willing to help
does not, even if true, albeit the sheriffs testimony does not reflect such claim, extenuate her or mitigate her liability.
 In fine, this Court finds well-taken the investigating Justices evaluation of complainants allegations. Instead, however,
of palpable abuse of authority or plain misconduct, respondent is found liable for gross misconduct constituting
violation of the earlier quoted provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a serious charge under Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, as amended.

131
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Dionisio v. Escano
A.M. No. RTJ 98-1400 (1 February 1999)

FACTS
 Complainant Carlos Dionisio charged respondent Judge Zosimo Escano:
o With allegedly using court facilities (bulletin board) in advertising for attractive waitresses and
personable waiters and cooks for possible employment in their restaurant business.
o Caused the construction of an extension office along the corridor called “Office of Negotiable Cases”
after he acquitted Hung.
 Oct. 19, 1997 Manila Bulletin issue, advertisement of respondent’s restaurant Fontana Café and Restaurant
appeared to be accepting applications for attractive waitresses and female vocalists (check p.415)
 ABSCBN staff member of show “Hoy Gising!” pretended to be an applicant to conduct a videotaped investigation
on the veracity of the advertisement (aired live)
o Tape was made part of the complaint submitted
 During the “interview” judge said:
o As to the ownership of the said establishment, respondent admitted: "Ako ang may-ari. Ako mismo
ang owner."
o As to the nature of the business establishment: "Ngayon, ang concept nitong pubhouse, lalo itong
lugar ko, itong pangalan ay Fontana Café, ang ano ay we will be catering to classes A and B." He
further added: "Yung mga lalake target natin, may come on tayo diyan."
o "I will be requiring yung mga waitress, yung medyo naka-mini or depende sa mga uniporme. Tapos
yung medyo paseksi din dito (respondent was making gestures on the upper part of his body,
obviously referring to just above the breast). Yung konti lang naman, yung medyo paduda, alam mo
na, I hope you are getting me, yung medyo nakaano nang konti yon."
o "May mga customers tayo na mga DOM. Medyo hahawak-hawak sa kamay." For singers, he
explained, "Pagkanta mo ron, hindi yung nakaganyan ka, kwan ka. Magsuot ka ng medyo makatawag
pansin sa mga lalaki Siempre lalake, mga crowd natin lalaki. Kung umikot makikita pati panty, pati
ano. Paseksihan na yon, eh. That's the Entertainment World Today."
 Judge’s answer:
o Admitted the contents of the interview but clarified that the business is merely a restaurant (sort of
watering hole for some friends)
o His wife asked for his help for the hiring of its personnel
o It would be convenient for him to conduct the screening of applicants in his office so he posted the
notice at the Court’s bulletin board
o “Negotiable Cases” – structure was constructed by the Municipal Government to utilize open space in
front of Branch 259 – used as stockroom
o Hung case – acquittal was based on the absence of hard evidence
 During investigation, Justice Minerva held that respondent posted the sad advertisement for more than a week
or two and that he was able to interview five applicants. Fine P15,000 and dismiss Negotiable Case complaint.

ISSUE: WON respondent judge violated Rules 2.00, 5.02 and 5.03 of the Coed of Judicial Ethics (YES)

RULING
 Judge Escano has behaved in a manner unbecoming of his judicial robe, betrayed the people’s high
expectations, and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in general.
 Rule 2.00 — A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
 Rule 5.02. — A Judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the
court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with
lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial
interests to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification, and if necessary, divest such

132
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

investments and interests. Divestment shall be made within one year from the effectivity of this Code or from
appointment, as the case may be.
 Rule 5.03. — Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but
should not serve as a officer, director, advisor, or employee of any business except as director, or non-legal
consultant of a family business.
 The excuse advanced by respondent Judge that in order for the prospective applicants not to have difficulty of
locating their residence it would be more convenient if the screening was made inside his court, is a reason
lacking in circumspection and delicadeza.
 It over-extends his authority as judge by failing to avoid situations that make him suspect to committing
immorality.
 Judges are enjoined to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety.
 The acts of posting advertisements for the restaurant personnel on the court bulletin board, using his court
address to receive the applications, and of screening applicants in his court constitute involvement in private
business and improper use of office facilities for the promotion of the family business in violation of the Code of
Judicial Ethics.
 The restriction enshrined under Rules 5.02 and 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Ethics on judges with regard to their
own business interests is based on the possible interference which may be created by these business
involvements in the exercise of their judicial duties which may tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the
courts as the bastion of justice.
 PENALTY: 6-MONTH SUSPENSION WITH WARNING

Ladignon v. Garong
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 (20 August 2008)

FACTS
 Case stemmed from the letter of Judge Rixon Garong of MTC Nueva Ecija (respondent) addressed to the Chairman,
Administrative Council, First United Methodist Church, USA.
 Judge forwarded a copy of the letter-complaint of Rolando Gustillo, complaining of the surreptitious manner of
incorporating their church and singling out Conrado Ladignon
 The letter prompted Ladignon to complain against the respondent’s improper conduct as a member of the Judiciary,
for his use in a private communication of his official court stationery and his title as a judge.
 Judge admitted using the letterhead and signing the same using the word “judge” and claimed that he merely used
an ordinary bond paper where he typed court’s station to indicate the return or inside address” from where he wrote
the letter.
 Court Administrator’s evaluation:
o Use of court’s heading in his personal letter – inappropriate
o Violated Sec. 1 Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (judges shall avoid impropriety and
the appearance in all their activities)

ISSUE: WON respondent canon 2 and rule 2.03 (YES)

RULING
 Agree with Court Administrator’s evaluation
 Judges claim that he used an ordinary bond papers and placed thereon his official station as return address is
not totally without merit
 Member of the judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be free from any
appearance of impropriety in the discharge of their official duties as in their personal behavior and everyday life
 Respondent Judge crossed when he used his letterhead and title the way he did.
 His use of the letterhead and his designation as a Judge in a situation of potential dispute gave the appearance
that there is an implied or assured consent of the court to his cause.
 The use of a letterhead should not be considered independently of the surrounding circumstances of the use
the underlying reason that marks the use with the element of impropriety or appearance of impropriety. In the

133
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

present case, the respondent Judge crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to report a
complaint involving an alleged violation of church rules and, possibly, of Philippine laws.
 LIABLE UNDER CANON 2 AND RULE 2.03 ADMONISH

Section 9. Confidential information acquired by judges

Section 10. Permitted activities

Luarca v. Molato
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711 (23 April 2012)

FACTS
 Spouses Luarcas and Jenny Agbay charged Judge Ireneo Molato with conduct unbecoming of a judge
o Alleged that Molato and wife Nilalina, enticed them to invest money in Lucky Socorro Investor and
Credit Corporation where his wife is president
o They invested P2.7M; to earn 2.5% interest per month
o They initially got the monthly interest promised but up to 2003 only
o Asked Lucky Corporation to return their P2.7M (Agbay made the same demand)
o Judge Molato and his wife failed
 Judge’s answer:
o He never enticed them nor compelled them to accept land titles instead of money when they wanted
to pull out their investments
o He had no involvement. It just so happened that his wife is the president.
o Complainants should have gone after the corporation rather than after him
 Investigating Executive Judge’s report:
o Molato did not use his office to lure complainants into investing in Lucky Corp (it was on their own
volition)
o Evidence shows that the corporation had once authorized Molato to withdraw its deposits from
the named bank
o Judge Calabocal recommended that respondent distance himself from the corporation in order
to maintain the integrity of the judicial service
 OCA: liable for violating Sec. 10 (c), Canon 4 (CJC) and Paragraph b (24) of Sec. 47, Chap. 7 CSC for
engaging in private business without the written permission of SC
 Since second offense and no mitigating, fine P5,000.

ISSUE: WON Molato violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (YES)

RULING
 There is no evidence in these cases that Judge Molato engaged in a private business, unduly mixing it up with
his official work as judge.
 Complainants were themselves unsure of the nature of Judge Molatos involvement in Lucky Corporation. They
seem to connect him to it by the mere fact that the president of that corporation happens to be his wife.
 She and her husband in fact admitted that they met Judge Molato for the first time when they went to Nilalinas
residence to give their P1M investment. They were the ones who requested the judge to receive the money
after they learned that his wife, Nilalina, was not around to personally receive it
 Agbay said that her previous good experience with Victory Investor and Lending Corporation, a company that
Nilalina also managed, made her decide to likewise invest money into Lucky Corporation
 Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees lays down the norms
of conduct which every public official and employee shall observe in the discharge and execution of their official

134
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

duties, specifically providing that they shall at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, and public interest.
 Absent any showing that Judge Molato defrauded complainants of their money or committed acts that detract
from the dignity of his position, the mere fact that the corporation of which his wife was the president had
difficulties meeting its obligations does not per se make him lacking in moral integrity and of questionable
character as would make him liable for conduct unbecoming a judge.
 Molato is to be reprimanded for agreeing to serve as one of Lucky Corporations alternate bank signatories even
if he may not have performed such service for the corporation. He has no business agreeing to the performance
of such service. His offense constitutes a violation of Administrative Circular 5 which in essence prohibits public
officials from performing or agreeing to perform functions or services outside of their official functions for the
reason that the entire time of the officials and employees of the judiciary shall be devoted to their official work
to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice.
 GUILTY. REPRIMAND.

Fuentes v. Buno
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1204 (28 July 2008)

FACTS
 This is a complaint filed by Geronimo C. Fuentes charging him with abuse of discretion and authority and graft
and corruption.
 Fuentes alleged:
o That he is one of the nine heirs of Bernardo Fuentes, their father, who owned an agricultural land
located at Talibon, Bohol
o That respondent judge prepared and notarized an Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute
Deed of Sale of the said agricultural land, executed by complainants mother Eulalia Credo Vda. de
Fuentes, widow of Bernardo Fuentes, and Alejandro Fuentes, on his own behalf and on behalf of his
brothers and sisters
 The said agricultural land was sold, transferred/conveyed by the heirs/vendors to the vendee despite the fact
that in his SPA, he merely appointed his brother, Alejandro Fuentes to mortgage said agricultural land but not
to partition, much more to sell the same.
 According to complainant Geronimo Fuentes respondent judge notarized said document as ex-officio Notary
Public, thereby abusing his discretion and authority as well as committing graft and corruption.
 Respondent’s answer:
o Admitted that he notarized and Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale.
o Contended that he could not be charged of graft and corruption since a municipality where a notary
public is unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to notarize documents or deeds as ex officio notary
public. (presented two certifications to support argument)
o He acted in good faith and in obedience to the earnest plea of complainant’s mother and sibling who
were in urgent need of money.
 OCA recommended he be fined P10K (deduct from his retirement benefit) for unauthorized notarization of a
private document.

ISSUE: WON respondent judge violated SC No. 1-90 (YES)

RULING
 While judges are can notarized within their territorial jurisdiction when no notary public was available, SC
Circular 1-90 specifically requires that a certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the
said municipality or circuit be made in the notarized document.
 Judge likewise failed to indicate in his answer whether the notarial fees were turned over to the Municipal
Treasurer of Bohol.
 Respondent failed to comply with the conditions prescribed:

135
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o All notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal
treasurer
o Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public
in such municipality or circuit
 Judge admitted that he prepared both documents and the acknowledgement of said documents, which had no
relation at all to the performance of his function as a judge.
 No certification was made in the extrajudicial partition with simultaneous deed of sale
 LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SC No. 1-90. FINED P12K.

Section 11. Prohibition against law practice

TABAO v ASIS, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330, January 30, 1996

FACTS:
 Judge Enrique Asis, while acting as MTCC Judge of Tacloban City, notarized a Special Power of Attorney on
behalf of the petitioner’s aunt Marquita Cinco-Jocson. The SPA allowed their Another aunt, Cirila Cinco-Caintic
to sell a lot registered under the name of Marquita while the latter is confined at the hospital.
 Judge admitted that he notarized but only as a gesture of christian charity and brotherly love for the people in
need, considering that the proceeds of the sale would be used to defray the medical expenses of Mariquita M.
Cinco-Jocson. He further alleged that he did not received any payment.

ISSUE:
WON Judge violated the prohibition against law practice-YES

RULING:
Fined 10,000 pesos

RATIO:
 Upon examination, it appears that the documents were already notarized on June 3, 1992 by a certain Flavian
Caintic, while the respondent judge only notarized Them on July 23, 1992. It is clear that there was no need for
the respondent to further notarized the documents. The respondent should've known that the documents need
not be notarized twice, and his failure to explain the same defies his argument that he did it for charity and
necessity. Furthermore, it was found out that the respondent judge even acted as private counsel to safeguard
the interest of Marquit upon the request of Cirila Caintic.

 Under Canon 5 Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, no judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.

 That he acted in the spirit of christian charity is not a valid excuse for acting as private counsel and notary public
and that the complainants were motivated with vengeance and personal gain is immaterial.

NOTE:
Municipal judges may not engage in notarial work except as notaries public ex-officio, in which case they may only
notarize documents connected with the exercise of their official functions.
They may not prepare or notarize documents not connected to their official functions except in far-flung municipalities
which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, in which case MTC and MCTC judges assigned in this places may, in
their capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competence of a regular notary public, provided
that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer, and
(2) a certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such
municipality or circuit.

136
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Binalay v. Lelina, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-08-2132 (31 July 2009)

Pontente: CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS:
 July 5, 2006: Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay (complainant), head agent of the NBI in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya,
administratively charged Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. (respondent), for violation of Section 35, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 The Court, by Order of August 5, 1998, preventively suspended respondent on account of an earlier
administrative complaint filed by Divina Perez and Margie Monforte, charging respondent with harassment in
connection with the criminal complaint for Rape filed against him, which he allegedly committed against Margie
Monforte, and the complaint for Abduction with Rape and Slight Illegal Detention filed by Divina Perez.
 Respondent was placed under detention from the time of his voluntary surrender on November 18, 1998 until
his release on July 28, 2005 following his acquittal which reversed its earlier decision of conviction after the
conduct of a new trial
 June 1, 2006: He subsequently filed a Manifestation, Appeal and Omnibus Motion appealing to the Court’s
sense of understanding, charity and justice to grant him the permission to practice law during the remainder of
his preventive suspension or, if such cannot be granted, to consider him resigned from the judiciary.
 It turned out that before he filed the above-said Manifestation, Appeal and Omnibus Motion, respondent
engaged in the private practice of law.
 Thus he represented Melanio Agustin and Patricio Bautista in a criminal Case
 And he also represented a certain Agnes Mariano Gabatin in a civil case
 OCA, by Memorandum of August 17, 2006, directed respondent to desist from engaging in the practice of law
pending the Courts resolution of his above-stated Manifestation, Appeal and Omnibus Motion.
 Respondent, by letter of October 9, 2006 to the OCA, prayed that the desist order be set aside and a new one
issued considering him resigned and thus not covered by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 In his comment on the present complaint, respondent posits that the prohibition to engage in the private practice
of law applies only to judges who are in the active service and should not cover those under suspension.
 He stresses that during his preventive suspension and following his release from detention, he was forced to
engage in the private practice of law, the only profession known to him, due to his impoverished life and the
continuous sufferings of his wife and children; and that the present administrative case was ill-motivated as
complainant bears a grudge against him for his failure to convince his (respondents) client, Agnes Mariano
Gabatin (Agnes) to desist from her complaint against herein complainant pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman.
 In his Reply to respondents Comment, complainant denies respondent’s attribution to him of ill-motive,
explaining that the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman was filed by Agnes, as advised by
respondent, to stymie him from performing his functions as a law enforcer.
 the OCA, in the present complaint, finds respondent guilty of unauthorized practice of law since by being merely
suspended and not dismissed from [the] service, he remains to be bound by the prohibition to practice
conformably with the provision of the code.
 The OCA thus recommends a penalty of three-month suspension from the service without pay.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Lelina violated Section 11

RULING: YES. “WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court of
Cabarroguis, Quirino GUILTY of unauthorized practice of law, and is SUSPENDED from office for Three (3) Months
without salary and other benefits and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.”

RATIO:
 Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not
distinguish.

137
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Since Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Section 11, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary does not make any distinction in prohibiting judges from engaging in the private
practice of law while holding judicial office, no distinction should be made in its application.
 In the present case, respondent having been merely suspended and not dismissed from the service, he was
still bound under the prohibition.
 Admitting having engaged in the private practice of law while he was under preventive suspension, respondent
explains that he was forced to do so out of his sense of responsibility to ameliorate the pitiful condition of his
family.
 The justification does not lie. As a member of the judiciary, albeit a suspended one, he still had the duty to
comply with the Rules and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
 That respondent tried to secure an authorization to engage in private practice pending the resolution of A.M.
No. RTJ-98-1415 shows his awareness of the proscription against engaging in the private practice of law.
 Additionally, a judge should not permit a law firm, of which he was formerly an active member, to continue to
carry his name in the firm name as that might create the impression that the firm possesses an improper
influence with the judge which consequently is likely to impel those in need of legal services in connection with
matters before him to engage the services of the firm.
 A judge cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly, in accordance with the legal maxim, quando
aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum or what is prohibited directly is prohibited indirectly.

Section 12. Membership in judges’ associations.

Sections 13, 14, 15. Prohibition against soliciting/accepting gifts, bequests, loans, etc.
REPUBLIC ACT 6713, sec. 7, par.(d),

SY v DINOPOL, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189, January 18, 2011

FACTS:
 A verified complaint was filed by Victoriano Sy against Judge Oscar Dinopol of RTC Koronadal Branch 24, for (1)
Gross ignorance of the Law, (2) Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary.
 A case for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, and Extrajudicial Forclosure was raffled
to the sala of Judge DInopol concerning a foreclosed property where Petitioner Sy was one of the party. In that case:
Metrobank was a mortgagee in good faith of 23 parcels of land all in Koronadal City. The Mortgagors were Sy et al.
Metrobank forclosed the mortgage for violation of the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement. Metrobank
was the highest bidder and it issued the certificate of sale to itself. The mortgagors failed to redeem the land.
 In that case, Judge Dinopol inhibited himself on the ground that he received calls from a ranking official of the
Philippine Judicial Academy in behalf of metrobank, and on the other hand a ranking personnel from the Office of
Court Administrator interceding on behalf of Sy et al. He claimed he wanted to avoid being charged with partiality.
 HOWEVER, when Metrobank filed a petition for issuance of Writ of Possession over the same foreclosed properties
and the case was raffled to the sala of Judge Dinopol. Despite is inhibition in the earlier case, the respondent granted
and issued the writ of possession. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed a case for a suspension of payments with approval
of proposed rehabilitation plan. The rehabilitation plan was approved in the sala of another judge.
 Sheriff Dapulang proceeded to implement the writ of possession by it was returned unsatisfied in view of the stay
order acquired by petitioners. The petitioners filed a motion to suspend the writ of possession, and a motion for judge
Dinopol to inhibit in the ground of bias and partiality. Respondent Judge denied the motion and directed the sheriff
to re-implement the writ of execution.

 Because of this, Sy filed an administrative complaint against judge Dinopol on the grounds of (1) ignorance of the
law and (2) conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary.

Ignorance of the law

Petitioner argues that the judge continues to issue the execution of the writ of possession despite the approval of the
rehabilitation plan.

138
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

Sy claims that while the declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceeding was pending, the judge asked him for
commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of the judge’s house as evidenced
by delivery receipt. Sy further claims that Judge Dinopol obtained cash loans as evidenced by vouchers, and even
borrowed his Suzuki Multi-cab
Judge Dinopol argues that when he obtained the commodity loans, he already inhibited himself from handling the
annulment case. He further denies that he obtained cash loans or borrowed the petitioner’s multi-cab.

ISSUE:
1. WON the judge is guilty of ignorance of the law-NO
2. WON the judge is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary-YES

RULING:
DISMISSED WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS

RATIO:
Ignorance of the law
 Court held that the judge did not err in issuing the writ of possession despite the approval of the rehabilitation plan.
In issuing the writ of possession and in directing its re-implementation when it was returned unsatisfied the first time
it was enforced, Judge Dinopol acted in accordance with the rules and jurisprudence on the matter. The issuance of
writ of possession is ex-parte and summary in nature. The duty of the court to grant a writ of possession is a
ministerial function. The court does not exercise its official discretion or judgment. It cannot be said, therefore, that
judge Dinopol exposed himself or exhibited bias in favor of Metrobank when he issued the writ of possession.

Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

 The commodity and cash loans were evidenced by receipts, and the borrowing of the multicab is the subject of an
acknowledgment from Judge Dinopol driver Villanueva.
 Judge Dinopol’s plea that the transactions between him and Sy occurred when there was no case pending in his
sala where Sy was a party. NEVERTHELESS, the court held that Judge Dinopol have committed a serious
impropriety in his or his family’s financial or business dealings with Sy.
 Canon 3 Sec 2 required that Judges observes proper conduct both in and out of court to maintain and enhance the
confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and judiciary. Sec 3 then
requires judges to, so far as is reasonable, conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be
necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
 Judge Dinopol violated these provisions when he received accommodations from Sy for the building materials. He
compromised his position as a judge, since the Speer of Sy’s business operations was within his territorial
jurisdiction. It is neither impossible nor remote that a case might be filed in his court as Sy as a party. In such a case,
his business and financial dealings with complaining would create a doubt about his fairness and impartiality in
deciding the case and would tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the court.
 IN ADDITION, Judge Dinopol violated Section 1 of Canon 1, 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 1
highlights independence of the judge in performing his official duties from any extraneous influences, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. Canon 2 requires to promote
integrity in the discharge of his official functions and his personal demeanor. Canon requires that judges avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. The Judge Dinopol violated these when he
admitted that Sy requested him to delay the resolution of the writ of possession and he acceded to it. It was also
found that the judge committed impropriety in talking with litigants outside court proceedings and in the absence of
the opposing litigants or counsel.
 Worst of all, he is a repeat offender. This is his sixth administrative complaint with five prior to this held him liable for
ignorance of law, abuse of authority, undue delay in rendering decision, and entertaining litigants outside court
premises, among others.

139
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Court reminds the members of the bench that: “A magistrate of the law must compose himself at all times in such a
manner that his conduct, official and otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to
him as the epitome of integrity and justice.

LEGASPI v JUDGE GARRETE, A.M. No. MTJ-92-713, March 27, 1995

FACTS:
 This is an administrative complaint charging Judge Francisco Garrete with grave misconduct, abuse of authority,
dishonesty and immorality.
 The first 3 complainants, Glenita Legaspi, Lance F. Pama and Lalaine Pama are his Stenographic reporters under
temporary appointments, and the forth complainant, Leslie Espinola is not a court employee but hired by the judge
as a salesgirl in the refreshment parlor of Elsa Pontimayor.
 On August 7 1992, the affidavit-complaint was filed by the petitioners.
 On August 21 1992, the respondent Judge wrote the Office of the Court administrator (OCA) requesting that Glenita
and Lance be immediately terminated because of inefficiently and incompetence.
 On October 22 1992, Court issued directing that the termination of the services be held in abeyance and an
investigation be first conducted on the charges of immorality and misconduct agains the respondent judge.
 What the judge did: he made the petitioners sign undated letters of resignation, and told them to remain single if they
wanted to extend their employment.
 Judge reasoned: the undated resignation letter was only for convenience as it would be easier for him to terminate
their services if they appear to be inefficient (since they are still in temporary employment) The comment of staying
single was just a joke.
 OCA held: the undated resignation letters are unnecessary since in its nature temporary appointments may be
terminated anytime, and the signing of the letter has no other effect but to make the petitioners obey his bidding. As
to the “joke,” the judge should be prudent and more circumspect in his utterances, remembering that his conduct in
and outside the courtroom is under constant observation. To make matters worse, respondent has not shown that
he made any clarification of his facetious statement. FURTHERMORE, it was found that the respondent judge took
advantage of his position, employed oppressive measures (the termination of their services) to coerce complainants
to withdraw their formal complaints. The record even reveals that prior to the complaint, the respondent judge actually
recommended that the petitioners’ term be renewed. Thus it is clear that the termination was made with the intention
to silence the petitioners.
 What the judge did: Respondent judge utilized the services of his court personnel outside of their official station. (1)
he designated Ranulfo Vargas, Court Process Server, as his driver, although he has an official driver which is
Valentine Sustiguer. Also, whenever the judge was in his other salas (respondent judge was acting presiding judge
in other courts/salas as well; he has multiple courts) he was accompanied by Ranulfo and Valentine together with
Ms. Concepcion Laurel, Court Interpreter.
 Judge reasoned: he sought from and granted prior permission by the OCA to utilize the services of some of this
court personnel outside their official stations who said that it would “have to be the subject of a voluntary agreement
between the personnel concerned and the judge”
 OCA held: Ranulfo was not even driving but Valentine, and that both Ranulfo and Concepcion did not assist the
respondent judge in the occasion they’re in a different sala since the latter has his own set of staff there.
Respondent’s whims had caused the idleness of Ranulfo and Concepcion who could have been productive in ther
respective stations. These highly irregular and anomalous actuations of the respondent plainly contravene the
mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of Canon 3. He has demonstrated that
he cannot maintain professional competence in court management, organize and supervise court personnel for
efficient dispatch of business, and observe unceasingly the high standards of public service.
 What the judge did: the respondent judge withheld the cost of living allowance (COLA) of the petitioners. And that
the judge deducted 500 in Lalaine’s COLA on the pretext that he would buy a cassette tape recorder for her since
she is new in the service.
 Judge reasoned: the judge avers that Glenita requested him to encase the COLA check for her because there was
no payee bank at Loreto. Judge denies that he has any agreement with Lalaine to buy a new recorder for her.
 OCA held: the judge offers no corroborative evidence to show that Glenita requested his assistance for the
encashment of her check. Glenita’s non-receipt of the COLA was attested by the clerk of court and revealed that the

140
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

judge only released the cash value of her COLA when he knew that Glenita’s father intends to report the matter to
higher authorities. His reason that there was Sino payee bank doesn’t hold water since there was a store which
encashes checks.
 What the judge did: the respondent judge has immoral relationship with a woman(Ms. Pontimayor) not his wife. It
was witnessed by Leslie Espinola who was then performing household chores in the ouse of Ms. Pontimayor. The
judge spends the night in Ms. Pontimayor room, she saw them shower together in her bathroom and lying together
in the latter’s waterbed. In the respondent’s office, Espinola saw pictures of two women, one identified by the
respondent as his legal wife, while the other is Ms. Pontimayor’s picture.
 Judge reasoned: the claims are baseless. His closeness with Ms. Pontimayor was due to the length of time he has
been her transient boarder. He could not have done such a horrible thing.
 OCA held: the denials interposed by the respondent cannot prevail over the testimonies of complainants and their
witnesses

ISSUE:
WON the judge is guilty of grave misconduct, abuse of authority, dishonesty and immorality-YES

RATIO:
Court adopted the findings of OCA.

The court have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts
a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. Members of the
judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any
appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their
everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable
behavior so as not to outrage public decency.

BURIAS v VALENCIA, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689, March 13, 2009

FACTS:
 Perlas Burias fled an administrative case against Judge Mirafe B. Valencia on the ground of gross misconduct.
 On August 4 and 25, 2015, respondent judge borrowed money from Burias in the amounts of P5,00 and P2,5000
respectively. The loans were evidenced by promissory notes.
 On August 25, 2015, Burias filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and the same was presided by Judge Marie Aragon who eventually inhibited. The
case was then raffled to respondent Judge Valencia as the new presiding judge.
 On January 4 and 24, 2007, the respondent judge again borrowed from complainant the amounts of P15,00 and
P3,00 as evidenced by 2 handwritten notes.
 On March 2007, petitioner filed a motion for inhibition on the ground that the judge has an apparent bias against her.
Respondent judge denied the motion citing the demise of her son for the delay.
 In her administrative complaint, Burias alleged that the endorsed check which the respondent issued in exchange of
the cash was dishonored. Burias also avers that respondent judge even verbally demanded from her the sum of
P50,000 and that her debt be written off in exchange of a favorable decision. Burias refused. Respondent judge even
threatened that she would release any of the 2 draft decisions she allegedly prepared in favor of the opposing party.
 Respondent judge argues that she only signed the dorsal side of the check to accommodate a troubled friend who
issued the same to the complainant. Respondent admitted tht she entered into several transactions with Burias
involving copra products from her plantation and she was even allowed to take small credits. Respondent denied to
have demanded money from Burias in exchange of a favorable decision. She avers that the accusations were
malicious, baseless, and simply intended to destroy her standing as a member of the bench.
 OCA recommended that the respondent be found guilty and be meted a fine of P21,000. It ruled that it was improper
for the respondent to take a load from a party-litigant. HOWEVER, the OCA considered the proof inadequate to
support the allegation that the loan was extended on a promised favorable decision.

141
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ISSUE:
WON the judge committed gross misconduct- YES

RULING:
Respondent is meted with fine of P20,000

RATIO:
 The respondent violated Rule 5.02 Canon 5 which mandates that a judge shall refrain from financial and business
dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the courts impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial
activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage
investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases for disqualification.
 This act is patently inappropriate. The impression that respondent would rule in favor of complainant because the
former is indebted to the latter is what the court seeks to avoid.
 Under Section 8 in relation to Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, borrowing money or property from lawyers
and litigants in a case pending before the court constitutes a serious charge.

Agpalasin v. Agcaoili, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1308 (12 April 2000)

FACTS:
 Judge Agcaoili filed a complaint for estafa against Agpalasin for allegedly shortchanging him of 200 nipa
shingles from the 5,500 he had purchased from the latter.
 Answering the estafa, Agpalasin filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations and charging respondent of the
following offenses:
o Falsification under Art. 172: making untruthful statements which became the basis for estafa
o Incriminating innocent person under Art. 363: maliciously accusing for estafa
o Violation of Anti Graft and Corrup Practices: allowing a man with pending criminal case before him to
receive, transport and pay for the fare of the 5,500 shingles ordered and illegally constructing a poulty
within government premises
 Evidence for complainant:
o A male employee of Agcaoili approached her informing her that the former wanted to purchase nipa
shingles to be used in the construction of Agcaoili’s poultry (5,500 shingles for 70 each) inside
Cagayan State University (CSU).
o Agcaoili through stenographer Bigayan gave 1,000 as advance payment.
o Inside Agcaoili’s chamber, Agpalasin was introduced to one Bumatay and his counsel Atty. Antonio
where she was instructed to deliver the nipa shingles to either of the later who shall take charge in the
payment of the balance.
 Bumatay was facing trial for robbery before Agcaoili’s court
o Agpalasin loaded the shingles in a minibus in the presence of Bumatay who paid the freight charges
of the nipa shingles. Bumatay said that the remaining balance shall be paid upon delivery at CSU.
o Upon arriving at CSU, Agcaoili issued check but which was dishonored. He issued another check and
ordered additional shingles.
o After one month of delivery of the 5,500 shingles, Agpalasin was summoned by Agcaoili to his
chambers for shortchaning him of 200 nipa shingles; bragging that he could easily put her in jail.
o In the meantime, Agcaoili rendered a decision acquitting Bumatay finding that their guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 Agcaoili’s defense:
o It is his policy as a judge not to ask any favor from anybody as he knows that it would have to be
repaid with another favor.
o It has been his policy since his appointment in 1990 not to allow the entry of, summon or talk with any
litigant or his lawyer inside his chambers without the presence of the other party.

142
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o He did not know about the participation of Bumatay and/or Atty. Antonio in the shipping of the nipa
shingles to Tuguegarao although he later came to know about it when he asked stenographer Violeta
who informed him that Atty. Antonio paid in advance for the freight charge. Thus informed, he
immediately issued check in the amount of P530.00 and handed it to Violeta for delivery to Atty.
Antonio.
o His acquittal of Bumatay in the robbery case was due to the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of
Bumatay beyond reasonable doubt and not as insinuated in the complaint.
o There is nothing wrong in the construction of the poultry house inside the compound of the CSU as
the same is covered by a Memorandum of Agreement between his wife and CSU.
 Investigating Judge: Judge Agcaoili is charged with:
o Ordering or allowing accused (Bumatay) in a criminal case to receive, transport and pay the fare for
the nipa shingles for Judge Agcaoili’s benefit and subsequently acquitted the accused
o illegally constructing a poultry within the compound of a government property

ISSUE: W/N Judge Agcaoili was guilty of misconduct

RULING: Yes. Judge Agcaoili was DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct
 Judge Agcaoili’s act of allowing a litigant in his sala to pay for the freight of his personal acquisitions constitutes
a blatant violation of Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting judges from accepting a
gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
o The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should be the embodiment of competence,
integrity, and independence.
o He should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
o His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court,
must be beyond reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible personification of law
and of justice.
 Judge Agcaoili degraded the administration of justice, mocked the dignity of his office, and cast doubt on the
independence and integrity of the entire judiciary.
 It gives the impression that the judge was swayed by factors other than the evidence on record (the favors the
accused extended to him) that he arrived at the decision of acquittal other than by his own independent
judgment.
o A judge should, in pending or prospective litigation before him, be scrupulously careful to avoid such
action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or
friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course.
o He must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as
to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.
o A decision which correctly applies the law and jurisprudence will nevertheless be subject to questions
of impropriety when rendered by a magistrate or tribunal believed to be less than impartial and honest.
 Judge Agcaoili has habitually flouted judicial ethics and betrayed judicial standards. By his own actions and
omissions, he has shown he does not deserve the honor of his office.

De la Cruz v. Malunao, A.M. No. P-11-3019 (20 March 2012)

FACTS:
 Dela Cruz filed a complaint against Malunao, Clerk III of RTC-Nueva Vizcaya for the crime of robbery with
extortion.
 Malunao through several calls and text messages informed Dela Cruz that Alay Kapwa Cooperative had given
bribe money amounting to 20,000.00 to Judge FloR of RTC- Nueva Vizcaya in exchange of fixing the case in
favor of the said cooperative against Ernesto Roxas, a business partner of complainant.

143
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Malunao further informed Dela Cruz that JUDGE FLOR was willing to return the money to Alay Kapwa if the
latter will give 35,000.00 to Judge Flor through the Malunao, otherwise Judge Flor will rule in favor of Alay
Kapwa.
 Dela Cruz agreed to the amount but on installment.
 Wanting to confirm whether or not the transaction brokered by Malunao will push through, Dela Cruz personally
approached Judge Flor who denied any knowledge on the subject transaction.
 During entrapment operation, Malunao was arrested.
 Malunao filed an affidavit denying the accusations:
o It was a loan since Dela Cruz was engaged in the business of lending money.
o Dela Cruz knows that she was suspended from office
 Investigating Judge: the case should be dismissed for lack of clear evidence.
 OCA: Malunao is guilty of grave misconduct

ISSUE: W/N Malunao must be suspended for grave misconduct

RULING: Yes, Malunao was found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT thus DISMISSED from the service.
 Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.
o The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules.
 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person,
contrary to duty and the rights of others.
 Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel: Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any
gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their
official actions.
 Rule IV, Section 52(A)(11) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service: soliciting or
accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which
in the course of an employees official duties may affect the functions of his office merits the penalty of dismissal
for the first offense
 At the time of the solicitation, Malunao was already preventively suspended as Clerk III in Branch 28 by virtue
of the Courts Resolution in another case due to allegations of the same conduct of extortion and solicitation.
 Malunao clearly used her position as Clerk III in Branch 28 to solicit money from Dela Cruz with the promise of
a favorable decision.
 The evidence presented all prove by substantial evidence the guilt of Malunao for the offense of grave
misconduct.
 Malunao has continued to solicit money from litigants, even after she had been preventively suspended as Clerk
III.

In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal
City, A.M. No. 02-9-233-MTCC (27 April 2005)

FACTS:
 This administrative case stems from the Judicial and Financial Audit conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in
August 5 to August 9, 2002, by an audit team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
o Judge Sardido as the presiding judge
o Maxima Borja- clerk of court after Ines
o Normandie Ines- clerk of court prior appointment of Borja
o Rufino Vargas- non-employee of the court but was allowed by Judge Sardido to discharge duties and
functions of a court interpreter without the prior approval of the OCA
 Findings of Audit Team:

144
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o Judge Sardido usually arrived late for work thus court sessions were usually scheduled only in the
afternoon.
o Judicial Audit
 32 civil cases and 43 criminal cases remained undecided beyond the reglementary period
 Highly disorganized in its custody of exhibits
 Persons unauthorized to receive exhibits were allowed to do so enabling some to use the
items
 Judge Sardido did not transmit to the provincial/ city prosecutor records of cases he had
dismissed and archived criminal cases under preliminary investigation instead of resolving
cases.
o Financial audit:
 Failed to collect filing fees in estafa and BP 22
 Cash bonds posted not officially receipted which allowed appropriation of the funds by
unauthorized persons.
 Cash bonds cannot be released despite RTC orders
 Unaccounted funds
 No collection for Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) were recorded
 Shortages/over-remittances to JDF
 OCA recommended imposition of fine and restitution of funds appropriated.

ISSUE: W/N the above court personnel are guilty of misconduct

RULING: YES.
Judge Sardido- fine of 40,000 and directed to remit amount borrowed from the General Fund
Ines- fined in the amount equivalent to 6 months and ordered to restitute the amount of shortage incurred
Borja- fine of 5,000 for simple neglect of duty
Pendilla- fine of 5,000 for simple neglect of duty

 Judge Sardido:
o As the head of the branch., Judge Sardido should have served as an example to the court employees
working under him.
o He should have been more efficient in dividing his time among his assignments, devised a schedule
to be followed in all four courts and, more important, informed his staff of that schedule.
o There is a need for officials and employees of the judiciary to observe official time strictly, so as to
inspire public respect for the justice system.
o The inefficiency of Judge Sardido is evident in his failure to decide seventy-five (75) cases within the
reglementary period.
 Judges should decide cases promptly and expeditiously otherwise it constitutes gross
inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions.
 Justice delayed is justice denied.
o Judge Sardido showed gross ignorance of the law when he accepted BP 22 cases despite the fact
that the corresponding filing fees had yet to be collected and by allowing Rufino Vargas to assume
the vacant position of court stenographer without prior OCA approval.
o For misappropriating court funds in concert with Ines, Judge Sardido has been charged with grave
misconduct.
 Rule 5.04 of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: A judge or any immediate member
of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be
allowed by law.
 Retired Clerk of Court Ines
o The fact that Judge Sardido had to sign receipts for the times he borrowed, or that he issued
instructions to accommodate others who wanted to borrow from those funds, means that the money
was in the custody of Ines

145
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 The practice of appropriating trust funds for unauthorized expenses, although replaced when
the same is demanded, is fraught with danger, and should not be indulged in by any public
officer worthy of the name.
 Clerks of Court play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to
slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.
o As clerk of court, Ines has the duty to ensure that the proper procedures were followed in the collection
of cash bonds.
 Clerk of Court Borja
o She is partly responsible for the courts erroneous practice as regards the collection of filing fees.
o Borja was also remiss in the custody of exhibits. Persons not authorized to receive them were found
to have done so and, worse, kept those items in their custody.
o She has failed to explain satisfactorily why no official receipts were issued for cash bonds in certain
criminal cases.
 Pendilla
o Pendilla should be held liable for taking into his custody a 9-mm caliber gun, which was an exhibit in
a criminal case. Pendilla did not immediately turn the gun over to Borja, and failed to explain why it
took him four days to surrender it to the audit team.

CANON 5
EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various sources,
including but not limited to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation,
social and economic status and other like causes.

Sy v. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808 (15 October 2003)

FACTS:
 A complaint filed by Radelia C. Sy charging Judge Antonio J. Fineza, of bribery, grave misconduct, conduct
unbecoming of a judge and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
o Sy is accused of estafa and her case is pending before Judge Fineza.
o Judge Fineza, exerted undue and improper pressure on her by offering to dismiss the estafa case in
exchange for P300,000, otherwise he would convict her.
o Delivery of money happened 6 times on separate occasions.
o When she was unable to pay the balance, Judge Fineza began harassing her.
 Judge Fineza cited her for contempt of court, ordered her arrest and when she was about to
finish her sentence for contempt, increased the bail form 200,000 to 1M for having left the
court room against her instruction.
 The second complaint was also filed with Cato charging Judge Fineza with abuse of authority, grave misconduct
and oppression.
o During the hearing of Sy’s case, Judge Fineza shouted remarks in open court.
o Judge Fineza warned him that morning during a hearing that she had not been paying her other
lawyers which eventually led to the withdrawal of Atty. Jubay as Sy’s counsel.
o Cato was also harassed by Judge Fineza: while waiting at the hallway, Judge Fineza pointed a finger
at him and shouted calling him “sinungaling”.

146
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Investigating justice saw no merit in the charge of bribery but found Judge Fineza guilty of simple conduct;
recommending that he be reprimanded and fined one month’s salary

ISSUE: W/N Judge Fineza breached the norms and standards of the judiciary

RULING: YES. Judge Fineza is SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for 6 months.
 The affidavits and others documents submitted to support the charge of bribery are simply not credible to convict
Judge Fineza.
 The circumstance surrounding the arrest of St for direct contempt and raising her bail bond to 1M unmistakably
show abuse of authority as they were motivated by MALICE and BAD FAITH.
 These two incidents clearly show Judge Finezas utter disrespect for the office he holds as a member of the
judiciary:
o In calling complainant Cato “sinungaling” in the hallway, it already detracts from the equanimity and
judiciousness that are required of a judge.
o As for describing one of the complainant’s witnesses as BAKLA in a pleading filed before this Court,
resort to argumentum ad hominem is certainly most unbecoming of a judge, to say the least.
(reasoning by appealing to the character or circumstances of an individual)
 The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have done justice.
 The assumption of office by a judge places upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position.
 He must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one who dispenses justice under the
sanction of the rule of law.
 This Court has repeatedly reminded members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in conduct and to be free
from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties,
but also in their daily life.

Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. Judges’ behavior with respect to differences.

SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice
towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her influence, direction or control
to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or
conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

25. Mataga v. Rosete, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488 (13 October 2004)

FACTS:
 Adarlina G. Mataga, a retired Court Stenographer filed a complaint charging Judge Maxwel Rosete
and process server Gasat Payoyo with Dishonesty and Misconduct in connection with the encashing
of the check representing her terminal pay, alleging that she applied for disability retirement because
she was suffering from Organic Brain Syndrome Moderate to Severe Secondary to Cerebro-Vascular
Accident (Thrombosis)
 Application was approved and subsequently, a disbursement voucher for P165,530.08 and a check
were prepared in the name of the complainant

147
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 The check was released to respondent Payoyo who turned it over to Judge Rosete
 respondent Payoyo brought complainant to the house of respondent Judge Rosete, where she was
given the amount of P44,000.00 as her terminal pay  It was only subsequently that complainant
came to know that the disability retirement benefit granted to her was in the amount of P165,530.08,
which respondents did not deliver to her
 respondent judge denied the complainants allegations stating that complainant has not been to his
house in Quezon City, nor has he given the complainant the sum of P44,000.00 as her terminal pay
 Respondent judge, however, admitted that the check representing the retirement benefits of the
complainant was indeed turned over to him by the Supreme Court security guard after it was misplaced
by his co-respondent, Payoyo
 Upon his receipt of complainants check, respondent judge immediately handed the same to Payoyo
because he knew that complainant had requested the latter to follow up her check
 respondent process server Payoyo denied the accusations against him claiming that he did not know
complainant personally  that respondent judge instructed him to claim complainants disability check,
which he did and then told him to encash the check at the Land Bank of the Philippines, Taft Avenue
Branch and to proceed to the formers house to meet complainant and her son  there, he turned over
the full amount of complainants disability benefit
 The case was referred to Judge Fe Albano Madrid for investigation, report and recommendation
 Judge Madrid submitted her report recommending that the complaint be dismissed in view of the
admission of the complainant that she has received the full amount of her benefits as early as March
17, 1996, as evidenced by a receipt which bore her signature
 the case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and
recommendation  OCA recommended that, in view of the failure to thresh out the material
contradictions between the allegations of the complainant and the assertions of the respondent, the
case be returned to the investigating judge for further investigation, report and recommendation 
case was returned to Judge Albano Madrid
 After conducting another investigation of the case, Judge Albano Madrid submitted her report, stating
that during the second investigation, complainant made it clear that she had no more complaint against
respondent judge provided that the latter will give her the money  the complaint was directed at the
dishonesty of respondent Payoyo in his dealings with the complainant
 The court holds that the complaint against respondent judge should be dismissed

ISSUE: WON respondent judge and Payoyo committed dishonesty and misconduct by encashing petitioner’s
check representing her terminal pay

HELD: the complaint filed against respondent Judge Maxwell S. Rosete is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. Respondent Process Server, Gasat M. Payoyo, is found GUILTY of Dishonesty and is SUSPENDED for
a period of SIX MONTHS. Respondent Payoyo is WARNED that a repetition of this or any similar act will be
dealt with more severely

RATIO:
 Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating
eye, for its consequential effect are by their nature highly penal, such that the respondent judge stands
to face the sanction of dismissal or disbarmen
 Mere imputation of judicial misconduct in the absence of sufficient proof to sustain the same will never
be countenanced
 If a judge should be disciplined for misconduct, the evidence against him should be competent
 When an administrative charge against a judge is determined to have no basis whatsoever, we will
not hesitate to protect him against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial process.
 The court will not shirk from their responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the Judiciary
but neither shall they hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to
disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice

148
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 From the conduct and actuations of Mr. Gasat Payoyo, together with his confusing testimony, it is
clear that he was not honest enough when he gave the proceeds of the terminal leave benefits of the
complainant  He was able to collect P165,530.00 and he lost the check  It was found and given
to the security guard of the Supreme Court who in turn gave it to Judge Rosete who gave it back to
Gasat Payoyo who he knew was the one authorized by Ms. Mataga to release it from the Supreme
Court
 By virtue of his special power-of-attorney Mr. Payoyo encashed the check but he did not give all of it
to the complainant
 The daughter must have suspected that Judge Rosete had something to do with the lesser amount
delivered to her mother because she found out that the lost check had been given to Judge Rosete and
yet the latter did not give the check to her mother but instead returned it to Payoyo for encashment
 Before the scheduled date of hearing, It is clear that the complainant did not receive the full amount
of her terminal leave benefits
 The Investigating Judge believes that it was the initial dishonesty of the respondent Mr. Gasat Payoyo
in not delivering to the complainant the full amount of her terminal leave benefits minus only a
reasonable amount for his efforts in following it up, that led to the filing of the complaint
 His efforts to cover up what he did by paying the complainant and falsifying the date of a receipt
compounded his fault. He aggravated it more when he attempted to maliciously implicate his co-
respondent in the commission of his dishonesty
 The behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high
degree of responsibility
 The image of a court, as a true temple of justice, is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise,
of the men and women who work thereat
 Judicial personnel are expected to be living examples of uprightness in the performance of
official duties to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the
community
 The acts of the respondent Payoyo in not giving to the complainant the full amount of her terminal
leave benefits minus reasonable expenses that he incurred in making a follow-up of its release; his
efforts at covering the same by paying the complainant and by falsifying the date of the receipt for
such payment and his aborted attempt to maliciously implicate his co-respondent judge, all fall short
of the measure of uprightness expected of judicial personnel. For respondent Payoyos dishonesty, he
should be suspended for a period of six months

26. Misajon v. Feranil, A.M. No. P-02-1565 (18 October 2004)

FACTS:
 three consolidated administrative matters which involved charges and counter-charges between and
among the same parties
 Clerk of Court II Lagrimas A. Feranil of the MTC Antique charged Presiding Judge Ma. Monina S.
Misajon with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Power averring that, ever since she testified
against respondent judge in two administrative complaints, the latter has displayed hostility towards
her
o Respondent judge gave her a performance rating of Satisfactory and refused to sign her
Daily Time Records for January 1998 and August 1999
o Respondent judge also surreptitiously caused the preparation of a derogatory letter
requesting for her immediate transfer and instigated court employees Merlyn Villavert,
Jingkey Nolasco and Elizabeth Banusing to sign and file the same with the Office of the
Chief Justice and the OCA
o Further, respondent judge, on several occasions, humiliated and harassed her in front of
court personnel, litigants and the public
 respondent judge countered that it was complainant who displayed arrogance and insolence by
ignoring her verbal instructions and refusing to perform her duties averring that:

149
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o she gave complainant a Satisfactory rating because the latter neglected her duties as Clerk
of Court by failing to calendar cases or attend court sessions; and failing to keep a record of
cases submitted for decision or to keep abreast of the status of the cases
o that complainant also offered the Provincial Prosecutor money in exchange for the dismissal
of a criminal case
o Complainant also demanded one months pay from Merlyn Villavert for helping her get
employed as court stenographer
o On account of these, respondent decided not to delegate the ex parte hearing of cases to
complainant, which caused the latter to bear a grudge against her
o On one occasion, when respondent judge asked complainant about irregularities in the
docket numbers of cases, the latter insulted and shouted at her in front of court personnel
and litigants
o Additionally, respondent alleges that complainant allowed the process server of the MTC to
do the work of her husband and son, who were process servers of the RTC
 complainant refuted respondent judges accusations and alleged that the same were motivated by
vengeance
 petitioner filed another administrative complaint charging Clerk of Court Lagrimas S. Feranil, Process
Server William Yglesias and Court Aide Conrado Rafols, Jr. with Gross Misconduct, Dishonesty,
Insubordination, Incompetence, Inefficiency and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service alleging that respondent clerk of court and respondent court aide Conrado Rafols, Jr.
committed delay in the deposit of court fees with the bank, irregularities in the issuance of official
receipts of the court, and tampering with the office logbook of attendance
o Respondent clerk of court was often late, on under time or absent
o Respondent process server, on the other hand, falsified his daily time records because he
was frequently absent from work
 respondents again denied the accusations against them
 petitioner judge manifested her willingness to have the case submitted for resolution based on the
pleadings filed on the condition that the adverse parties would similarly manifest their conformity;
otherwise she would be constrained to present other witnesses and relevant evidence
 After investigation, the Executive Judge submitted her report and recommendations as follows:
o In A.M. No. MTJ-02-1408, it was recommended that a fine of P12,000.00 be imposed upon
Judge Misajon for Violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, dated October 4, 1988, and for
unbecoming conduct in humiliating complainant several times in the presence of court
personnel and party-litigants; and that all other charges against respondent were ordered
dismissed
o In A.M. No. P-02-1565, it was recommended that a fine of P15,000.00 be meted on Clerk of
Court Feranil for Misconduct due to Inefficiency in the Performance of her Duties,
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and Habitual Tardiness
o In A.M. No. OCA-IPI-01-1241-P, it was recommended that a fine of P12,000.00 be imposed
on Clerk of Court Feramil for Violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-2000; that a fine of
P15,000.00 be imposed on Process Server Yglesias for Inefficiency and Insubordination;
and that a fine of P21,000.00 be imposed upon Court Aide Rafols for Dishonesty

ISSUE: WON respondents committed Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Power, and Gross Misconduct,
Dishonesty, Insubordination, Incompetence, Inefficiency and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service

HELD: Judgment is rendered as follows:

(1) In A.M. No. MTJ-02-1408, finding Judge Ma. Monina S. Misajon GUILTY of Simple Misconduct for
which she is fined the amount of P12,000.00; and guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, for which
she is FINED the amount of P8,000.00;

150
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

(2) In A.M. No. P-02-1565, finding Clerk of Court Lagrimas A. Feranil GUILTY of Inefficiency in the
Performance of Her Official Duties, Habitual Tardiness and Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, and
imposing a FINE in the amount of P15,000.00;
(3) In OCA-IPI No. 01-1241-P, finding Clerk of Court Lagrimas A. Feranil GUILTY of Violation of
Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 dated June 15, 2000 and imposing a FINE in the amount of P12,000.00;
finding Process Server William Yglesias GUILTY of Absenteeism, Inefficiency and Insubordination, and
imposing a FINE in the amount of P15,000.00; and finding Court Aide Conrado A. Rafols, Jr. GUILTY of
Dishonesty, and imposing a FINE in the amount of P21,000.00.
All respondents are STERNLY WARNED that the commission of the same or similar offenses will be
dealt with more severely

RATIO:
 On Judge Misajon’s conduct:
 Judge Misajon has the prerogative to gauge the performance of her clerk of court
 Undeniably, the bitterness of the dispute between the feuding parties left bruised egos and wounded
feelings in its wake. Still, the escalation of such a conflict could have been avoided had Judge Misajon
acted with that degree of equanimity demanded of her stature
 As a member of the Bench, she should have adhered to the standard of behavior expected of being
a cerebral individual who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences
and prejudices which she shares with the rest of her fellow mortals
 Judge Misajon humiliated complainant in the presence of other court personnel, the parties or the
public  All judges should always observe courtesy and civility; They should be temperate,
patient and courteous, both in conduct and in language
 Judge Misajon can hold her colleagues in the Bench and her staff to the efficient performance
of their duties without being offensive in her speech, remembering always that courtesy begets
courtesy
 Judges are subject to human limitations  Imbedded in their consciousness is the complex of
emotions, habits and convictions. Aware of this actuality, it behooves them to regulate these deflecting
forces and not to let them loose, either to their own detriment or to that of the courts they serve. This
is the high price they have to pay as occupants of their exalted positions
 Judges have heavy responsibilities  they are mandated to regulate their extrajudicial activities in
such manner that would not interfere with or affect adversely their judicial functions
 Rules 5.02 and 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct state:
“RULE 5.02 A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the courts
impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities or increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as
to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification.
RULE 5.03 Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but
should not serve as an officer, director, manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a
family business of the judge.”

 On Respondent Feranil’s conduct:

 Clerk of Court Feranil should also be held liable for uttering scurrilous words towards Judge Misajon
in front of parties-litigants and court personnel
 According to an eyewitness, Feranil pointed a dirty finger at Judge Misajon, calling her abusive and
oppressive.Judge Misajon ignored the outburst and returned to her chambers because she had a
visitor at that time

151
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Government service is people-oriented

 Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding
 Belligerent behavior has no place in government service where personnel are enjoined to act with
self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence
 It also appears that Feranil was guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of her
duties as shown in the various memoranda and orders issued by Judge Misajon, the affidavits of her
co-employees, as well as the Position Paper submitted by the Judge
 Along the same vein, mute but eloquent testimonials to Feranils habitual absenteeism and tardiness
are shown by her daily time records, which are signed by Judge Misajon
 The gravity of Feranils offenses in relation to the importance of her position in the administration of
justice calls for severe sanctions
 Clerks of Court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound
administration of justice
 Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns
 They perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the courts funds, revenues, records,
properties and premises
 As such, they generally are also the treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof
 They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property
 It is the duty of clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully comply
with the circulars on deposits of collections
 They are reminded to deposit immediately, with authorized government depositaries, the various funds
they have collected because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody
 The unwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves administrative sanction and not even
the full payment of the collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability

CANON 6: Competence and Diligence - Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.

Sections 1 and 2. Precedence of judicial duties

SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.

SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance
of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to
the judicial office or the court’s operations.

27. Office of the Court Administrator v. Gines, A.M. No. RTJ-92-802 (5 July 1993)

FACTS:
 This case was initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator with the filing of an administrative complaint
 Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En Banc, dated July 30, 1991, the undersigned hereby institutes this
administrative complaint against Judge Genaro C. Gines, Ma. Gorgonia L. Flores, Court Interpreter and
Officer-in- Charge, Rosie M. Munar, Stenographic Reporter, Pacita B. Diaz, Staff Assistant IV, Office of the

152
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Clerk of Court, Ma. Concepcion B. Diaz, Staff Assistant I, and Mr. Alfredo V. Lacsamana, Jr., Staff II, all of
the RTC, San Fernando, La Union, for Dishonesty; Violation of par. (e), Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) as amended; and Violation of Administrative Order No. 6, dated June 30,
1975, Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974, and Administrative Order No. 1, dated January 28,
1988, by virtue of their collective illegal acts involving deliberate and surreptitious assignment of cases
at the Docketing and Receiving Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTCSan Fernando, La Union
 the instant case was referred to Mr. Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
report, and recommendation
 Justice De Pano, Jr. then made the following observations, findings and conclusions in his REPORT:
o In 1986, the report states, 6 criminal cases, 9 civil cases, 51 special proceeding cases and 9 land
registration cases, (a total of 75 cases) did not pass through the raffle committee but went directly
to the branch which apparently acted on the cases without question
o In 1987, 8 criminal cases, 9 civil cases, 13 special proceedings cases, 2 land registration cases (a
total of 32 cases) did not pass through the raffle committee. In 1988, 9 civil cases, 18 special
proceedings cases and 2 land registration cases (a total of 29 cases) went directly to the branches
mentioned. A total of 136 cases from 1986 to 1988, Attorney Sanglay reports, went from
filing/docketing direct to two branches without undergoing the mandated raffle by the raffle
committee
o The period covered by the investigation is from April 3, 1989 to April 1991. In summary, during this
period, there were FORTY-FOUR (44) Special Cases, TWENTY-SEVEN (27) Land Registration
Cases, SIX (6) Civil Cases, and THREE (3) Criminal Cases which did not pass through raffle, but
which were instead directed to specific RTC Branches, particularly Branch 26 and Branch 27. A
great majority of these cases however were assigned to Branch 26.
o Clerk of Court Sanglay's report includes 44 special proceedings cases, 27 land registration cases,
6 civil cases and 3 criminal cases or a total of 80 cases that did not pass through raffle from
April, 1989 to April, 1991 but found their way directly to Branches 26 and 27 of the Regional Trial
Court of San Fernando, La union  Of these 80 cases, all, except 3, found their way to Branch 26,
occupied by respondent Judge Genaro Gines who, as he admits, was assigned in that branch since
January, 1987.
 Under the rules governing the administration of courts, all cases filed in court must go through the raffle
committee for assignment. No case must be assigned, in multi-branch courts, unless it is raffled by the Raffle
Committee  The 80 cases involved in this case, filed from April 1989 to April 1991, were not raffled, but
were directly assigned to, or taken by, Branch 26 (except 3) under respondent Judge Gines
 From January 1987, when respondent Judge Gines was appointed to Branch 26, the respondent judge had
received unraffled cases, considered them and decided them  He had done so, apparently, not because he
was a maniac of a worker, nor because he loved his work but for reasons unspoken in this case
 Among the administrative officers charged here, Alfredo Lacsamana, Jr., as stipulated, gathers all the cases
filed and docketed in any particular week, for transmittal to the Committee on Raffle  He prepared the cases
for raffle, including the preparation of the pieces of paper properly written on, to be picked in the raffle. It was
his job to do so. He was assigned to do so; he admitted so  That he did not do so is obvious from the
Sanglay Report — from 1989 to 1991, he failed to transmit 80 cases — and these cases found their way
(except for 3) to respondent Judge Gines  80 such cases he did collect and failed to report to the Raffle
Committee from April, 1989 to April, 1991.

153
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 all the cases filed docketed in Branch 26 were collected by respondent Lacsamana, Jr., who was in duty
bound to forward the cases to the Raffle Committee
 That 80 such cases did not find their way to the Committee, but ended up as 80 extra cases (except 3)
in the docket load of the respondent judge, means at the very least that Lacsamana, Jr., failed to perform his
job.
 The respondent judge in accepting or securing, such 80 cases, (minus 3) that did not pass through
raffle, for his action and resolution, and which he eventually resolved violated all the Supreme Court
circulars on the matter with the help and cooperation of respondent Lacsamana, Jr.
 Evidently, respondent judge must have received undue benefits and advantages (not demonstrated in this
case) in securing this extra load of cases, benefits and advantages coming from the party benefited by his
action, and at the same time, granted the parties involved in the 80 cases that did not undergo raffle, undue
and unwarranted benefits resulting from the bias and partiality in their favor coming from the respondent judge
 Justice De Pano, Jr then recommends:
1. That respondent Judge Genaro C. Gines be appropriately penalized for violation of all the Supreme Court orders
and circulars mentioned in the Administrative Complaint for the period covered from April 1989 to April 1991, plus
apparent violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of R.A. 3019;
2. That respondent Alfredo Lacsamana, Jr. for his apparent failure to do his job, be, likewise appropriately penalized,
at least with a 6-month suspension without pay; and
3. That respondent Ma. Gorgonia Flores be likewise penalized with a 3-month suspension without pay; and
4. That the other respondents be warned against committing any such violations.

ISSUE: WON respondent Judge committed illegal acts involving deliberate and surreptitious assignment of cases at
the Docketing and Receiving Section

HELD: judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING from the service respondent Judge GENARO C. GINES with
prejudice to re-employment, in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with
forfeiture of all benefits except earned leave credits. This dismissal shall be immediately executory and said respondent
Judge is hereby ordered to forthwith vacate his position and desist from performing any further official function;
SUSPENDING from office respondent ALFREDO V. LACSAMANA, JR. for a period of six (6) months, without pay.

RATIO:
 Not having undergone the prescribed raffle procedure, these two cases were directly assigned to the
respondent Judge who then acted thereon.
 Documents submitted in court provide conclusive proof of more serious irregularities amounting to either
gross ignorance or malicious disregard of applicable procedural laws, grave misconduct, grave abuse of
authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
 The respondent Judge made a mockery of the judicial process as it is obvious that he had displayed a special
interest in these cases; in fact, he even caused the cases to be excluded from the raffle
 A careful review of the abovementioned petitions will reveal that the designation "Branch 26," indicating the
branch presided over by the respondent Judge, has been originally typewritten as part of the caption, and not
merely entered in the blank space reserved for the branch to which the case may subsequently be raffled off

154
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Respondent judge even knew that some of the cases are not under the jurisdiction of the branch of court
where he presides, but still continued to decide on these cases  he clearly acted beyond his authority
 Respondent judge even completely disregarded circumstances surrounding the cases and hastily decided
upon them even without authority to do so
 Justice De Pano even included in his investigation the letter of Executive Judge Braulio Yaranon, addressed
to Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernard informing the latter about matters discovered in the course of
the audit which are more serious than the "illegal raffling" of cases  He then exposes alleged case fixing
and illegal office practices committed on a large scale by a syndicate composed principally of court officers
and personnel, and describes the modus operandi of those involved

Sections 3 and 4. Enhancement of knowledge, skills training, competence

SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal
qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.

SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law, including
international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms

** REPUBLIC ACT 8557, An Act Establishing the Philippine Judicial Academy, Defining Its Powers and
Functions, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes

28. Uy, et al. v. Javellana, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 (5 September 2012)

FACTS:
 This administrative case arose from a verified complaint for "gross ignorance of the law and procedures,
gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, grave misconduct
and others," filed by Public Attorneys Cierlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug of the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), La Carlotta District, against Presiding Judge Erwin B. Javellana of the MTC, La
Castellana, Negros Occidental, alleging that:
o Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
 Judge Javellana issued a warrant of arrest after the filing of said case despite Section
16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
 Judge Javellana did not grant the motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the
Lupon requirement under Sections 18 and 19(a) of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, insisting that said motion was a prohibited pleading
 Judge Javellana refused to dismiss outright the complaint even when the same was
patently without basis or merit, as the affidavits of therein complainant and her
witnesses were all hearsay evidence
 Judge Javellana did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and, instead,
conducted a preliminary examination and preliminary investigation in accordance with
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, then set the case for arraignment and pre-
trial, despite confirming that therein complainant and her witnesses had no personal
knowledge of the material facts alleged in their affidavits, which should have been a
ground for dismissal of said case
o Judge Javellana violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
and issued warrants of arrest without propounding searching questions to the complainants
and their witnesses to determine the necessity of placing the accused under immediate

155
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

custody. As a result, Judge Javellana issued warrants of arrest even when the accused had
already voluntarily surrendered or when a warrantless arrest had been effected
o Judge Javellana whimsically or inconsistently implemented laws and rules depending on
stature of the parties, persons accompanying the parties, lawyers of the parties, and his
personal relations with the parties/lawyers
o Judge Javellana also adopted the mantra that the “litigants are made for the courts” instead of
“courts for the litigants.”
o Judge Javellana did not observe the proper procedure in airing his complaints against public
attorneys. Judge Javellana rebuked the public attorneys in the Orders he issued
 Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge Javellana be removed from the MTC of La Castellana
 Judge Javellana discounted the allegations of Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug as “baseless, untruthful,
intrigues, malicious and a harassment tending to intimidate him
 Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its report found Judge Javellana liable for gross ignorance of
the law or procedure when he did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in cases
appropriately covered by said Rule, and gross misconduct when he got involved in business relations
with Manunag, implemented the law inconsistently, and mentioned his accomplishments for publicity
 OCA recommended that the instant administrative complaint be REDOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter and Judge Edwin B. Javellana be SUSPENDED from office without salary and
other benefits for three (3) months with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future shall be dealt with more severely

ISSUE: WON Judge Javellana is liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure when he did not apply the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in cases appropriately covered by said Rule, and gross misconduct

HELD: Judge Erwin B. Javel lana is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct. He is
SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for a period of three (3) months and one (1) day with a
STERN WARNING that the repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely

RATIO:
 Judges are enjoined by the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary to act and behave,
in and out of court, in a manner befitting their office
 Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office
 Judge Javellana had acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of the PAO lawyers
 Judge Javellana himself admitted that he often mentioned his previous accomplishments as counsel in
big and controversial cases, claiming that he only did so to impress upon the parties that he meant
business and that he relied greatly upon God to survive the trials and threats to his life but the court is
NOT persuaded
 Judge Javellana’s actuations as described above run counter to the mandate that judges behave at all
times in such a manner as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
 “judges are the visible representations of law and justice. They ought to be embodiments of
competence, integrity and independence. In particular, municipal judges are frontline officers in
the administration of justice. It is therefore essential that they live up to the high standards
demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
 the court calls Judge Javellana’s attention to several matters pointed out by the OCA, that if left
unchecked, may again result in another administrative complaint against the judge:
(1) notices of hearing issued by Judge Javellana’s court must state the specific time, date, and
place;
(2) in case Judge Javellana is unable to attend a hearing for any reason, he must inform his
Clerk of Court as soon as possible so that the latter can already cancel the hearing and spare the parties,
counsels, and witnesses from waiting; and
(3) he must take care in ascertaining the facts and according due process to the parties
concerned before levying charges of incompetence or indifference against the PAO lawyers appearing
before his court.

156
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 OCA recommended that Judge Javellana be suspended without salary and benefits for three months.
Given the gravity and number of violations committed by Judge Javellana, we deem it appropriate to
impose suspension without salary and benefits for a period of three months and one day

29. Panes, Jr. et al. v. Dinopol, A.M. No. OCA-IPI No. 07-2618-RTJ (12 February 2013)

FACTS:
 Respondent was the presiding judge of the RTC Branch 24, Koronadal City.
 On 16 November 2006, Mayor Fernando Miguel appointed Engr. Joselito Reyes, Carlito Uy and three others to
the board of directors (BOD) of the Koronadal Water District (KWD).
 Their appointments were subsequently confirmed by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA)  these
appointments were communicated by LWUA to Eleanor P. Gomba, the general manager of KWD. However,
Gomba refused to recognize the new BOD, prompting LWUA to replace her and to appoint Rey Vargas as
officer in charge of the office of the general manager.
 On February 14, 2007, Gomba transferred her office to Arellano St., Kidapawan City.
 She then filed a Complaint against Vargas for injunction and damages with application for the ex parte issuance
of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
 Judge Alzate issued a 72 hour TRO. The case was then raffled to Judge Dinopol.
 On February 23, 2007, Dinopol issued an order for a writ of preliminary injunction against Vargas enjoining him
from acting as officer in charge of KWD.
 The order was ignored by the complainants  Judge Dinopol then issued various assailed orders which are the
basis of the present administrative cases.
 On March 9, 2007, the judge issued a 20day TRO to Yaphockun, Ang and other members of the Board of
Directors.
 On March 24, 2007, the judge issued an Order to return all KWD properties to the Arellano office; ordering the
complainants to explain within 12 hours why they should not be cited in contempt of Court for violating the
previous Orders.
 After an hour, he ordered to arrest the Panes, the security guards and all persons inside the KWD Del Pilar
office for restituting March 24, 2007 Order.
 On April 13, 2007, he ordered to augment 2 PNP teams at KWD Arellano office and directed the PNP to arrest
and detain Mayor Fernando Miguel. He also ordered them to return the properties to KWD Arellano office
 On 13 August 2007, Eden V. Castro, the owner and administrator of the twostorey building where the KWD Del
Pilar office is located, filed a Complaint alleging that because of the Orders issued by respondent, she had been
deprived of the use of the building and had lost a considerable amount of income from the lease of the property.
She thus demanded the payment of damages from respondent.
 Two petitions for certiorari were also filed against Judge Dinopol, assailing the March 24, 2007 twin orders and
April 13, 2007 twin orders, respectively, having issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of discretion.
 Two cases were consolidated and the CA declared both orders to be null and void on the ff grounds: (1) absence
of a notice of hearing; (2) lack of jurisdiction; and (3) lack of due process.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the issuance by Judge Dinopol of the 24 March 2007 order constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

2) Whether or not Judge Dinopol is civilly liable for damages.

157
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RULING:
1) Yes. The Court agree with Office of the Court Administrator that Judge Dinopol was aware that there is need to give
the parties involved the opportunity to be heard before he cited them in contempt. Judge Dinopol’s issuance of the Orders
was in total disregard of the Rules of Court and with grave abuse of authority.

2) NO. In Alzua v. Johnson, we explained that in civil actions for damages, judges of superior and general jurisdiction are
not liable to answer for what they do in the exercise of their judicial functions, provided they are acting within their legal
powers and jurisdiction. For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that
a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without
apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by
the action of the judge would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that independence
without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful.

30. Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge, MeTC Pateros,
Metro Manila And Presiding Judge, MeTC San Juan, Metro Manila
A.M. MTJ-04-1558.
April 7, 2010.

DOCTRINE: The administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. It requires that everyone
involved in its dispensation―from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk―live up to the strictest standards of
competence, honesty, and integrity in the public service. Any impression of impropriety, misdeed, or negligence in the
performance of official functions must be avoided. The Court shall not countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the
part of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes the
faith of the people in the Judiciary. Indeed, public confidence in our courts is vital to the effective functioning of the
Judiciary.

FACTS:
 An anonymous “Concerned Filipino Citizen” sent to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. a letter requesting
the investigation of respondent judge and her husband, a sheriff of the RTC in Pasig and an alleged drug addict
 The letter-sender complained that Judge Tamang, through the connivance of the arresting officer and court
employees of MeTC at San Juan, had been indiscriminately approving fake bonds for a fee of P1,000.00 “per
count ng kaso.”
 Chief Justice Davide, Jr. referred the letter to then Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock (DCA Lock)
for appropriate action.
 Initial Investigation and Report OCA: The investigation revealed that Judge Tamang had approved bail bonds
issued by Covenant Assurance Company, Inc. (Covenant), despite Covenant having been blacklisted since
December 20, 2002 in the RTC in Pasig City, without any showing of the unavailability of all the RTC Judges in
Pasig, considering that the accused persons posting the bail bonds were charged in criminal cases pending
before the RTC in Pasig and were detained in the Pasig City Jail.
 The OCA memorandum reported:
o No criminal cases in the RTC in Mandaluyong City wherein the bail bonds were secured from
Covenant. However, there are 3 cases wherein the bail bonds were secured in San Juan and approved
by Judge Tamang, notwithstanding the presence and availability of the Judges in the RTC of
Mandaluyong City before whose courts the cases are pending. Such approval was made in
contravention of the provisions of Section 17(a), Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
o In the RTC of Pasig City, the records in a considerable number of criminal cases show Judge
Tamang's blatant disregard for the provisions of the Rules for indiscriminately approving bonds in

158
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

violation of such provisions. Of significance, more than a majority of the bonds she had approved had
been secured from the Covenant Assurance Company, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that such
bonding company is among those blacklisted by the Supreme Court.
o There are rare cases when Judge Tamang approved bail bonds secured from legitimate surety
companies. However, even in such cases, approval was made without compliance with the provisions
of Rule 114. x x x In Criminal Cases Nos. 125724, 125802, 12612-D, 12648-D and 125723, where the
bail bonds were secured from legitimate surety firms (either Commonwealth or Summit Guaranty), the
accused were all detained in Pasig City where their cases were pending.
 Defense of R:
o Sometime in August of 2003, an RTC Judge of Pasig City called her attention to an irregular order of
release she had signed as the Acting Judge of the MeTC in San Juan, Metro Manila, involving a
criminal case pending in Pasig City. Allegedly, the order of release was signed without the necessary
supporting documents.
o The discovery of the irregular order of release prompted Judge Tamang to conduct an investigation
in the MeTC of San Juan. After her initial investigation, she issued a memorandum addressed to Ellen
Sorio, the Branch Clerk of Court of the MeTC in San Juan, directing her to shed light on the anomaly
which included a directive that no bails bonds would be approved until after the controversy was
resolved.
o Sorio explained that as standard office procedure, she checked all orders and documents, including
bail bonds, before Judge Tamang signed them. Sorio added that to her recollection, all the bail bonds
passing through her for presentation to Judge Tamang had been in order, although on many
occasions, Ronnie Medrano, the MeTC’s Process Server, retained possession of some of the
documents accompanying the orders of release.
o Medrano “admitted” his guilt, and begged Judge Tamang for forgiveness.
o Judge Tamang directed Sorio and Medrano to immediately release all the bail bonds still in their
possession, and to request the clerks-in-charge of the various courts concerned to remind their
respective judges to immediately cause the cancellation of the bail bonds, if warranted.
o Conceding that she might have been remiss in her duties with respect to the orders of release based
on bail bonds issued by Covenant, Judge Tamang insisted that she had been “too trusting” of some
personnel of MeTC in San Juan.
 Investigation, Report and Recommendation of the Executive Judge: Judge Manalastas stated that she
had found no evidence to support a finding against Judge Tamang of bad faith, dishonesty, or deliberate intent
to do injustice; but recommended that Judge Tamang be found guilty of gross negligence for violating Canon 6
of the Code of Judicial Conduct and that her co-respondents be found guilty of grave misconduct.
 Final Report of the OCA: OCA adopted the findings of the Investigating Judge, but concluded that the penalties
for Judge Tamang were not commensurate with the offenses committed.

ISSUE: W/N respondent judge competently act in approving the questioned bail bonds

HELD: NO. JUDGE MARILOU D. RUNES-TAMANG is guilty of simple neglect of duty, with mitigating circumstances as
stated in this decision, and, accordingly, she is reprimanded, with a stern warning.

RATIO:
 Judge Tamang admittedly approved not only the bail bonds issued by Covenant, a blacklisted bonding
company, but also the bail bonds in some instances for accused persons charged in criminal cases pending
outside her territorial jurisdiction. Yet, she insisted that she did not thereby transgress the Code of Judicial
Conduct, because she had relied on the representation of her duly authorized personnel that the bail bonds
were in order.
 She claimed that she approved the bail bonds for the criminal cases pending outside her territorial jurisdiction
because the accused were detained in San Juan and Pateros, where she was the Presiding Judge.
o Judge Tamang’s explanations could not completely exonerate her.
 The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires that a magistrate be the embodiment of
judicial competence.

159
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 According to Webster (hehehe)

o Competence: “the quality or state of being functionally adequate or having sufficient knowledge,
judgment, skill, or strength.”
o Competent person: “possessed of or characterized by marked or sufficient aptitude, skill, strength, or
knowledge.”
 Par. 1.3.1.5 (d.1), Section E, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, outlines the
requirements for the approval of bail bonds posted in the court.
o Judge Tamang’s excuse of simply relying on the representation of the court personnel who
unfortunately took advantage of her leniency and kindness betrayed a deficiency in that requisite
degree of circumspection demanded of all those who don the judicial robe.
 such reliance was actually her admission of being neglectful and of lacking the diligent care
in paying attention to the judicial matters brought to her for signature
 Section 17 (a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court governs the approval of bail bonds for criminal cases pending
outside the judge’s territorial jurisdiction. Under the provision, the bail bond may be filed either with the court
where the case is pending, or with any RTC of the place of arrest, or if no RTC Judge is available, with any
MeTC or MTC of the place of arrest.
o The list of approved bail bonds contained in the OCA memorandum shows 34 involved accused
detained in Pasig City, 7 in Taguig City, s6 in San Juan, and one in Pateros. The remaining three
cases involved accused who voluntarily surrendered to Judge Tamang in the San Juan MeTC.
However, all of the criminal cases were pending in the Pasig RTC.
o Judge Tamang contends that under Section 17(a), Rule 114, supra, the accused who were detained
and who voluntarily surrendered in San Juan could file their applications for bail in San Juan; that the
accused detained in Pateros could do the same; and that the bail applications of those detained in
Taguig City were legally approved, because she was then the Pairing Judge of the MeTC in Taguig
City (Branch 74).
o As a judge then on detail in San Juan, Judge Tamang was correct in approving the applications for
bail of the accused who had voluntarily surrendered and been detained in San Juan, Pateros, and
Taguig City, because Section 7(a), Rule 114, supra, granted her the authority to approve applications
for bail of accused detained within her territorial jurisdiction, in the event of the unavailability of any
RTC Judge in the area. t the time of the subject bail applications, there was still no RTC Judge
stationed in San Juan and Pateros.
o However, Judge Tamang did not substantiate her explanation that she had approved the bail
applications of the accused detained in Pasig City and had issued the corresponding release orders
after office hours on Fridays because no RTC Judges had been available in Pasig City.
 Nonetheless, several circumstances properly mitigated her administrative liability.56
1. Medrano admitted his liability and totally exonerated Judge Tamang of any participation in or knowledge of the
anomalous scheme of submitting blacklisted bonds for approval.
2. It is undisputed that upon learning about the anomaly in August 2003 Judge Tamang immediately took steps to
frontally deal with it by conducting an investigation, and directing Sorio at first and Medrano later to explain their
participations in the uncovered anomaly. Her measures were sincerely taken a few months before the Court
received the denunciatory anonymous letter in November 2003. The taking of such measures were probably
what convinced Executive Judge Manalastas as Investigating Judge to observe in her report on the investigation
that there appeared “no evidence to support a finding of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or deliberate intent to do
injustice.”
3. The offense is Judge Tamang’s first administrative charge as a judge.
31. Dagudag v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017 (19 June 2008)

Facts:
1. This case involves a complaint for gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a judge filed by retired
Lt. Gen. Dagudag, Head of Task Force Sagip Kalikasan, against Judge Paderanga, Judge of RTC-Cagayan de
Oro City.
2. 2005: Philippine National Police Regional Maritime Group (PNPRMG) received information that MV General
Ricarte of NMC Container Lines, Inc. was shipping container vans containing illegal forest products from
Cagayan de Oro to Cebu. Such were falsely declared as cassava meal and corn grains to avoid inspection by
DENR.

160
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

3. Forest products were confiscated by the representatives of PNPRMG, DENR and Philippine Coast Guard for
non-compliance of pertinent documents. Since no one claimed ownership of the said items for a reasonable
time, it was confiscated in favor of the government.
4. Respondent-judge, in a case for issuance of writ of replevin, instituted by plaintiff Edma, issued and decided in
favor of the plaintiff, for the return of the undocumented forest products.
5. DENR, CENRO and herein petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ of replevin but it was denied by respondent-
judge. Thus, Gen. Dagudag filed with the OCA an affidavit-complaint against respondent-jude.
6. In addition, DENR counsel was lambasted in the courtroom by the respondent judge. The latter uttered words
like “shut up, how dare you say that the court is wrong, and the problem with you people is you do not use your
heads, and etc.“ which are undignified and very unbecoming a judge.

Issue: W/N the acts Judge Paderaga constitutes gross ignorance of the law and unbecoming of a judge.

Ruling: Yes, SC DISMISSED respondent-judge from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
 Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that competence is a
prerequisite to the due performance of judicial office.
 Sec. 3 of Canon 6 states that judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge
necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties. Judges should keep themselves abreast with legal
developments and show acquaintance with laws
 The rule that courts cannot prematurely take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies is
basic. There was no reason for Judge Paderanga to make an exception to this rule. The forest products were
in the custody of the DENR and Edma had not availed of any administrative remedy. Judge Paderanga should
have dismissed the replevin suit outright.
o First, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of
cases pending before administrative agencies. In the instant case, Edma did not resort to, or avail of,
any administrative remedy. He went straight to court and filed a complaint for replevin and damages.
o Second, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending
before administrative agencies of special competence.
o Third, the forest products are already in custodia legis and thus cannotbe the subject of replevin.
 Sec. 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary states that judges shall be
patient, dignified, and courteous in relation to lawyers. Judicial decorum requires judges to be temperate in their
language at all times and refrain from inflammatory, excessively rhetoric, or vile language.
 SC also considered the fact that this is his third offense. The two other administrative cases likewise involved
gross ignorance of law, gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority.

32. Medina v. Canoy, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2298 (22 February 2012)

Facts:
 An administrative complaint filed by Atty. Medina and Atty. Servillas against Judge Canoy on different cases
that he has handled.
1. Civil Case No. 7077
 Petitioner Pagels filed a TRO against Spouses dela Cruz that was raffled to Respondent Judge. After
service the summons, a copy of the Petition and Notice of hearing, Canoy conducted the hearing and
granted the TRO.
 The TRO was implemented and the possession of the duly-licensed primary and elementary school and
church was transferred to the Pagels.
 Respondent Judge granted the preliminary injunction without need of a bond pending the hearing of the
respondent spouses’ Motion to Hear Affirmative Defenses. Another judge revoked the preliminary
injunction.

161
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Complainants contend that Canoy should be charged with gross ignorance of the law and procedure for
(1) disregarding the basic principle that a TRO and preliminary injunction are improper remedies to transfer
possession of property to another whose title has not been clearly established; and (2) for failure to decide
the MR within the 30 day period.

2. Spec. Proc. No. 7101

 Petitioner Noel filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent judge issued an order for the release
of petitioner on a holiday, upon finding that the latter was unlawfully arrested.
 Complainants charge respondent judge of: (1) gross ignorance of procedure and undue interference in the
administrative functions of the Bureau of Immigration by ordering the release of the expired passport of
Noel, preparing the Order outside the court’s premises, it not being single-spaced and without the stamp
of the Clerk of Court, and (2) violating Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

3. Civil Case No. 7065

 Defendant Philex Mining Corp filed a Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiffs Heirs of Alcaraz. IT was only after
1 year when the judge issued an order denying it.
 Complainants claim that he is guilty of gross inefficiency and of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct for
his undue delay in resolving a simple Motion to Dismiss.

 Respondent judge states that complainants are neither a counsel nor a party-in-interest to these cases.

OCA’s Recommendation
 OCA found respondent judge guilty of undue delay in rendering an order but dismissed the charges of gross
ignorance of the law and gross misconduct for being judicial in nature and lack of merit.
 On the charge of gross ignorance of the law, OCA held that Canoy committed an error of judgment for which
he cannot be administratively held liable in the absence of bad faith, malice or corrupt purposes.
 Charges of tardiness and inefficiency bereft of merit because of an Affidavit explaining the reason for the late
hearing.
 OCA held that judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving the Motion to Dismiss in violation of the 1987
Constitution.

Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of being negligent in his knowledge in court proceedings

Held: Yes, Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and undue delay and is fined P30,000.
 OCA correctly observed that complainants may file the present administrative complaint against respondent
judge.
 However, respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
o An injunction cannot be issued to transfer possession or control of a property to another when the
legal title is in dispute between the parties and the legal title has not been clearly established.
o Judge Canoy evidently disregarded the established doctrine applied in numerous cases. When the
law involved in simple and elementary, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
 A judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and jurisprudence.
o Compounded circumstances manifest bad faith: (1) his Comment with Counter-Charge, (2) his order
patently shows facts not entitling Pagels to the preliminary injunction but judge still issued it; and (3)
Judge did not require Pagels to put a bond without sufficient justification

Section 5. Performance of judicial duties with efficiency, fairness, and promptness

162
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RAYMUNDO D. LOPEZ and EDGAR M.
TUTAAN, former Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court, respectively, Municipal Trial Court, Palo,
Leyte, Respondents.
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1790, December 11, 2013

Pontente: CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:
 31 May 2011 and 1 June 2011, the OCA audit team conducted a judicial audit in connection with the compulsory
retirement on 15 March 2011 of Judge Raymundo D. Lopez (Judge Lopez), former presiding judge of the trial
court.
 The audit team examined all pending cases as of 31 May 2011, and cases disposed during the first semester
of 2011. Of the 133 cases audited, consisting of 89 criminal cases and 44 civil cases, the audit team found that:
o The trial court had 23 cases submitted for decision which had not been decided, despite the lapse of
the 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases
o The trial court had pending motions and incidents in 16 cases that remained unresolved despite the
lapse of the prescribed period
o The trial court decided 9 cases beyond the 90-day reglementary period in March 2011;
o The trial court had 18 cases which had not been acted upon for a considerable length of time since
the last action taken thereon; 2 cases which had not been acted upon since filing; and 11 cases which
had not been further set for a considerable length of time since the last settings made thereon.
 The audit team also observed that 14 criminal and 7 civil cases were not reflected in the trial court’s Docket
Inventory for the second semester of 2010 and in the list of cases submitted for decision in the Monthly Report
for February 2011
 Finally, the audit team found that Judge Lopez submitted false Certificates of Service for the months of February
2010 to December 2010.
 The OCA: adopted the findings and recommendations of the audit team
 Judge Lopez in his letter dated 30 September 201116 set forth the following reasons:
o His failure to decide the cases and resolve the pending incidents within the reglementary period was
caused by the following health problems and personal circumstances
o He ascribed to pure inadvertence, brought about by the same health and personal problems, his false
declarations in his Certificates of Service for the months of February 2010 to December 2010; and
o He suffered much emotional and physical stress, due to his health problems and the death of his wife,
which gravely affected his work that he lacked the time to review the monthly reports and docket
inventory.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Lopez violated Section 5

RULING: YES. “WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Raymundo D. Lopez, former Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial
Court, Palo, Leyte, guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT and accordingly FINES him ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from his
retirement/gratuity benefits. The Court also finds Judge Lopez guilty of undue delay in rendering
decisions and making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service but these constitute aggravating
circumstances to the offense of gross misconduct.”

RATIO:
 Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice and decide cases promptly and expeditiously because justice
delayed is justice denied.
 The 1987 Constitution mandates that all cases or matters be decided or resolved by the lower courts within
three months from date of submission.
 Judges are expected to perform all judicial duties, including the rendition of decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with
reasonable promptness.
 In this case, Judge Lopez failed to decide a total of 32 cases and resolve pending incidents in 16 cases within
the 90-day reglementary period.
 Time and again, this Court reminds judges to decide cases with dispatch.

163
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 The Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and non-observance of this rule is a ground for administrative
sanction against the defaulting judge.
 In this case, Judge Lopez, despite his medical condition and personal circumstances, did not apply for any
extension to decide the cases before him.
 In certain instances, as the OCA noted, the cases were submitted for decision even before Judge Lopez began
having medical problems.
 This Court commiserates with Judge Lopez for the heart attack, other ailments, and personal tragedy that he
suffered.
 However, these do not exonerate him from the consequences of his omissions that took place before he became
ill and more than a decade after he had resumed reporting to work.
 In the absence of any showing that his medical and personal problems prevented him from working after his
operation, Judge Lopez had no valid excuse for not giving due attention to the cases in his sala.
 At the very least, his health problems and personal crises would only mitigate his liability

RE: FAILURE OF FORMER JUDGE ANTONIO A. CARBONELL TO DECIDE CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
AND TO RESOLVE PENDING MOTIONS IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, SAN FERNANDO, LA
UNION. , A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 9, 2013

Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

 This administrative case originates from the judicial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) on March 3 and 4, 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 27, in view of
the disability retirement of Presiding Judge Antonio A. Carbonell on December 31, 2007.
 According to the Audit Team’s Report, Branch 27 had a total caseload of 231 cases, consisting of 147 criminal
cases and 84 civil cases, and Judge Carbonell failed to decide 41 criminal cases (one inherited) and 22 civil
cases
 Judge Carbonell was also reported to have failed to resolve pending motions or incidents in four criminal cases
and 12 civil cases
 In a Memorandum dated May 15, 2008, the OCA recommended to the Court that a fine of P50,000.00 be
imposed upon Judge Carbonell for gross inefficiency for failing to promptly decide the cases and to resolve
pending motions and incidents.
 July 17, 2008: letter to Chief Justice Puno, Judge Carbonell surmised that:
o the Audit Team might have overlooked the fact that he had inherited some of the undecided cases
from the predecessor judge;
o that said cases had no transcripts of stenographic notes, because of which he was impelled to require
the parties to submit their respective memoranda;
o that the cases would only be considered submitted for decision after the parties would have filed their
respective memoranda;
o and that he had undergone a quadruple heart bypass operation in 2005 that had adversely affected
his pace in deciding the cases.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Carbonelle violated Section 5

RULING: YES. “Considering that Judge Carbonell similarly retired due to disability, the Court believes that his poor health
condition greatly contributed to his inability to efficiently perform his duties as a trial judge. That mitigated his
administrative liability, for which reason the Court reduces the recommended penalty of fine from P50,000.00
to P20,000.00.

164
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

WHEREFORE, Retired Judge Antonio A. Carbonell is ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00 to be deducted from
the P200,000.00 that was withheld from his retirement benefits, and the balance to be immediately released to him.”

RATIO:

 As a frontline official of the Judiciary, a trial judge should at all times act with efficiency and probity.
 He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law, but also to maintain professional competence.
 The pursuit of excellence ought always to be his guiding principle.
 Such dedication is the least that he can do to sustain the trust and confidence that the public have reposed in
him and the institution he represents.
 The Court cannot overstress its policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases.
 Delay in the disposition of cases is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judicial
system, as judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay.
 Thus, judges have been constantly reminded to strictly adhere to the rule on the speedy disposition of cases
and observe the periods prescribed by the Constitution for deciding cases, which is three months from the filing
of the last pleading, brief or memorandum for lower courts.
 To further impress upon judges such mandate, the Court has issued guidelines would insure the speedy
disposition of cases and has therein reminded judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed in the
Constitution.
 Nonetheless, the Court has been mindful of the plight of our judges and understanding of circumstances that
may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses.
 Hence, the Court has allowed extensions of time to decide cases beyond the 90-day period.
 All that a judge needs to do is to request and justify an extension of time to decide the cases, and the Court has
almost invariably granted such request.
 Judge Carbonell failed to decide a total of 63 cases and to resolve 16 pending motions or incidents within the
90-day reglementary period. He intimated that his poor health affected his pace in deciding the cases.
 Had such been the case, then he should have explained his predicament to the Court and asked for an extension
of time to decide the cases. Unfortunately, he failed to do so.

SECTIONS 6 AND 7 : DECORUM AND CONDUCT IN THE DISCHARGE OF JUDICIAL DUTIES

JOCELYN T. BRIONES, , vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO A. ANTE, JR., respondent.

 Jocelyn T. Briones a Clerk II of the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur. In her complaint, she alleges
that
o (FIRSY) On September 3, 1996, she was instructed by clerk of Court Apolonio T. Tagelo to docket
the order archiving a particular case. Upong finding the docket book, she placed it on a table and
it fell on the floor, creating a loud sound.
o She was about to pick it up when respondent judge appeared and shouted at her “Why did you
throw the docket book? Respondent also added, You get out of here, punyeta, we dont need you.”
o That the judge even got a monobloc chair and threw it at her, hitting her forehead and her righr arm
o (SECOND) On October 11, 1996 : Sexual harassment: that while the whole staff of the court were
having snacks on the occasion of their janitors birthday, respondent told her that somebody was
interested in her position. Respondent then added, “I cannot give your job to that somebody
because I plan to have you as my girlfriend first.”
o Complainant was not able to say a word. She just turned away, went to the staff room and cried.
Since that time, complainant claimed that
 Respondent judge denied all allegations and that all these were purely for harassment purposes as complainant
knew that he was about to file a complaint against her for falsifying her Daily Time Record.

 The administrative complaints were consolidated and assigned to Executive Judge Alipio V. Flores who absolved

165
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

respondent from the charge of sexual harassment, finding that the remarks allegedly uttered by respondent - the
basis of the complaint - was actually made as a joke. However, with regard to the charges of grave misconduct, acts
unbecoming of a judge, and abuse of authority, the Investigating Judge recommended that respondent be suspended
for one (1) month without pay.

 OCA: adopted the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge Flores for being adequately supported by the
evidence presented during the course of the investigation.

ISSUE: Wether or not respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct, acts unbecoming of a judge and abuse of authority.

HELD: Yes. Judge Francisco Ante, Jr. is found guilty of grave misconduct, acts unbecoming of a judge and abuse of
authority and is SUSPENDED from office for a period of three (3) months without pay effective immediately, with the
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely

 Evidence were presented to prove first complaint:

o 2 stenographers and the clerk of court as witnesses
o complainant, as proven by a medical certificate, sustained wrist and other injuries
 Respondent clearly violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
which mandate, respectively, that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,
and that a judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not
only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR

 This case originated from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on
annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar.
 OCA conducted a judicial audit and found that:
1. The list of cases submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City do not appear
in the records of cases received, pending or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15.
2. The annulment decisions did not exist in the records of RTC-Cotabato, Branch 14.
3. The case numbers in the list submitted by the Local Civil Registrars are not within the series of case
numbers recorded in the docket books
4. There are apparently decisions of cases which are spurious, as these did not pass through the
regular process such as filing, payment of docket fees, trial, etc. which are now circulating and being
registered in Local Civil Registrars throughout the country

 OCA recommended that (1) the matter be docketed as a regular administrative matter; (2) the matter be
assigned to a Court of Appeals Justice for Investigation, Report, and Recommendation; and (3) Judge Indar be
preventively suspended, pending investigation.

 Justice Gacutan set the case for hearing on several dates and sent the corresponding notices of hearing to Judge
Indar at his known addresses, namely, his official stations in RTC-Cotabato and RTC-Shariff Aguak and residence
address however Judge Indar failed to attend the hearing as rescheduled and to submit the affidavit as required.

 Atty. Silongan submitted a Return of Service, informing that the notices sent to Judge Indar had remained unserved,
as the latter left Cotabato City in April 2010 and his location since then was unknown.

 The Supreme Court directed Justice Gacutan to conduct further investigation to determine the authenticity of the
questioned decisions allegedly rendered by Judge Indar annulling certain marriages

166
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Justice Gacutan directed the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City and Atty. Silongan to submit certified
true copies of the questioned decisions and to testify thereon. Only the Civil Registrars were present during the
hearings:

o Ma. Josefina Encarnacion A. Ocampo, City Civil Registrar of Manila, identified the list of cases of annulment
of marriages and petitions changing status of persons (annexes “A-1” and “A-2”) which all came from a
court in Cotabato. All the cases listed in A-2 have already been confirmed or annotated in the
records of the Manila Civil Registry. She affirmed that the said cases in the list were certified true by the
clerk of court.
o Salvador Cariño, Chief of Records Division, City Civil Registrar of Quezon City, identified the cases coming
from a Cotabato court that were submitted to them for annotation.

 The Civil Registrar of Manila submitted copies of Decisions, Orders and Resolutions, all signed by Judge Indar, in
(43) cases for annulment of marriage, correction of entry and other similar cases from RTC-Cotabato City, Branch
15; (36) of such decisions are accompanied by Atty. Silongan’s certification affirming the genuineness of Judge
Indar’s signature affixed on the Decisions.
 Civil Registrar of Quezon City submitted (25) Decisions, Orders, and Resolutions issued by RTC-Cotabato City,
Branch 15, which were transmitted to the Registrar’s office for annotation and recording. All the Decisions were
signed by Judge Indar
 Atty. Silongan, despite notice, failed to attend the hearings
 Justice Gacutan sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to locate the whereabouts of
Judge Indar, as well as of Atty. Silongan. After several exchanges of correspondence, the NBI, in a Letter dated 22
March 2011, provided the residence addresses of both Judge Indar and Atty. Silongan
 This administrative matter was re-raffled to Justice Abraham B. Borreta (Justice Borreta) since Justice Gacutan was
reassigned to Manila
 Notices of hearing were sent to Judge Indar and Atty. Silongan at the addresses provided by the NBI and at their
previous mailing addresses however were returned for the following reasons: (1) “addressee out of town, move to
another place” and (2) addressee “unknown.” The Notice sent to Atty. Silongan was also returned and per LBC
report, the consignee has moved to an unknown address.
 Justice Borreta : Judge Indar’s administrative liability, and found the latter guilty of serious misconduct and
dishonesty.

o The act of issuing decisions on annulment of marriage cases without complying with the stringent
procedural and substantive requirements of the Rules of Court for such cases clearly violates the Code of
Judicial Conduct. Judge Indar made it appear that the annulment cases underwent trial, when the records
show no judicial proceedings occurred.
o Moreover, Judge Indar’s act of “affirming in writing before the Australian Embassy the validity of a decision
he allegedly rendered,” when in fact that case does not appear in the court’s records, constitutes
dishonesty.

 Justice Borreta recommended the dismissal of Judge Indar from service, and the investigation of Atty. Silongan, who
is not included as respondent in this case, on her participation in the certification of the authenticity of the spurious
Decisions.

Issue: Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty

Held: Judge Cader P. Indar is guilty of Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty. He is hereby DISMISSED from the service,
with forfeiture of all benefits due him and is likewise DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

167
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 Judge Indar cannot feign ignorance of the administrative investigation against him because aside from the fact that
the Court’s Resolution suspending him was mailed to him, his preventive suspension was reported in major national
newspapers.
 As the visible representation of the law tasked with dispensing justice, a judge should conduct himself at all times in
a manner that would merit the respect and confidence of the people. Judge Indar miserably failed to live up to these
exacting standards.
 In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not exist in the
records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato
City. There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases; (2) docket fees had been
paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4) hearings had been conducted; or (5) the
cases were submitted for decision.
 Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage
cases, without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied with the statutory and jurisprudential
requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly constitutes gross misconduct.
 Not only that, Judge Indar’s gross misconduct greatly undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary and betrays
public trust and confidence in the courts. Judge Indar’s utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the Judiciary. Judge
Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service.

The Court defines dishonesty as:

x x x a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity
or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”

 Apparently, this is not Judge Indar’s first offense.

o In A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953,the Court imposed on him a fine of P10,000 when he issued a preliminary
injunction without any hearing and prior notice to the parties.
o In another case, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2069, the Court found him guilty of gross misconduct for committing
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and accordingly fined him P25,000.
 Since this is Judge Indar’s third offense, showing the depravity of his character and aggravating the serious offenses
of gross misconduct and dishonesty, the Court imposes on Judge Indar the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the
service, with its accessory penalties, pursuant to Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
 This administrative case against Judge Indar shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a
member of the Bar, in accordance with AM. No. 02-9-02-SC

o Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of
regular and special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are
likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath,
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
o In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary
action against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The
respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.

 In so far as Atty. Silongan, is concerned, the Office of the Court Administrator is ORDERED to investigate Atty.
Umaima L. Silongan, Acting Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City, on her alleged participation in
the authentication of the questioned Decisions on the annulment of marriage cases issued by Judge Indar

OCA v. CASTAÑEDA

FACTS:

168
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

1. A judicial audit was conducted in the sala of Judge Castañeda.

2. The findings of this audit are as follows;
- The sala had a total of 1,123 cases; 70 have been submitted for decisions, while there are still 18
cases that have not been resolved despite the lapse of the 90 day reglementary period; and 7 more
cases have been waiting on resolution beyond the reglementary period.
- She CERTIFIED that all cases have been resolved notwithstanding her failure to decide on the 18
cases.
- Also noticed that the branch had poor case and records management; Absences of meetings of the
proceedings, lack of stamps received on the pleadings filed before it, official receipts reflecting that
filing fees were paid days after the cases had been filed, registry receipts containing no registry
numbers, and lack of proofs of receipts of court processes or issuances. Case records were not even
properly stitched together.
- Also found out that there were criminal cases archived before the expiration of the 6 month period
- In one case, Judge Castañeda arbitrarily reduced the bail bond of an accused from P120,000.00 to
P10,000.00, and released another on recognizance on charges of violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165
- Similarly, another accused, who was charged with violation of R.A. 7610, 4 was released on
recognizance despite the fact that the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua.
- It was also found that Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod (Atty. Saguyod), the Branch Clerk of Court, issued
commitment orders in two (2) criminal cases without written authority from Judge Castañeda, and that
no certificates of arraignment were issued in some cases
3. There were reports that this branch have become a haven for couples who want their marriages to be judicially
declared null and void or annulled, or those who merely want to be legally separated the audit team gave special
attention to cases for declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of marriage and legal separation, and found that
of the 717 civil cases, 522 or 72.80% involved nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation.
4. Investigation on this matter led to the discovery of various irregularities in the proceedings, consisting of blatant
violations of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,5 or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages, as well as A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC or the Rule on Legal Separation
- First. Judge Castañeda allowed the petitions for nullity of marriage or annulment to prosper despite
the impropriety of venue. The audit showed that most of the parties in these petitions are not actual
residents of the places under the territorial jurisdiction of Branch 67
- no proofs of payment of docket fees, while in others, summons and other initial court processes were
issued even before the docket fees were fully paid.
- OSG and Office of the Public Prosecutor were not sent copies of these cases
- process server or sheriff merely resorted to substituted service of summons, without strict compliance
with the rule
- Judge Castañeda likewise granted motions for depositions and allowed the advance taking of
testimonies even without the respondent or public prosecutor being furnished copies of the motion. In
several cases, she granted the motion on the very same day, or merely a day after it was filed.
- Sixth. After having been served with summons, respondents were usually no longer notified of
subsequent court orders or processes.
- in other cases, Judge Castañeda permitted the public prosecutor to conduct a collusion investigation
even before the respondent has filed an answer, or the lapse of the prescribed period of 15 days.
- allowed the pre-trial to proceed in several cases, notwithstanding the absence of the petitioner, or the
fact that the latter failed to authorize his/her counsel,
- Missing documentary evidence, marked and received.
- Psychologists reports are PROFORMA or PHOTOCOPIES ONLY
- Cases on nullity of marriage are promptly ruled. Fstest was 16 days – 4 months.

5. In judge Castaneda’s comment, she denied all these allegations. She explains that when the audit ensued, the court
was being transferred to a 6x10 session hall, so the “court management” which explains the situation. As per the
reducing of bail, she explains that she is merely following the recommendation of the prosecutor. As per the NULLITY

169
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

OF MARRIAGE CASES, She affirms that all these were verified, she blames the Clerk-In-Charge for not notifying
the OCC and OPP and stil goes on with the pre-trial so the proceedings will not get delayed.
6. OCA RECOMMENDED HER DISMISSAL IN OFFICE.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Castañeda should be dismissed, following OCA’s recommendation:

A. On the Delay in the Disposition of Cases

- IN VIOLATION OF Section 5, Canon 6, RULE 3.5 of CANON 6

 In Judge Castañeda's case, both judicial audits conducted revealed that there were many cases that were
undecided notwithstanding the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period within which they should be disposed,
apart from those that have remained dormant or unacted upon for a considerable amount of time. Judge
Castañeda failed to decide, within the prescribed period, 40 cases from the first audit and 22 cases from the
second audit, or a total of 62 cases
 In the absence of an extension of time within which to decide these cases, which Judge Castañeda could have
sought from the Court, her failure to assiduously perform her judicial duties is simply inexcusable. An
inexcusable failure to decide a case within the prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross
inefficiency warranting a disciplinary sanction.

B. On the Falsification of the Certificates of Service

- GUILTY

 A certificate of service is an instrument essential to the fulfillment by the judges of their duty to dispose of their
cases speedily as mandated by the Constitution. A judge who fails to decide cases within the reglementary
period but continues to collect his salaries upon his certification that he has no pending matters to resolve
transgresses the constitutional right of the people to the speedy disposition of their cases.
 Notwithstanding her failure to dispose of cases within the prescribed period, Judge Castañeda made it appear
in her monthly Certificates of Service that she had decided or resolved cases within 90 days from their
submission. When she was preventively suspended in the Court's November 23, 2009 Resolution, which
suspension she served from January 13, 2010 to March 21, 2010, she nonetheless misrepresented on her
Certificates of Service in February and March 2010 that she rendered work for those months. Because of such
dishonest conduct, she was able to receive her salaries for the months when she was supposedly under
preventive suspension. A judge who falsifies her Certificate of Service is administratively liable for serious
misconduct and inefficiency.
C. On Disregarding the Provisions of A.M. Nos. 02-11-10-SC and 02-11-11-SC

 GUILTY OF GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW AND PROCEDURE; No less than the Code of Judicial conduct
mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed,
competence is a mark of a good judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well
as with procedural rules. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the
public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts
the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. Unfamiliarity
with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules of procedure must be at the palm of a judge’s
hands.33 Moreover, the reprehensible haste with which she granted petitions for nullity and annulment of
marriage and legal separation, despite noncompliance with the appropriate rules and evident irregularities
in the proceedings, displayed her utter lack of competence and probity, and can only be considered as
grave abuse of authority.

BESO V. DAGUMAN

FACTS:

170
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by Beso. In the Complaint-Affidavit dated December
12, 1997, the complainant charged judge with solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not
retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar with the following
facts:

(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainant’s fiancée, Bernardito A. Yman, got married under the
solemnization of the respondent in the respondent’s residence in Calbayog City, Samar;

(b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;

(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding her Marriage
Contract. The complainant found out that her marriage was not registered;

(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found out that all the copies were taken by Yman
and no copy was retained by the respondent.
The respondent averred with the following rationale:

(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the complainant and Yman. He also believed
that being a Filipino overseas worker, the complainant deserved more than ordinary official attention under present
Government policy;

(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may be not too expensive and complicated
for citizens to get married;

(c) Respondent’s failure to file the marriage contract was beyond his control because Yman absconded with the missing
copies of the marriage certificate.

(d) Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing documents.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated, August 11, 1998 found the respondent Judge
“…committed non-feasance in office” and recommended that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).

ISSUES:

MAIN ISSUE: W/N JUDGE COMMITTED NON-FEASANCE IN OFFICE, NEGLECT of DUTY and ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY:

YES: HE IS FINED 5,000.00 and STERNLY WARNED. REPETITION OF THE SAME OFFENSE WILL WARRANT A
HEAVIER PENALTY.

BUT RESOLVING HOW HE COMMITTED THE OFFENSES CHARGED;

1. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF SOLEMNIZING MARRIAGE OURSIDE OF HIS JURISDICTION.

HELD:
(1) Yes.
(2) The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Family Code provides that marriage
may be solemnized by, “Any incumbent member of the judiciary with the court’s jurisdiction”. In relation thereto,
according to Article 8 of the Family Code, there are only three instances with which a judge may solemnize a
marriage outside of his jurisdiction:
(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;

171
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;

(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage
may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
In this case, non of the three instances is present.

2. HE committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not registering the complainant’s marriage before the office of
the Local Civil Registrar.

Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family code, such duty to register the marriage is the respondent’s duty. The same
article provides,“It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage… to send the duplicate and triplicate copies
of the certificate not later than fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the
marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting
copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage
certificate, the original of the marriage license, and in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the
solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in Article 8.”.

Comilang et al. v. Belen

FACTS:

- Judge Belen issued his Order in ("Estacio Case") requiring him to (1) explain why Prosecutor Comilang did not inform
the court of his previously-scheduled preliminary investigation and (2) pay a fine of P500.00 for the cancellation of
all the scheduled hearings.
- State Prosecutor Comilang filed with the (CA) a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction assailing Judge Belen’s Order and Decision in the Estacio Case.
- The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Judge Belen from executing and enforcing his assailed
Order and Decision for a period of 60 days, which was subsequently extended with the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.Notwithstanding the TRO, Judge Belen issued an Order. He also manifested that he was
waiving his appearance on the scheduled hearing for the indirect contempt charge against him.
- Aggrieved, State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
charging Judge Belen with manifest partiality and malice, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and
gross ignorance of the law in issuing the show cause orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance
to the injunctive writ issued by the CA.

ISSUE:
- Do Judge Belen's actuations showed manifest partiality and bias, evident bad faith, grave abuse of authority and
gross ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge?
HELD:
- Yes. PENALTY OF DISMISSAL.
- Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued by the CA enjoining the implementation of his May 30, 2005
Order and December 12, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 94069.

A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter’s outcome. Its sole
objective is to preserve the status quo until the court hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary purpose is not to
correct a wrong already consummated, or to redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already
committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigants during the pendency of the case. [15] The status
quo should be that existing ante litem motam or at the time of the filing of the case.
It must be stressed that Judge Belen’s dismissal from service as adjudged in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 cannot serve
to bar a review of his conviction for indirect contempt.

172
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

A single act may offend against two or more distinct and related provisions of law and thus give rise to criminal as
well as administrative liability. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 was the administrative aspect while the instant case is the
criminal facet of Judge Belen’s act of issuing the Orders dated September 6, 2007 and September 26, 2007. Both
proceedings are distinct and independent from the other such that the disposition in one case does not inevitably
govern the resolution of the other case/s and vice versa.

Nonetheless, the Court stands by its pronouncement in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 that the subject act of Judge Belen
was contemptuous, for the reason that in requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his non-filing of a
supersedeas bond, in issuing subpoenas to compel his attendance before court hearings relative to the contempt
proceedings, and finally, in finding him guilty of indirect contempt for his non-compliance with the issued subpoenas,
Judge Belen effectively defeated the status quo which the writ of preliminary injunction aimed to preserve. Judge
Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that can be easily brushed aside.
Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of authority and
gross ignorance of the law. Likewise, citing State Prosecutor Comilang for indirect contempt notwithstanding the
effectivity of the CA-issued writ of injunction demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad faith towards the former,
for which he must be held accountable and subjected to disciplinary action.

173
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of
their tasks.

A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991

FERNANDO T. COLLANTES vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON (Register of Deeds)

FACTS:
 Complaint against Atty. Renomeron for the latter's irregular actuations with regard to the
application of V & G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of
Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision
 Charges:
o Neglecting or refusing to act within reasonable time for the registration of DoAS with
Assignment and the issuance and transfer to the GSIS
o Conduct unbecoming of public official
o Dishonesty
o Extortion
o Directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit
o Causing undue injury to GSIS through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence
o Gross ignorance of the law and procedure
 V & G had requested several times the respondent but no action:
o January 15, 1987: to register some DoS with assignment (in favor of the GSIS)
o February 16, 1987: to approve or deny registration of the uniform deeds of absolute sale
with assignment
 Respondent suspended the registration of the documents pending compliance by V & G with a
certain "special arrangement" between them
o Provide respondent with a weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus
P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon
City house and lot by V & G or GSIS representatives
 The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money of P2,000) was sent to respondent
through his niece.
o Respondent imposed additional registration requirement for failure to provide pocket
money
 May 22, 1987: Respondent formally denied registration of the transfer on the ground that the
deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to parties and subject matter
 National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration or NLTDRA [now the Land
Registration Authority or LRA]: the questioned documents were registrable
o Respondent continued to sit on the DoS with assignment
 Filed with NLTDRA administrative charges
o Respondent denied charges of extortion and of directly receiving pecuniary or material
 Investigator recommended dropping the charges of:
o Dishonesty
o Causing undue injury to a party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence
o Gross ignorance of the law and procedure

174
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 NLTDRA Administrator recommended to Secretary of Justice:

o guilty of simple neglect of duty
o be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for registration
o be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt with more severely
 Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice Ordonez to President Cory Aquino-
Respondent was found:
o Guilty of grave misconduct
o Dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and
with prejudice to re-employment in the government
 Petitioner also filed with SC disbarment case against Respondent

ISSUE: W/N respondent may also be disciplined by SC for his malfeasances as a public official

RULING: Yes. Respondent DISBARRED.

1. Misconduct as public official= violation of lawyer’s oath
a. Lawyer’s oath: duty to delay no man for money or malice
b. Violation is ground for suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action
2. Person admitted to the Bar takes an oath and becomes “OFFICER OF THE COURT”: assist the
courts in the proper, fair, speedy, and efficient administration of justice
3. Canon 6 of CPR applies to lawyers in government services
4. This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable, and reliable" may
practice the profession of law
5. The acts of dishonesty and oppression of Renomeron committed as a public official
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law

A.C. No. 6788 August 23, 2007

DIANA RAMOS vs. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG

FACTS:
 Disbarment against respondent for multiple violation of the CPR
 1992: Petitioner sought the assistance of respondent in filing civil and criminal actions against
the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos
o Petitioner gave 8500, but receipt was only for 5000
 Petitioner tried to attend scheduled hearing but was told to just wait outside the courtroom.
 Respondent would come out after several hours and inform petitioner that the hearing was
cancelled and rescheduled
o Happened 6 times but still charging petitioner 350 per appearance in court
 Petitioner personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Bian and San
Pedro, Laguna
o Respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact
employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)
 Respondent’s defense:
o Petitioner knew he was in government service

175
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o He declined request of Petitioner since he works for PAO and petitioner is not an
indigent
o Advised petitioner to consult Atty. Ungson who did not accept the case for failure to
meet the acceptance fee
o Petitioner only asked respondent to keep the 5000 for Atty. Ungson’s fee
o Apr 15, 1994: Respondent resigned from PAO
o Sept 2014: Respondent agreed to prepare the complaint being in private practice but
lost contact with petitioner
 IBP Board of Governors recommended: Suspension fro 3 years and return the 5,000 with
interest; violated:
o Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
o Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from a client.
o Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent
on the matter.
ISSUE: W/N Respondent is guilty of violation CPR

RULING: Yes, DISBARRED for violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule
18.01 of CPR; return 5000 with interest
1. Lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they
are subject to public scrutiny; not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe
utmost fidelity to public service
2. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees- prohibited
acts among others:
a. Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with
their official function
3. Respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he
was still connected with the PAO
a. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
4. The receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government
lawyer.
5. Respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was
inconsistent with the office's mission
a. PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants
6. Violated Canon 1 of CPR when he accepted the complainant's cases and received
attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services
7. Respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant constituting dishonesty, a
violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood
a. Failed to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses
b. Led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the Jovellanoses

176
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

c. Made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his
appearance fees for hearings
8. Lawyers in public office are expected to:
a. refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government
b. uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of
honesty and fair dealing

A.C. No. 7314 August 25, 2015

MARY ANN T. FLORES vs. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR. (Labor Arbiter)

FACTS:
 Complaint for illegal dismissal filed with NLRC by Jose Roberto Flores (Flores), the husband of
petitioner against JMJB International Services, Inc.
 Respondent: dismissed the case on a finding that Flores had voluntarily resigned from
employment
 NLRC: dismissed for being filed out of time
 CA decision (final and executory):
o Appeal to NLRC timely filed
o Granted monetary awards to Flores
 July 2003: Petitioner filed Motion for Execution of CA decision
 November 2003: Petitioner’s counsel received from the CA a Notice of Transmittal of Records of
Case
 September 2004: Flores filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation praying that the motion be
resolved with dispatch
o the records of the case were still being requested from the Records Section of the NLRC
o Certification by Records officer of NLRC: the case records had been sent for archiving
sometime in 2003 and were difficult to retrieve
 Nov 2005: Respondent issued Writ of Execution against JMJB (already amended its name to F.O.
Maidin International Services, Inc.)
o Respondent refused to act on the Motion to Amend Writ of Execution
 Petitioner filed admin case against respondent for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, CPR, and other
ethical standards
o Act of archiving the records of the labor case and refusal to amend the Writ of Execution
 IBP recommended: guilty and must be disbarred

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, CPR, and other ethical standards

RULING: Yes, he was guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and the CPR; DISBARRED
1. There is a clear neglect of duty and ignorance of the law on the part of respondent
a. failure to immediately act on the Motion for Execution
b. Refusal to amend the Writ of Execution despite having been informed of the amendment
of the name

177
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

2. It was through his fault that the records of the case were lost; reflects his lack of due diligence
and care in the custody of official documents.
3. It was inexcusable and out of the ordinary for respondent to allow a period of more than two
years to lapse before acting on the motion which amounts to gross misconduct as the
unnecessary delay has caused prejudice to complainant
4. Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person
concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or
to the right determination of the cause.
5. As a Labor Arbiter, respondent is a public officer who must at all times be accountable to the
people, whom he must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
a. Breach of accountability to complainant and the public in general
6. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer to delay no man for money or malice, and abandoned
his professional responsibility to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice

Rule 6.01 – Primary duty of public prosecutor to see that justice is done

G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995

EDILBERTO M. CUENCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
 July 6, 1994: Petitioner filed a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL" setting forth, in relation to the motion for new
trial:
o The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly discovered evidence and excusible
(sic) negligence, and shall be supported by affidavits of:
 an officer of private complainant corporation who will exculpate petitioner;

178
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 an admission against interest by a former officer of the owner of Ultra

Corporation (the Corporation that employed petitioner), which actually
exercised control over the affairs of Ultra; and
 the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for the first time and explain
why he was unable to do so earlier.
 July 27, 1994: granted the substitution but denied the motion for leave to file motion for new
trial
 August 8, 1994: "MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL"
August 17, 1994: "MANIFESTATION AND SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT"
 OSG recommendation: Petitioner be entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the same impression
that a certain Rodolfo Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission against
interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal liability
o Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial.
o The sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration against his own interests under
Section 38, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on the culpability of his
brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the alleged confession of guilt should be
given a hard look by the Court.
o Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: prosecutors who
represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek
conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done.
 There is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be denied the same benefit.
 It becomes all the more plausible under the circumstances considering that the "People" does not
raise any objection to a new trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to be specially
commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture of impartiality.
 Petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED

179
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Rule 6.02 – Shall not use public position to advance private interests

A.C. No. 4018 March 8, 2005

OMAR P. ALI vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG

FACTS:
 Disbarment filed against Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong who was found guilty of grave misconduct while
holding the position of Register of Deeds of Marawi City
 This is an off-shoot of the administrative case earlier filed by petitioner (initially investigated by
Land Registration Authority) charging respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance
of Transfer Certificate of Title and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad
Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law
 The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved absolving respondent of all the charges brought
against him
 Pres. Ramos dismissed the respondent from service through the recommendation of DOJ
secretary:
o Exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal exaction and infidelity in the custody of
documents
o Guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of TCT and manipulating the
criminal case
 Respondent question before SC the authority and jurisdiction of the Office of the Pres. To remove
him from office
 SC: Dismissed the petition of respondent finding no grave abuse of discretion
 Petitioner filed for the disbarment case against Respondent
 Respondent:
o Nothing irregular with his issuance of TCT
o It was his ministerial duty, as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City, to act on applications
for land registration on the basis only of the documents presented by the applicants
o nothing to do with the dismissal of criminal complaint
 IBP: 2 year suspension for being guilty of grave misconduct in:
o Imprudent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821
o Manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-squatting law

180
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ISSUE: W/N respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in the
employ of the government
RULING: Yes, he is DISBARRED.
1. By the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall
apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
a. Rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for infractions he committed as a government official, he may, however, be
disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a
member of the legal profession
2. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his
knowledge of the rules governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives, respondent
had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil servant but
also to retain his membership in the bar.
3. Rule 6.02: 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.

181
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR
vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to
be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution

G.R. No. 80578 October 7, 1988

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR
vs. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman
ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution

FACTS:
 This subjects of this resolution are as follows:
o A Motion filed by Petitioner to Cite in Contempt against public respondent Special
Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-
707 and G.R. No. 80578
o A Resolution of this Court requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why
he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for
making certain public statements.
 The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in:
o Having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570
before the Sandiganbayan
o Issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the
proceedings in G.R. No. 80578, particularly in a news article of the 30 November 1987
issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe" (excerpt as follows):
 What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that while
rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, it is
difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Gonzalez told the Daily Globe in an exclusive interview.
 Gonzalez said the high tribunal's order '"eightens the people's apprehension over
the justice system in this country, especially because the people have been
thinking that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scot-free."
 While I don't wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the
Supreme Court, I am a little bit disturbed that (the order) can aggravate the
thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial,
he said.
o Court rendered decision in the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner alleging that the
Tanodbayan was no longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate
and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption against public officials and
employees following the latter’s recommendation to file criminal charges against
petitioner.
o Respondent released his MR to the press or repeated to the press the extraneous
statements against the members of the court:

182
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 He was allegedly asked to dismiss the cases against the petitioner by a leading
member of the court
o Court required Respondent to explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice why he
should not be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to administrative
sanctions for making such public statements reported in the media:
 That the Court resolution in question is merely "an offshoot of the position he had
taken that the SC Justices cannot claim immunity from suit or investigation by
government prosecutors or motivated by a desire to stop him 'from investigating
cases against some of their proteges or friends;"
 That no less than six of the members of the Court "interceded for and on behalf
of persons with pending cases before the Tanodbayan," or sought "to pressure
him to render decisions favorable to their colleagues and friends;"
 That attempts were made to influence him to go slow on Zaldivar and not to be
too hard on him and to refrain from investigating the Commission on Audit report
on illegal disbursements in the Supreme Court because it will embarass the
Court;
 That there were also attempts to cause the dismissal of cases against two
Associate Justices; and
 That the Court had dismissed judges' without rhyme or reason' and disbarred
lawyers 'without due process.

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of contempt of court

RULING: Yes. Respondent was SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law for being guilty
of both contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member
of the Bar.

1. 2 powers of the court:

a. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to
regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the
practice itself of law.
b. The Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the
furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers
and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court "necessary
for its own protection against an improper interference with the due
administration of justice".
2. Where the respondent is a lawyer, the SC's disciplinary authority over lawyers may come into play
whether or not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of
court. The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary
authority of the Court over lawyers.
3. A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called
upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in
society.
4. Respondent Gonzalez first sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the
resolution of this case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. Later on, he asked the whole

183
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the issues involved in this proceeding and to pass on
responsibility for this matter to the IBP, upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due
process from this Court, that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly.
5. It appears to the Court that for all the members to inhibit themselves from sitting on this case is to
abdicate the responsibility with which the Constitution has burdened them.
6. The respondent made serious assault against the Court and the appalling implications of such
assault for the integrity of the system of administration of justice in our country.
7. This Court is compelled to hold that the statements here made by respondent Gonzalez clearly
constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court.
8. Respondent Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What respondent
seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted
to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests.
9. It is well to recall that respondent Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court,
is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to this
Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the
Republic.
10. The responsibility of the respondent "to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court' and "not
to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing
lawyer.
11. On his defense that no injury to the judiciary has been shown, the SC ruled that proof of actual
damage sustained by a court or the judiciary in general is not essential for a finding of contempt
or for the application of the disciplinary authority of the Court.
a. What is at stake is the integrity of the judicial institutions of the country in general and of
the Supreme Court in particular.
b. The level of trust and confidence of the general public in the courts, including the court of
last resort, is not easily measured.

A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC July 29, 2002

IN RE: PUBLISHED ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN THE

PLUNDER LAW CASE HURLED BY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA

FACTS:
 The court En Banc issued resolution directing respondent Atty. Leonard De Vera to explain within
10 days from notice why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for uttering some
allegedly contemptuous statements in relation to the case involving the constitutionality of the
Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080)
o Inquirer (Nov. 6, 2001):

184
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 De Vera said he and his group were "greatly disturbed" by the rumors from
Supreme Court insiders.
 De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of
a petition filed by Estrada’s lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional
for its supposed vagueness.
o Inquirer (Nov. 19, 2001):
 "People are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged." Said lawyer
Leonard de Vera of the Equal Justice for All Movement and a leading member of
the Estrada Resign movement.
 He voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal rendering the plunder
law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions, probably more massive than
those that led to People Power II.
 De Vera warned of a crisis far worse than the "jueteng" scandal that led to People
Power II if the rumor turned out to be true. People wouldn’t just swallow any
Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong. Sovereignty must prevail.
 Respondent admitted to have uttered the above statements but denied having made those to
degrade the Court, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute.
o He was merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech when
he said that a decision by the Court declaring the Plunder Law unconstitutional "would
trigger mass actions, probably more massive than those that led to People Power II.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent is guilty of indirect contempt for his statements

RULING: Yes, he was guilty for uttering statements aimed at influencing and threatening the Court in
deciding in favor of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law; fined amounting to P20,000
1. The judiciary, as the branch of government tasked to administer justice, to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of
wrongs for the violation of said rights must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of
outside influence or pressure.
2. Rule 71, Section 3 (d) of the Revised Rules of Court: person guilty of conduct that is directed
against the dignity or authority of the court, or of an act obstructing the administration of justice
which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect can be held liable for criminal contempt
3. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and must occasionally be balanced with the requirements of
equally important public interests, such as the maintenance of the integrity of the courts and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice.
4. The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of
free speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right.
5. While a citizen may comment upon the proceedings and decisions of the court, he has no right to
attempt to degrade the court, destroy public confidence in it, and encourage the people to
disregard and set naught its orders, judgments and decrees.
6. Respondent’s utterances pressuring the Court to rule in favor of the constitutionality of the
Plunder Law or risk another series of mass actions by the public does not fall within the ambit of
constitutionally-protected speech.
a. Not fair criticisms but threats to force court to decide the issue in a particular manner

185
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

7. It is respondent’s duty as an officer of the court, to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts
and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.

186
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
Rule 3.03 – Withdrawal of partners accepting public office
SAMONTE vs. GATDULA
A.M. No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999.
Complainant: Julieta Borromeo Samonte
Respondent: Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula
Topic: Administrative Case; Grave Misconduct
FACTS:
Complainant is the authorized representative of her sister Flor, the
plaintiff in an ejectment case filed with MTC Quezon City.
A typographical error was committed in the complaint (the address of
defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63- B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City) .
An amended complaint was filed to rectify the mistake and a decision was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a motion for execution.
However, a TRO was issued, signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220,
RTC, Quezon City, where respondent is the Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the
execution of the decision of the MTC.
Complainant alleges that the issuance of the TRO was hasty and
irregular as she was never notified of the application for preliminary
injunction; that when she went to inquire about the reason for the issuance
of the TRO, respondent blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address in
the complaint for ejectment, and told her that if she wanted the execution to
proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of
respondent, at the same time giving his calling card with the name
“Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera,” otherwise she will
not be able to eject the defendant in the ejectment case. The preliminary
injunction was granted.
Respondent claimed that contrary to complainant allegations, they
were notified of the raffle and the hearing; that the application for injunctive
relief was heard before the temporary restraining order was issued; that it
was complainant who wanted to change counsel, showed him the calling
card, and asked if he could handle her case of which he refused as he was
not connected with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he chose
to remain in the judiciary; that complainant threatened that if he cannot
convince the judge to recall the writ of preliminary injunction, she will file an
administrative case against respondent and the judge. The case was referred
to Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, RTC, Quezon City, for investigation,
report and recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gatdula is guilty of grave misconduct by
187
engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official
functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
HELD: YES. WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the
private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same offense
will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion
of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of
law.
Findings of Executive Judge. For failure of the complainant to appear
at the several hearings despite notice, she failed to substantiate her
allegations in the complaint, particularly that herein respondent gave her his
calling card and tried to convince her to change her lawyer. Complainant’s
lack of interest in prosecuting this administrative case could be an indication
that her filing of the charge against the respondent is only intended to harass
the respondent for her failure to obtain a favorable decision from the Court.
However, based on the record, the calling card would show that the name of
respondent was indeed included in the law office. While respondent denied
having assumed any position in said office, the fact remains that his name is
included therein which may therefore tend to show that he has dealings with
said office. Thus, while he may not be actually and directly employed with
the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling card as a partner give
the impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an act of
solicitation and private practice which is declared unlawful under Republic
Act No. 6713. It is to be noted that complainant failed to establish by
convincing evidence that respondent actually offered to her the services of
their law office, hence, the violation may only be considered as a minor
infraction for which he must also be administratively sanctioned.
SC Decision. The Court agrees with the investigating judge that the
respondent is guilty of an infraction. While the respondent vehemently
denies the complainant’s allegations, he does not deny that his name
appears on the calling card, which admittedly came into the hands of the
complainant. Respondent does not claim that the calling card was printed
without his knowledge or consent, and the calling card carries his name
primarily. The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with
the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional
card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par.
(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” which declares it
unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others:
“(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with official functions.”
Rule 3.04 – Shall not use media to attract legal business
CRUZ vs. SALVA
G.R. No. L-12871. July 25, 1959.
Petitioner: Timoteo V. Cruz
Respondent: Francisco G. H. Salva
Topic: Rule 3.04–Shall not use media to attract legal business
FACTS:
 This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction filed by Timoteo V. Cruz against Francisco G. H. Salva, in
his capacity as City Fiscal of Pasay City, to restrain him from
continuing with the preliminary investigation he was conducting in
 connection with the killing of Manuel Monroy.
 The CFI of Pasay City found Oscar Castelo and others guilty of the
crime of murder and sentenced them to death. They all appealed
the sentence. Oscar Castelo sought a new trial, which was granted
and was again found guilty. Pending appeal, the late President
 Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case.
 Intelligence agents of the Philippine Constabulary and investigators
of Malacañang conducted the investigation for the Chief Executive,
questioned a number of people and obtained what would appear to
be confession, pointing to persons, other than those convicted and
 sentenced by the trial court.
 Counsel for Oscar Castelo and his co-defendants wrote to
respondent Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
presumably on the basis of the affidavits and confessions obtained
by those who had investigated the case at the instance of
Malacañang. After a conference, Secretary of Justice decided to
have the results of the investigation made available to counsel for
the appellants. Thereafter, counsel for the appellants filed a motion
for new trial with the SC. Action on said motion for new trial was
deferred until the case was studied and determined on the merits.
In the meantime, the Chief had sent to the Office of Fiscal Salva
copies of the same affidavits and confessions and written
statements, and respondent Salva proceeded to conduct a
reinvestigation. The affidavits and confessions sent to Salva
implicated petitioner Cruz, even picturing him as the instigator and
188
mastermind in the killing of Manuel Monroy.
 According to the petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the
investigation was conducted not in respondent's office but in the
session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to
accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding,
including members of the press. A number of microphones were
installed. Reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy
taking pictures. Not only this, but in the course of the investigation,
on two occasions, respondent, addressing the newspapermen said,
"Gentlemen of the press, if you want to ask questions I am willing to
let you do so and the questions asked will be reproduced as my
own."

 The newspapers gave wide publicity to what took place during the
investigation, and this involved headlines and extensive recitals,
narrations of and comments on the testimonies given by the
witnesses as well as vivid descriptions of the incidents that took
place during the investigation. It seemed as though the case which
had already been tried and finally determined by the lower court and
which was under appeal and advisement by the SC, was being
retried and redetermined in the press.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fiscal Salva violated Rule 3.04.
HELD: YES.
 Respondent is publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled
for and wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and
allowed in connection with his investigation, which we consider and
find to be contempt of court; and, furthermore, he is warned that a
repetition of the same would meet with a more severe disciplinary
action and penalty.

 If, as contended by respondent, the purpose of said investigation
was only to acquaint himself with and evaluate the evidence
involved in the affidavits and confessions of Sergio Eduardo, Cosme
Camo and others by questioning them, then he could well have
conducted the investigation in his office, quietly, unobtrusively and
without much fanfare, much less publicity.

 Why respondent was willing to abdicate and renounce his right and
prerogative to make and address the questions to the witnesses under
investigation, in favor of the members of the press, is difficult for the
Court to understand, unless he wanted to curry favor with the press and
publicize his investigation as much as possible.

 Respondent committed a grievous error and poor judgment. His
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
actuations in this regard went well beyond the bounds of prudence,
discretion and good taste. It is bad enough to have such undue
publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the
authorities, even when it is being tried in court; but when said
publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the
case is on appeal and is pending consideration by the SC, the whole
thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent.
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal
system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate
in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students,
and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence
EN BANC
[B.M. 850. October 2, 2001]
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and
reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal
Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the
following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence,
189
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the
approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE
Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the implementation of
the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance
with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not
exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six
(36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE
Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6)
credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills
equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution
equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral
advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and
international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall
begin not later than three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except
for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for
thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous
compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the
MCLE requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups,
namely:
(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR)
or Metro Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to
Compliance Group 2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned
to Compliance Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity
wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the
MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after
establishment of the program. Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar
after the establishment of the program shall be assigned to the appropriate
Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the date of
admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the
first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same
day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period
after admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with
the program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period
after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a
number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to
the number of months remaining in the compliance period in which the
member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to
complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the
190
number of months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours
shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT
HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE requirement
under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyers participation in the
MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for computing credit units
and the supporting documents required therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE
DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND
OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/
ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS
EDITOR
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY

INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/

191
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU

CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED

Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER based on actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest
COMPLIANCE PERIOD one-quarter hour reported in decimals.

Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:

BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR (a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
DIRECTOR
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory
or non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may
be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences,
conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor,
commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in
approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non -participatory credit units. Non-participatory credit
units may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or
accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member,
which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the members practice or
employment.
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the
Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;

192
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.

193
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of
Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy;
and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of
the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A
member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption
(such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven
expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any of the
requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance
with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first
day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections
1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of
the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing
regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal
education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the
provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity
meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically
mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education
activities must meet the following standards:
194
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal
subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g.,
accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice
law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional
experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written
materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be
distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as
to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be
done by the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group
may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be
renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing legal
education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be
accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers
shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained
by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider
shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the members
signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official
record of attendance shall contain the
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the
time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education activity. A
copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the
amount of ________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics,
etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities
prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by
the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying
the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing
legal education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP
Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for
purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the
activity, the time devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The
provider shall make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE
COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation
Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy
furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this
program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be
subject to appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider
may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails
to comply with any of the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide
satisfactory education activities for the preceding period.
195
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any
provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the
MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF
PROVIDER
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education
activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the appropriate
fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE
Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He
shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the
education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the
exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not
later than the day after the end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall
maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the
MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the members by
the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of
attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non -participatory activity
shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule
5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall
constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance
period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including
evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of
such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance
notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended
to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -
Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the
specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of
notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing
compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following
language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE
OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND
SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE
COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use
this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit
units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the
prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement
are earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement.
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is
in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-
compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply
with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has
expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the
recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a member
for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission on Bar
Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
196
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to
accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she is
listed as a delinquent member.
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT
SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall
be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non -compliance fee. A member may
attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the period of
non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These
credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance
period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance
in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period
requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The
termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature
AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five
(5) members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and
four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial
Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and associations
of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They
shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall
receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and
adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the
approval of the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board
of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the
Supreme Court.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme
Court, the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary
to perform the record -keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other
necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit
to the Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to
establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000,
following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-
Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on official leave.
EN BANC
[B.M. No. 1922. June 3, 2008.]
RE: NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.
RESOLUTION
"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts
the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. –
The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and
Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of
the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on
Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the
bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial
bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the
immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
197
expunction of the pleadings from the records.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura,
JJ., on official leave.
EN BANC
[B.M. NO. 1922. January 14, 2014]
RE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION [MCLE] BOARD TO INDICATE IN ALL PLEADINGS FILED
WITH THE COURTS THE COUNSEL'S MCLE CERTIFICA TE OF
COMPLIANCE OR CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14, 2014 in the
above-cited administrative matter, the Court RESOLVED, upon the
recommendation of the MCLE Governing Board, to:
(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase “Failure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and
the expunction of the pleadings from the records” and replacing it with
“Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to
appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”; and
(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosure of current MCLE
compliance/exemption number in the pleadings:
(i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first
offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense and P4,000.00 for the
third offense;
(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent
member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No.
850 and its implementing rules and regulations; and
(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case
and the client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new
counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return of fees
already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
Canon 6 - These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in
the discharge of their tasks.
A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON
(Register of Deeds)
FACTS:
 Complaint against Atty. Renomeron for the latter's irregular
actuations with regard to the application of V & G Better Homes
Subdivision, Inc. for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of Absolute
 Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision
 Charges:
o Neglecting or refusing to act within reasonable time for the
registration of DoAS with Assignment and the issuance and
transfer to the GSIS
o Conduct unbecoming of public official
o Dishonesty
o Extortion
o Directly receiving pecuniary or material benefit
o Causing undue injury to GSIS through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
o Gross ignorance of the law and procedure
 V & G had requested several times the respondent but no action:
o January 15, 1987: to register some DoS with assignment
(in favor of the GSIS)
o February 16, 1987: to approve or deny registration of the
uniform deeds of absolute sale with assignment
 Respondent suspended the registration of the documents pending
compliance by V & G with a certain "special arrangement" between
them
o Provide respondent with a weekly round trip ticket from
Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per
trip, or in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon City
house and lot by V & G or GSIS representatives
 The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money of
 P2,000) was sent to respondent through his niece.
o Respondent imposed additional registration requirement for
failure to provide pocket money
198
 May 22, 1987: Respondent formally denied registration of the
transfer on the ground that the deeds of absolute sale with
 assignment were ambiguous as to parties and subject matter
 National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration or
NLTDRA [now the Land Registration Authority or LRA]: the
 questioned documents were registrable
o Respondent continued to sit on the DoS with assignment
 Filed with NLTDRA administrative charges
o Respondent denied charges of extortion and of directly
receiving pecuniary or material
 Investigator recommended dropping the charges of:
o Dishonesty
o Causing undue injury to a party through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
o Gross ignorance of the law and procedure
 NLTDRA Administrator recommended to Secretary of Justice:
o guilty of simple neglect of duty
o be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents
presented to him for registration
o be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely
 Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice Ordonez to
 President Cory Aquino- Respondent was found:
o Guilty of grave misconduct
o Dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits
and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in the government
 Petitioner also filed with SC disbarment case against Respondent
ISSUE: W/N respondent may also be disciplined by SC for his
malfeasances as a public official
RULING: Yes. Respondent DISBARRED.
1. Misconduct as public official= violation of lawyer’s oath
a. Lawyer’s oath: duty to delay no man for money or
malice
b. Violation is ground for suspension, disbarment or
other disciplinary action
2. Person admitted to the Bar takes an oath and becomes “OFFICER
OF THE COURT”: assist the courts in the proper, fair, speedy,
and efficient administration of justice
3. Canon 6 of CPR applies to lawyers in government services
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
4. This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent,
honorable, and reliable" may practice the profession of law
5. The acts of dishonesty and oppression of Renomeron committed as
a public official demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and
noble calling of the law
A.C. No. 6788 August 23, 2007
DIANA RAMOS vs. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG
FACTS:
 Disbarment against respondent for multiple violation of the CPR
 1992: Petitioner sought the assistance of respondent in filing civil
and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita
Jovellanos
o Petitioner gave 8500, but receipt was only for 5000
 Petitioner tried to attend scheduled hearing but was told to just wait
 outside the courtroom.
 Respondent would come out after several hours and inform
petitioner that the hearing was cancelled and rescheduled
o Happened 6 times but still charging petitioner 350 per
 appearance in court
 Petitioner personally inquired about the status of her cases in the
 trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna
o Respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses
and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO)
 Respondent’s defense:
o Petitioner knew he was in government service
o He declined request of Petitioner since he works for PAO
and petitioner is not an indigent
o Advised petitioner to consult Atty. Ungson who did not
accept the case for failure to meet the acceptance fee
o Petitioner only asked respondent to keep the 5000 for Atty.
Ungson’s fee
o Apr 15, 1994: Respondent resigned from PAO
o Sept 2014: Respondent agreed to prepare the complaint
being in private practice but lost contact with petitioner
 IBP Board of Governors recommended: Suspension fro 3 years and
 return the 5,000 with interest; violated:
o Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
199
o
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from a client.
o Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service
which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to
render. However, he may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel
a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
ISSUE: W/N Respondent is guilty of violation CPR
RULING: Yes, DISBARRED for violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule
1.1 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of CPR; return 5000 with interest
1. Lawyers in government service are expected to be more
conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public
scrutiny; not only members of the bar but also public servants
who owe utmost fidelity to public service
2. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees- prohibited acts among others:
a. Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
not engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with their official function
3. Respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a
receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO
a. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-
client relationship
4. The receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while
he was still a government lawyer.
5. Respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the
complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission
a. PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal
assistance to indigent litigants
6. Violated Canon 1 of CPR when he accepted the complainant's
cases and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal
services
7. Respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant
constituting dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to
do any falsehood
a. Failed to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses
b. Led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action
against the Jovellanoses
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
c. Made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked
the complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings
8. Lawyers in public office are expected to:
a. refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the
trust and confidence of the citizenry in government
b. uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing
A.C. No. 7314 August 25, 2015
MARY ANN T. FLORES vs. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR. (Labor
Arbiter)
FACTS:
 Complaint for illegal dismissal filed with NLRC by Jose Roberto
Flores (Flores), the husband of petitioner against JMJB
International Services, Inc.
 Respondent: dismissed the case on a finding that Flores had
 voluntarily resigned from employment
 NLRC: dismissed for being filed out of time
 CA decision (final and executory):
o Appeal to NLRC timely filed
o Granted monetary awards to Flores
 July 2003: Petitioner filed Motion for Execution of CA decision
 November 2003: Petitioner’s counsel received from the CA a Notice
 of Transmittal of Records of Case
 September 2004: Flores filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation
praying that the motion be resolved with dispatch
o the records of the case were still being requested from the
Records Section of the NLRC
o Certification by Records officer of NLRC: the case records
had been sent for archiving sometime in 2003 and were
difficult to retrieve
 Nov 2005: Respondent issued Writ of Execution against JMJB
(already amended its name to F.O. Maidin International Services,
Inc.)
o Respondent refused to act on the Motion to Amend Writ of
Execution
 Petitioner filed admin case against respondent for violation of the
 Lawyer's Oath, CPR, and other ethical standards
o Act of archiving the records of the labor case and refusal to
amend the Writ of Execution
200
 IBP recommended: guilty and must be disbarred
ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, CPR,
and other ethical standards
RULING: Yes, he was guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR; DISBARRED
1. There is a clear neglect of duty and ignorance of the law on the
part of respondent
a. failure to immediately act on the Motion for Execution
b. Refusal to amend the Writ of Execution despite having
been informed of the amendment of the name
2. It was through his fault that the records of the case were lost;
reflects his lack of due diligence and care in the custody of official
documents.
3. It was inexcusable and out of the ordinary for respondent to allow a
period of more than two years to lapse before acting on the motion
which amounts to gross misconduct as the unnecessary delay
has caused prejudice to complainant
4. Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful
conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of
justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause.
5. As a Labor Arbiter, respondent is a public officer who must at all
times be accountable to the people, whom he must serve with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
a. Breach of accountability to complainant and the public in
general
6. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer to delay no man for
money or malice, and abandoned his professional responsibility to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
Rule 6.01 – Primary duty of public prosecutor to see that justice is done
G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995 EDILBERTO M.
CUENCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
 July 6, 1994: Petitioner filed a pleading entitled "SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL" setting forth, in relation to the motion for new
 trial:
o The Motion for New Trial shall be grounded on newly
discovered evidence and excusible (sic) negligence, and
shall be supported by affidavits of:
 an officer of private complainant corporation who
will exculpate petitioner;
 an admission against interest by a former officer of
the owner of Ultra Corporation (the Corporation that
employed petitioner), which actually exercised
control over the affairs of Ultra; and

 the petitioner wherein he will assert innocence for
the first time and explain why he was unable to do
 so earlier.
 July 27, 1994: granted the substitution but denied the motion for
 leave to file motion for new trial
 August 8, 1994: "MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED MOTION FOR
 NEW TRIAL"
 August 17, 1994: "MANIFESTATION AND SECOND MOTION TO
 ADMIT"
 OSG recommendation: Petitioner be entitled to a new trial,
proceeding from the same impression that a certain Rodolfo
Cuenca's (petitioner's brother) sworn statement is an admission
against interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from
 criminal liability
o Ordinarily, it is too late at this stage to ask for a new trial.
o The sworn statement of Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration
 against his own interests under Section 38, Rule 130,
Revised Rules of Court and it casts doubt on the culpability
of his brother Edilberto Cuenca, the petitioner. Hence, the
alleged confession of guilt should be given a hard look by
the Court.
201
o Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility: prosecutors who represent the People of the
Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek
conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done.
 There is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be denied
 the same benefit.
 It becomes all the more plausible under the circumstances
considering that the "People" does not raise any objection to a new
trial, for which reason the Solicitor General ought to be specially
commended for displaying once again such statesmanlike gesture
 of impartiality.
 Petitioner's Motion For New Trial is hereby GRANTED
Rule 6.02 – Shall not use public position to advance private interests
A.C. No. 4018 March 8, 2005
OMAR P. ALI vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG
FACTS:
 Disbarment filed against Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong who was found
guilty of grave misconduct while holding the position of Register of
Deeds of Marawi City
 This is an off-shoot of the administrative case earlier filed by
petitioner (initially investigated by Land Registration Authority)
charging respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance
of Transfer Certificate of Title and manipulating the criminal
complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for
 violation of the Anti-Squatting Law
 The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved absolving respondent of
 all the charges brought against him
 Pres. Ramos dismissed the respondent from service through the
 recommendation of DOJ secretary:
o Exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal exaction
 and infidelity in the custody of documents
o Guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of
 TCT and manipulating the criminal case
 Respondent question before SC the authority and jurisdiction of the
 Office of the Pres. To remove him from office
 SC: Dismissed the petition of respondent finding no grave abuse of
discretion
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
  Petitioner filed for the disbarment case against Respondent
 Respondent:
o Nothing irregular with his issuance of TCT
o It was his ministerial duty, as the Register of Deeds of
Marawi City, to act on applications for land registration on
the basis only of the documents presented by the
applicants
o nothing to do with the dismissal of criminal complaint
 IBP: 2 year suspension for being guilty of grave misconduct in:
o Imprudent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-2821
o Manipulating the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-
squatting law
ISSUE: W/N respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed
while he was in the employ of the government
RULING: Yes, he is DISBARRED.
1. By the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the
conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers in government service in
the discharge of their official tasks.
a. Rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he
committed as a government official, he may, however, be
disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a
violation of his oath a member of the legal profession
2. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi
City and employing his knowledge of the rules governing land
registration for the benefit of his relatives, respondent had clearly
demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a
civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar.
3. Rule 6.02: 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.
JOVITO OLAZO v. JUSTICE DANTE TINGA
AM 10-5—7-SC Dec. 7, 2010
FACTS:
 Petitioner filed a sales application covering a parcel of land which was
previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and
 declared open for disposition pursuant to Proclamation No.
2476 (Jan. 7, 1986) and Proclamation No. 172 (Oct. 16, 1987) 
202
 To implement Proc. No. 172, Memorandum No. 119 was issed,
creating a Committee on Awards to study, evaluate and make a
recommendation on the applications to purchase the lands
 The committee was headed by the Director of lands and
respondent was one of the committee members, in his official
capacity as Congressman of Taguig and Pateros
 Petitioner claimed that respondent abused his position as
congressman and member of the committee because he exerted
undue pressure and influence over the petitioner’s father to contest
the sales application and claim the subject land for himself

 Petitioner also claimed that respondent brokered the transfer of
rights of the land to Jeffrey Rodriguez, the nephew of respondent’s
 deceased wife
 As a result of respondent’s abuse of position, the sales application
of petitioner was denied and the conveyance of rights was
subsequently given to Jeffrey

 Respondent denied petitioner’s claims
ISSUE: WON respondent violated rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: NO
 Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge
of his duties as a government official
 Respondent cannot be held liable under rule 6.02 since the
provision applies to lawyers in the government service who are
allowed by law to engage in private law practice and to those who,
though prohibited from engaging in the practice of law, have
friends, former associates and relatives who are in the practice of
law

 Respondent already completed his term in Congress and his stint in
the committee on awards when he represented Joseph Jeffrey
 Rodriguez
 There is an absence of proof that the respondent abused his
position in the manner defined under rule 6.02 of CPR
o Records do not show if the petitioner’s sales application
was ever brought before the committee on Awards as it
was pending before the DENR for conflicting claims of
Miguel Olazo and Rodriguez
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
oPetitioner’s allegation that respondent orchestrated the
efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the
orchestration was undertaken
o Other documents executed by Miguel Olazo supporting his
claim that the respondent exerted undue pressure and
influence over Miguel do not contain any reference to the
alleged pressure or force as Manuel had no personal
knowledge, other than what Miguel told him, of the fore
allegedly exerted
 Even granting that respondent’s act fell within the practice of law,
there were no sufficient evidence to show that the legal
 representation was made before the Committee on Awards
 Petition is DISMISSED
Rule 6.03 – shall not , after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service
Republic Act No. 6713 February 20, 1989
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO
UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING
A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR
EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
Xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials
and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any
203
private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise
which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
xxx
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the
employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely
release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph
(k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be
punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or
temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting
business in any form with the Government.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED GUTIERREZ
AC 6707 March 24, 2006
FACTS:
 Petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent
alleging that while respondent was still connected with the Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation (BID), she and her sons (all
American citizens) applied for Philippine visas under sec. 13(g) of
 the Immigration Law
 Respondent said to her that their visa application shall be favorably
acted upon in exchange of depositing a certain sum of money for a
period of 1 year

 Believing that the deposits were necessarily required by law,
petitioner deposited with respondent the total amount of US$
20,000 and respondent even gave them receipts/ vouchers as
 proofs but failed to give the OR despite demands
 After a year, petitioner returned and demanded the return of the
deposited amount but to no avail
 World Mission for Jesus (petitioner was a member) sent a demand
letter to respondent and respondent explained the reasons for the
 delay
 Respondent enclosed 2 bank checks postdated but when
petitioners deposited them, the checks were dishonored for lack of
fund

 Petitioner filed a disbarment complaint in the commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP
 Investigating commissioner recommended the disbarment of
respondent stating that it is impossible that OR was not given to
petitioner if the amount was fully deposited with the BID and only
petty cash vouchers were issued
ISSUE: WON respondent violated canon 6 of the CPR
HELD: YES – DISBARRED
 The fact that lawyers in the government service in the discharge of
their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice, thus, want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office
 Respondent’s acts are more despicable ∀ not only did he
misappropriate the money of the complainant; worse, he had the
gall to prepare receipts with the letterhead of the BID and issued
checks to cover up his misdeeds
204
 Respondent’s act of asking money from complainant in
consideration of the latter’s pending application for visas is violative
of Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts
– said acts likewise constitute a breach of rule 6.02 of the code which
 bars lawyers in government service from promoting 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
 Respondent is DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to
return the amount he received from petitioner with legal interest from
his receipt of the money until payment
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO
AC 3701 March 28, 1995
FACTS:
 PNB charged respondent, former Asst. Vice President of the Asset
Management Group of PNB with violation of canon 6 of the CPR by
appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with PNB
in which respondent during his employment with said bank, had
 intervened
 While respondent was still the Asst. VP:
o He participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in faor
of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets
from the DMC Man Division Compound and a civil action
arose from the transaction
o he intervened in the handling of a loan account of spouses
Almeda with PNB by writing demand letters to the spouses
 Respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy
but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the RTC
decision, and alleging that he did not participate in the litigation of
the case before the court

 With respect to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged
that he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while
the law firm "Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as
counsel of record, the case is actually handled only
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
by Atty. Pedro Ferrer, averring that he did not enter into partnership
with Atty. Ferrer, nor with the other lawyers named therein
 The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
 recommendation
 IBP discovered that respondent was previously fined by this Court
in the amount of P1,000.00 in connection with G.R. No. 94456
entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for
forum shopping, where respondent appeared as counsel for
 petitioner Milagros
 Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and
Associates."
 IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise
ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of
complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal
weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the said
 clients to seek his professional service
 IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for 3 years
ISSUE: WON Respondent violated Canon 6 of the CPR
HELD: YES
 Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now
seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case against his
former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled
while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting
 interests
 It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by
express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to
 oppose
 "Communications between attorney and client are, in a great
number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled
relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the
complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an
attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to
the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might
only further prejudice the complainant's cause."
205
 Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S.
CEDO from the practice of law for YEARS, effective immediately.
ATTY. RUTILLO PASOK v. ATTY. FELIPE ZAPATOS
AC No. 7388 Oct. 19, 2016
FACTS:
 This is an administrative case concerning the respondent, a retired
judge who took on the case that he had intervened in during his
incumbency on the Bench. The complainant was the counsel of
record of the plaintiff in the case. The charge specified that the
respondent was guilty of "representing adverse interest, illegal
practice of law, conduct and (sic) becoming as a former member of
the bench and conduct unbecoming in violation of the canons of
legal ethics with prayer for disbarment

 Complainant alleged that respondent was the former Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 35, Ozamis City and
retired as such. But before his appointment as RTC Judge, he was
 the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
10th Judicial Division, Tangub City where he presided [over] a Forcible
Entry case and the complainant was the counsel of Rupinta and the
decision was rendered against him by respondent

 while respondent was still the Presiding Judge, another civil complaint
was filed by Ronald Rupinta with his mother, Anastacia Rupinta, as
co-plaintiff, against Carmen Alfire and Pacifico Conol for Declaration
of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Reconveyance of Ownership,
Accounting of Rents and Fruits and Attorney's Fees and Damages with
 Petition tor the Appointment of a Receiver
 the aforesaid case hibernated and respondent was appointed
Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35, Ozamis City
 the newly appointed Presiding Judge Rodolfo L. Vapor, issued an
Order informing the parties on the aforesaid case whether they were
amenable for him to render judgment on the case of which
complainant's client agreed and filed their Memorandum but
complainant was surprised when he received a Manifestation from the
defendants that they are now represented by respondent, the former
 judge who once presided over the aforesaid case
 Judge Vapor, instead of rendering judgment based on the merits and
pieces of evidence already presented, issued an Order dismissing
the complaint on the ground that the complaint being
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
denominated as an annulment of a Deed of Sale, is by nature a
claim beyond pecuniary estimation, hence the court has no
jurisdiction
 Despite the warning of the complainant that the appearance of
respondent is highly illegal, immoral, unethical and adverse to the
interest of the public, respondent, being the previous presiding
judge, continued on with his appearance for the appellees by filing a
Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Memorandum. On appeal,
Judge Machacon, reversed the Decision of Judge Vapor sustaining
the stand of the client of respondent that the original jurisdiction of
 the case is vested with the MTCC, Tangub City
 While the aforesaid appealed case was pending before Judge
Machacon, complainant filed a Motion to Expunge from the Court
Records the Memorandum filed by the Defendants-Appellees
through their counsel Ex-MTC and RTC Judge Felipe G. Zapatos,
on the ground that as the former presiding judge of the MTCC,
Tangub City, he is, disqualified to appear as counsel for the
 defendants
 Respondent raised as his defense that he cannot be charged nor
penalized of any violation as the counsel of the defendants because
when he rendered the first judgment in the Forcible Entry case, he
believes he was completely in absolute neutrality and justified his
appearance as counsel for the defendants on the ground that he is
encountering extreme poverty due to the absence of adequate
income and as a source of livelihood he was constrained to handle
 the aforesaid case
 Respondent admits that complainant filed Civil Case No. 330
entitled "Rupinta vs. Conol" before the MTCC, Tangub City where
respondent was the presiding judge. As a result of that case,
respondent rendered a decision dismissing the same on 23
September 1993 and after it was dismissed, another civil case was
filed for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale,
Reconveyance of Ownership, Accounting of Rents and Fruits and
 Attorney's Fees and Damages
 Respondent as Presiding Judge inhibited himself from conducting
the trial of the two (2) cases as provided for in his Order dated 17
January 1996 on the ground that complainant as counsel for the
plaintiffs and petitioner in the aforesaid cases have doubted the
 absolute neutrality or impartiality of respondent
 After inhibiting himself from these cases, respondent was promoted
as Regional Trial Court Judge of Branch 35, Ozamis City on 28
October 1997 until he retired from the Judiciary
206
 Thereafter, on account of the fact that respondent needs income in
order to survive or he would die of starvation, he engaged in the
private practice of law.
 Four (4) years after he retired from the judiciary and more than ten
(1 0) years after he inhibited himself from conducting trial on the
Civil Case, respondent filed a Manifestation for the defendants in
 the said civil case
 IBP-CBD issued its Rep01i and Recommendation dated July 9,
2008, whereby it found and held the respondent guilty of violating
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and
 as a member of the Bar for one (1) month
 IBP Board of Governors approved the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD
ISSUE: WON Respondent violated canon 6, rule 6.03 of the CPR
HELD: YES
 To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the respondent must be shown to have accepted the
engagement or employment in relation to a matter that, by virtue of
his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the
outcome of the proceedings

 respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC of Tangub
City, presided over the case before eventually inhibiting himself
from further proceedings. His act of presiding constituted
intervention within the meaning of the rule whose text does not
mention the degree or length of the intervention in the particular
case or matter

 it is also plain and unquestionable that Canon 36, from which the
canon was derived, prohibited him as a former member of the Bench
from handling any case upon which he had previously acted in a
judicial capacity. In this context, he not only exercised the power to
influence the outcome of the proceedings but also had a direct hand
in bringing about the result of the case by virtue of his having the
power to rule on it

 The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The
respondent could not accept work or employment from anyone that
would involve or relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a
judge except on behalf of the body or authority that he served during
his public employment and the restriction as applied to him
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
lasted beyond his tenure in relation to the matters in which he had
intervened as judge
 Although the respondent removed himself from the cases once his
neutrality and impartiality were challenged, he ultimately did not
stay away from the cases following his retirement from the Bench,
 and acted thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of the defendants
 ATTY. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS is guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ∀
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1)
MONTH effective immediately upon receipt of this decision, with
warning that a similar offense by him will be dealt with more
severely
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity oand dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar
In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 491 (6 October 1989)
 Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections and Section 12[d]
FACTS:
 In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International
Convention Center, the newly-elected officers were set to take their
 oath of office on July 4,1989 before the Supreme Court en banc
 However, disturbed by the widespread reports received by so
memembers of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or
participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in
the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and
overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the
office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo,
Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government
planes,and the officious intervention of certain public officials to
influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-
Laws which prohibit such activities Supreme Court en banc exercising
its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar,resolved to suspend the
oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the
 reports.
  Media reports done by Mr.Jurado, Mr. Mauricio and Mr. Locsin in
 the newspapers opened the avenue for investigation on the
207
anomalies in the IBP Elections.
 2The following violations are; Prohibited campaigning and
solicitation of

 votes by the candidates for president, executive vice-president, the
officers or
 candidates for the House of Delegates and Board of Governors, Use
of PNB plane in the campaign, Giving free transportation to out-of-
town delegates and alternates, Formation of tickets and single
slates, Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, and
entertainment to delegates, Campaigning by labor officials for Atty.
Violeta Drilon, Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any
member, Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more
than one page of legal size sheet of paper, Causing distribution of
such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized
by the officer presiding at the election and Inducing or influencing a
member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate

 The prohibited acts are against the IBP By-Laws more specifically
Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-
political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Sec. 14.
of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules:
Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any
of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 [Prohibited
Acts and Practices Relative to Elections) of the By-laws of the
Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a
candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to
the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the
By-laws of the Integrated Bar
ISSUE: WON THE CANDIDATES VIOLATED SEC 14 OF THE IBP BY
LAWS and MADE A TRAVESTY OF THE IDEA THAT “NON POLITICAL
BAR” ENSHRINED IN SEC 4 OF THE BY LAWS
RULING:
 It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the
1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar
Council composed of seven (7) members among whom is "a
representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked to participate in the
selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
judiciary.
 Court explains that because of this task, the positions in the IBP
have become an avenue for members to gain power.
 Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The
  The Court hereby ORDERS:
1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby
annulled.
2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of
Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar
Matter No. 287) of the following national officers:
(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
(b) the IBP president; and
(c) the executive vice-president, be repealed, this Court
being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By-Laws of the
IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.
3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-
President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the governors of
the nine [91 IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47,
Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored. The right of automatic
succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the
expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this Court's
resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby
restored.
4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President
shall automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming board of
governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among
themselves. The position of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among
the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run for
election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the
rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have been
completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall
have a President and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Board
of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as
practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex oficio Vice-
President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with
the consent of the Board.
208
6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:
(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the
Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the House of Delegates.'
7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of
Delegates is hereby repealed
8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine
(9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the
Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each
region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that
region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different
Chapters in the region.
9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:
Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1)
month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall
elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as
possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.
10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following
provision as part of the first paragraph:
No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership
shall be held prior to any election in an election year.
11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI should
be as they are hereby deleted.
All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the
Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that
are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified.
12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9)
IBP regions within three (3) months, after the promulgation of the Court's
resolution in this case. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of
Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among
themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-president.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
In these special elections, the candidates in the election of the national
officers held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this
Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those
identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the irregularities
attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not present themselves
as candidate for any position.
13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed by
the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear that the
dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due time of
such further and other measures as are warranted in the premises.
Santos, Jr. v. Llamas (2000)
(nonpayment of IBP membership dues)
Doctrines:
Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay his annual dues. Subject to
the provisions of Section 12 of Rule 139-A, default in the payment of annual
dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated
Bar, and default in such payment for 1 year shall be a ground for the removal
of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
Facts:
 This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas
 In a letter-complaint to SC, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a
member of the bar, alleged that Llamas, also a member of the bar,
has not been indicating his proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data
(date and place of issuance) in his pleadings; that he only indicates
“IBP Rizal 259060”; that he has been using this for at least 3 years
already; and that he has not been paying his IBP dues as evidenced
by a certification from the President of IBP that Llamas” last payment
 of his IBP dues was in 1991.
 Llamas admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice
 without having paid his IBP dues.
 He likewise admits that he indicated “IBP-Rizal 259060” in the
209
pleadings he filed in court, at least for the years 1995, 1996, and
1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter
membership and receipt number for the years in which those
pleadings were filed.
 He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice
and that he believes in good faith that he is exempt from the
payment of taxes, such as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, §4 as
 a senior citizen since 1992.
 Being thus exempt, he honestly believes in view of his detachment
from a total practice of law, but only in a limited practice, that the
subsequent payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar is
covered by such exemption. In fact, he never exercised his rights
 as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
 IBP passed a resolution finding him guilty and ordering his
suspension for three months. Issues:
ISSUE: W/N Llamas is guilty.
HELD: YES
1. Llamas is guilty of misrepresentation in his pleadings and of failure to pay
his IBP dues.
a. Llamas can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it
does not matter that his practice is
 “limited.” 

Rule 139-A provides: Sec
. 9. Membership dues. - Every member
of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board
of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme
Court
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions
of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues
for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall
be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys. 

b. His tax exemption does not include the payment of membership or
association dues. While
 it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior
citizens “exemption from the payment of individual income
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU

taxes” subject to conditions, the exemption does not include September 21, 2003 on the subject of Mercantile Law, the Court Resolved
payment of membership or association dues. 
 to:

c. Llamas has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
By indicating “IBP- Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues
to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT.
(a) NULLIFY the examination on this subject, in view of the Court's
findings which affect the integrity of the examination in Mercantile
Law; and
(b) HOLD another examination in Mercantile Law on Saturday October
4, 2003, eight o'clock in the evening (being the earliest available time
and date) at the same venue (De La Salle University, Taft Avenue,
Manila.)
This resolution is without prejudice to any further action the Court may
take on the matter."
Rule 7.01 – Shall be answerable for false statement in application to Bar
Rule 7.02 - Shall not support any unqualified Bar applicant
Rule
 7.03 - Shall not engage in conduct adversely affecting the profession

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing "Bar Matter No. 1222. - Re: 2003 Bar Examinations.- Acting on the report and
of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any recommendation by the Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee
artifice. concerning the examination conducted on the morning of

While still recognizing that Llamas” failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings indeed merit the most severe penalty, in
view of Llamas” advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues and
plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court imposed upon
him the penalty of 1- year suspension from the practice of law or until he has
paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, B.M. 1222 (4 February 2004)

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court

En Banc dated September 23, 2003.

210
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Zaguirre v. Atty. Alfredo Castillo,

A.C. No. 4921 (6 March 2003)

 DOCTRINE: Definition of Gross Immorality: Immoral conduct is

defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as
to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency

FACTS:

 Disbarment case against the complainant for gross immoral

 conduct.
 Respondent, being married with 3 children had an affair with the

211
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
complainant from 1995-1997 when both were working In NBI and
complainant was reviewing for the bar, which he passed.
 Complainant found out that respondent Is already married when the
 wife visited the office and confronted her.
 The complainant got pregnant. Castillo was already a lawyer during
this time, executed an affidavit of acknowledgment of his child with
the complainant and his promise for support, however he suddenly
 started to refuse giving support to the kid.
 Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what
transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he
never represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI
that he was already married and with children, complainant is almost
10 years older than him and knew beforehand that he is already
married, the child borne by complainant is not his, because the
complainant was seeing other men at the time they were having an
 affair.
 He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10, 1997
but explains that he only did so to save complainant from
embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the time that complainant
 was seeing other men.
 IBP – recommended indefinite suspension after finding him guilty of
gross immoral conduct, which the court concedes to.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is guilty if gross immoral conduct:
RULING: Yes.
  Code of professional responsibility provides:
- Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support
the activities of the Integrated Bar.
- Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
 Immoral conduct is defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant,
or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct
must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That
212
is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency
 Court also finds the complainant showing of gross immorality after
examining the letter which states “Ayoko ng umabot tayo sa kung
saan-saan pa. All your officemates, e.g., Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and
others (say) that I am the look like(sic) of your daughter. Heres my
bargain. I will help you in supporting your daughter, but I cannot
promise fix amount for monthly support of your daughter. However
 it shall not be less than P500 but not more than P1,000”
 In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in
 castigating a judge stated that:
...even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the
strict standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession.
Certainly, fathering children by a woman other than his lawful wife
 fails to meet these standards
 Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way
 below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.
 Lastly, The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of
the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules
of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a
member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law.
Pacao v. Atty. Sinamar Limos,
A.C. No. 11246 (14 June 2016)
FACTS:
 Complainant’s wife was former VAULT COSTUDIAN AT BHF
 Pawnshop who was charged with qualified theft.
 Atty Limos here was the lawyer for BHF.
 Complainant initiated a negotiation with BHF through atty. Limos to
buy peace. So the negotiation went on and the parties agreed that
that complainant’s wife will pay an amount of 530, 000.00 and will
pay an initial amount of 200,000.00 which will be received by the
counsel of BHF.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
 October 2009, complainant gave the initial amount to Atty Limos
who gave him an acknowledgment receipt.

 June 2010, complainant met with the BHF’s representative who
informed him that Atty. Limos was no longer representing them and
that he isn’t authorized to receive any amount and settle for them
 and that BHF never received the initial amount of 200,000.00
 Complainant now sent a demand letter for the return of the initial
 payment but the latter refused to do so.
 Hence, a disbarment case was filed with IBP.
 Respondent failed to file an answer, did not attend the mandatory
 conference, also did not submit her position paper.
 Investigating commission recommends the disbarment of Atty.
Limos for committing fraud and deceit by not informing the
complainant that she no longer represents BHF.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Limos committed grave misconduct and willful
insubordination and therefore should be disbarred
RULING:
 YES. The court notes this this is the 3 rd administrative case against
 the respondent and she has already been suspended twice.
 Obviously, the fact that she has been suspended twice, the third
 case exacerbates her offense.
 Court notes that she fails to demonstrate the integrity and morality
demanded for legal profession. This was shown when she chose to
ignore the court’s notices to that warrants her explanation.
 Clearly, the present case falls under sec 27, rule 138.
 Court stressed that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege.
A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013
ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WESTERN VISAYAS, REGIONAL
OFFICE (NBI-WEVRO), FOR SAN PEDRO, ILOILO CITY, v. ATTY.
SALVADOR N. PE, JR., ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, SAN
JOSE, ANTIQUE,
FACTS
 On July 7, 2004, Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC,
received a letter from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the
United Kingdom (UK) requesting a copy of the decision dated
213
February 12, 1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one
Shirley Quioyo.1
 On September 9, 2004, the RTC received another letter from Mr.
Hunt, reiterating the request for a copy of the decision in Special
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
 of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna.2
 Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the
records of Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter
of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna.
 It was then discovered that the RTC had no record of Special
Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner.
 Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided
Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose
 petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria.
 Informed that the requested decision and case records did not
exist,3 Mr. Hunt sent a letter dated October 12, 2004 attaching a
machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No.
084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death
of Rey Laserna that had been presented by Shirley Quioyo in court
 proceedings in the UK.4
 After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the
document attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified
court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise him of
the situation.5
 The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court
to communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI, triggering the
 investigation of the falsification.6
 In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed
an affidavit on March 4, 2005,7 wherein he stated that it was the
respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision
in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna for a fee of
 P60,000.00.
 The allegations against the respondent were substantially
corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo, in an
 affidavit dated March 20, 2005.8
 The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side,9 but he invoked his
constitutional right to remain silent. The NBI also issued subpoenas to
Shirley Quioyo and Dy Quioyo but only the latter
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
appeared and gave his sworn statement.
 After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the Office of
the Ombudsman for Visayas the records of the investigation, with a
recommendation that the respondent be prosecuted for falsification
of public document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the Revised Penal
Code, and for violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).10

 The NBI likewise recommended to the Office of the Court
Administrator that disbarment proceedings be commenced against
 the respondent.11
 Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a Member
of the Court) officially endorsed the recommendation to the Office of
 the Bar Confidant.12
 Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted his
counter-affidavit,13 whereby he denied any participation in the
falsification.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
 In a report and recommendation dated June 14, 2006, 17 Atty. Lolita
A. Quisumbing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the
respondent guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the
Attorney’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility, and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year.
 She concluded that the respondent had forged the purported
decision of Judge Penuela by making it appear that Special
Proceedings No. 084 concerned a petition for declaration of
presumptive death of Rey Laserna, with Shirley Quioyo as the
petitioner, when in truth and in fact the proceedings related to the
petition for declaration of presumptive death of Rolando Austria,
with Serena Catin Austria as the petitioner;18 and that the
respondent had received P60,000.00 from Dy Quioyo for the
falsified decision.
ISSUE: W/N the Atty. Pe violated the CPR Rule 7.03 for falsification of a
court decision
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision.
214
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of
Attorneys.
This decision is without prejudice to any pending or contemplated
proceedings to be initiated against ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR.
RATIO:
 Indeed, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying
 a court decision in consideration of a sum of money.
 The respondent’s main defense consisted in blanket denial of the
imputation. He insisted that he had had no hand in the falsification, and
claimed that the falsification had been the handiwork of Dy Quioyo. He
implied that Dy Quioyo had resorted to the shady characters in Recto
Avenue in Manila to resolve the problems he had encountered as an
OFW, hinting that Dy Quioyo had a history of employing unscrupulous
 means to achieve his ends.
 In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty
of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification of the
decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold
at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”
Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest
 and immoral or deceitful conduct.
 Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer’s disbarment or
 suspension from the practice of law.25
 Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court decision by the
respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral
turpitude on his part.
 Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in
this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to
mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person.
 It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that
they should do nothing that may in any way or degree lessen
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity and
integrity.26
 The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on
those among them who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the
enduring demands of their Attorney’s Oath for them
 No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the
legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to
the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege
to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the
 canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities.
 He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only
for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly
connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for
the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to
 practice law confers upon him.27
 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the
Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish
lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private
capacity.28 The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor,
and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue
as an officer of the Court
[ANTERO M. SISON, JR., vs.ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO,
A.C. No. 10910 January 12, 2016
Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594)
FACTS:
 In his verified affidavit-complaint,1 dated September 17, 2012, filed
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline (JBP-CBD), complainant Atty. Antero M. Sison, Jr. (Atty.
Sison), president of Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc.
(MDAHI), charged respondent Atty. Manuel Camacho (Atty. Camacho)
with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).
 
 He accused Atty. Camacho of violating Rule 1.01, for dishonestly
entering into a compromise agreement without authorization, and
215
Rule 16.01, for failure to render an accounting of funds which were
supposed to be paid as additional docket fees.
 Atty. Sison alleged that Atty. Camacho was the counsel of MDAHI
in an insurance claim action against Paramount Life & General
Insurance Corp.
 On March 4, 2011, Atty. Camacho met with Atty. Enrique Dimaano
(Atty. Dimaano), corporate secretary of MDAHI, and proposed to
 increase their claim to P64,412,534.
 Atty. Camacho, however, clarified that the increase in the claim
would require additional docket fees in the amount of
 P1,288,260.00, as shown in his hand-written computation.2
 On May 27, 2011, Atty. Dimaano gave the money for docket fees to
Atty. Camacho who promised to issue a receipt for the said amount,
 but never did.4
 Atty. Sison later discovered that on May 26, 2011, the RTC had
already rendered a decision5 in favor of MDAHI granting its
insurance claim plus interests in the amount of approximately
P65,000,000.00.
 On August 11, 2011, Atty. Camacho sent a letter6 to MDAHI
recommending a settlement with Paramount Insurance in Civil
Case No. 05-655 in the amount of P15,000,000.00 allegedly to
 prevent a protracted appeal with the appellate court.
 MDAHI refused the offer of compromise and did not indicate its
 conforme on the letter of Atty. Camacho.
 Surprisingly, even without the written conformity of MDAHI, Atty.
Camacho filed the Satisfaction of Judgment,7 dated August 15,
2011, before the R TC stating that the parties had entered into a
compromise agreement.
 On August 18, 2011, Atty. Sison met with Atty. Camacho to clarify
the events that transpired.8 He asked Atty. Camacho whether he
paid the amount of P1,288,260.00 as additional dockets fees, and
the latter replied that he simply gave it to the clerk of court as the
 payment period had lapsed.
 Disappointed with the actions of Atty. Camacho, Atty. Sison sent a
letter,9 dated August 24, 2011, stating that he was alarmed that the
former would accept a disadvantageous compromise; that it was
against company policy to bribe any government official with respect
to the Pl,288,260.00 given to the clerk of court; and that MDAHI
 would only pay P200,000.00 to Atty. Camacho as attorney's fees.
In his verified answer,10 dated October 30, 2012, Atty. Camacho
denied all the allegations against him. He stressed that he had the
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
authority to enter into the compromise agreement. Moreover, the
alleged docket fees given to him by MDAHI formed part of his
attorney's fees.
 the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and Recommendation,16 dated
April 1, 2013 finding Atty. Camacho to have violated the provisions
of Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR and recommending the
imposition of the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the
practice of law against him.
ISSUE: W/N Atty Camacho is guilty of violating CPR
RULING: WHEREFORE, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is found guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. For reasons above-stated, he is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately.
Furthermore, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is ORDERED to return to Marsman-
Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc. the money intended to pay for additional
docket fees which he received from the latter in the amount of P 1,288,260.00
within ninety (90) days from the finality of this decision.
RATIO:
 The Court finds that Atty. Camacho violated Rules 1.01 and 16.01
 of the CPR.
 For entering into a compromise agreement without the written
authority of his client, Atty. Camacho violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR,
which states that " [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
 immoral or deceitful conduct."
 Members of the Bar must always conduct themselves in a way that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.25
 In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether
the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member
of the Bar.
 Delving into the substance of the allegation, the Court rules that
 Atty. Camacho indeed violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR.
 When Atty. Camacho personally requested MDAHI for additional
docket fees, the latter obediently granted the amount of Pl
,288,260.00 to the former. Certainly, it was understood that such
amount was necessary for the payment of supposed additional
 docket fees in Civil Case No. 05-655.
 Yet, when Atty. Sison confronted Atty. Camacho regarding the said
216
amount, the latter replied that he simply gave it to the clerk of court
as the payment period had lapsed.
 Whether the said amount was pocketed by him or improperly given
to the clerk of court as a form of bribery, it was unmistakably clear
that Atty. Camacho did not apply the amount given to him by his
 client for its intended legal purpose.
 Atty. Camacho did not even deny making that request to MDAHI for
additional docket fees and receiving such amount from his client.
 Rather, he set up a defense that the said amount formed part of his
attorney's fees. Such defense, however, is grossly contradictory
to the established purpose of the Pl,288,260.00.
 In its Payment Request/Order Form,27 it is plainly indicated therein that
MDAHI released the said amount only to be applied as payment for
 additional docket fees, and not for any other purposes.
 Consequently, the lame excuse of Atty. Camacho is bereft of merit
because it constitutes a mere afterthought and a manifest
disrespect to the legal profession.
 Atty. Camacho is treading on a perilous path where the payment of
his attorney's fees is more important than his fiduciary and faithful
duty of accounting the money of his client.
 Well-settled is the rule that lawyers are not entitled to unilaterally
appropriate their clients' money for themselves by the mere fact
 that the clients owe them attorney's fees.28
 Moreover, Atty. Camacho failed to issue a receipt to MDAHI from
 the moment he received the said amount.
 Pursuant to Rule 16.01 of the CPR, a lawyer must be aware that he
is accountable for the money entrusted to him by the clients, and
that his only means of ensuring accountability is by issuing and
 keeping receipts.
 The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his
client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or
property collected or received for or from his client.
 Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for
 the purpose should be immediately returned.
 A lawyer's failure, to return upon demand, the funds held by him on
behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
 reposed in him by his client.
 Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.30
 A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the
lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the CPR.
 The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and
who possess good moral character. The appropriate penalty for an
errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion
 based on the surrounding facts.31
 In this case, Atty. Camacho entered into a compromise agreement
without the conformity of his client which is evidently against the
provisions of the CPR and the law.
 Moreover, he deliberately failed to account for the money he
received from his client, which was supposed to be paid as
additional docket fees. He even had the gall to impute that the
money was illicitly given to an officer of the court. The palpable
indiscretions of Atty. Camacho shall not be countenanced by the
Court for these constitute as a blatant and deliberate desecration of
the fiduciary duty that a lawyer owes to his client.
 The Court finds that Atty. Camacho's acts are so reprehensible, and
his violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral
unfitness and inability to discharge his duties as a member of the
Bar. His actions erode rather than enhance the public perception of
the legal profession. Therefore, in view of the totality of his
violations, as well as the damage and prejudice they caused to his
client, Atty. Camacho deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
A.C. No.7054 November 11, 2014
CONRADO N. QUE, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
 In a Decision2 dated December 4, 2009, this Court disbarred the
respondent from the practice of law on the following grounds: abuse
of court procedures and processes; filing of multiple actions and
forum-shopping; willful, intentional and deliberate resort to
217
falsehood and deception before the courts; maligning the name of
his fellow lawyer; and fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in
court.
 Given the respondent’s multiple violations, his past record as
previously discussed, and the nature of these violations which
shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over
concerns for the orderly administration of justice, we believe and so
hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to disbar the
respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any
significant role in the administration of justice which he has
disgraced.
 He is a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal profession
serves. Not even his ardor and overzealousness in defending the
interests of his client can save him. Such traits at the expense of
everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and the
orderly administration of justice, this Court cannot accept nor
 tolerate.
 Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the
respondent’s first ethical infraction of the same nature.
 We showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension for
six (6) months. We cannot similarly treat the respondent this time; it
is clear that he did not learn any lesson from his past experience and
since then has exhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is time to put a finis
to the respondent’s professional legal career for the sake of the
 public, the profession and the interest of justice.
 On July 8, 2010, the respondent filed a Petition for Judicial
Clemency and Compassion3 praying that his license to practice law
be restored based on humanitarian considerations, but the Court En
Bancr esolved to deny the petition for lack of merit.
 The respondent subsequently filed on January 11, 2011, an Appeal
for Grace, Succor, and Mercy4 asking the Court to take a second
 look at the penalty imposed upon him.
 He maintained that Conrado N. Que (complainant) failed to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that he committed grossly immoral
conduct meriting the severe penalty of disbarment.
 In a Resolution5 dated February 8, 2011, the Court denied the
 appeal.
 The respondent again wrote the Court on July 13, 2011, reiterating
his pleas for the Court’s compassion and mercy.6 He sought the
Court’s forgiveness stating that he has learned his lesson; but at
the same time, questioning the Court’s finding for lack of factual
support.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
 On May 17, 2012, the respondent sent a letter 11 addressed to the
Members of the Court En Banc once again reiterating his prayer to
lift the order of disbarment.
 He alleged among others that for more than three years that he has
been disbarred in the practice of law, he has never been involved in
any immoral or illegal activities, has devoted himself in the services
of St. Peter Parish and Shrine, Commonwealth Avenue as
Eucharistic Minister leader, has conducted regular monthly lectures
on the subject of marriage at the Diocese of Novaliches, and has
participated as monthly financial contributor to Mr. Carmel Church,
Lucena City.
 He also begged the Court to no longer prolong his penalty since it
had already served its purpose. The plea was also denied on July
 3, 2012.12
 On August 30, 2012, the respondent once more prayed for his
reinstatement professing repentance and remorse for what he did.13
 In a Resolution14 dated October 9, 2012, the Court denied his
 petition for lack of merit.
 Aggrieved, the respondent filed on March 27, 2013 a letter15
 pleading the Court to revisit his previous requests for reinstatement.
 Treating his letter as a motion for the reconsideration of the
resolutions dated August 2, 2011, July3, 2012, and October 9, 2012,
 the Court, on June 4, 2013 denied the motion with finality.16
 On July 18, 2014, the respondent filed a Profound Appeal for
Judicial Clemency17 reiterating his apologies to the Court.
 He stressed that the penalty of disbarment has already taken its toll
on his health; he has now become most frail and weak; and he had
been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease at stage five (5) and
 undergoing dialysis thrice weekly.
 He also stressed that in the years that he had been excluded from
the practice of law, he devoted his time to Christian and charity
pursuits serving with all humility as a Lay Minister and a regular
lecturer on Legal Aspect of Marriage at St. Peter Church, Quezon
 City.
 The respondent also pleads for clemency, not because he intends
to practice law again, but to be made whole, to recover from being
shattered, and to finally have peace of mind.
ISSUE: W/N Atty Revilla should be granted Judicial Clemency
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Profound Appeal for
Judicial Clemency filed by Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby DENIED.
218
SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
 Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. 20 It
is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone
who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted and
continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness
 inintellectual attainment and in moral character.21
 The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer.
When exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court
should see to it that only those who establish their present moral
 fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.
 Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently
closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal
profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if the doors are
opened,it is done so only as a matter of justice.22

 The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of
law is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or
herself in conduct and character.23 Whether the applicant shall be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the
sound discretion of the Court.24
 The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she is again worthy of membership in the Bar. The
Court will take into consideration his or her character and standing prior
to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which
he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the
disbarment, and the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment
and the application for reinstatement.25

 In the present case, we note that before his admission to the Bar,
the respondent had demonstrated an active involvement and
participation in community and church activities by joining Youth
For Christ, Catechism, and Bible Study and Sharing. Likewise,
upon admission to the Bar, the respondent worked as Municipal
Attorney in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque rendering free legal assistance
to his townmates who were inneed of legal service. Thereafter, the
respondentwas appointed as a Municipal Administrator and had
 continued extending assistance to the indigent residents.
 The respondent also actively engaged and participated in various
community projects, through the Marinduque Jaycees, where he
served as President from 1980 to 1981, and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Marinduque Chapter, where he served as a
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
member, Director, and President from 1982 to 1987.
 Although the Court believes that the respondent is not inherently
lacking in moral fiber as shown by his conduct prior to his
disbarment, we are not convinced that he had sufficiently achieved
 moral reformation.
 In the present case, we are not fully convinced that the passage of
more than four (4) years is sufficient to enable the respondent to
 reflect and to realize his professional transgressions.
 Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment case(and
subsequent reduction of the penalty imposed as an act of
clemency), and another disbarment case against him still pending
review by the Court, we are not fully and convincingly satisfied that
 the respondent has already reformed.
 The period of five (5) years is likewise not considerably long
considering the nature and perversity of the respondent’s
misdeeds. We believe that it is still early for the Court to consider
 the respondent’s reinstatement.
 As a final word, while the Court sympathizes with the respondent's
unfortunate physical condition, we stress that in considering his
application for reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of the Court
is to determine whether he has established moral reformation and
 rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling of sympathy or pity.
 Surely at this point, this requirement was not met. Until such time
when the respondent can demonstrate to the Court that he has
completely rehabilitated himself and deserves to resume his
membership in the Bar, Our decision to disbar him from the practice
of law stands.
A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY
ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I.
CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL
R. MORTA, Respondents.
FACTS:
 On 11 October 2005, lawyers from complainant law firm, led by
Atty. Chavez, appeared before the RTC to seek the cancellation of
Soriano's scheduled arraignment.5
219
 During the hearing, Atty. Chavez informed the RTC that a Petition
for Review had been filed before the Department of Justice (DOJ)
on 10 October 2005.
 The Petition questioned the resolution of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City finding probable cause to indict Soriano for
libel.6 Atty. Chavez presented an extra copy of the Petition for Review
before the RTC, and explained that the main copy of the Petition
stamped received by the DOJ was still with the office messenger, who
 had personally filed the pleading the day before.7
 Citing the filing of the Petition for Review, Atty. Chavez moved for
the suspension of the arraignment for a period of 60 days pursuant
to Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.8 The RTC, however, denied the motion and proceeded
 with Soriano's arraignment.
 The events that transpired during the arraignment led complainant
to conclude that Presiding Judge Hilario Laqui of Branch 218 was
 biased against its client.10
 Consequently, it filed a Motion for Inhibition on 18 October 2005
requesting Judge Laqui to voluntary inhibit himself from the
 case.11chanrobleslaw
 On 11 November 2005, respondents filed with the RTC a pleading
 entitled "A Vehement Opposition to the Motion for
Inhibition"12 (Vehement Opposition) to contradict complainant's
 motion
 The allegation of antedating was reiterated by respondents in a
Comment/Opposition to the Accused's Motion for Reconsideration
filed with the RTC on 6 December 2006
 In the Complaint-Affidavit it filed with this Court, complainant
vehemently denied the allegation of antedating.15 As proof that the
Petition for Review was personally filed with the DOJ on 10 October
2005, complainant attached to its Complaint-Affidavit a copy of the
 Petition bearing the DOJ stamp.
 In their Comment dated 4 May 2006,17 respondents alleged that the
filing of the disbarment complaint against them was a mere
harassment tactic.
 As proof, they cited the non-inclusion of another signatory to the
Vehement Opposition, Public Prosecutor Nadine Jaban-Fama, as a
 respondent in the Complaint.18
 They also contended that the statements they had made in their
pleadings were covered by the doctrine of privileged
communication.19
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU
  In his Report and Recommendation dated 7 July
21
2008, Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents guilty
 of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
 We agree with the complainant that the accusation that they
antedated the mailing of the DOJ petition is violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the duty of all lawyers to observe
 civility and propriety in their pleadings.
 It was somewhat irresponsible for the respondents to make such an
accusation on the basis of pure speculation, considering that they
had no proof to support their accusation and did not even make any
attempt to verify from the DOJ the date and the manner by which the
 said petition was filed.
 Moreover, as held in Asa, we will have to disagree with the
respondents argument on privileged communication, the use of
offensive language in pleadings filed in the course of judicial
proceedings, constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary action.
ISSUE: W/N the conduct of the respondents violated the CPR RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution dated 22 March 2014
issued by the IBP Board of Governors is hereby SET ASIDE. Attys. Restituto
Lazaro and Rodel Morta are hereby ADMONISHED to use only respectful
and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings and to be more
circumspect in dealing with their professional colleagues. They are likewise
STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful
and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession.40 Their arguments, whether
written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the opposing
counsel and should consist only of such words as may be properly
addressed by one honorable member of the bar to another.41
 In this case, respondents twice accused complainant of antedating
a petition it had filed with the DOJ without any proof whatsoever.
This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and
its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the
courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the
220
absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
 That the statements conveyed the perception by respondents of the
events that transpired during the scheduled arraignment and their
"truthful belief regarding a perceived irregularity" in the filing of the
 Petition is not an excuse.
 The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the
hopes of strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make
grave and unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even
 wrongdoing against other members of the legal profession.
 It is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justness of
 the cause with which they are charged.
 Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial
proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to
 disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof is privileged.43
 While lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for
privileged statements made in their pleadings, they remain subject to
this Court's supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the
 observance of their duty as members of the legal profession.
 We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive
 language does not merit the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.45 Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and sternly
warned that the Court will deal with future similar conduct more
severely.46

 A final note. We find it necessary to remind the IBP of its duty to
judiciously investigate and evaluate each and every disciplinary
action referred to it by this Court. In making its recommendations,
the IBP should bear in mind the purpose of disciplinary proceedings
against members of the bar — to maintain the integrity of the legal
profession for the sake of public interest. Needless to state, the Court
will not look with favor upon a recommendation based entirely on
technical and procedural grounds.
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

BLOCK 2 ETHICS DIGESTS AND REVIEWER BY TABALINGCOS, MARAVILLA, REPOSAR, LIAO, GERVACIO, ESPIRITU

Rule 8.01.—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper
A.C. No. 8210. August 8, 2016.
SPOUSES NUEZCA vs. VILLAGARCIA
Complainants: Sps. Manolo and Milinia Nuezca
Respondent: Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia
FACTS:
 Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
 This administrative case arose from a complaint for disbarment for
grave misconduct, consisting of alleged unethical conduct in
dealings with other persons.
 Complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand letter
which contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. It
 seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients.
 Several news clippings that were attached to the demand letter were
intended to sow fear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof
caused them sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and besmirched
 reputation.
 The IBP recommended that respondent be suspended from practice
of law for a period of 3 months for violation of Rule 8.01 of the CPR
 and a fine for defying the lawful order of the IBP.
 The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with
modification, suspending respondent for 6 months and deleting the
fine.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Villagarcia violated Rule 8.01.
criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and estafa. Respondent
could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative to the alleged
indebtedness of complainants to his client, made the demand for
settlement thereof, and refrained from the imputation of criminal offenses
against them, especially considering that there is a proper forum therefor
and they have yet to be found criminally liable by a court of proper
jurisdiction. Respondent's use of demeaning and immoderate language
put complainants in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is important to
consider that several other persons had been copy furnished with the
demand letter. Respondent could have besmirched complainants'
reputation to its recipients.
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. In this regard, all lawyers
should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are
mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence, they must
conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Thus, respondent ought to
temper his words in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and an
officer of the court.

HELD: YES.
 Atty. Villagarcia is found guilty of violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of
 the CPR. He is suspended from practice of law for 1 month.
 The Court concurs with the findings and recommendations of the
IBP Board of Governors. The practice of law is a privilege given to
lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
 administrative liability.
 The demand letter that respondent sent to complainants contained
not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary obligations to
respondent's client, but also used words that maligned their
character. It also imputed crimes against them, i.e., that they were

221
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
Rule 14.01 – Shall not decline to represent on account of race, sex, creed, status,
or opinion as to guilt
RULE 138 - Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be
deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
FRANCISCO v. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL
A.C.No. 6155
14 March 2006
DOCTRINE: Rule 14.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs
lawyers not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic
that it is the defense counsel that actually branded his own clients as being the culprits
that salvaged the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is
unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the Sandiganbayan had not
done so.
FACTS:
 This case involves an affidavit against Atty. Portugal for violation of Layer’s
Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence.
 SPO1 Francisco, SPO1 Tan and PO3 Joaquin were involved in a shooting
incident. Information were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan to
which they were found guilty for homicide and attempted homicide.
 Complainants engaged in the services of Atty. Portugal for the accused. The
latter then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an Urgent Motion for Leave
to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, as well as a Petition for Review
on Certiorari.
 Complainants never heard from Atty. Portugal again despite the frequent
telephone calls they made to his office. When no phone inquiries were
returned, complainants went to Atty. Portugal’s last known address only to
find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
 More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were
constrained to personally verify the status of the petition as they had
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
neither news from Atty. Portugal about the case nor knowledge of his
whereabouts.
 Complainants were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a
Resolution denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.
They learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of
arrest had already been issued against the accused because respondent,
whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
 Atty. Portugal states that the Court should note that he was not the original
counsel of the accused. He was merely requested to be on hand, assist the
accused, and be present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.
He maintains that the petition was filed on time, claims that no formal
engagement was undertaken by the parties, and asserts that due to all the
efforts he put into this case, his other professional opportunities and
obligations were neglected, and it was done without remuneration.
 Atty. Portugal states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged
from the case and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the
latter to file with the Court. Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so.
 IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for 6
months
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling the
case of the accused.
RULING: YES. Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months.
RATIO:
 The ad cautelam petition was actually filed out of time.
 He fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must
perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. Had he truly intended to
withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably
steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of
withdrawal himself instead of the accused.
 It is the client who has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw
or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted.
 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable
cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication
arises only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause.
 After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both
cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of
public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
222
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 SC does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the
shooting incident that the accused was engaged in. He described the
incident, thus: “the accused police officers who had been convicted of
homicide for the salvage of F. Cabiling and J. Chua and attempted homicide
of M. Macato.
Rule 14.02 Shall not decline appointment as counsel de officio or amicus curiae
RULE 138 - Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to
render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the
services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights
of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.
RULE 116 - Arraignment and Plea
Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before
arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if
he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or
has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to
defend him. (6a)
Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court, considering the gravity of
the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel
de oficio only such members of the bar in good standing
who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused.
But in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court may
appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability,
to defend the accused. (7a)
Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment. — Whenever a
counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the arraignment,
he shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment. (8)
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
RULE 124 - Procedure in the Court of Appeals
Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. — If it appears from the
record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is
without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the
clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel
de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he establishes
his right thereto. (2a)
IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE E. ADRIANO
GR No. L-26868
27 February 1969
DOCTRINE: SC may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute
appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a
duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned “to render the required service”, A lawyer
so appointed” as counsel for an indigent prisoner”, our Canons of Professional Ethics
demand, “should always exert his best efforts” in the indigent’s behalf.
FACTS:
 R. Estebia was convicted of rape by CFI of Samar and was sentenced to
suffer the capital punishment.
 On Dec. 1966,, Atty. Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de oficio
when his case came up before the SC on review.
 Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice.
He sought a 30-day extension to file said brief in mimeograph form. After
being granted 4 extensions and a special extension of five days, no brief was
still filed.
 He was ordered to show explanation for failure to file brief but did not comply.
 Thus, SC resolved to impose upon Atty. Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning
that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further
non-compliance. Atty. Adriano still paid no need.
 He was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the
practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as
attorney.
 A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968 however
Adriano ignored the said resolution.
223
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
ISSUE: W/N certain acts and conduct of a Atty. Adriano deserves disciplinary action.
RULING: YES. Atty. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
RATIO:
 By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional
aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an
attorney.
 No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief.
And yet when he received notice of his appointment, and when the last show
cause order was issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was afforded
counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio.
 In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements
in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and
meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.
 It has been said that courts should “have no hesitancy in demanding high
standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons charged
with crime." For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice
is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self-
interest. acts
 Atty. Adriano’s exhibit willful disobedience of lawful orders of this Court.
Nothing was done by counsel for over a year despite the repeated orders of
the Court to file the brief and show cause for non-compliance.
 Disrespect is here present. Contumacy is as patent. Disciplinary action is in
order.
 Atty. Adriano’s pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to be numb
appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and
respect that should be accorded this Court.
RULE 14.02 – SHALL NOT DECLINE APPOINTMENT AS COUNSEL DE OFFICIO
OR AMICU CURIAE
People vs Rufino Mirandilla Bermas
G.R. No. 120420
April 21, 1999
Facts:
 Rufino Bermas was accused of raping his daughter, Manuela (15 years old)
on August 3, 1994 inside their house
 Court found the guilty of the crime and sentenced him to suffer DEATH
penalty and to indemnify the complainant of 75, 000 pesos.
 Counsel Fernandez & kasilag-Villanueva (in collaboration with the Anti-
Death Penality Task Force) appealed : that the accused was deprived of
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
due process and was deprived of his constitutional right to effective and
vigilant counsel
 Case for new trial was granted and Court assigned Atty. Rose Elmira
Villamin of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to be the counsel de officio.
 Atty. Villamin asked Court to be relieved of her duty and Atty. Roberto
Gomez was appointed the new counsel de officio.
 Even after having the trial moved for more adequate preparation, Atty.
Gomez failed to appear for trial and Atty. Lonzame was appointed as
counsel de officio for accused but the latter asked himself to be relieved as
counsel de officio and ceased to appear for and in behalf of the accusd-
appellant
Held:
 The Court finds that accused-appellant has not properly and effectively
been accorded the right to counsel. Case REMANDED for trial.
 Atty. Ricardo Fernandez, Jr. of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force as
counsel de officio for the appellant
 Constitutional Right to counsel:
Sections 12 and 14, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution, states:
 Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
 The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections.
The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the
defense and acts accordingly.
 Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer
to serve his client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence.
 He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
this regard renders him administratively liable.
 Atty. Rosa Elmina Villamin of PAO Parañaque, Roberto Gomez and Nicanor
Lonzame are hereby ADMONISHED for having fallen much too short of
their responsibility as officers of the court and as members of the Bar
RULE 14.03 – VALID GROUNDS TO REFUSE REPRESENTATION
Nestor Perez vs Atty. Danilo de la Torre
A.C. No. 6160
224
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
March 30, 2006
**(misplaced case) should be under 15.03
Facts:
 Letter complaint addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
complainant Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la
 Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing
conflicting interests.
 Perez is the Barangay Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines
Sur;
o That in December 2001, several suspects for murder and
kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego
Avila, were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities;
o that respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where
Ilo and Avila were being detained and made representations that
he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared
extrajudicial confessions;
o that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the
heirs of the murder victim;
o that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were
filed against them, including herein complainant who was
implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the
criminal activities for which they were being charged.
 Respondent:
o Avila sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession
regarding his involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom,
murder and robbery
o Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in
executing his extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the
presence of his parents
Issue(s): Whether or not there was a conflict of interest on the part of the respondent
in handling the case
Held:
 There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests
of two or more opposing parties.
 The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
 The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He
is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz
A.C. No. 5485
16 March 2005
DOCTRINE: Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a 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 latter’s
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. He owes entire devotion to the
interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights,
and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
FACTS:
 Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former
employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines with the NLRC Regional Arbitration
Board VI in Bacolod City where Atty. Jose Max Ortiz appeared as his counsel.
 In 1998, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their position papers
so Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz
for the preparation of the same.
 Canoy made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case until he decided to it follow-up himself with the NLRC
and learned that his complaint was dismissed in 1998 for failure to prosecute.
o Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz never communicated to him about the
status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit the
position paper.
 In his defense, Atty. Ortiz informs the Court:
o that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at
considerable financial sacrifice to himself and Canoy was among
those low-income clients;
o that he prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could
submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order
dismissing the case;
o that the period within which to file the position paper had already
lapsed and attributes this failure to the fact that after his election as
Councilor, “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a
local government official and as a practicing lawyer;”
o that eventually, “his desire to help was beyond physical limitations,”
and he withdrew from his other cases and his “free legal services;”
o that it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones
to follow-up their cases with his office;
225
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
o that he cannot remember whether he immediately informed Canoy
of the dismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall, Canoy
told him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office did
not insist on re-filing the same.
 Canoy filed a complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant accusing Atty.
Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice.
 IBP ruled that Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise that degree of competence and
diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients’ claim,” and recommended
that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded.
 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the recommendation, with the
slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the
same negligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated Rule 14.03 of the CPR.
RULING: YES. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is SUSPENDED for 1 month.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of a client if:
5. He is not in position to carry out the work effectively and competently.
6. He labors under conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client.
 A lawyer’s 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.
 A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
 If indeed Atty. Ortiz’s schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that
he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should have informed Canoy.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever
present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the
developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode
and manner in which his/her interests are being defended.
 There could have been remedies undertaken such as a request for more time
to file the position paper, or maybe even the hiring of collaborating counsel or
substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel.
People v. Daeng
G.R. No. L-34091
30 January 1973
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
DOCTRINE: The Court caution all courts against the frequent appointment of the same
attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic reasons: first, it is unfair to the attorney
concerned, and, second, the compensation provided for might be considered by some
lawyers as a regular source of income, something which the Rule does not envision.
In every case, the accused stands to suffer because the overburdened counsel would
have too little time to spare for his de officio cases, and also would be inordinately
eager to finish such cases in order to collect his fees within the earliest possible time.
FACTS:
 The defendants-appellants George Daeng, Conrado Bautista, Gerardo
Abubin and Rolando Castillo were indicted for the crime of murder before the
Circuit Criminal Court holding sessions in Pasig, Rizal.
 Said accused while then confined at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal,
conspiring with each other and each armed with improvised deadly weapons,
assault and wound one Basilio Beltran, another convicted prisoner serving
final sentence in the same institution, then in the process of serving the
accused breakfast, causing his death.
 All the four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial judge
remarked that the court is giving them time to make a thorough soul searching
as to the consequence of their act and the life they will face in the future that
is death.
 On the following day, the defendants, assisted by counsel de oficio, withdrew
their former plea of "not guilty" and substituted that of "guilty." All the four
defendants were sentenced to death.
 Atty. L.M. Cabasal (counsel de oficio) avers that the circumstances attending
their change of plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" generate serious doubt
regarding the said defendants' ability, at the time, to appreciate fully the
import and consequences of their turn-about. The Solicitor General joins this
view.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Galvan violated Rule 14.03 of the CPR.
RULING: The case is remanded to the court of origin for a new arraignment of the
defendants.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of a client if:
7. He is not in position to carry out the work effectively and competently.
8. He labors under conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client.
226
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 In at least three criminal cases appealed to the SC, including the present,
involving prisoners charged with and convicted for participation in prison gang
wars, Atty. Jose O. Galvan has been appointed to act as counsel de oficio
for the defendants. In every case, the defendants either pleaded guilty on
initial arraignment or later changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty."
 The appointment of Atty. Galvan as counsel de oficio in all three cases might
just have been a coincidence since there is no evidence before us that would
show that he had applied for and been granted such appointment.
 The Court caution all courts against the frequent appointment of the same
attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic reasons:
3. it is unfair to the attorney concerned, considering the burden of his
regular practice that he should be saddled with too many de officio cases;
and,
4. the compensation provided for by section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court (a fixed fee of P500 in capital offense) might be considered by
some lawyers as a regular source of income, something which the Rule
does not envision.
 In every case, the accused stands to suffer because the overburdened
counsel would have too little time to spare for his de officio cases, and also
would be inordinately eager to finish such cases in order to collect his fees
within the earliest possible time.
Rule 14.04 – A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano, supra.
DOCTRINE: The Court does not accept the paradox that responsibility is less where
the defended party is poor. It has been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in
demanding high standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons
charged with crime." For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice
is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self-interest.
Because of this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he
defends.
Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz, supra.
DOCTRINE: Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants
who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
public service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the
consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should
be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality representation as well.
Canon 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY
IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as
soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another
client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Lim v. Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa,
A.C. No. 5303
15 June 2006
DOCTRINE: The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of
the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.
FACTS:
 Complainant Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena
married to her daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the
herein complainant married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
 Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the Penta Resorts Corporation
(PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven percent (97%).
o Penta Resorts Corporation is a single proprietorship belonging to
Jalandoni. That the only property of the corporation is as above-
stated, the Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely through the effort of
the spouses Jalbuena on that parcel of land now claimed by the
Cabiles family.
 Respondent Atty. Nicanor Villarosa is a practicing lawyer and a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC,
 Jalandoni engaged in the legal service of Atty. Villarosa who formally entered
his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A.
Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles
 Respondent, as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship,
represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case.
 Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate
and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
227
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Respondent was provided with all the necessary information relative to the
property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting the corporation
(PRC) particularly involving problems which affect Hotel Alhambra.
o Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the
corporation/hotel.
 Respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing, filed a Motion
to withdraw as counsel, one day before its scheduled hearing on.
 Respondent alleged that his grounds for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot
A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena
and the Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc.
 Respondent further alleged that it was Dennis G. Jalbuena who
recommended him to be the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni,
o Respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law
of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen
J. Jalbuena.
 Respondent already appeared for and in behalf of the Sps. Carmen and
Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin while concurrently representing Lumot A.
Jalandoni, et al. in the civil case.
o However, despite being fully aware that the interest of his client
Lumot A. Jalandoni [holding an equivalent of Eighty-two (82%)
percent of PRCs shares of stocks] and the interest of PRC are one
and the same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot A. Jalandoni was
still his client in the other civil case, respondent opted to represent
opposing clients at the same time.
ISSUE: W/N there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled
by respondent
HELD: YES. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year, effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts
that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of
conflicting interests is reprehensible.
 Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner: There is representation
of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties
in the same action or in totally unrelated cases.
 The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties connection to PRC,
even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-
litigant in some of the cases mentioned. An attorney owes to his client
undivided allegiance.
 After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for his client and
for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with that of his client in the
same general matter.
 The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it
material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have been honest
 The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the
written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary
action.
Hornilla v. Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat
A.C. No. 5804
1 July 2003
Doctrine: There is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
FACTS:
 Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort were members of the Philippine
Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA).

 In 1997, they accused the Board of Directors of PPSTA of unlawfully
spending the funds of PPSTA.
 However, since the PPSTA was not initiating a complaint against the Board
of Directors, the two then filed a suit on behalf of PPSTA against the Board
of PPSTA.
 In the said suit, the Board of Directors were represented by Atty. Ernesto
Salunat. Hornilla et al were against the legal representation being made by
Salunat for and on behalf of the Board of Directors because of the fact that
Salunat is part of the ASSA Law Offices.
o The ASSA Law Offices happen to be the retained law firm of the
PPSTA.
o In short, Hornilla et al alleged that there is conflict of interests.
228
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
ISSUE: W/N there is a conflict of interest
HELD: YES. Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the
practice of his profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing parties.
 The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
o If he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client.
 This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have
been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
will be used.
 Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
 Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
 Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their
frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or
unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a stockholder may sue on
behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation,
to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and
indirectly to the stockholders.
 This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a
derivative suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the
stockholder filing suit for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. The
corporation should be included as a party in the suit.
 In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled
Philippine Public School Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of
Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers Assn. (PPSTA), et al., was
filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors.
 Respondent admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing
Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA.
o Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of
Directors in the said case.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 Clearly, respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the
parties against whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.
Rule 15.02 - Shall be bound by rule on privileged communication
Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, supra.
Hadjula v. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda
AC No. 6711
July 3, 2007
DOCTRINES
 The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek
legal advice, a veritable attorney-client relationship evolved between the two.
Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed
by the ethics of profession.
 Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer to keep
inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal
consultation.
 The purpose of the rule on confidentiality is to protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
FACTS
 Case started when complainant charged Atty. Madianda with violation of Art.
209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney/revelation of secrets) and Rules
15.02/21.02 of CPR.
 Complainant and respondent were friends and both worked at the Bureau of
Fire Protection (BFP)
o Respondent – Chief Legal Officer
o Complainant – Chief Nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing
Services
 1998 – Complainant approached respondent for some legal advice and
eventually disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage
contract, birth certificate and baptismal certificate, only to be informed by
respondent that she would refer the matter to a lawyer friend.
o She said that it was malicious of respondent to have refused
handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets.
 2000 – Their friendship soured after she filed criminal and disciplinary actions
against respondent.
o What precipitated the filing was when respondent (then a member
of the BFP Promotion Board), demanded cellphone in exchange for
her promotion.
229
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Respondent, in retaliation, filed a counter complaint with the Ombudsman
charging her with violations of Sec, 3(a) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act), falsification of public documents and immorality (last two
charges being based on complainant’s disclosures)
 A disciplinary case was also instituted against complainant before the PRC.
She now seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of the respondent for the
latter’s acts of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she
revealed in the course of seeking respondent’s legal advice.
 Respondent:
o Denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed the
idea about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between
them.
o Said that the supposed confidential data and sensitive documents
adverted to are in fact matters of common knowledge in the BFP
o Said that complainant never delivered legal documents
o She never entertained legal questions or consultations regarding
personal matters since she was not allowed to privately practice and
it would result to Conflict of Interest.
o Said that the present complaint was filed to get even with her so she
would withdraw the case she filed against complainant.
 IBP CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded;
o Stated that the information related by the complainant to the
respondent is “protected under the attorney-client relationship
privilege communication.”
o Respondent violated legal ethics when she revealed information
given to her during a legal consultation.
 IBP BOG approved and adopted the aforementioned.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent breached his duty of preserving the confidence of
a client (YES)
RULING
 Respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED and admonished to be circumspect
in her handling of information acquired as a result of a lawyer-client
relationship and she is STERNLY WARNED against repetition of the same
act complained of.
RATIO
 The documents shown and information revealed in confidence to the
respondent in the course of the legal consultation in question were used as
bases in the criminal and administrative complaints against the complainant.
 In the case of Burbe v. Magulta:
o A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first
moment complainant asked respondent for legal advise.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
o It is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally
on any previous occasion.
o A lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close
personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the
non-payment of attorney’s fees.
 8 essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege
communication:
9. Where the legal advice of any kind is sought
10. From a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
11. The communications relating to that purpose
12. Made in confidence
13. By the client
14. Are at his instance permanently protected
15. From disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor
16. Except the protection be waived
Rule 15.03 - Shall not represent conflicting interests
See cases under Rule 15.01
Rule 15.04 – May act as mediator/conciliator/arbitrator
Rule 15.05 - Shall give candid and honest opinion
CONSORCIA S. ROLLON vs. Atty. CAMILO NARAVAL
A.C. No. 6424
4 March 2005
DOCTRINES:
Rule 15.05 of the CPR requires that lawyers give their candid and best
opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor
understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some
prospect of success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.
If they find that their clients’ cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible.
FACTS:
 Sometime in October 2000, Rollon went to Atty. Naraval to seek
assistance for a case filed against her by Rosita Julaton for collection of
sum of money.
 After going over the documents brought to Atty. Naraval, the latter
agreed to be Rollon’s lawyer and received 8,000 as payment for filing
and partial service fee.
230
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 The son of Rollon returned to Atty. Naraval’s office to make follow-ups
but he was informed that Atty. Naraval was not able to act on her case
because he was so busy.
 Sometime in November 2001, Rollon decided to withdraw the amount
paid and retrieve the documents pertaining to the case for his failure to
comply with their mutual agreement that Atty. Naraval will assist her in
her case.
 However, Atty. Naraval always said that he cannot return the documents
because they were in their house, and that he could not give us back the
amount we paid him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money
 IBP Board of Governors: Atty. Naraval should be suspended for 2 years
from practice of law for violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the CPR
ISSUES: W/N Atty. Naraval should be suspended
HELD: YES. He is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years; also ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant 8,000
plus interest within 30 days from notice of this Decision
RATIO:
 Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and refuse to accept
representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or
competently.
 But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the CPR to
undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
 Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
 Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of importance.
 After receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee,
respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of
complainant.
o His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals
his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his clients
cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
o Despite repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return the
files of the case that had been entrusted to him and the money given
to him
 After going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid,
honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case.
o He withheld vital information from Rollon but instead demanded
8,000
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 The case had been decided against Rollon which had long
become final and executory.
 Rule 15.05 of the CPR: lawyers should give their candid
and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit
of the case, neither overstating nor understating their
evaluation thereof.
o If they find that their clients’ cause is defenseless, then it is their
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
than to traverse the incontrovertible.
 The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation
of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
 Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their clients’ money and property that
may come into their possession.
o His failure to return her money upon demand gave rise to the
presumption that he had converted it to his own use and thereby
betrayed the trust she had reposed in him.
Rule 15.06 - Shall not state or imply ability to influence
ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA
A.C. No. 11350
9 August 2016
DOCTRINES:
"A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body." By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the
sum of P8,000.00, respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and
eroded confidence on the judiciary. This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows
that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his character. The
practice of law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to
exercise it.
FACTS:
 This is a disbarment case against Atty. Rivera filed by Plumptre
 Plumptre asked for help from Atty. Rivera in his application for work permit
from the Bureau of Immigration who paid the latter the following amounts:
o 10,000 as professional fee
o 10,000 for the processing of his work permit together with his
passport
231
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Atty. Rivera also asked for 8,000 for the other case being handled by Atty.
Rivera. Plmptre gave him the full amount.
o 5,000 would be given to Las Pinas judge to reverse the MR against
Plumptre
o 3,000 for the processing of the MR
 After giving the money, Plumptre never received any update on the status of
his work permit and the pending court case.
 Plumptre was able to get back his passport but Atty. Rivera refused to return
the 28,000.
 IBP Board of Governors: Atty. Rivera violated Canons 1, 7, 16, Rules 18.04
of the CPR thus should be disbarred; ordered to return the 28,000 to Plumptre
ISSUES: W/N Atty. Rivera should be disbarred
HELD: NO. Atty. Rivera is SUSPENDED for 3 years.
RATIO:
 Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence and diligence.
 He neglected the attorney-client relationship, acted in a reprehensible
manner towards Plumptre i.e., cussing and threatening Plumptre and his
family with bodly harm, hiding from complainant and refusing without reason
to return the money entrusted to him.
 Respondent’s act of soliciting money to bribe a judge served to malign the
judge and judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won by the
party with the deepest pockets and not on their merits.
 By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling, respondent trampled
upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the
judiciary.
Rule 15.07 – Shall impress compliance with the laws
Rural Bank of Calape v. Atty. James Benedict Florido
A.C. No. 5736
18 June 2010
Doctrine:
Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their
professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when
they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but,
first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients’
interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal
remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the
parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair
administration of justice.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Facts:
 18 April 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent.
RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code).
 Apri 1, 2002, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr.
Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel
(Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force and intimidation, with the use
of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI.
o They forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank manager,
destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the
bank.
 respondent denied RBCIs allegations
o explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted
upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and
validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI.
o he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management.
o alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused
to comply.
 He also alleged that on April 1, 2002, to ensure a smooth transition of
managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group
went to the bank to ask Garay to step down.
o Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guards long
firearm.
o Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into
the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the
bank.
o Through the orders of the Nazareno-Relampagos group, also
changed the locks of the banks vault.
 He added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him
by RBCI was already dismissed
o the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because
of the existence of a prejudicial question
o the disbarment complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the
administrative cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial
court judges of Bohol.
 claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their
allegations. Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint
were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and that none of
the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies.
 IBP ruled that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected
of him as vanguard of law and justice.
 And recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that the
repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.
232
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

o The respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could
not just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI
without a valid court order.
o the right to manage and gain majority control over RBCI was one of
the issues pending before the trial court in Civil Case No. 6628.
 respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover
of RBCI and that it was a naked power grab without any
semblance of legality whatsoever.
 the administrative complaint against respondent before the IBP is
independent of the dismissal and suspension of the criminal cases against
respondent.

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 233

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Issue: Whether or not the respondent’s action did not
comply with the standards expected of him as
vanguard of law and justice
Ratio: Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of
violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio Decidendi:
Supreme Court affirmed IBP ruling.
duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution
and obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the
lawyers’ duty to promote respect for the law and legal
processes and to abstain from activities aimed at
defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law. Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to
impress upon his client compliance with the law and
principles of fairness.
A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to
counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods
in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional
wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. To that end, his clients
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit
of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable
and unethical.
Chu v. Atty. Jose Guico, Jr.
A.C. No. 10573
13 January 2015
Doctrine:
Grave misconduct is “improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful
in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not
mere error of judgment.”28 There is no question that
any gross misconduct by an attorney in his
professional or private capacity renders him unfit to
manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the
imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment,
because good moral character is an essential
qualification for the admission of an attorney and for
the continuance of such privilege.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Facts:
 Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle
the labor disputes involving his company,
CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC).
o Atty. Guico’s legal services included
handling a complaint for illegal
dismissal brought against CVC in a
NLRC Case.
 September 7, 2006, Labor Arbiter Herminio V.
Suelo rendered a decision adverse to
CVC.3 Atty. Guico filed a timely appeal in
behalf of CVC
 During a Christmas party held on December
5, 2006 at Atty. Guico’s residence in
Commonwealth, Quezon City, Atty. Guico
asked him to prepare a substantial amount of
money to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner handling the appeal to insure
a favorable decision.
o June 10, 2007, Chu called Atty.
Guico to inform him that he had
raised P300,000.00 for the purpose.
Atty. Guico told him to proceed to his
office
o and to give the money to his
assistant, Reynaldo (Nardo)
Manahan.
 Chu complied, and later on called Atty. Guico
to confirm that he had delivered the money to
Nardo.
 Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged
draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC.
 the latter told Chu to raise another
P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision. But Chu
could only produce P280,000.00, which he
brought to Atty. Guico’s office on July 10,
2007.
 it was Nardo who received the amount without
issuing any receipt.
 Chu followed up on the status of the CVC
case with Atty. Guico in December 2007
o Atty. Guico referred him to Nardo
who in turn said that he would only
know the status after Christmas
 Chu asked Nardo if the NLRC Commissioner
had accepted the money, but Nardo replied
in the negative and simply told Chu to wait.
Nardo assured that the money was still with
Atty. Guico who would return it should the
NLRC Commissioner not accept it.
 January 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a
decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted
Atty. Guico, who in turn referred Chu to
Nardo for the filing of a motion for
reconsideration.
 Atty. Guico described the administrative
complaint as replete with lies and
inconsistencies, and insisted that the charge
was only meant for harassment. He denied
234
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
demanding and receiving money from Chu, a
denial that Nardo corroborated with his own
affidavit.
IBP Ruled: Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years with Warning and Ordered to Return
the amount of Five Hundred Eighty Thousand
(P580,000.00) Pesos with legal interest
Issue:
Whether Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer’s Oath and
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and
receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a
favorable decision from the NLRC?
Ratio:
Atty. Jose S. Guico, Jr. GUILTY of the violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of
the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and DISBARS him from membership in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. His name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi:
The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal
processes under the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility is a continuing condition for
every lawyer to retain membership in the Legal
Profession. To discharge the obligation, every lawyer
should not render any service or give advice to any
client that would involve defiance of the very laws that
he was bound to uphold and obey, for he or she was
always bound as an attorney to be law abiding, and
thus to uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal
Profession. Any lawyer found to violate this obligation
forfeits his or her privilege to continue such
membership in the legal profession.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in
appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of
money to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case.
He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption.
He compounded his violation by using said illegality as
his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that
he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His
acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were
a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the
Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or
malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that forbade him from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the
people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to
be a servant of the law.
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
Dr. Gamilla, et al. v. Atty. Eduardo Jr. Mario, Jr.
A.C. No. 4763
20 March 2003
DOCTRINES:
 Test of Conflict of Interest: whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance thereof
 it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an
attorney to put himself in a position where
self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels
him to do less than his best for his client
 a lawyer is not authorized to have financial
stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought
in behalf of his client
 an attorney or any other person occupying
fiduciary relations respecting property or
persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for
his own benefit the property committed to his
custody for management
FACTS:
 Disbarment case from an intra-union
leadership dispute seventeen (17) years ago
that spilled over to the instant complaint
alleging impropriety and double-dealing in the
disbursement of sums of money entrusted by
the UST to respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mario
Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and
his core of officers and directors for
distribution among faculty members of the
university
 1986 – Atty. Mario Jr., as president of the UST
Faculty Union and other officers entered into
a collective bargaining agreement with the
management of UST for provision of
economic benefits (P35 Million)
 the CBA engendered disputes arising from
the interpretation and implementation thereof
 1986 CBA expired in 1988 and efforts to form
a new one failed
 1989 – faculty members of UST went on strike
and UST terminated the employment of 16
officers and directors of the UST faculty union
including the respondent
 lower court resolved the issue in favor of the
dismissed faculty and ordered their
reinstatement with back wages
235
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 1990 – Secretary of Labor Ruben D. Torres
prescribed the terms and conditions of a five
(5)-year collective bargaining agreement
between UST and the UST Faculty Union
retroactive to 1988 when the 1986 collective
bargaining agreement expired
 The administration of UST and the UST
Faculty Union also entered into a compromise
agreement for the payment of:
o P7,000,000.00 from
which P5,000,000.00 was intended
to settle the back wages and other
claims of the sixteen (16) union
officers and directors of the UST
Faculty Union
o P2,000,000.00 to satisfy the
remaining obligations of UST under
the 1986 collective bargaining
agreement
 only P5,000,000.00 for the back wages and
other claims of respondent Atty. Mario and
other concerned union officers and directors
was paid immediately by UST while the
satisfaction of the balance of P2,000,000.00
was apparently deferred
 1992 - UST and the UST Faculty Union
executed a memorandum of agreement to
settle the salary increases and other benefits
under the collective bargaining agreement
effective 1988 for the period 1 June 1991 to
31 May 1993 for a total of P42,000,000
o it was also agreed that the benefits
accruing from June 1 1991 to
October 31 1992 were to be taken
from the sum of P42,000,000 to be
released directly to the faculty
members
o the remainder of the P42 M would be
ceded by UST to the UST faculty
union which would then disburse the
balance to cover the benefits
 In accordance with the memorandum of
agreement, UST took care of the
disbursement of P20,226,221.60 from the
total commitment of P42,000,000.00 to pay
for the following expenses:
o P 2M – unpaid obligations to faculty
members under the 1986 CBA
o P 13, 833, 597.96 – salary increase
o P 192, 623.64 – telephone,
electricity and water billings
o P 4.2M – attorney’s fees
 The expenses left P21,773, 778.40 from the
obligation
 UST relinquished only P18,038,939.37 to the
UST Faculty Union which was P3,734,839.03
short of the balance of P21,773,778.40
 The expenses left a balance
of P5,050,140.13
 1994 – the money left in the possession of the
UST Faculty Union was P6,389,154.04 which
it distributed among the faculty members
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 Complainants as members of the UST
Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of
transparency among the officers and directors
of the union in the management and
disbursement of the monetary benefits for the
faculty members
o Prayed for the expulsion of the
officers and directors of the union led
by respondent for failure to account
for the P4.2M balance
 1997 – Complainants filed for disbarment
against Atty. Mario for:
o compromising their entitlements
under the 1986 collective bargaining
agreement without the knowledge,
consent or ratification of the union
members, and worse, for
only P2,000,000.00 when they could
have received more
than P9,000,000.00
o failing to account for the P7,000,000
o lack of transparency in the
administration and distribution of the
remaining balance of
the P42,000,000 package under the
1992 memorandum of agreement
o refusal to remit and account for
the P4,200,000 in favor of the faculty
members
 Complainants asserted that Atty. Mario
violated rules 1.01, 1.02, 15.08, 16.01, 16.02,
16.03, and 20.04 of the CPR
 Respondent alleged that the issue raised
herein are the same issues involved in the
former cases filed before the Bureau of Labor
Relations  constituted forum shopping
 IBP  found the complaint meritorious and
suspended Atty. Mario from the practice of
law until such time that the required detailed
accounting of the questioned remittances
made by UST to the UST [Faculty Union]
during his incumbency as President and
Legal Counsel has been officially submitted
and reported to the UST [Faculty Union] and
to the IBP
 Subsequently, the regional director ordered
the expulsion of respondent and other
defendants for their failure to account for the
P42M and P4.2M balance
 BOLR  set aside the order of the regional
director and found that the balance of
the P42,000,000.00 which UST delivered to
the UST Faculty Union had been fully and
adequately accounted for by respondent and
the other officers and directors of the union
 CA  affirmed BOLR decision
 IBP  recommended the lifting of Atty.
Mario’s suspension since he had sufficiently
accounted for the funds in question
236
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
ISSUE: WON Atty. Mario violated Rule 15.08 of the
CPR
HELD: Yes. Atty. Mario is REPRIMANDED for his
misconduct with a warning that a more drastic
punishment will be imposed on him upon a repetition of
the same act.
RATIO:
 Although the record shows that the Bureau of
Labor Relations found respondent as having
adequately accounted for the disbursement of
the funds which the UST Faculty Union
received through the series of agreements
with the management of UST, this Court
believes that Atty. Mario failed to avoid
conflict of interests
o when he negotiated for the
compromise agreement wherein he
played the diverse roles of union
president, union attorney and
interested party being one of the
dismissed employees seeking his
own restitution
o when he obtained the attorneys fees
of P4,200,000.00 without full prior
disclosure of the circumstances
justifying such claim to the members
of the UST Faculty Union
 As one of the sixteen (16) union officers and
directors seeking compensation from the
University of Santo Tomas for their illegal
dismissal, respondent was involved in
obvious conflict of interests when in addition
he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and
president of the UST Faculty Union in forging
the compromise agreement
 Test of Conflict of Interest: whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance thereof
 it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an
attorney to put himself in a position where
self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels
him to do less than his best for his client
 an attorney or any other person occupying
fiduciary relations respecting property or
persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for
his own benefit the property committed to his
custody for management
 a lawyer cannot continue representing a client
in an action or any proceeding against a party
even with the client’s consent after the lawyer
brings suit in his own behalf against the same
defendant if it is uncertain whether the
defendant will be able to satisfy both
judgments
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 a lawyer is not authorized to have financial
stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought
in behalf of his client
 Respondent omitted the basic sense of fidelity
to steer clear of situations that put his loyalty
and devotion to his client  Atty. Mario, both
as lawyer and president of the union was duty
bound to protect and advance the interest of
the union members
 His personal interest as one of the dismissed
employees of UST complicated the
negotiation process and eventually resulted in
the lopsided compromise agreement
 Also, there was lack of notice and
transparency in respondents dual role as
lawyer and president of the UST Faculty
Union when he obtained P4,200,000.00 as
attorneys fees
 Clearly, he violated Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requiring every
lawyer to observe candor, fairness and loyalty
in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients  Lawyers are vanguards in the
bastion of justice so they are without doubt
expected to have a bigger dose of service-
oriented conscience and a little less of self-
interest
 Atty. Mario failed to disclose at crucial
moments significant information about the
manner by which he secured
the P7,000,000.00 by virtue of the
compromise agreement and
the P4,200,000.00 attorneys fees under the
memorandum of agreement
 A simple accounting of the money that he and
others concerned received from UST, as well
as an explanation on the details of the
agreements, would have enlightened the
faculty members about the probability of
conflict of interests on respondent’s part and
guided them to look for alternative actions to
protect their own interests
 a possible mitigation of his actionable conduct
was that the attorneys fees and the
compromise agreement were negotiated and
finalized under the most strenuous
circumstances where his leadership and that
of his core officers and directors were
incessantly challenged by complainants
allegedly aided by factions within UST itself
 Atty. Mario is admonished to refrain from all
appearances and acts of impropriety
including circumstances indicating conflict of
interests, and to behave at all times with
circumspection and dedication befitting a
member of the Bar, especially observing
candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions
with his client
237
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
profession.
CIVIL CODE
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by
purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in
person or through the mediation of another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of
superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of
justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring
by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect
to the property and rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of
their profession;
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
Salomon v. Atty. Joselito C. Frial
A.C. No. 7820
12 September 2008
DOCTRINES:
 A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of
the court. As such, he is expected to respect
the courts order and processes
 The lawyer should refrain from any action
whereby for his personal benefit or gain he
abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
reposed in him by his client.
 Money of the client or collected for the
client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported
and accounted for promptly and should not
under any circumstances be commingled
with his own or be used by him
FACTS
 A writ of preliminary attachment was issued in
favor of Lucy Lo, Atty. Frial’s client
 The writ was used to attach two (2) cars of
complainant’s black 1995 Volvo and a green
1993 Nissan Sentra
 Atty. Salomon alleged that the attaching
sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the
attached cars in the court premises, turned
them over to Atty. Frial, Los counsel
 Atty. Salomon also claimed that on several
occasions, the Nissan Sentra was spotted
being used by unauthorized individuals
 Atty. Salomon further alleged, when the
misuse of the car was reported, paving for
Liquigans apprehension, Atty. Frial, in a letter,
acknowledged having authorized Liquigan to
bring the car in custodia legis to a mechanic
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 As to the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that
during mediation, Atty. Frial deliberately
withheld information as to its whereabouts
 It turned out that the Volvo was totally
destroyed by fire, but the court was not
immediately notified
 Atty. Frial admitted taking custody of the cars
thru his own undertaking, without authority
and knowledge of the court  the vehicles
were parked near the YMCA building for 4
months and when he checked the condition
of the vehicle, he found it to be deteriorating
 Atty. Frial denied personally using or allowing
others the use of the cars, stating in this
regard that if indeed the Nissan Sentra was
spotted in Quezon City, it could have been the
time when the car was being transferred from
the YMCA, that it was brought to the gas
station to be filled up
 Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon, Jr. charged
respondent Atty. Joselito C. Frial with
violating his Lawyers Oath and/or gross
misconduct arising from his actuations with
respect to the former’s vehicles before the
IBP and prayed that the latter be disbarred
ISSUE: WON Atty. Frial violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR
HELD: Yes. Atty. Joselito C. Frial is adjudged guilty of
grave misconduct and infidelity in the custody of
properties in custodia legis. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of this
Decision
RATIO:
 The commission observed that while there is
perhaps no direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial
with the use of the Nissan Sentra, the
unyielding fact remains that it was being used
by other persons during the time he was
supposed to have custody of it
 whoever drove the Nissan Sentra on those
occasions must have received the car key
from Atty. Frial
 When Atty. Frial took custody of the Nissan
Sentra and Volvo cars, he was duty bound to
keep and preserve these in the same
condition he received them so as to fetch a
good price should the vehicles be auctioned
 As to the Volvo, Atty. Frial admitted receiving
it in excellent condition and that there was no
court order authorizing him to remove the car
from the YMCA premises, that he secured the
release of the Volvo on the strength alone of
his own written undertaking and that the car
was almost totally destroyed  Atty. Frial did
not give information as to the whereabouts of
the cars
238
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 IBP Commission concluded that Atty. Frial
committed acts clearly bearing on his integrity
as a lawyer, adding that he failed to observe
the diligence required of him as custodian of
the cars  recommended that Atty. Frial be
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year
 A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the
court. As such, he is expected to respect the
courts order and processes  Atty. Frial
miserably fell short of his duties as such
officer because he trifled with the writ of
attachment the court issued
 Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of
taking good care of the attached cars  he
allowed the use of the Nissan car by persons
who had no business using it, he did not
inform the court or at least the sheriff of the
destruction of the Volvo car and he took
custody of them without so much as informing
the court, let alone securing, its authority
 For his negligence and unauthorized
possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial
guilty of infidelity in the custody of the
attached cars and grave misconduct
 the victorious parties in the case are not
without legal recourse in recovering the
Volvos value from Atty. Frial should they
desire to do so
 With the view we take of the case, there is no
compelling evidence tending to show that
Atty. Frial intended to pervert the
administration of justice for some dishonest
purpose  disbarment is not proper - a year
suspension from the practice of his legal
profession will provide him with enough time
to ponder on and cleanse himself of his
misconduct.
DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR. vs ATTY. MINTERVO
T. LANGIT
AC No. 7057
July 25, 2006
FACTS:
 The case was filed by Almendarez, Jr., seeking
the disbarment of Atty. Langit on May 5, 2004 for
acts unbecoming of a lawyer.
 Almendarez, Jr., who was the attorney-in-fact of
his mother, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case.
His counsel was Atty. Langit.
 In the ejectment case, defendant Bumanlag
continued depositing with the Clerk of Court for
monthly rentals for the property in dispute.
 The MTC eventually rendered a decision based on
a compromise agreement executed by
Almendarez, Jr. and Bumanlag. The MTC thus
granted an Omnibus Motion for Execution and
Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed by Atty.
Langit as counsel of Almendarez, Jr.
 3 years later, Alemdarez, Jr. learned that
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
respondent was able to withdraw the rentals
deposited by Bumanlag (Php 255,000.00 total)
which was evidenced by 2 receipts signed by Atty.
Langit. The withdrawals were made through
Felicidad Daroy, Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court,
who personally delivered the money to Atty.
Langit.
 Atty. Langit did not inform Almendarez, Jr. of such
transactions.
 Thus, Almendarez, Jr., through his new counsel,
Atty. Larida, sent a demand letter to Atty. Langit
for the return of the Php 255,000.00, but Atty.
Langit did not respond.
 Almendarez, Jr. thus filed a case for disbarment
against Atty. Langit for failing to account for
complainants funds.
 IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio Vinluan
ordered Atty. Langit to submit his answer to the
complaint, but he did not file an answer despite
receipt of notice.
Finding and recommendation of the IBP
 IBP Commissioner Dulay found that Atty. Langit
failed to account for the money he held in trust for
complainant, Almendarez, Jr. A violation of Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 It was recommended that Atty. Langit be declared
guilty of gross misconduct and be suspended for
one year, aside from being ordered to render an
accounting of the money he had received.
 This was approved by the IBP Board of
Governors, except increasing his suspension to
two years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Langit violated Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
The Court sustained the decision of the IBP. They held
that Atty. Langit committed a flagrant violation of his
oath when he received the money representing rentals
for his client, without accounting for and returning the
money to his client, Almendarez, Jr.
The court held that Atty. Langit should have
immediately notified Almendarez, Jr. of the MTC’s
approval of the motion to withdraw the rentals.
A lawyer is not entitle to unilaterally appropriate his
clients money for himself by the mere fact that the client
owes him attorneys fees.
The fact that Atty. Langit failed to return the money to
Almendarez, Jr. despite demands gives rise to the
presumption that he had used it for his personal
benefit. This is a gross violation of general morality as
well as of professional ethics, which impairs public
239
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
confidence in the legal profession.
Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 25 — Unlawful retention of clients funds;
contempt — When an attorney unjustly retains in his
hands money of his client after it has been demanded
he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the
Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions;
but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to
a criminal prosecution.
WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY
of violating Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND
respondent from the practice of law for two
yearseffective upon finality of this Decision. We
ORDER respondent to RESTITUTE, within 30 days
from finality of this Decision, complainants P255,000,
with interest at 12% per annum from 30 June 2003 until
fully paid. We DIRECT respondent to submit to the
Court proof of payment within 15 days from payment of
the full amount.
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT
INCORPORATED vs. NICOLAS C. TORRES
AC No. 10438
Sept. 23, 2014
FACTS:
 CF Sharp is a duly organized corporation existing
under Philippine laws, engaged in overseas
maritime employment.
 CF Sharp hired Torres — a doctor and a lawyer by
profession — as their Legal and Claims Manager,
and to serve as their legal counsel in legal cases
and in medical related claims.
 Among the cases Torres handled were those of
seafarers Mangi, Sampani, Delgado, and Chua.
 In the complaint, it was alleged that CF Sharp
issued checks in the amounts of Php 524,000.00,
Php 652,013.20, Php 145,650.00, Php 97,100.00,
and Php 296,808.40 as settlement for the claims
of the above mentioned seafarers.
 However, CF Sharp discovered later on that the
only check delivered was that which amounted to
Php 145,650.00 issued in favor of Delgado. Torres
never gave the checks to the seafarers and
instead, had them deposited at International
Exchange Bank.
 It was also discovered that Sampani received Php
225,239.00 out of the requested Php 652,013.20,
and that the checks were not issued by CF Sharp.
 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline received
an instant complaint and required Torres to file an
answer. Torres did not file an answer, nor did he
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
appear in the mandatory conference or file his
position paper.
IBP Report and Recommendation
 The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Torres
administratively liable for violation of the Code of
Professional responsibility, recommending that he
be suspended from the practice for a period of one
year.
 Torres belatedly field his answer with a Motion to
Re-Open Investigation. He claimed that he was
not able to file an answer because CF Sharp
supplied a wrong address to the IBP and filed non-
bailable criminal cases against him which caused
his detention in a regular prison cell.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report
and recommendation, increasing the period of
suspension from the practice of law to two years,
and ordering Torres to return the full amount of
money due to the seafarers, with legal interest
within 30 days of notice.
 Torres filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Torres should be held administratively
liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
 The Court sustained the decision of the IBP as to
the recommended penalty and the monetary
award in favor of CF Sharp.
 The Court held that it is fundamental that the
relationship between a lawyer and his client is
formed out of trust (“fiduciary”) and ascribes to a
lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith.
 It has been held that a lawyer’s failure to return
upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of
his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
used the same for his personal use or benefit.
Such act is a gross violation of general morality as
well as professional ethics.
 It is well-settled that “when a lawyer receives
money from the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the
client showing that the money was spent for a
particular purpose. And if he does not use the
money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must
immediately return the money to his client.”
 Clearly, respondent’s acts of misappropriation
constitute dishonesty, abuse of trust and
confidence reposed in him by the complainant,
and betrayal of his client’s interests which he is
duty-bound to protect.
 They are contrary to the mandate of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the CPR which provides that “[a]
240
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance
is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and
dishonorable to the legal profession; it also reveals
a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice
law.
 The Court, however, deems it proper to modify the
penalty recommended by the IBP. In similar cases
where a lawyer misappropriated their client’s
money, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.
 The Court also cannot concur with the IBP’s
recommendation for the return of the settlement
money received from CF Sharp, considering that it
was not specifically prayed for in the latter’s
administrative complaint.
WHEREFORE, respondent Nicolas C. Torres is found
guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01
and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name ordered
STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.
Rule 16.02 - Shall keep client’s fund separate
Hernandez v. Atty. Jose C. Go
A.C. No. 1526
31 January 2005
RECIT-READY: Hernandez was left behind by her
husband and her husband’s creditors ran after her. She
engaged the services of Go to prevent her properties
from being foreclosed. Go told Hernandez to sell him
her properties at no cost and got the titles to her lots so
that he could sell it to the creditors. He didn’t sell the
lots, and he paid off the loan. Hernandez was now
deprived of her properties.
DOCTRINE: An attorney should exert his best
efforts and ability to protect the interests of his
clients. This includes holding in trust the client’s
properties and ensuring that the client’s funds are
separate from his own.
FACTS:
10. Disbarment case against Atty. Jose C. Go
11. The complainant, Nazaria Hernandez
(deceased as of the case; substituted by her
son, Luciano S. Hernandez), was abandoned
by her husband.
12. This husband incurred loans with multiple
creditors and those creditors had demanded
payment from Nazaria after she had been
abandoned by her husband.
13. Fearing the foreclosure of her properties to
satisfy the debt of her husband, Nazaria
engaged the services of Atty. Go, in 1961.
14. Atty. Go “instilled in complainant a feeling of
helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
social humiliation”. He asked her to give him
her land titles covering three lots in
Zamboanga for him to sell, after which the
proceeds would (supposedly) cover the loan
amount demanded by the numerous
creditors.
 Atty. Go asked Nazaria to execute
deeds of sale in his favor, without
monetary or valuable consideration.
 *At this juncture, the titles of the
parcels of land were in his
possession; he also held deeds of
sale which would (ordinarily) present
proof of acquisition of ownership
15. Atty. Go employed the same procedure for
three more parcels of land. After this, it seems
that all of Nazaria’s lots were registered in
favor of Atty. Go.
16. In 1974 (or 13 years after the whole
transaction), Nazaria discovered that:
 The properties were not sold by
Atty. Go, and were now registered
in his name; and
 The loan was paid by Go from his
own personal funds.
17. Nazaria filed the disbarment case. This was
opposed by Go, who stated that he (a) had
acted in good faith; and (b) had even
extended financial assistance to her.
18. The SC referred Nazaria to the OSG. The IBP
only acted on the case in 1990, or after 13
years, 1 month and 26 days, after referral by
the OSG.
a. The IBP recommended suspension
for six months
b. The IBP Board of Governors
increased the recommended
suspension to three years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Go’s actions
warranted sanction or discipline by the Court
RULING: YES. Atty. Go’s actions deplorable actions
were contrary to Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He was DISBARRED
and his name was ORDERED STRICKEN from the
Roll of Attorneys.
RATIO:
 Go’s acts of acquiring for himself Nazaria’s
lots entrusted to him are, by any standard,
acts constituting gross misconduct, a
grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction
in duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment.
 The records show that complainant reposed
such high degree of trust and confidence in
herein respondent, that when she engaged
his services, she entrusted to him her land
titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing
241
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
that the proceeds thereof would be used to
pay her creditors.
 Respondent, however, abused her trust and
confidence when he did not sell her
properties to others but to himself and spent
his own money to pay her obligations.
 Go was duty-bound to render a detailed report
to the complainant on how much he sold
Nazaria’s lots and the amounts paid to her
creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lots to
other buyers, complainant could have earned
more.
 Records show that Nazaria did not receive
any amount from respondent. Clearly, Go did
not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty
as Nazaria’s counsel.
 Public interest requires that an attorney
should exert his best efforts and ability to
protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer
who performs that duty with diligence and
candor not only protects his clients cause; he
also serves the ends of justice and does
honor to the bar and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal
profession.
Tarog v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort
A.C. No. 8253
15 March 2011
RECIT-READY: Sps. Tarog had their properties
foreclosed. They engaged the services of Ricafort.
Ricafort told them to consign Php 65,000 in court to
counter the auction sale purchase price of Php 60,000.
They told them to address the check to his name. Later
on, the Tarogs also paid Ricafort Php 15,000 to file the
memoranda, which he did not do. By appropriating
the money for himself, Ricafort breached his
fiduciary duties as a lawyer and was disbarred.
DOCTRINE: Ethical and practical considerations made
it both natural and imperative for lawyers to issue
receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep copies of
the receipts for his own records. By virtue of the
fiduciary duty of a lawyer to his client, lawyers are
burdened with the legal duty to promptly account for all
the funds received from or held by him for them.
Moreover, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
FACTS:
15. Sps. Tarog’s properties were foreclosed by a
bank in Bicol.
16. In order to get their properties back, they
engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort.
a. Atty. Ricafort was a well-trusted
lawyer in the community, and the
Dean of the College of Law of
Aquinas University, where the son of
Sps. Tarog was studying.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
17. Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay
P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to
him. He explained the importance of
depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter
the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee,
the buyer of the foreclosed property.
18. After Sps. Tarog informed him that they had
only P60,000.00, he required them to add
some more amount (dagdagan niyo ng
konti).
19. To raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, Vidal
solicited a loan from one Sia with the
guarantee of his brother Atty. Miralles. Sia
issued a check in that amount in the name
of Arnulfo.
20. On November 7, 1992, the Tarogs and Vidal
went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver
the P65,000.00. When Arnulfo said that he
had first to encash the check at the bank,
Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to entrust the
check to him instead so that he (Atty.
Ricafort) would be the one to encash it and
then deposit the amount in court. On that
representation, Arnulfo handed the check to
Atty. Ricafort.
21. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty.
Ricafort to verify the status of the
consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them
that he had not deposited the amount in
court, but in his own account. He promised
to return the money, plus interest.
22. Despite several inquiries about when the
amount would be returned, however, the
Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty.
Ricafort that the money was in good hands.
23. The Tarogs further claimed that the RTC
where their complaint for annulment of sale
was being heard, had required the parties to
file their memoranda. Accordingly, they
delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for
that purpose, but he did not file the
memorandum.
24. When it became apparent to the Tarogs that
Atty. Ricafort would not make good his
promise of returning the P65,000.00, plus
interest, Arnulfo demanded that Atty. Ricafort
return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the
P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the
memorandum. They did not receive any reply
from Atty. Ricafort.
25. In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the
P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in
court, insisting that the amount was
payment for his legal services under a
"package deal," that is, the amount
included his acceptance fee, attorney’s
fee, and appearance fees from the filing of
the complaint for annulment of sale until
judgment, but excluding appeal.
26. He claimed that the fees were agreed upon as
professional fees. Moreover, he argued that
Arnulfo, being a retired school principal, was
242
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
a learned person who would not have easily
fallen for any scheme like the one they
depicted against him. Also, he mentioned that
he did not receive any demand letter from
Arnfulo, although he had earlier admitted
receiving the same through a househelp.
27. The IBP recommended that Ricafort be
disbarred and ordered to return the Php
65,000 and Php 15,000 (total 80,000) to Sps.
Tarog.
28. Commissioner Reyes concluded that Atty.
Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules
16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by
taking advantage of the vulnerability of his
clients and by being dishonest in his dealings
with them by refusing to return the amount of
P65,000.00 to them.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ricafort’s acts in keeping the
money entrusted to him constituted a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING: YES. Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and his acts
constituted gross misconduct. He was DISBARRED.
RATIO:
 Being non-lawyers, the Tarogs had no idea
about the requirement for them to consign any
amount in court, due to the substantive and
procedural implications of such requirement
being ordinarily known only to lawyers.
 Their ready and full reliance on Atty. Ricafort’s
representations about the requirement to
consign that amount in court was entirely
understandable in view of their awareness of
Atty. Ricafort’s standing in the legal
community of the place.
 Ethical and practical considerations made it
both natural and imperative for him to issue
receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep
copies of the receipts for his own records.
Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
 Definitely, Atty. Ricafort had a highly fiduciary
and confidential relation with the Tarogs. As
such, he was burdened with the legal duty to
promptly account for all the funds received
from or held by him for them.
 Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to
hold in trust any money and property of his
clients that came into his possession, and he
needed to be always mindful of the trust and
confidence his clients reposed in him.
 Thus, having obtained the funds from the
Tarogs in the course of his professional
2
The earlier case was about Romulo Ricafort. I don’t know if they’re
related, but they’re both from Bicol. They might be.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
employment, he had the obligation to
deliver such funds to his clients:
(a) when they became due;
or
(b) upon demand.
 For him to deposit the amount of P65,000.00
in his personal account without the consent of
the Tarogs and not return it upon demand,
and for him to fail to file the memorandum and
yet not return the amount of P15,000.00 upon
demand constituted a serious breach of his
fiduciary duties as their attorney, and
violated Rule 16.02. He reneged on his duty
to render an accounting to his clients showing
that he had spent the amounts for the
particular purposes intended. He was thereby
presumed to have misappropriated the
moneys for his own use to the prejudice of
his clients and in violation of the clients’
trust reposed in him.
 Moreover, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conduct
Rule 16.03 - Shall deliver funds on demand; lien
Busiños v. Atty. Francisco Ricafort
A.C. No. 4349
22 December 1997
RECIT READY: Ricafort was the counsel of Busios.
Busios executed an SPA allowing Ricafort to demand,
collect, and receive money from the defendant in a
civil case. The RTC awarded the rental payments
subject of the civil suit to Busios, and Ricafort
received it on Busios’ behalf. Instead of depositing the
money, Ricafort used the money “for personal use”
and failed to return the money to Busios even after
demand.
DOCTRINE: Money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held
in trust and must be immediately turned over to them.
He is obligated to report promptly the money of his
client that has come into his possession. He should
not commingle it with his private property or use it for
his personal purposes without his client’s consent. He
should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to
private trust.
FACTS:
9. Disbarment case against Francisco Ricafort2.
10. Complainant Lourdes R. Busios is one of the
heirs of Pedro Rodrigo who are the
defendants in Civil Case No. 1584, apparently
a case involving the properties of the late
Pedro Rodrigo, father of herein complainant.
243
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

11. Ricafort was the counsel of record for Busios
in the said case. On July 10, 1994,
complainant representing her co-heirs,
executed a special power of attorney,
appointing and constituting respondent
and/or Pedro Rodrigo, Jr. to be her true and
lawful attorney-in-fact which included the
power “To demand, collect and receipt for
any and all sums of money that may now be
deposited in said court by the defendant x x x
or hereafter be deposited by said
defendant, x x x”.
12. On August 10, 1994, the RTC Albay issued
an order, directing the Clerk of Court to
release any and all deposits of rentals made
in connection with this case (Civil Case No.
1584) to the defendants Heirs of Pedro
Rodrigo through Lourdes Rodrigo Businos.
13. In a letter dated August 10, 1994, the Clerk of
Court of RTC, Ligao informed herein
complainant that respondent had already
received the rental deposit. The said sum was
entrusted to respondent with an obligation on
his part to deposit the same in the account of
complainant’s husband at PNB, Ligao
Branch.
14. Instead, however, of depositing the
money, respondent converted the money
to his own personal use, and despite
several demands, he failed to return the
same to complainant.
15. Ricafort was charged with estafa for
misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of
this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to
respondent for deposit in the bank account of
complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00
represented the amount respondent
demanded from complainant supposedly for a
bond in a civil case, when no such bond was
required. Ricafort was also charged with an
administrative case.
16. The IBP recommended suspension for a
period of one year.
without his client’s consent. He should
maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity
to private trust.
 Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of
a judgment in favor of his clients is held in
trust and must be immediately turned over to
them.
 Respondent, by converting the money of his
clients to his own personal use without their
consent, and by deceiving the complainant
into giving him the amount of P2,000.00
purportedly to be used as a bond which was
not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct. By so
doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in
him by his clients.
 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession. The trust
and confidence necessarily reposed by
clients require in the attorney a high standard
and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar
should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
dealing.
 Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to
the legal profession by faithfully performing
his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts
and to his clients. To this end, nothing should
be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the profession.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ricafort was liable for violation

of Rule16.03 of the CPR

RULING: YES. Money collected by a lawyer in

pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held
in trust and must be immediately turned over to them.
Ricafort was DISBARRED.

RATIO:
 It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his
oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for
money or malice and is bound to conduct
himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He
is obligated to report promptly the money of
his client that has come into his possession.
He should not commingle it with his private
property or use it for his personal purposes

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 244

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

 it sold said land to the Quezon City Government

CELEDONIO 
as the site for the Quezon City General Hospital
but reserved an area as a possible development
site.
QUILBAN,  Squatters have settled in the area since 1965 or
1966.
Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters,
ROMUALDO Congressman Taruc
 broached to Father Escaler the idea of donating or

DALAGAN, 
selling the land cheap to the squatters.
advised the squatters to form an organization and
choose a leader.
The squatters formed the “Samahang Pagkakaisa ng
FORTUNATO Barrio Bathala”, with Bernabe Martin as President.
But instead of working for the welfare of the Samahan,

RAMIREZ,  Martin went to realtor Maximo Riverawith whom he

connived to obtain the sale to the exclusion of the
other Samahan members.
AMADOR Land was sold to Rivera at P15 per square meter.
 prevailing price was P100 to P120 per square
meter.
ALARCON and  Father Escaler had been made to believe that
Rivera represented the squatters.
Thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed Civil
LUIS AGAWAN Case
 to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of them
 after reimbursement by the latter of the
vs. ATTY. corresponding amount paid by Rivera to the
Colegio.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case.
SANTIAGO R. To prosecute the appeal, the Samahan members
hired as their counsel

ROBINOL Atty. Robinol who was paid P2,000.00 as
attorney’s fees, and
 was also to be given by the members a part of the
land.
The Court of Appeals reversed the CFI Decision
Adm. Case No. 2144 ordering Rivera to execute a deed of conveyance of the
land in question in favor of plaintiffs.
To raise the amount of P41,961.65 ordered paid by the
April 10, 1989 Court of Appeals,
 the five officers of the Samahan collected
P2,500.00 from each head of family.
 turned over the sum of P68,970.00 to Atty.
Robinol.
DOCTRINE The five officers discovered that Atty. Robinol made
no payment to Rivera.
Atty. Robinol is guilty of ethical infractions and grave Atty. Robinol replied that
misconduct for having retained in his possession his  there was an intervention filed in the civil case and
clients’ funds intended for a specific purpose.  that a Writ of Execution had not yet been issued.
Twenty-one out of 32 plaintiffs
 arrived at a “first consensus” to change their
counsel,

FACTS 
sent Atty. Robinol a letter informing the latter of
their decision, and
demanding the return of the P75,000.00.
Colegio de San Jose used to own a parcel of land, - Atty. Robinol turned deaf ears to the demand.
Atty. Montemayor formally entered his appearance.

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 245

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

Atty. Robinol Atty. Robinol filed a complaint for Disbarment

 manifested that he had no objection to the
appearance of and his substitution by Atty.
Montemayor.
 however, he still questioned the first consensus.
Another document labelled the “second consensus”
was signed by 21 plaintiffs.
Administrative Case No. 2144
The Samahan officers filed this Administrative
Complaint before this Court requesting
 the investigation of Atty. Robinol for refusal to
return the P75,000.00 and
 the Court exercise its power of discipline over
members of the Bar unworthy to practice law.
In his defense, Atty. Robinol maintains that
 their agreement as to attorney’s fees was on a
contingent basis—if he obtains a reversal of the
lower Court Decision, they will give him a portion
of the property subject matter of the litigation equal
to the portion that will pertain to each of the 32
plaintiffs;
 he did not receive P70,000.00 from Complainants
but only P56,470.00;
 he prepared and signed the receipt showing that
he received P70,000.00 only to save complainants
from embarrassment and shame should their co-
plaintiffs ask for proof that they have paid their
shares, which they have not;
 the correct amount in his possession is only
P62,470.00—it would really be P75,000.00 had
the five Complainants paid their shares in the
amount of P12,500.00 at P2,500.00 each and one
against Atty. Anacleto R. Montemayor for
 alleged gross unethical conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer
 in that Atty. Montemayor readily accepted the case
without his (Robinol’s) formal withdrawal and
conformity and
 knowing fully well that there was no consensus of
all the plaintiffs to discharge him as their counsel.
Atty. Montemayor
 denied that the attorney’s fees agreed upon by
plaintiffs and Atty. Robinol were purely on a
contingent basis,
 the attorney’s fees were payable on a cash basis
of P2,000.00 retainer fee, as evidenced by the
receipt;
 the contingent fee referred to by Atty. Robinol was
the result of his insistent demand after the Court of
Appeals Decision was already final;
 21 out of 32 members of the Samahan signed the
agreement to discharge Atty. Robinol which is a
majority of the membership and, therefore, a valid
consensus;
 he agreed to act as counsel if only to arrest the
growing belief of the Samahan that most members
of the Philippine Bar are unprincipled;
 although there was no formal Motion for
substitution, there was substantial compliance
with Sec. 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.


Fortunato Ramirez paid his balance of P30.00;
he had the right to hold the money in his
ISSUE/S
possession as guarantee for the payment of Whether Atty. Robinol has been guilty of ethical
his attorney’s fees—instead of getting a portion
infractions and grave misconduct.
of the property that will pertain to each of the
plaintiffs, he wants his portion converted to cash;
 he is ready to give back the amount of P12,470.00,
representing the difference between P50,000.00


and the amount of P62,470.00 in his possession;
complainants cannot make this Court a collection
RULING
agency;
Yes. He has not only violated his oath not to delay
 while this Court has the exclusive disciplinary
power over members of the Bar, it is equally true any man for money and to conduct himself with all
that the Court cannot pass judgment on good fidelity to his clients.
Complainants’ plea that the amount deposited by He is declared to have forfeited his rights to
respondent be returned to them as this prayer attorney’s fees and is ordered to return the amount
should be ventilated in an ordinary action; of P75,000.00 to the plaintiffs.
 he does not have the slightest intention to
appropriate the money in his possession for
himself,
 but he is holding it until his attorney’s fees are
satisfied there being no guarantee for its
satisfaction because of Complainants’ adamant
refusal to pay him;
 that there was no previous notice to him of his
discharge; and
 that Atty. Montemayor accepted the case without
his formal withdrawal and conformity.

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 246

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

RATIO DECIDENDI
No basis to claim that since he SPOUSES HENRY A.
was unjustly dismissed by his CONCEPCION and
clients.
 There was justifiable ground for his discharge as
BLESILDA S.

counsel.
His clients had lost confidence in him.
CONCEPCION vs. ATTY.
ELMER A. DELA ROSA
No basis to claim that he had
the legal right to retain the
money in his possession A.C. No. 10681
 bereft of any legal right to retain his clients’ funds
intended for a specific purpose.
 obliged to return the money immediately to their February 3, 2015
rightful owners.

Principle of Quantum Meruit

 applies if a lawyer is employed without a price
DOCTRINE
agreed upon for his services
 he would be entitled to receive what he merits
for his services, as much as he has earned. The rule against borrowing of
In this case, however, money by a lawyer from his
 there was an express contract and
 a stipulated mode of compensation.
client is intended to prevent the
 The implied assumpsit on quantum meruit is lawyer from taking advantage of
inapplicable.
The complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Robinol his influence over his client.
against Atty. Montemayor is absolutely without merit.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with trust and confidence. This “trust and
Rule 16.04 – Shall not borrow money
confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule presumes that
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use
all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

Facts
From 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as
complainants’ retained lawyer and counsel. In this
capacity,
 respondent handled many of their cases and was
consulted on various legal matters,
 among others, the prospect of opening a
pawnshop business towards the end of 2005.
Said business failed to materialize.
Aware of the fact that complainants had money
intact from their failed business venture

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 247

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 respondent borrowed the amount of

P2,500,000.00,
which he promised to return, with interest, five
(5) days thereafter.
Complainants issued 3 checks in respondent’s
name:
Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a
piece of paper containing:
 photocopies of the checks, and
 an acknowledgment that he received the originals
of the checks;
 personally encashed the checks.
 he failed to pay complainants.
Complainants
 began demanding payment
 but respondent merely made repeated promises to
pay soon.
 Blesilda sent a demand letterto respondent, which
the latter did not heed.
Respondent
 denied borrowing any money from the
complainants;
 claimed that Jean Charles Nault, one of his other
clients, was the real debtor.
 complainants had been attempting to collect from
Nault, and that
 he was engaged for that specific purpose.
Complainants maintained that
 they extended the loan to respondent alone,
 as evidenced by the checks issued in the latter’s
name.
 denied knowing Nault and
 pointed out that it defies common sense for them
to extend an unsecured loan in the amount of
P2,500,000.00 to a person they do not even know.
Nault
 explicitly denied knowing complainants and
 alleged that it was respondent who incurred the
subject loan from them.
Issue
Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violating the CPR.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Ruling
Yes. Respondent’s receipt of the P2,500,000.00 loan
from complainants is amply supported by substantial
evidence.
Atty. Dela Rosa is found guilty of violating Canon 7 and
Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) years.
ratio
A lawyer’s act of asking a client
for a loan is very unethical.
 It comes within those acts considered as abuse of
client’s confidence.
 The canon presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the
legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation.
The appropriate penalty for an
errant lawyer depends on the
exercise of sound judicial
discretion based on the
surrounding facts.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
 the ONLY issue is whether the officer of the
court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a
member of the Bar.
 the Court’s only concern is the determination of
respondent’s administrative liability;
 it should NOT involve his civil liability for money
received from his client in a transaction separate,
distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his
professional engagement.
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
248
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

ANTERO M. facts
SISON vs. ATTY. Atty. Camacho was the counsel of Marsman-Drysdale
Agribusiness Holdings Inc. (MDAHI) in an insurance
claim against Paramount Insurance.
MANUEL N. The initial insurance claim was P14,863,777.00.
Atty. Camacho
 met with Atty. Enrique Dimaano, corporate
CAMACHO 
secretary of MDAHI
and proposed to increase their claim to
P64,412,534.18 by taking into account the
interests imposed.
A.C. No. 10910  clarified that the increase in the claim would
require additional docket fees in the amount of
P1,288,260.00, as shown in his handwritten
computation.
January 12, 2016  promised to issue a receipt for the said amount,
but never did.
MDAHI (through its President Atty. Sison)
 agreed and granted the said amount,
 which was evidenced by a Payment
DOCTRINE 
Request/Order Form.
later discovered that RTC had already rendered a
decision in favor of MDAHI granting its insurance
claim plus interests in the amount of
A lawyer’s failure, to P65,000,000.00.
Atty. Camacho
return upon demand, the  sent a letter to MDAHI recommending a settlement
with in the amount of P15,000,000.00
 allegedly to prevent a protracted appeal with the
funds held by him on appellate court.
MDAHI refused the offer of compromise.
behalf of his client gives Atty. Camacho
 filed the Satisfaction of Judgment before the RTC,
rise to the presumption  stating that the parties had entered into a
compromise agreement;
that he has appropriated  replied to MDAHI that he simply gave it to the clerk
of court as the payment period had lapsed.
the same for his own use Atty. Sison sent a letter to Atty. Camacho stating that
 he was alarmed that the former would accept a
in violation of the trust 
disadvantageous compromise;
it was against company policy to bribe any
government official with respect to the
reposed in him by his P1,288,260.00 given to the clerk of court;
 MDAHI would only pay P200,000.00 to Atty.
client. Camacho as attorney’s fees.
Atty. Camacho denied all the allegations against
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the him. He stressed that
counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty  he had the authority to enter into the compromise
to account for the money or property collected or agreement.
received for or from his client.  the alleged docket fees given to him by MDAHI
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but formed part of his attorney’s fees.
not used for the purpose should be immediately  the judgment debt was paid and accepted by
returned. MDAHI without any objection, as duly evidenced
by an acknowledgment receipt.
 the compromise agreement was valid because
MDAHI did not reject the same, and that

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 249

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 the amount of P1,288,260 formed part of his
attorney’s fees.
issue
Whether Atty. Camacho violated Rules 1.01 and
16.01 of the CPR.
ruling
Yes. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Atty. Camacho is ordered to RETURN to MDAHI the
P1,288,260.00
Failing to account
for the money of
the client
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the
counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty
to account for the money or property collected or
received for or from his client.
Lawyers are NOT entitled to unilaterally appropriate
their clients’ money for themselves by the mere fact
that the clients owe them attorney’s fees.
Moreover, Atty. Camacho failed to issue a receipt to
MDAHI from the moment he received the said amount.
Ethical and practical considerations made it both
natural and imperative for a lawyer to issue receipts,
even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the
receipts for his own records.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Entering into a
compromise
agreement without
written authority of
the client
Although MDAHI subsequently received the payment
of P15M from Paramount Insurance, it does not erase
Atty. Camacho’s transgression.
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 3195. December 19, 1989
DOCTRINE
"Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best
efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his
client’s cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his
client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to
the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative
duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar or to the public. That circumstance explains the public
concern for the maintenance of an untarnished standard
of conduct by every attorney towards his client." When a
lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he
will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final
conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on
him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
elementary principles of professional ethics. Lawyers are
an indispensable part of the whole system of
administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when
strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the
legal profession, strict compliance with one’s oath of office
and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.
FACTS
250
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Subject of this administrative complaint is Atty.
Humberto V. Potenciano
 He is charged with deceit, fraud, and
misrepresentation, and also with gross
misconduct, malpractice and of acts
unbecoming of an officer of the court.
 Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina
Cantiller, defendant in an action for "ejectment"
and "reconveyance with damages."
 When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina
came out the losing party.
 Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they
consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan which
introduced them to herein Respondent, Atty.
Potenciano.
 A petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment,
Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo
Order, etc." was prepared by respondent to
forestall the execution of the order to vacate
 October 9, 1987, the complainant was made to
sign by respondent what she described as a
"hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and
haphazardly composed" petition for annulment
of judgment.
 Complainant alleges that respondent promised
her that the necessary restraining order would
be secured if only because the judge who would
hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close
friend).
 Thereupon, the petition was filed and
Respondent demanded from the complainant
one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) as attorney’s fee
which the latter paid that same afternoon.
 October 11, 1987: Respondent went to the house
of complainant and asked her to be ready with
two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to be given to
another judge who will issue the restraining
order in the ejectment case
 Respondent informed the complainant and her
sister that he could not locate the judge who
would issue the restraining order. The parties,
then, instead went to the Max’s Restaurant
where respondent ordered some food —
including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be
given to the judge who would issue the
restraining order.
 Respondent asked for the remaining balance of
the two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) which he
earlier demanded. Complainant gave her last
money - a ten dollar ($10.00) bill
 Sometime after the filing, respondent informed
complainant and Peregrina that there was a
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
need to file another case with the RTC to enable
them to retain possession of the apartment.
 For this purpose, respondent told complainant
to prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) allegedly to be deposited with the
Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of
the apartment and another one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) to cover the expenses of the suit.
 October 26, 1987: the money was handed over
to the Respondent, then a complaint for
"Specific Performance, Annulment of Simulated
or Spurious Sale with Damages," was filed by
respondent
 October 30, 1987: respondent, contrary to his
promise that he would secure a restraining
order, withdrew his appearance as counsel for
complainant.
 Complainant was not able to get another lawyer
as replacement.
 Thus, no restraining order or preliminary
injunction was obtained.
 As a consequence, the order to vacate was
eventually enforced and executed.
 It came to complainant’s knowledge that there
was really no need to make a deposit of ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00). After further
inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no
such deposit made.
 December 23, 1987: complainant sent a demand
letter to respondent asking for the return of the
total amount of eleven thousand pesos
(P11,000.00) which the former earlier gave to
the latter.
 However, this letter was never answered and
the money was never returned. Hence,
complainant lodged this administrative
complaint against herein Respondent.
 Respondent in his answer contends that the
filing of the civil cases was done in good faith
and that the allegations of complainant relative
to the administrative charge against him are all
lies, product of one’s imagination and only
intended to harass him.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pontenciano violated the CPR
RULING: YES. “WHEREFORE, after considering the
entirety of the circumstances present in this case, this
Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be
guilty of the charges against him and hereby
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an
indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate
that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to
251
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
resume the practice of law.
Finally, respondent is hereby ordered to return to
complainant herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos
(P11,000.00) with legal interest from the date of this
resolution until it is actually returned.”
RATIO
 SC agrees that the petitions appear to be poorly
prepared and written.
 Having represented himself capable of picking up the
cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant
respondent should have carefully prepared the
pleadings if only to establish the justness of his
representation.
 The little time involved is no excuse.
 Complainant reposed full faith in him.
 His first duty was to file the best pleading within his
capability.
 Apparently respondent was more interested in
getting the most out of the complainant who was in
a hopeless situation.
 He bragged about his closeness to the judge
concerned in one case and talked about the need to
"buy" the restraining order in the other.
 Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged deposit in
court which he never deposited. Instead he pocketed
the same.
 When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby
covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion.
 The failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed
on him.
 The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
elementary principles of professional ethics.
 The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due
diligence in protecting his client’s interests.
 Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he
would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case
No. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by
reason of their friendship. Despite such prior
knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a
replacement nor did he inform complainant of this
fact.
 Even assuming that respondent had no previous
knowledge that he would be asked to withdraw, the
record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the
hearing of the preliminary injunction respondent
already filed a motion therein withdrawing as
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
complainant’s counsel interposing as reason therefor
his frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids.
 Despite this void, respondent failed to find a
replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire
another lawyer in his stead.
 His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty
to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his
client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which
he owes his client.
 More so in this case, whereby reason of his gross
negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all
her cases.
 The filing of a civil case on the same day that he had
already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for
complainant reveals his lack of good faith as an
advocate.
 He also failed to appear for the complainant in said
case.
 It was all a show to get more money from her. This
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
 When confronted with this evident irregularity, he
lamely stated that while he did not physically appear
for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted
the pleadings.
 His duty was not only to prepare the pleadings but to
represent complainant until the termination of the
cases. This he failed to do.
 His representation that there was an immediate need
to file when he already knew that he could no longer
physically handle the same is an act of deception of
his client. It shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office
as a member of the Philippine bar.
 The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his
services, is simply incredible.
 Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with
the service he actually rendered.
 And his failure to return even a portion of the
amount upon demand of complainant all the more
bolster the protestation of complainant that
respondent does not deserve to remain as an officer
of the court.
FULGENCIO A. NGAYAN, TOMASA K. NGAYAN and
BELLA AURORA NGAYAN, complainants, vs. ATTY.
FAUSTINO F. TUGADE, respondent.
A.M. No. 2490 February 7, 1991
DOCTRINE
The inaction of respondent to the resolutions of this
Honorable Court requiring him to file his Answer to the
Complaint filed against him and his subsequent failure to
attend the hearings on the said complaint indicate that
respondent has not obeyed the legal orders of the duly
252
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
constituted authorities and he has not conducted himself
as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
his clients. Further, lawyers are particularly called upon
to obey court orders and processes. They should stand
foremost in complying with the court's directives or
instructions being themselves officers of the court. This
lack of concern shown by respondent regarding the
matter that involved the very foundation of his right to
engage in the practice of law would show how much less
he would regard the interest of his clients.
FACTS
 This case refers to disciplinary proceedings initiated
by the herein complainants against respondent
lawyer for violation of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of
Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines.
 Complainants alleged that they asked respondent to
prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint
to be filed against Mrs. Rowena Soriano and Robert
Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized
entry into complainants' dwelling.
 Without thoroughly reading the same, Mrs. Tomasa
A. Ngayan allegedly signed it because she was rushed
to do the same.
 After signing, Mrs. Ngayan noted a paragraph which
did not mention that Robert Leonido was with
Rowena Soriano when both suddenly barged into
complainants' residence.
 Mrs. Ngayan allegedly told respondent about his
omission and in front of her, respondent crossed out
the paragraph she complained about and promised to
make another affidavit. In the meantime,
complainants filed motions to discharge the
respondent as their counsel.
 Complainants allegedly made a follow up after
discharging respondent and found that the name of
Robert Leonido was not included in the charge.
 Since the omission was remedied by their new
counsel and the case was subsequently filed in court,
the adverse parties filed a motion for reinvestigation
 Complainants averred that the motion was filed by
Atty. Apolo P. Gaminda, a former classmate of
respondent.
 They further said that respondent was also a lawyer
of the brother of Robert Leonido in an insurance
company.
 Complainants further alleged that the motion for
reinvestigation was set for hearing before Assistant
City Fiscal Milagros F. Garcia-Beza where
respondent himself executed and submitted an
affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and Rowena
Soriano controverting the affidavit of complainants
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
notwithstanding the fact that he prepared the latter's
affidavit when he was still their counsel.
 They further alleged that before he executed and
submitted his affidavit, respondent sent a personal
letter to Fiscal Beza denouncing complainants and
stating that he is filing criminal and civil cases against
them.
 Complainants charged respondent for violation of
paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138, Rules
of Court, which provide:
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every
peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and
to accept no compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his knowledge and
approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witnesses, unless required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;
 Complainants claim that paragraph (e) was violated
by respondent when the affidavit he prepared for
complainants but subsequently crossed-out was
submitted as evidence against complainants in the
motion for reinvestigation.
 As to paragraph (f), complainants averred that
respondent violated it when he sent a letter to the
fiscal saying that his name was being adversely
affected by the false affidavits of complainants and
for that reason, respondent was contemplating to file
a criminal and civil action for damages against them
 SolGen recommended that the respondent lawyer be
disbarred and his name dropped from attorney's roll.
 In this report, he averred that the conduct of
respondent constitutes unprofessional conduct and
an outright violation of the provisions of Section 3
and paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20 of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Tugade is guilty of betraying the trust
and confidence of his clients
RULING: YES. “We have fully scrutinized and evaluated
the records of this case and We cannot but find that strong
and unassailable reasons exist to render it Our irremissible
duty to impose a disciplinary sanction on respondent. But
We feel that disbarment is too harsh considering the
circumstances of the case. We hold that suspension from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year should be
imposed on respondent for the aforestated misconduct.
253
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Faustino F. Tugade is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year, effective from receipt of this resolution.”
RATIO
 In the case at bar, complainants claim that
respondent furnished the adverse parties in a certain
criminal case with a copy of their discarded affidavit,
thus enabling them to use it as evidence against
complainants.
 This actuation constitutes betrayal of trust and
confidence of his former clients in violation of
paragraph (e), Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.
 Inasmuch as respondent failed to answer the
complaint filed against him and despite due notice on
four occasions, he consistently did not appear on the
scheduled hearing set by the Office of the Solicitor
General, this claim remained uncontroverted.
 Court tends to believe the said claim of complainants
when it is taken together with their other claim that
respondent's actuations from the beginning tend to
show that he was partial to the adverse parties as he
even tried to dissuade complainants from filing
charges against Robert Leonido.
 This partiality could be explained by the fact that
respondent is the former classmate of Atty. Apolo P.
Gaminda, the adverse parties' counsel and the fact
that respondent is the lawyer of the brother of Robert
Leonido in an insurance company.
 Respondent's act of executing and submitting an
affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and Rowena
Soriano advancing facts prejudicial to the case of his
former clients such as the fact that the crime charged
in complainants' affidavit had prescribed and that he
was asked to prepare an affidavit to make the offense
more grave so as to prevent the offense from
prescribing demonstrates clearly an act of offensive
personality against complainants, violative of the first
part of paragraph (f), Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of
Court.
 Likewise, respondent's act of joining the adverse
parties in celebrating their victory over the dismissal
of the case against them shows not only his bias
against the complainants but also constitutes a
degrading act on the part of a lawyer. It was meant
only to titillate the anger of complainants.
 Additionally, respondent's failure to answer the
complaint against him and his failure to appear at the
investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance
to lawful orders of the court
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW
IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G.
MAQUERA
B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004
DOCTRINE
Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence
reposed in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement
to maintain one’s goods standing in the legal profession.
FACTS
 August 20, 1996: the District Court of Guam
informed SC of the suspension of Atty. Leon G.
Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam
for two (2) years pursuant to the Decision rendered
by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996 a
disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics
Committee against Maquera.
 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he
has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground
for his disbarment or suspension in this realm,
provided the foreign courts action is by reason of an
act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or
other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or
a violation of the lawyer’s oath.
 the Bar Confidant sent a letter dated November 13,
1997 to the District Court of Guam requesting for
certified copies of the record of the disciplinary case
against Maquera and of the rules violated by him.
 The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Hearing requiring
him to appear before the IBPs Commission on Bar
Discipline on July 28, 1998.
 However, the notice was returned unserved because
Maquera had already moved from his last known
address in Agana, Guam and did not leave any
forwarding address.
 October 9, 2003: the IBP submitted to the Court
indefinitely suspending Maquera from the practice of
law within the Philippines until and unless he
updates and pays his IBP membership dues in full.
 He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam
for misconduct, as he acquired his client’s property as
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a
consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for
handling his client’s case[
 August 6, 1987: Edward Benavente, the creditor of a
certain Castro, obtained a judgment against Castro in
254
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
a civil case. Maquera served as Castro’s counsel in
said case. Castro’s property subject of the case, a
parcel of land, was to be sold at a public auction in
satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente.
 December 21, 1987: Castro, in consideration of
Maquera’s legal services in the civil case involving
Benavente, entered into an oral agreement with
Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in
favor of the latter.
 January 8, 1988: Maquera exercised Castro’s right of
redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in
satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter,
Maquera had the title to the property transferred in
his name.
 December 31, 1988: Maquera sold the property to
C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for $320,000
 Committee’s claims:
o that Maquera obtained an unreasonably
high fee for his services.
o that Maquera himself admitted his failure
to comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8
(a) of the Model Rules “that a lawyer shall
not enter into a business transaction with a
client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary
interest adverse to a client unless the
transaction and the terms governing the
lawyers acquisition of such interest are fair
and reasonable to the client, and are fully
disclosed to, and understood by the client
and reduced in writing.”
 May 7, 1996: the Superior Court of Guam suspended
Maquera from the practice of law in Guam for a
period of two (2) years and ordering him to take the
Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination
(MPRE) within that period.
 The court found that the attorney-client relationship
between Maquera and Castro was not yet completely
terminated when they entered into the oral
agreement to transfer Castro’s right of redemption to
Maquera on December 21, 1987.
 It also held that Maquera profited too much from the
eventual transfer of Castro’s property to him since he
was able to sell the same to the Changs with more
than US$200,000.00 in profit, whereas his legal fees
for services rendered to Castro amounted only to
US$45,000.00.
 The court also ordered him to take the MPRE upon
his admission during the hearings of his case that he
was aware of the requirements of the Model Rules
regarding business transactions between an attorney
and his client in a very general sort of way.
 On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of
Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said
court found Maquera liable for misconduct, there is
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
no evidence to establish that Maquera committed a
breach of ethics in the Philippines.
 the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for
his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the
IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for
removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A
of the Revised Rules of Court.
 The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign
court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension
ISSUES:
 W/N Atty. Maquera violated Canon 17 of the CPR
 W/N Maquera’s acts, namely: acquiring by
assignment Castro’s right of redemption over the
property subject of the civil case where Maquera
appeared as counsel for him; exercising the right of
redemption; and, subsequently selling the property
for a huge profit, violate Philippine law or the
standards of ethical behavior for members of the
Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds for his
suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction
RULING: YES & YES.
“WHEREFORE, Atty. Leon G. Maquera is required to
SHOW CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
this Resolution, why he should not be suspended or
disbarred for his acts which gave rise to the disciplinary
proceedings against him in the Superior Court of Guam
and his subsequent suspension in said jurisdiction.
The Bar Confidant is directed to locate the current and
correct address of Atty. Maquera in Guam and to serve
upon him a copy of this Resolution.
In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he shall have
paid his membership dues, whichever comes later.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty.
Maqueras personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the
land.”
RATIO
 The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera
acquired his client’s property by exercising the right
of redemption previously assigned to him by the
client in payment of his legal services.
 Such transaction falls squarely under Article 1492 in
relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491
255
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

prohibits the lawyers acquisition by assignment of  Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of
the client’s property which is the subject of the Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of
litigation handled by the lawyer. Maqueras unethical acts as a lawyer
 The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article  More fundamentally, due process demands that he be
1491 and Article 1492 is founded on public policy given the opportunity to defend himself and to
because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may present testimonial and documentary evidence on
easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance the matter in an investigation to be conducted in
of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of
of his client. Court.
 The Superior Court of Guam also hinted  Said rule mandates that a respondent lawyer must in
that Maquera’s acquisition of Castro’s right of all cases be notified of the charges against him.
redemption, his subsequent exercise of said right, and  The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able
his act of selling the redeemed property for huge to adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the
profits were tainted with deceit and bad faith when charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him,
it concluded that Maquera charged Castro an as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of
exorbitant fee for his legal services. Hearing earlier sent by the IBPs Commission on Bar
 The court held that since the assignment of the right Discipline.
of redemption to Maquera was in payment for his  Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera’s current
legal services, and since the property redeemed by and correct address in Guam in order that another
him had a market value of US$248,220.00 as of notice, this time specifically informing him of the
December 21, 1987 (the date when the right of charges against him and requiring him to explain
redemption was assigned to him), he is liable for why he should not be suspended or disbarred on
misconduct for accepting payment for his legal those grounds (through this Resolution), may be sent
services way beyond his actual fees which amounted to him.
only to US$45,000.00.
 Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2)-
year suspension from the practice of law in that
jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his suspension
from the practice of law in the Philippines.
 Such acts are violative of a lawyer’s sworn duty to act
with fidelity toward his clients.
 They are also violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which states
that [a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed
in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a
continuing requirement to maintain one’s goods
standing in the legal profession.
 It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts
judgment ordering Maquera’s suspension from the
practice of law in Guam does not automatically result
in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam
are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this
jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign
courts action includes any of the grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 256

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION
AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate
despite the sustained vigorous efforts of the
government to effectively contain them;
WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy
towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which
obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the
successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by law do hereby decree and order the
following:
Section 1. The penalty of Prision Correccional in its
maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by
committing any of the following acts:
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal
proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of
bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any
paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair
its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in
the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape
of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name
and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document,
paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with
intent to affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any
benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting,
or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the
infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or members
of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings
in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether
lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or
prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or
property of the victim; or fabricating information from
the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and
not for publication and publishing or disseminating the
same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any
other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall
be imposed.
Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by
a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the
penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.
Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in
the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-one.
257
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Rule 12.01 – Shall be adequately prepared
Rule 12.02 – Shall not file multiple actions arising
from the same cause
RULES OF COURT
Rule 7 - Parts of a Pleading
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. —
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice
to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well
as a cause for administrative sanctions. (n)
Rule 45 – Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
Court
Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall
be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy
intended for the court being indicated as such by the
petitioner and shall (a) state the full name of the
appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party
as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or
judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b)
indicate the material dates showing when notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof
was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the
denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or
arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition;
(d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final
order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the
court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies
thereof, and such material portions of the record as
would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn
certification against forum shopping as provided in the
last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. (2a)
Rule 65 – Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done
to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of
non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph
of section 3, Rule 46. (3a)
TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL
SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. PAXTON
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BAIKAL
REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
[G.R. No. 151081. September 11, 2003]
FACTS:
 This case involves a blatant demonstration of
forum shopping, outrageous abuse of judicial
process and gross disrespect for the authority
of this Court.
 Forum Shopping is committed by a party who
institutes two or more suits in different courts in
order to ask the courts to rule on the same or
related causes or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs, on the
supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition or increase a
party’s chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action. It is an act of malpractice for
it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes,
degrades the administration of justice and adds
258
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
to the already congested court dockets.
 Five civil actions involving the ownership of
parcels of land were jointly tried by RTC-Br. 21,
Imus, Cavite. TOP RATE was represented by
the Gana Law Office through Attys. Luis Ma. Gil
L. Gana and/or Elmer E. Manlangit.
 Trial court rendered a Joint Decision on the five
civil actions, declaring the lawful ownership of
Paxton over said lots and improvements
thereon, and directing Top Rate to peacefully
surrender possession of these lots to Paxton.
 TOP RATE filed their respective notices of
appeal from the Joint Decision. CA denied and
affirmed the Joint Decision of trial court. Later,
through a Manifestation to CA, it prayed that the
Motion for Reconsideration and the reliefs be
granted.
 Despite the Manifestation and Motion pending
with CA, TOP RATE filed with SC a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for review from
the adverse CA Decision and Resolution. SC
denied for lack of service of a copy of the motion
on the CA.
 Regardless of the denial of its motion for
extension, and the Manifestation and Motion
still pending with CA, TOP RATE filed with SC
its Petition for Review, assailing the CA
Decision and Resolution, praying that TOP
RATE’s lawful ownership, validity and
authenticity of the parcels of land be confirmed.
However, SC denied for failure to take the
appeal within the reglementary period.
 TOP RATE moved for reconsideration of SC’s
Resolution by granting Top Rates timely filed
motion for extension of time, and requiring
PAXTON to comment on the timely filed Petition
for Review on Certiorari. Again, the motion did
not mention the Manifestation and Motion 2001
awaiting decision in the CA.
 TOP RATE filed a Manifestation and Motion to
Withdraw Petition for Review on Certiorari,
contending it to be premature. For the 1st time,
it disclosed the existence of its Manifestation
and Motion pending with CA, which had
allegedly superseded its Petition for Review
filed with SC as the Manifestation and Motion
was taken up by a Division of Five of the CA.
 SC denied with finality TOP RATEs motion for
reconsideration of the Resolution, and noted
without action its Manifestation and Motion to
Withdraw Petition.
 Meanwhile, the Division of Five of the CA
resolved to defer action on the Manifestation
and Motion until after the SC has acted on Top
Rate’s Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw
Petition for Review on Certiorari. In response,
TOP RATE filed with the CA a Manifestation
informing that it may now proceed to resolve
TOP RATEs Manifestation and Motion in light of
the SC’s Resolution, which noted without action
its Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw
Petition for Review on Certiorari.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 SC made an entry of judgment for its
Resolution, denying TOP RATEs Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
 Despite the previous denial with finality of TOP
RATE’s motion for extension of time to file
petition for review and its Petition for Review,
the Division of Five of the CA promulgated an
Amended Decision granting the appeal and
modifying the Joint Decision, declaring
TOPRATE to be the true and lawful owners of
the subject land and the Cavite Register of
Deeds is hereby ordered to cancel PAXTON
titles.
 PAXTON filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Amended Decision, and followed by a
Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by
BAIKAL.
 SC received a Letter of Transmittal from the
Judicial Records Office of this Court directing
the Clerk of Court of the CA to return the
records of [the instant case] to court of origin
and to submit to this Court proof of such
remand. CA promulgated a Resolution directing
its Clerk of Court to return the records of this
case to the court of origin.
 TOP RATE filed with this Court an Urgent
Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment. SC denied
and required to show cause why they should not
be held liable for forum shopping. TOP RATE
represented by its President Alfredo S. Hocson
and its lawyer Gana & Manlangit Law Office
through Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer
E. Manlangit filed their Compliance asserting
that they had no intention to commit the
abhorrent and detestable practice of forum
shopping.
ISSUE: W/N Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E.
Manlangit are administratively liable for violation of the
CPR
HELD: YES. SC declared the lawyers as well as Top
Rate Construction and General Services, Inc., in
contempt of this Court and direct the parties involved
to each pay a fine of P10,000.00 within 5 days from
finality of this Resolution; and suspend from the
practice of law Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer
E. Manlangit for 6 months effective, with warning that
any future violation of their duties as lawyers will be
dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
 It was noted that that they prompted the CA to
rule on their Manifestation and Motion and
thereby complete the process of forum
shopping, despite their knowledge that their
Petition for Review had been denied with finality
and that their motion to withdraw such petition
was not granted.
259
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Under Sec. 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, willful and deliberate forum
shopping constitutes direct contempt of court
and a cause for administrative sanctions.
 They should be reminded that their primary duty
is to assist the courts in the administration of
justice. Any conduct which tends to delay,
impede or obstruct the administration thereof
contravenes their oath of office.
 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, promote respect for law and
legal processes; shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening the confidence in the legal system;
shall observe the rules of procedure and not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice; shall
not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause; shall impress upon his client compliance
with the laws and the principles of fairness; shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law; and, shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of
his client
 This Court has time and again warned counsel
of litigants not to abuse court processes,
especially not to resort to forum shopping for
this practice clogs the court dockets.
Rule 12.03 – Shall not let extensions lapse
TEODULO F. ENRIQUEZ, Complaint, v. ATTY.
EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA, JR., Respondent.
A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015
FACTS:
 On January 7, 1997, Mr. Ernesto Ouano, Sr.
filed a complaint for forcible entry against
complainant Teodulo Enriquez before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Talibon, Bohol.
 To defend his interests, Enriquez engaged the
services of the law office of Attys. Joselito M.
Alo, R. L. C. Agapay, and Edilberto B.
Lavadia, Jr. with Atty. Lavadia as the
assigned attorney.
 Atty. Lavadia failed to file the position paper
resulting in the defendants being declared in
default.
 In its April 26, 2001 Order, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol dismissed the
appeal based on Section 7(b), Rule 40 of
the Rules of Court.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 The RTC stated that Atty. Lavadia failed to file
the appeal memorandum after more than 71
days. Atty. Lavadia moved for reconsideration
but the same was denied by the RTC in its
June 26, 2001 Order pointing out that it had
granted four motions for extension and still no
appeal memorandum was filed.
 On January 16, 2002, this disbarment
complaint was received by the OBC. Enriquez
alleged that in failing to file the necessary
pleadings before the court, Atty. Lavadia
caused them great damage and prejudice.
 This constituted gross negligence and
inefficiency in the performance of his
professional duties as a lawyer. Enriquez thus
prayed that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred.
 Failing to submit his comment within the
period granted, this Court required Atty.
Lavadia to show cause why he should not be
held in contempt and to submit his comment
within 10 days from notice.
 Still, Atty. Lavadia failed to comply. The Court
thus imposed on him a P1,000.00 fine or
imprisonment of five days if he failed to pay
the fine and ordered him to comply with its
previous resolutions.
 Atty. Lavadia paid the fine on June 2,
2005, and asked for additional time to file his
comment this time stating that he had moved
from Tagbilaran to Cebu because of his wife's
illness which was caused by "dark-beings."
He claimed that a series of unfortunate events
plagued them, i.e., their house was razed by
a fire, the hard drive of his computer crashing,
and his family members falling ill due to a
"dark being."
 Failing once again to file his comment, the
Court in its September 19, 2007 Resolution
imposed a fine of P2,000.00 and required
Atty. Lavadia to submit his comment within
five days from notice. There is no record to
show that he complied with the September
19, 2007 Resolution.
 the IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Lavadia
be disbarred and his name be withdrawn from
the Roll of Attorneys.
 The IBP CBD found that not only did Atty.
Lavadia cause material prejudice to his clients
by neglecting his duties as counsel in failing
to file the necessary pleadings to defend his
client's interest, he also displayed a willful,
defiant and cavalier attitude by repeatedly
defying the resolutions of the Court.
 By his actions the IBP CBD considered Atty.
Lavadia unfit to dispense his duties and
responsibilities as an attorney.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Lavadia violated Rule 12.03 of the
CPR
Ruling: Yes. “WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is hereby DISBARRED for
260
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
violating Canons 11 and 18 and Rules 10.03, 12.03
and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN
OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.”
RATIO:
 SC cannot stress enough that being a lawyer
is a privilege with attached duties and
obligations.
 Lawyers bear the responsibility to meet the
profession's exacting standards.
 A lawyer is expected to live by the lawyer's
oath, the rules of the profession and the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
 The duties of a lawyer may be classified into
four general categories namely duties he
owes to the court, to the public, to the bar and
to his client.
 A lawyer who transgresses any of his duties
is administratively liable and subject to the
Court's disciplinary authority.
 In the present case, the duties transgressed
by Atty. Lavadia fall under those duties to his
client and to the court. This Court notes Atty.
Lavadia's propensity for filing motions for
extension of time to file pleadings but failing
to file the same, in violation of Rule 12.03 of
the CPR.
 In fact, such proclivity on the part of Atty.
Lavadia to file such motions precisely led to
the filing of this complaint. In the course of this
administrative proceeding, he continued to
flaunt to this Court his willful defiance and
disregard for court orders.
 Here, Enriquez paid a total of P29,750.00 as
acceptance fee and other fees relating to the
preparation of pleadings for the case
including the appeal.
 Atty. Lavadia however failed to discharge his
duties. He failed to file his client's position
paper rendering his client in default.
 While he filed a notice of appeal and several
motions for extension of time to file the appeal
memorandum, all of which were granted by
the lower court, he ultimately neglected to file
the appeal memorandum.
 Atty. Lavadia requested and was granted
extensions of time to file the appeal
memorandum after he filed the notice of
appeal with sufficient bond.
 The lower court granted him four extensions
totaling 71 days after which time he still failed
to file the appeal memorandum.
 His failure adversely affected the cause of
Enriquez, his client.
 In repeatedly asking for extensions of time
without actually filing the appeal
memorandum, Atty. Lavadia is liable under
Rule 12.03 of the CPR.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 Under Canon 11 of the CPR a lawyer is
required to observe and maintain due respect
to the court and its judicial officers. We read
this provision in relation to Rules 10.03 and
12.03 of the CPR for this rule does not merely
affect the client but the judicial process.
 The present complaint was filed January
2002. SC granted Atty. Lavadia every
opportunity to file his comment to the
complaint.
 SC has granted him a total of 155 days
extension to file his comment, in response to
his repeated pleas contained in his
numerous ex parte motions. After a lapse of
eight years, this Court referred the case to the
IBP where Atty. Lavadia once again filed a
motion for extension to file his position paper
but nevertheless failed to file the same.
 While this Court is not unsympathetic to the
plight of Atty. Lavadia, we cannot
countenance his act of repeatedly pleading
for extensions of time and yet not submitting
anything to the Court.
 This reflects his willful disregard for Court
orders putting in question his suitability to
discharge his duties and functions as a
lawyer.
 A lawyer's blatant disregard or refusal to
comply with the Court's orders underscores
her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders
which is only too deserving of reproof.
 Here, this disbarment case has dragged on
for years while we gave Atty. Lavadia every
opportunity to file his comment.
 Despite the extended time granted him, he
continued to fail to do so. Such obstinate
disobedience to the Court's orders merits
disciplinary action.
 In the present case, we note that this is Atty.
Lavadia's first infraction.
 However, given his proven propensity for
filing motions for extension of time and not
filing the required pleading, this Court finds
that it should impose the severe sanction lest
some other unknowing clients engage his
services only to lose their case due to Atty.
Lavadia's nonchalant attitude.
 Considering the gravity of Atty. Lavadia's
cavalier actions both to his client and his
impertinent attitude towards the Court, we find
the penalty of DISBARMENT as
recommended by the IBP
appropriate.cralawred
CHUA v ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO
A.C.No. 10671 (25 November 2015)
Facts:
 Disbarment case
261
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 Chua’s company, Nemar Computer
Resources Corp. (NCRC) filed a collection
case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial
College which was represented by Atty. De
Castro
 Chua alleges that it took 5 years to present
one witness of NCRC due to Atty. De Castro’s
postponements of agreed hearing dates:
o Absence without notice
o Ailment unbacked by medical
certificates
o Claims of not being ready despite
given time
o Sending a representative lawyer
who would profess non-knowledge
of the case to seek continuance
o Please for postponements without
providing any reason therefore
 Atty. De Castro countered that all his please
were based on valid grounds and that there
were no objections from the counsel of the
NCRC
 Commission on Bar Discipline: Atty. De
Castro violated Canons 10, 11, 12 and 13 of
Code of Professional Responsibility when he
deterred the speedy and efficient
administration of justice by deliberately
employing delaying tactics
o That Atty. De Castro be suspended
from the practice of law for a period
of 6 months (adopted and approved
by the IBP Board of Governors)
Issue: WON Atty. De Castro shall be held liable for
delay and for violation of Codes 10, 11, 12 and 13 of
CPR
Held:
 SUSPENDED FOR 3 MONTHS with stern
warning
 Atty. De Castro caused a mockery of the
judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the
administration of justice through his deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral
conduct
 Rule 10.03: A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice
Rule 12.04 – Shall not delay a case or misuse court
processes
G.R. No. 133090. January 19, 2001.
REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING and ROYAL
BECHTEL BUILDERS, INC. vs. HON. DOLORES S.
ESPAÑOL in her capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court Branch 90, Imus, Cavite
FACTS:
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
 The incident occurred during the hearing of
the motion for contempt in relation to a civil
case for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of
Title, Specific Performance and Damages
with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or
TRO in the sala of respondent Judge.
 Petitioners were present together with one
operating a video camera who was taking
pictures of the proceedings of the case
without permission from the Court.
 The Court called the attention of petitioner
who explained that he did not cause the
appearance of the cameraman to take
pictures, however, he admitted that they
came from a function. The counsel sent out
the cameraman after the Court took exception
to the fact that although the proceedings are
open to the public and that it being a court of
record, and since its permission was not
sought, such situation was an abuse of
discretion of the Court.
 When the Deputy Register of Deeds
Concepcion manifested that he needed the
services of counsel and right then and there
appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to represent
him, the case was allowed to be called again.
On the second call, petitioner started to insist
that he be allowed to mark and present his
documentary evidence in spite of the fact that
Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting. The Court
directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of
the Court for an orderly proceeding.
 While claiming that he was listening, he would
speak up anytime he felt like doing so. Thus,
the Court declared him out of order. Petitioner
flared up and uttered insulting words such as:
“that he knows better than the latter as he
has won all his cases of certiorari in the
appellate Courts, that he knows better the
Rules of Court; that he was going to move
for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge
for allegedly being antagonistic to his
client,” and other invectives were hurled to
the discredit of the Court.
 Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct
contempt and was ordered to be arrested and
placed under detention (3 days imprisonment
and fine of P3,000.00). Petitioner served his
sentence and paid the fine.
 To clear his name, petitioner filed a petition
before the CA praying for the annulment of
the Order citing him in direct contempt of court
and the reimbursement of the fine.
 Petitioner’s defense:
o he was polite and respectful towards
the court as he always addressed
the court with the phrase “your honor
please”
o while it might appear that he was
carried by his emotions in espousing
the case of his client, he did so in the
honest belief that he was bound to
262
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
protect the interest of his client to the
best of his ability and with utmost
diligence.
 CA: From the transcript of stenographic
notes, petitioner was indeed arrogant, at
times impertinent, too argumentative, to the
extent of being disrespectful, annoying and
sarcastic towards the court. It affirmed the
order of the respondent judge, but found that
the fine of P3,000.00 exceeded the limit of
P2,000.00 prescribed by the Rules of Court,
and ordered the excess returned.
ISSUE: Whether or not violated Rule 12.04 of the
CPR.
HELD: YES. WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision…AFFIRMED.
 The refusal of the petitioner to allow the
Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite,
through counsel, to exercise his right to be
heard is against…Canon 12 of Code of
Professional Responsibility which insists on a
lawyer to “exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.”
 The Court noticed the sarcasm in the petitioner’s
use of the phrase “your honor please” for after
using said phrase, he manifested utter disrespect
to the court in his subsequent utterances. This
behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and
should not be countenanced, if proper decorum is
to be observed and maintained during court
proceedings.
 The conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his
documentary evidence marked to the extent of
interrupting the opposing counsel and the court
showed disrespect to said counsel and the court,
was defiant of the court’s system for an orderly
proceeding, and obstructed the administration of
justice.
 “A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing
his client’s cause” (Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226
SCRA 645, 656).
 He should not forget that he is an officer of the
court, bound to exert every effort and placed under
duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice pursuant to Canon 12,
Canons of Professional Responsibility (Gomez v.
Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis City, 249
SCRA 432, 439).
 He should not, therefore, misuse the rules of
procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule
10.03. Canon 10 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Canon
12 of the same Canons (Ibid.).
 “Lawyers should be reminded that their primary
duty is to assist the courts in the administration of
justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede
or obstruct the administration of justice
contravenes such lawyer’s duty.”
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, et al.
October 29, 1968 G.R. No. L-27662
FACTS
Factual Antecedents:
 Claimant Mario Abitria was employed with the
respondent since February 4, 1956, working
six days a week and receiving an average
monthly wage of P180.00 as laborer for the
respondent Workmen’s Compensation
Commission (WCC).
 Because of Abitria’s employment, wherein he
was made to inhale dangerous fumes polluted
with poisonous medical dust, he started
experiencing symptoms of pulmonary
tuberculosis.
 According to Abitria, WCC was duly notified of
his illness through the general manager and
in view of the WCC’s refusal to pay him
disability compensation despite repeated
demands, claimant filed the instant claim.
 Petitioner Manila Pest Control’s counsel,
Atty. Manuel Corpuz, failed to appear at
the hearing.
 Petitioner prayed that he be allowed to
present evidence on his behalf, but this was
denied.
 Abitria was awarded P6,000.00 as his
disability compensation benefit.
 Petitioner alleges that a motion for
reconsideration was filed with the averment
that petitioner was not aware of any
decision rendered in the case as no copy
of the same had theretofore been
furnished to its counsel.
 The City Sheriff of Manila, likewise made
respondent, levy on petitioner's properties, by
virtue of the above writ of execution
 Petitioner's contends that in the light of the
alleged infringement of procedural due
process, the actuation of respondent
Commission was either in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a deprivation of due
process on the part of the petitioner
HELD/RATIO: No, the argument of deprivation of due
process is without basis.
263
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
 The decision was sent to a certain Attorney
Manuel Camacho but care of petitioner's
counsel, Attorney Manuel Corpuz.
 Petitioner would emphasize that the one
"officially furnished" with a copy of such
decision was not its counsel, who was without
any connection with the aforesaid Attorney
Camacho.
o It would conclude, therefore, that it
had not received a copy of a
decision which could not thereafter
reach the stage of finality calling for
a writ of execution.
 One of the employees of the WCC, Mr.
Guzman, explained in an affidavit:
o He went to the office of Atty. Corpuz
to deliver a copy of the decision, but
Atty. Corpuz refused to receive
the said decision alleging that he
was no longer handling the case.
o Atty. Corpuz instead instructed
Guzman to deliver the said
decision to Atty. Camacho since it
was already Atty. Camacho who is
handling the case.
o Guzman went to the office of Atty.
Camacho, but since Atty. Camacho
was not there, he handed the copy
of the decision to the receiving clerk
therein.
o After Counsel for Petitioner refused
to receive the copy of said decision,
he is now impugning the delivery of
said decision to Atty. Camacho and
is denying knowledge of it when in
fact and truth the delivery of said
decision to Atty. Camacho was
made per his instruction to Mr.
Guzman, as evidenced by the
attached affidavit of Mr. Guzman.
 This would not be the first time where out of
excess of zeal and out of a desire to rely on
every conceivable defense that could delay if
not defeat the satisfaction of an obligation
incumbent on one's client, counsel would
attempt to put the most favorable light on a
course of conduct which certainly cannot be
given the stamp of approval.
 Hence, no due process question arose.
o What was done satisfied such a
constitutional requirement.
o An effort was made to serve
petitioner with a copy of the
decision; that such effort failed
was attributable to the conduct of
its own counsel.
o There is no reason why the
decision would have been served
on some other counsel if there
where no such misinformation, if
there where no such attempt to
mislead.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
FINAL RULING: WHEREFORE, this petition for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is
denied. With treble costs against petitioner to be
paid by his counsel, Attorney Manuel A. Corpuz.
AVIDA LAND CORPORATION vs ATTY. AL C.
AGORSINO
August 17, 2016 A.C. No. 7437
FACTS
Factual Antecedents
 Complainant is a Philippine corporation
engaged in the development and sale of
subdivision houses and lots.
 Respondent was counsel for Rodman
Construction & Development Corporation
(Rodman).
 Brief background on the nature of the case 
o Complainant entered into a Contract
to Sell with Rodman, under which
the latter was to acquire from the
former a subdivision house and lot in
Santa Rosa, Laguna through bank
financing.
o After settling the down payment,
Rodman took possession of the
property.
o Both parties agreed that the amount
would be paid on a deferred basis
within 18 months.
o Consequently, complainant
rescinded the Contract to Sell by
notarial act, and demanded that
Rodman vacate the subject
property.
o As Rodman remained in possession
of the property, complainant filed an
unlawful detainer case against the
former before the Municipal Trial
Court
o MTC took cognizance of Rodman's
HLURB Complaint, and dismissed
the unlawful detainer case on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction
o HLURB also dismissed the case
o The parties could not arrive at a
settlement on the judgment
 Respondent Atty. Agorsino’s actions,
allegedly in violation of Canons in the CPR
and the Lawyer’s Oath:
o He filed an opposition/comment on a
motion for writs of execution and
possession before the HLURB
Board
o Moved for reconsideration, raising
issues on the computation of
interests
264
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
o Filed a Motion for Computation of
Interest before the HLURB Regional
Office
o Filed a Motion (1) to Quash the Writ
of Execution; (2) for Clarification;
and (3) to Set the Case for
Conference.
o Filed a Petition46 to Cite
Complainant in Contempt for issuing
a demand letter to Rodman despite
the pendency of the latter's Motion to
Quash the Writ of Execution.
o Moved for the inhibition of Atty.
Aquino as arbiter of the case and for
the setting of a hearing on the
Petition to Cite Complainant in
Contempt.
o Moved for reconsideration of the
aforementioned Order, reiterating
that Arbiter Aquino should inhibit
herself from the case because of her
bias.
o Submitted his vehement Opposition
when complainant filed an Urgent
Motion to Resolve Pending Motion
for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution
o Filed a Manifestation on the Notice
of Conference issued by Arbiter
Foronda
o Filed a Motion for Inhibition against
Arbiter Foronda, claiming that his
design nation violated due process
Administrative Complaint
The Complaint alleged that respondent's conduct in
relation to the HLURB case manifested a disregard of
the following tenets:
1. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
2. Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness,
and good faith to the court.
3. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
4. Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
5. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.
Respondent’s Arguments
 Agorsino raised the issue of complainant's
counsel's erroneous acts of notarial
rescission and filing of an ejectment suit
before the trial court.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
o These acts allegedly contributed to
the delay in the resolution of the
dispute.
 He merely followed his legal oath by
defending the cause of his client with utmost
dedication, diligence, and good faith
ISSUE: Whether respondent's act of filing numerous
pleadings, that caused delay in the execution of a final
judgment, constitutes professional misconduct in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Lawyer's Oath.
HELD/RATIO: Yes, respondent clearly violated
provisions of the CPR and his lawyer’s oath for
delay in proceedings
 Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in
the HLURB case, the path towards its
resolution became long, tedious, and
frustrating because of the deliberate attempts
of respondent to delay the actual execution of
the judgment therein.
 Agorsino continued to file pleadings over
issues already passed upon even after being
enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded
accusations of bias or procedural defects.
o These acts manifest his propensity
to disregard the authority of a
tribunal and abuse court processes,
to the detriment of the administration
of justice.
 The defense that respondent is merely
defending the cause of his client is untenable.
o As a lawyer, respondent indeed
owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and is expected to serve the
latter with competence and
diligence.
o Respondent is entitled to employ
every honorable means to defend
the cause of his client and secure
what is due the latter.
 Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, lawyers are required to exert
every effort and consider it their duty to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
 The Code also obliges lawyers to employ only
fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of their client.
 In Millare v. Montero, the Court ruled that it is
unethical for a lawyer to abuse or
wrongfully use the judicial process - such
as the filing of dilatory motions,
repetitious litigation, and frivolous
appeals - for the sole purpose of
frustrating and delaying the execution of a
judgment.
 Respondent argues that he could not have
265
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
possibly delayed the execution of the
judgment, as no Motion for Execution of
Judgment had been filed when the instant
administrative case was instituted.
o This argument can no longer be
considered viable, as he continued
to employ dilatory tactics even after
the Writ of Execution had already
been issued, and complainant later
filed Supplemental Complaints
against him.
FINAL RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, Atty. Al C. Argosino is found GUILTY of
violating Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, for
which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year effective upon the finality of this
Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Rule 12.05 – Shall refrain from talking to witness
while he is under examination
Sambajon vs. Atty. Jose Suing
AC 7062 September 26, 2006
FACTS
 Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous
labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the
counsel of their employer Microplast, Inc.
o The Labor Arbiter rendered a
judgment in favor of Sambajon and
a writ of execution was issued
against Microplast, Inc.
 Labor Arbiter dismissed the case insofar as
the seven complainants are concerned on the
basis of individual Release Waiver and
Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to
by them.
o Four of the seven who purportedly
executed the Release Waiver and
Quitclaims, denied having signed
and sworn to before the Labor
Arbiter the said documents or having
received the considerations therefor.
o They subsequently filed an
administrative complaint alleging
that respondent, acting in collusion
with his clients Johnny and Manuel
Rodil, ―frustrated by the
implementation of the Writ of
Execution by presenting before the
Labor Arbiter the spurious
documents.
o A Complaint seeking the disbarment
of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the
grounds of deceit, malpractice,
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
violation of Lawyer’s Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility
was also filed.
 During the administrative hearings before the
IBP Commissioner, Atty. Suing was coaching
his client to prevent himself from being
incriminated. It was also revealed that the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly
signed were not the same documents
originally presented to the employees to be
signed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. Suing is an act
arguably violative of the Lawyers’ Code of Ethics
RULING:
 In the case at bar, not only did Atty. Suing try
to coach his client or influence him to answer
questions in an apparent attempt not to
incriminate him. His client contradicted Atty.
Suing’s claim that the Release Waiver and
Quitclaim that he prepared was not the one
presented at the Arbiter’s Office, as well as
his implied claim that he was not involved in
releasing to the complainants the money for
and in consideration of the execution of the
documents.
 RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF
NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS MISCONDUCT.
SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to
his witness during a break or recess in the trial,
while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence.
— Any person who shall knowingly offer in
evidence a false witness or testimony in any
judicial or official proceeding, shall be
punished as guilty of false testimony and shall
suffer the respective penalties provided in this
section.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience
him.
RULE 132 Section 3. Rights and
obligations of a witness. — A witness must
answer questions, although his answer may
tend to establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
266
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
(1) To be protected from irrelevant,
improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as
to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend
to subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend
to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the
fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense. (3a,
19a)
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf
of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like;
or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which
event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial
of the case to another counsel.
Rule 12.06 – Shall not assist a witness to
misrepresent himself/ impersonate another
REVISED PENAL CODE, Book 2
Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. —
Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a
false witness or testimony in any judicial or official
proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false
testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties
provided in this section.
Rule 12.07 – Shall not abuse or harass witness
RULES OF COURT
Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A
witness must answer questions, although his answer
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it
is the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at
issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of
his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Rule 12.08 – Shall avoid testifying on behalf of his
client, exceptions
PNB VS. UY TENG PIAO
GR 35252 OCTOBER 21, 1932
FACTS
 Uy Teng Piao was sued by PNB for non-
payment of obligations before CFI Manila and
judgment was rendered in favor of PNB for
the sum of P17, 232.42 with seven percent
interest per annum from June 1, 1924.
o Court ordered Piao to deposit the
money due with the clerk of court
within three months from the date of
judgment. In case of failure to pay,
the mortgage properties should be
sold at auction in accordance with
the law.
o Defendant failed to comply with the
payment and the properties were
auctioned for a total of P1,300 with
PNB as the buyer.
 February 11, 1925 – PNB secured from
defendants a waiver of the latter’s right to
redeem one of the properties and sold it
thereafter to Mariano Santos for P8, 600. The
other property was likewise resold and the
proceeds was credited to the account of Uy.
The resale amounted to P11, 300
 August 1, 1930 – PNB instituted another court
action for the recovery of the balance of the
judgment (P11, 574.38 with 7% interest)
 Defendant claimed that in exchange for his
waiver of his right to redeem the first property
resold by PNB.
 CFI ruled that there was in fact a condonation
made by PNB through one of its officer, Mr.
Pecson.
ISSUE: WON a lawyer can appear as both counsel and
witness in the same case (YES)
267
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
RULING
 The Court ruled that the appearance of a
lawyer as both counsel and witness in a trial
is not strictly prohibited. However, it noted that
it would be preferable if the lawyer in this case
can appear only as one or the other. In other
words, if they are to testify as required by the
case, they should withdraw from the active
management of the case based on Canon 19
of CPR.
o Canon 19 - A LAWYER SHALL
REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH
ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE LAW.
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
A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
TERESITA P. FAJARDO vs. ATTY. NICANOR C.
ALVAREZ
FACTS:
 This case involves the determination of
whether a lawyer working in the Legal Section
of the National Center for Mental Health under
the Department of Health is authorized to
privately practice law, and consequently,
whether the amount charged by respondent
for attorney's fees is reasonable
 Complainant, a municipal treasurer in Nueva
Ecija hired the respondent to defend her in
criminal and administrative cases before the
Office of the Ombudsman.
 Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal
Section of the National Center for Mental
Health under the DOH.
 Complainant’s version:
o He asked for 1.4M as acceptance
fee.
o He did not enter his appearance
before the Office of the Ombudsman
nor sign any pleadings.
o He assured Teresita that he had
friends connected with the Office of
the Ombudsman who could help for
the dismissal of her case but for a
fee of 500K
o Two (2) weeks after they talked, the
Office of the Ombudsman issued a
resolution and decision
recommending the filing of a criminal
complaint against Teresita, and her
dismissal from service, respectively.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
o Teresita demanded for the return of
at least a portion of the amount she
gave.
o Atty. Alvarez failed to fufill despite
his promise and demand letters sent
by Teresita.
 Atty. Alvarez claims:
o He had authority to engage in private
practice of the profession
o On July 10, 2009, he received a call
from Teresita regarding a meeting to
discuss the decision and resolution
she received from the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissing her from
service for dishonesty and indicting
her for violation of Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 3019, respectively.
o Atty. Alvarez accepted the case and
asked for 500K as acceptance fee,
exclusive of filing fees, appearance
fees, and other miscellaneous fees
such as costs for photocopying and
mailing.
o He prepared 4 pleadings and
several letters to different
government officials and agencies.
o Complainant made staggered
payments for the amounts they
agreed on, but did not pay the
expenses for other legal work
performed and advanced by Atty.
Alvarez.
o Teresita informed Atty. Alvarez that
she was no longer interested in
retaining Atty. Alvarez's services as
she had hired Atty. Tyrone Contado
 On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the
Office of the Bar Confidant a Verified
Complaint praying for the disbarment of Atty.
Alvarez.
 IBP Board of Governors:
o Suspension for 1 year with a warning
o Ordered to return 700K
ISSUES: W/N Respondent is authorized to engage in
the private practice of law
RULING: No, he was engaged in unauthorized practice
of his profession; he also violated Lawyer’s Oath and
Rules 1.01, and 1.02 and Canon 13 of the CPR.
“SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of
P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant
Teresita P. Fajardo”
 His claim that he is authorized was based on
the letter of the Chief Vicente:
268
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

“…you are hereby authorized to o It is because of respondent's

teach or engage in the practice of assurances to complainant of a
your profession provided it will not favorable dismissal of the case
run in conflict with the interest of the that she sent him money over the
Center and the Philippine course of several months.
government as a whole. In the
exigency of the service however, or G.R. No. 75209 September 30, 1987
when public interest so requires, this NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC.
authority may be revoked anytime.” vs. HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, MINISTER OF
 Respondent practiced law by preparing the
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and THE UNION OF
pleadings even if he did not sign them and
giving legal advice to complainant. FILIPRO EMPLOYEES
 His acts show badges of offering to peddle
influence in the Office of the Ombudsman. GR No. 78791 September 30, 1987
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY,
 Cayetano vs. Monsod: practice of law is not
ACTIVISM AND NATIONALISM-OLALIA
limited to conduct of cases in court vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MANUEL
 Practice of law means any activity, in or out AGUILAR, MA. ESTRELLA ALDAS, CAPT. REY L. LANADA, COL.
of court, which requires the application of VIVENCIO MANAIG and KIMBERLY-CLARK PHILIPPINES, INC.
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. FACTS:
 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
 Respondent in G.R. No. 75029, Union of
Public Officials and Employees, and
Filipro Employees, and petitioner in G.R. No.
Memorandum Circular No. 17:
78791, Kimberly Independent Labor Union for
o Government officials or employees
Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia
are prohibited from engaging in
intensified the intermittent pickets they had
private practice of their profession
been conducting since June 17, 1987 in front
unless authorized by their
of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court
department heads and is not in
building.
conflict nor tend to conflict with the
o Constructed provisional shelters
official functions of the government
along sidewalks; set up kitchen and
official or employee
littered the place with food
 Though respondent was given written containers and trash; waved their
permission by his head, by assisting and red streamers and placards with
representing complainant in a suit against the slogans, and took turns haranguing
Ombudsman and against government in the court all day long with the use of
general, respondent put himself in a situation loud speakers
of conflict of interest.
 These acts were done even if their leaders
o Cnflict of interest exists when an
had been received by Justices Yap and
incumbent government employee
Fernan
represents another government
 Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of
employee or public officer in a case
Filipro Employees, had been called in order
pending before the Office of the
that the pickets might be informed that the
Ombudsman.
demonstration must cease immediately for
 Violated the Lawyer's Oath and CPR:
the same constitutes direct contempt of court
o Respondent's act of ensuring that
and that the Court would not entertain their
the case will be dismissed
petitions for as long as the pickets were
because of his personal
maintained.
relationships with officers or
 Court en banc issued a resolution giving the
employees in the Office of the
Ombudsman is unlawful and said unions the opportunity to withdraw
graciously and requiring union leaders and
dishonest.
their counsel of record to appear before the
o Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at
Court on July 14, 1987 at 10:30 A.M. to
all times, integrity and dignity in the
SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held
practice of their profession (Canon
in contempt of court.
7)
o Atty. Jose C. Espinas was further
o A lawyer that approaches a judge to
required to SHOW CAUSE why he
try to gain influence and receive a
should not be administratively dealt
favorable outcome for his or her
with.
client violates Canon 13 of the CPR.
This act of influence peddling is  Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the
highly immoral and has no place in union leaders concerned, apologized to the
the legal profession. Court for the above-described acts, together

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 269

 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
with an assurance that they will not be
repeated praying for the Court's leniency
considering that the picket was actually
spearheaded by the leaders of the
"Pagkakaisa ng Mangagawa sa Timog
Katagalogan" (PAMANTIK), an unregistered
loose alliance of about seventy-five (75)
unions in the Southern Tagalog area, and not
by either the Union of Filipino Employees or
the Kimberly Independent Labor Union.
 The Court required the respondents to submit
a written manifestation to this effect, which
respondents complied with on July 17, 1987.
RULING: Contempt charges against herein
respondents are DISMISSED. Henceforth, no
demonstrations or pickets intended to pressure or
influence courts of justice into acting one way or
the other on pending cases shall be allowed in the
vicinity and/or within the premises of any and all
courts.
 The Court will not hesitate in future
similar situations to apply the full force of
the law and punish for contempt those
who attempt to pressure the Court into
acting one way or the other in any case
pending before it.
 Grievances, if any, must be ventilated
through the proper channels, i.e., through
appropriate petitions, motions or other
pleadings in keeping with the respect due
to the Courts as impartial administrators
of justice entitled to "proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly
manner, free from outside interference
obstructive of its functions and tending to
embarrass the administration of justice."
 The right of petition is conceded to be an
inherent right of the citizen under all free
governments. However, such right,
natural and inherent though it may be,
has never been invoked to shatter the
standards of propriety entertained for the
conduct of courts.
 Parties have a constitutional right to have
their causes tried fairly in court by an
impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
publication or public clamor. The acts of
the respondents are therefore not only an
affront to the dignity of this Court, but
equality a violation of the above-stated
right of the adverse parties and the
citizenry at large.
 The duty and responsibility of advising
the individuals herein cited rest primarily
and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record, Atty. Jose C. Espinas.
 It is the duty as officers of the court to
properly apprise their clients on matters
of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice, and to labor leaders of
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
the importance of a continuing
educational program for their members.
BILDNER v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO and ATTY.
MANUEL R. SINGSON
G.R. No. 157384 June 5, 2009
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Facts
 Erlinda Bildner and Maximo K. Ilusorio pray that
respondents, one of them their mother and three
their siblings, be cited for indirect contempt for
alleged contemptuous remarks and acts directed
against the Court, and a formal complaint for
disbarment or disciplinary action against
respondent Atty. Manuel R. Singson for alleged
gross misconduct, among other offenses.
 Alleged contemptuous statements and actions
before the Court
 Appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) that denied the petition for habeas
corpus filed by respondent Erlinda K. Ilusorio to
have custody of her husband, Potenciano Ilusorio.
 The Court denied Erlinda Ilusorios manifestation
and motion in which she prayed that Potenciano be
produced before, and be medically examined by a
team of medical experts appointed by, the Court
 Court denied with finality Erlinda Ilusorios motion
for reconsideration
 Erlinda Ilusorio, this time represented by Dela Cruz
Albano & Associates, sought leave to file an urgent
motion for reconsideration
o First, she sought assistance vis--vis her wish
to see Potenciano.
o Second, she chafed at what she considered
the Courts bent to adhere to forms and
procedure and, at the same time, urged the
Court to personally see Potenciano
o Third, which Erlinda Ilusorio tagged the
decision as appalling, unilaterally
brazen, and unprecedented in the annals of
the Supreme Court decision-making process.
 Erlinda Ilusorios filing of redundant motions and
pleadings, along with her act of writing the letters,
constitutes contemptuous disrespect and
disobedience or defiance of lawful orders of the
Court.
 Petitioners cited also the respondents for contempt
in view of the publication of On the Edge of Heaven,
a book carrying Erlinda Ilusorios name as author
and which contained her commentaries on the
aforesaid habeas corpus case
 Disbarment case against respondent Atty.
Singson stemmed from his alleged attempt, as
counsel of Ramon in a civil case, to exert influence
on presiding Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio
Reyes to rule in Ramons favor.
 Which allegedly came in the form of a bribe offer,
may be deduced from the following exchanges
during the May 31, 2000 hearing on Ramons
270
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
motion for Judge Reyes to inhibit himself from
hearing Civil Case
 To support their disbarment charge against Atty.
Singson on the grounds of attempted bribery and
serious misconduct, complainant-petitioners
submitted an affidavit
 His channels to the undersigned to secure a
favorable decision for his client and immediately
intimated to undersigned that Atty. Singson wanted
a favorable decision and that there was a not so
vague an offer of a bribe from him.
 Even before the start of the hearing of the case,
Atty. Singson himself relentlessly worked on
undersigned by visiting him about three times in his
office and made more than a dozen calls to
undersigneds Manila and Baguio residences, and
worked on Atty. Sevilla
 Atty. Oscar Sevillas also submitted an affidavit to
support the attempted bribery charge against Atty.
Singson
o Atty. Singson made a call or two to my
cellphone requesting if I could mention to
Judge Reyes that he (Atty. Singson) is my
classmate at the Ateneo and also a good
friend;
 Respondents admitted the fact of filing by Erlinda
Ilusorio of the various manifestations and motions
mentioned in the basic petition for contempt, her
authorship of On the Edge of Heaven, and her
having written personal letters to then Chief Justice
Davide.
 To Erlinda Ilusorios letters to Chief Justice Davide
that these letters, far from being contemptuous,
tend to improve the administration of justice and
encourage the courts to decide cases purely on the
merits.
o On the Edge of Heaven contains actionable
matters, respondents claimed, inter alia, that
the comments Erlinda Ilusoriomade in the book
were no more than reasonable reactions from a
layperson aggrieved by what she considers an
unjust Court decision and who felt she had to
write a book that would rectify the erroneous
findings of the Court and put forth the truth
about the so-called Ilusorio family feud.
 Regard to the bribery allegations against Atty.
Singson, respondents invited attention to the
Manifestation in Civil Case to dispute the
accusation of Judge Reyes.
Issues
1. Whether or not respondents are guilty of indirect
contempt of court
2. Whether or not Atty. Singson should be
administratively disciplined or disbarred from the
practice of law for alleged gross misconduct in
attempting to bribe Judge Antonio Reyes
Held
 Erlinda K. Ilusorio is
adjudged GUILTY of INDIRECT
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
CONTEMPT and is ordered to pay a fine of ten
thousand pesos (php 10,000).
 Atty. Manuel R.
Singson is SUSPENDED for ONE (1)
YEAR from the practice of law
Ratio
Contempt
Civil contempt is the Criminal contempt is
failure to do something conduct directed against
ordered by the court for the dignity and authority
the benefit of the of the court or a judge
opposing party. acting judicially; it is an
act obstructing the
administration of justice
which tends to bring the
court into disrepute or
disrespect
 The various motions and manifestations filed
by Erlinda Ilusorio neither contained offensively
disrespectful language nor tended to besmirch the
dignity of the Court.
 The Court is mindful that the need to clear its
docket of what really is an unfortunate family
squabble, considered and ruled on each of her
motions and manifestations.
 The Court, as a matter of sound practice, will not
allow its precious time and resources to be eaten
unnecessarily.
 Erlinda Ilusorios personal letters to then Chief
Justice Davide were not contumacious in
character.
 In this case, proof of the participation of the board
of directors and officers to willfully malign the Court
is utterly wanting.
 In this regard, there is authority indicating that no
one can be amenable to criminal contempt unless
the evidence makes it abundantly clear that one
intended to commit it.
Disbarment
 There is a well-grounded reason to believe that
Atty. Singson indeed attempted to influence Judge
Reyes decide a case in favor of Atty. Singsons
client.
 Documentary evidence
1. the transcript of the stenographic notes of the
May 31, 2000 hearing in the sala of Judge
Reyes
2. When the judge made it of record about the
attempt to bribe, the affidavit of Judge Reyes
dated December 23, 2004 narrating in some
detail how and thru whom the attempt to bribe
adverted to was made; and
3. the affidavit of Atty. Sevilla who admitted
having been approached by Atty. Singson to
intercede for his case pending with Judge
Reyes.,
 The highly immoral implication of a lawyer
approaching a judge or a judge evincing a
271
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
willingness to discuss, in private, a matter related
to a pending case.
 The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different
occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a
mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude
that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence the
judge to rule in his clients favor. This conduct is not
acceptable in the legal profession. Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins it:
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.
 The possibility of an attempted bribery is not far
from reality considering Atty. Singson’s persistent
phone calls, one of which he made while Judge
Reyes was with Atty. Sevilla. Judge Reyes
declaration may have been an emotional outburst
as described by Atty. Singson, but the spontaneity
of an outburst only gives it more weight.
Rule 13.01 – Shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to judges
Rule 13.02 – Shall not make statements in the
media to arouse public opinion
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MELANIO
MAURICIO, JR.
AC No. 7199 (formerly CBD-04-1386) July
22, 2009
FACTS:
 Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the
business of meat processing and
manufacture and distribution of canned goods
and grocery products under the name CDO
 respondent is a writer/columnist of tabloids
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong
TITIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of
television program KAKAMPI MO ANG
BATAS telecast over UNTV and radio
program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired
over DZBB
 petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment
before the CBD against Atty. Mauricio, Jr.
(popularly known as batas Mauricio) for:
o grossly immoral conduct
o violation of lawyer’s oath
o disrespect to the courts and to
investigation prosecutors
 A certain Cordero purportedly bought from a
grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods,
including CDO liver spread and when he, with
his family, were eating bread with the CDO
liver spread, they found the spread to be sour
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
and soon discovered a colony of worms inside
the can
 Cordero’s wife filed a complaint with the
BFAD and the laboratory confirmed the
presence of the worms inside the can
 BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing 
Cordero spouses demanded P150,000 as
damages  Petitioner refused to heed the
demand, however, as being in contravention
of company policy and, in any event,
outrageous
 Petitioner offered to return the actual medical
and incidental expenses incurred by the
Corderos as long as they were supported by
receipts  offer was turned down and the
Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the
attention of the media
 Respondent sent petitioner via fax copy of the
front page of the would-be issue of the tabloid
Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 12, which
contain maligning, discrediting and imputing
vices and defects to it and its products
 Atty. Mauricio THREATENED to publish the
articles unless the petitioner give in to the
demand of the Corderos
 Petitioner reiterated their counter-offer but
respondent turned it down
 Respondent proposed to settle the matter for
P50,000  P15,000 of which would go the the
Corderos and P35,000 to his BATAS
Foundation and respondent directed
petitioner to place paid advertisements in the
tabloids and television program
 Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN
seeking the withdrawal of their complaint
before the BFAD  BFAD dismissed the
complaint
 Respondent sent Petitioner an Advertising
Contract asking complainant to advertise in
the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for its next
24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue and a
Program profile of the television program
KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking the
complainant to place spot advertisements
 Acting on the offer, respondent said that he
and his Executive Producer were
disappointed with the offer and threatened to
proceed with the publication of the articles
 Respondent announced the holding of a
supposed contest sponsored by said
program, with the following transcriptions:
“OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na
o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng
Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo,
tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang
mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito
muna ang contest, o, aling liver spread ang may uod?
Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-
nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver
272
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
spread ang may uod at anong companya ang
gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-
7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating
tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama
ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa
Pilipinas an[g] may uod?”
 Respondent continued the publishing of the
negative comments and articles about the
incident with the Corderos:
“KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD”! In another
article, he wrote “IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO
SILIPIN!; He wrote another article entitled “DAPAT
BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO”
 Respondent continued his tirade against
petitioner in several columns published in
another tabloid, and also in several episodes
of his television program, repeatedly
complaining of the incident  Petitioner then
filed criminal complaints against respondent
for LIBEL and THREATENING TO PUBLISH
LIBEL (A. 353 and 356, RPC), while the civil
case was pending
 On the Civil Case, IBP created a resolution
granting petitioner’s prayer and restraining
and enjoining the respondent from further
harassing petitioners in the publication of
articles and broadcasting any matter
regarding the incident
 Respondent defied the court order and came
out with articles on the prohibited subject
matter
ISSUE: WON Atty. Mauricio, Jr. violated Canon 13 of
the CPR
HELD: Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the
lawyer’s oath and breach of ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for three years effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely
RATIO:
 Respondent violated Rule 13.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall
not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party  despite
the pendency of the civil case against him and
the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing,
televising and broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
continued with his attacks against
complainant and its products
 Respondent claims that he was prompted by
his sense of public service, that is, to expose
the defects of complainant’s products to the
consuming public
 While a lawyer is entitled to present his case
with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of
offensive and abusive language
 Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive
 On reading the articles respondent published,
not to mention listening to him over the radio
and watching him on television, it cannot be
gainsaid that the same could, to a certain
extent, have affected the sales of complainant
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES vs. ATTY.
ROBERTO “ARGEE” C. GUEVARRA
A.C. No. 11394 December 01, 2016
FACTS:
 Complainant is the Medical Director and
principal stockholder of the Belo Medical
Group, Inc., a corporation engaged in the
specialized field of cosmetic surgery.
Respondent, on the other hand, is the lawyer
of a certain Ms. Josefina “Josie” Norcio, who
filed criminal cases against complainant for
an allegedly botched surgical procedure on
her buttocks, causing her an infection and
making her ill in 2009.
 In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts
on his Facebook account, insulting and
verbally abusing complainant.
o “Dr. Vicki Belo, …. You will go down
in Medical History as a QUCK
DOCTOR!!!! QUCK QUACK
QUACK QUACK..”
o “… Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-
duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna
ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola
ang kaso… Si Imelda Marcos nga
sued me for P300 million pesos and
ended up apologizing to me, si Belo
pa kaya?”
o “… The much needed partial
restoration of her behind (Norcio)
would cost a staggering $500,000-
$1,000,000 Stanford Medical
Hospital and she will still remain
permanently disabled for the rest of
her life…
 The complaint further alleged that respondent
posted remarks on his Facebook account that
were intended to destroy and ruin BGMI’s
273
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
medical personnel for no fair or justifiable
cause.
o “We will paralyze the operations of
all her clinic and seek out her
patients and customers to boycott
her. So far good response – 70%
decrease in her July sales.”
o “They perform plastic surgery
procedures without licensed and
trained doctors…”
o “… Please help me shut down the
Belo Medical Group until they
perform their moral and legal
obligation to Ms. Josie Norcio…”
 Moreover, there were posts on respondent’s
Facebook account, which gave remarks
allegedly threatening complainant with
criminal conviction without factual basis and
without proof.
 Finally, complainant averred that the attacks
against her were made with the object to
extort money from her. There was a comment
made by respondent on his Facebook post
stating that, “… sisingilin ko muna si belo… at
saka sabi naman, maibagsak ko lang ang
kaplastikan ni belo, quits na tayo…” Moreso,
this is evidenced by a demand letter made by
respondent, dated August 26, 2009, for the
intention of extorting P200 million from
complainant. Thus, a complaint for
disbarment was filed by Belo against Atty.
Guevarra.
In his defense, respondent claimed that:
a. The complaint was filed in violation of his
constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy,
since such posts were made in his private
facebook account, meant to be shared only
with his circle of friends.
b. He wrote the posts in the exercise of his
freedom of speech
c. He did not attempt to extort money from Dr.
Belo.
d. The respondent was a public figure, thus the
fubject of fair comment.
IBP’s report and Recommendation:
The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be
suspended for a period of 1 year from the practice of
law. It held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03,
Rule 8.01, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for having posted such remarks on his
Facebook account. The IBP-CBD further claimed that
respondent cannot invoke the “private” nature of his
posts and that the criminal chargers against
complainant have been dismissed for insufficient
evidence, therefore, he can no longer campaign
against complainant whose alleged crimes against
Norcio had not been established.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
Respondent then moved for reconsideration, which
was partially granted by the IBP Board of Governors,
insofar as they reduced his penalty from 1 year
suspension from the practice of law, to only 6 months.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable based on the allegations of the
verified complaint
HELD:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto “Argee” C.
Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01,
and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He his hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt
of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings, except as to
the penalty imposed on respondent.
Respondent invokes his right to privacy, claiming that
they were “private remarks” on his “private account”
The Court ruled that this defense is untenable, stating
that Facebook is currently the most popular social
media site, and that a user can post a statement, a
photo, or a video on Facebook which can be made
visible to anyone, depending on the user’s privacy
settings.
The Court held that it is necessary that said used
manifests the intention to keep certain posts private
through the employment of measures to prevent
access to limit its visibility. However, the latter has
failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the
privacy tools available to protect his posts, or that he
restricted his privacy to a select few.
The Court also did not accept respondent’s defense
that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech
and expression. It had been held that the freedom of
speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute. While the freedom of
expression and the right of speech and of the press are
among the most zealously protected rights in the
Constitution, every person exercising them, is obliged
to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
The Court therefore finds respondent guilty of
violations of:
274
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, not shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Rule 13.03 – Shall not invite interference from
another agency of government in judicial
proceedings
KHALYXTO PEREZ MAGLASANG, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Presiding Judge ERNESTO B.
TEMPLADO (San Carlos City Court), Negros
Occidental
G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990
RECIT READY: Khalyxto was an accused in a case.
Atty. Castellano was his lawyer. Castellano did not
comply with procedural requirements set forth in
Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88, which got his case
dismissed by the SC, Second Division. Even though it
was his fault that the case got dismissed, Castellano
filed a complaint (as erring lawyers always do, see in
re. Almacen) with the Office of the President, the
contents of which accused all the five Justices of the
Court's Second Division with delivering biased
judgment on account of their being “Marcos
sympathizers”, among other things. Castellano used
unsavory words in their answer with the SC, too. The
issue is whether Castellano should be held liable for
violations of the CPR. He should, because (1) he
shouldn’t have filed a complaint with the OP because
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings. – violation of the separation of powers in
complaining about decisions of the Judiciary with the
Executive Branch through the OP; and (2) Rule 11.03
- A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts, on
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
his unsavory language in the reply to the SC’s show
cause order.
FACTS:
1. On June 22, 1989, a petition for certiorari
entitled "Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs.
People of the Philippines, Presiding Judge,
Ernesto B. Templado (San Carlos City Court)
Negros Occidental," was filed by registered
mail with the Court.
2. Due to non-compliance with the
requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the
Court, specifically the non- payment of
P316.50 for the legal fees and the non-
attachment of the duplicate originals or
duly certified true copies of the questioned
decision and orders of the respondent judge
denying the motion for reconsideration, the
Court dismissed the petition on July 26,
1989.
3. On September 9, 1989, Atty. Marceliano L.
Castellano, as counsel of the petitioner,
moved for a reconsideration of the
resolution dismissing the petition. This
time, the amount of P316.50 was remitted and
the Court was furnished with a duplicate copy
of the respondent judge's decision, and also
the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment
of his membership dues. The motion for
reconsideration did not contain the duplicate
original or certified true copies of the assailed
orders. Thus, in a Resolution dated October
18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was
denied "with FINALITY."
4. Three months later, or on January 22, 1990 to
be exact, the Court received from Atty.
Castellano a copy of a complaint dated
December 19, 1989, filed with the Office of
the President of the Philippines whereby
Khalyxto Perez Maglasang, through his
lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant,
accused all the five Justices of the Court's
Second Division with "biases and/or
ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering
unjust judgments or resolution."
5. The complaint was signed by Atty. Castellano
"for the complainant" with the conformity of
one Calixto B. Maglasang, allegedly the father
of accused-complainant Khalyxto.
6. On February 7, 1990, Atty. Castellano was
required to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt or administratively
dealt with for improper conduct. 7 On March
21, 1990, Atty. Castellano filed by registered
mail his "Opposition To Cite For Contempt Or
Administratively Dealt With For An Improper
Conduct (sic)."
7. In his "Opposition", Atty. Castellano claimed
that the complaint "was a constructive
criticism intended to correct in good faith the
erroneous and very strict practices of the
Justices concerned, as Respondents (sic).
275
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
Atty. Castellano further disputed the authority
and jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the
Resolution requiring him to show cause
inasmuch as "they are Respondents in this
particular case and no longer as Justices
and as such they have no more
jurisdiction to give such order." Thus,
according to him, "the most they (Justices)
can do by the mandate of the law and
procedure (sic) is to answer the complaint
satisfactorily so that they will not be
punished in accordance with the law just
like a common tao."
8. Contents of the Complaint submitted to the
OP:
a. the complainant was legally
constrained to file this Administrative
Complaint to our Motherly President
who is firm and determined to
phase-out all the
scalawags (Marcos Appointees and
Loyalists) still in your administration
without bloodshed but by honest and
just investigations
b. the Justices assigned therein are
fallables (sic), being bias
(sic), playing ignorance of the law
and knowingly rendering unjust
Resolutions the reason observed by
the undersigned and believed by him
in good faith, is that they are may be
Marcos-appointees, whose common
intention is to sabotage the Aquino
Administration and to rob from
innocent Filipino people the genuine
Justice and Democracy, so that they
will be left in confusion and turmoil to
their advantage and to the prejudice
of our beloved President's honest,
firm and determined Decision to
bring back the real Justice in all our
Courts,
c. the Respondents-Justices, were so
strict or inhumane and
so inconsiderate that there
despensation (sic) of genuine justice
was too far and beyond the reach of
the Accused-Appellant, as a
common tao, as proved by records
of both cases mentioned above.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Castellano should be held
liable for:
1. Violation of 13.03 of the CPR: Rule 13.03 - A
lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by
another branch or agency of the government
in the normal course of judicial proceedings.**
2. Rule 11.03 of the CPR: Rule 11.03 - A lawyer
shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
RULING: YES, on both counts. Atty. Marceliano L.
Castellano is found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT
and IMPROPER CONDUCT as a member of the Bar
and an officer of the Court, and is hereby ordered to
either:
1. PAY within fifteen (15) days from and after the
finality of this Resolution a fine of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos, or
2. SUFFER ten (10) days imprisonment in the
municipal jail of Calatrava, Negros Occidental
in case he fails to pay the fine seasonably
He was also SUSPENDED from the practice of law
throughout the Philippines for six (6) months as soon
as this Resolution becomes final, with a WARNING
that a repetition of any misconduct on his part will be
dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
1. [Rule 13.03] In filing the "complaint" against
the justices of the Court's Second Division,
even the most basic tenet of our government
system — the separation of powers between
the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative
branches has — been lost on Atty.
Castellano. We therefore take this occasion to
once again remind all and sundry that "the
Supreme Court is supreme — the third great
department of government entrusted
exclusively with the judicial power to
adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes,
public and private. No other department or
agency may pass upon its judgments or
declare them 'unjust.'" Consequently, and
owing to the foregoing, not even the
President of the Philippines as Chief
Executive may pass judgment on any of
the Court's acts.
2. [Rule 11.03] The means by which Atty.
Castellano hoped to pass the buck so to
speak, are grossly improper. 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. Time
and again we have emphasized that a
"lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his
client's success is wholly subordinate; and his
conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics." 21
Thus, "while a lawyer must advocate his
client's cause in utmost earnest and with the
maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at
liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and
innuendo." 22
A.M. No. 188 November 29, 1976
RICARDA GABRIEL DE BUMANGLAG vs.
ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG
276
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
In 1973, the Court found respondent guilty of gross
immoral conduct. The Court, in a spirit of liberality,
imposed a lesser penalty of two-year suspension
from the practice of law instead of disbarment.
Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration,
all of which were denied.
The respondent then sent a letter to the President of
the Philippines saying that:
 he has been allegedly “deprived of due
process of law”;
 petitioning to "promulgate a decree that the
order of suspension by the Supreme Court
be set aside; and
 that he “be allowed to become an active
member of the New Society".
The Court required respondent to show cause why he
should not be subjected to further disciplinary action for
gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution for
making false statements and misrepresentations in his
petition to the President contrary to the facts of
record as stated in the Court's decision.
The respondent sent another letter to the President
stating that:
 he "has come to realize that I made a big
mistake by making said [first] letter to you,
 because the Honorable Supreme Court may
believe that I may be challenging the
decision which is already final and
executory, and
 as such do not observe the doctrine of
protocol of separation of powers",
 and withdrawing and asking the President
to disregard his first letter.
Respondent, in his Explanation to the Court, cited that
he:
 had immediately withdrawn his letter
asking for the President's intervention;
 has fully realized that the Chief Executive
is bereft of any authority to set aside or
modify the decision of this Honorable
Supreme Court;
 with folded hands begs and asks an apology
from the members of this Honorable
Court,
 with the full assurance that nothing of this
sort will be repeated by him in the future;
 was led to file his petition with the
President by the fact that his motions for
reconsideration "were only denied by the
Clerk of Court without any comment
whatsoever".
Respondent served his two-year suspension.
The Court noted respondent’s lack of appreciation or
disregard of the time-honored usage of the Court of
minute resolutions, summons and processes, by and
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
upon the signature of the Clerk of Court who is duly
authorized to do so.
With the thousands of resolutions approved monthly by
the Court, it would unduly tax the time and attention
of the Chief Justice and members of the Court to
the prejudice of the administration of justice if all
such papers, other than decisions, could be released
only upon their own signatures.
Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake"
and now appreciates that under the fundamental
principle of separation of powers, a decision of this
Court may not be set aside by the President, the Court
is disposed to view his gross ignorance of the law and
of the Constitution with liberality and will administer a
REPRIMAND with warning of severe action on any
future transgressions, considering respondent's
unenviable record.
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN
and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN vs. QUISUMBING, J.,
CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, and TINGA, JJ.
ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL
A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006
PONENTE: TINGA, J.
FACTS:
 Complainants filed before this Court an
affidavit-complaint on 15 August
2003 against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal
(respondent) for violation of the Lawyers
Oath, gross misconduct, and gross
negligence.
 Complainants are related to petitioners in
G.R. No. 152621-23 entitled SPO1 Ernest C.
Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3
Rolando M. Joaquin v. People of the
Philippines, in whose behalf respondent filed
the Petition for Review on Certiorari
(Ad Cautelam) in the case.
 The complaint against respondent originated
from his alleged mishandling of the above-
mentioned petition which eventually led to its
denial with finality by this Court to the
prejudice of petitioners therein.
 The facts are as follows:
o On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto
C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan
and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin
(eventually petitioners in G.R. No.
152621-23, collectively referred to
herein as the accused) were
involved in a shooting incident which
resulted in the death of two
277
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017
individuals and the serious injury of
another.
o As a result, Informations were filed
against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and
frustrated murder. The accused
pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
After due trial, the Sandiganbayan
found the accused guilty of two
counts of homicide and one count of
attempted homicide.
o Complainants engaged the services
of herein respondent for the
accused.
o Respondent then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but it was denied in
a Resolution dated 21 August 2001.
Unfazed by the denial, respondent
filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to
File Second Motion for
Reconsideration, with the attached
Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Pending resolution by the
Sandiganbayan, respondent also
filed with this Court a Petition for
Review on Certiorari
(Ad Cautelam)on 3 May 2002.
 Thereafter, complainants never heard from
respondent again despite the frequent
telephone calls they made to his office.
When respondent did not return their phone
inquiries, complainants went to respondents
last known address only to find out that he had
moved out without any forwarding address.
 More than a year after the petition was filed,
complainants were constrained to personally
verify the status of the ad cautelam petition as
they had neither news from respondent about
the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts.
They were shocked to discover that the Court
had already issued a Resolution dated 3 July
2002, denying the petition for late filing and
non-payment of docket fees.
 Complainants also learned that the said
Resolution had attained finality and warrants
of arrest had already been issued against the
accused because respondent, whose
whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing
to prevent the reglementary period for
seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
 Soon thereafter, respondent recounted all
the herculean efforts he made in assisting the
accused for almost a year after the
promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.
 He considered the fact that it was a case he
had just inherited from the original counsel;
the effect of his handling the case on his other
equally important professional obligations;
the lack of adequate financial consideration
for handling the case; and his plans to travel
BLOCK 2 ETHICS
to the United States to explore further
professional opportunities.
 He then decided to formally withdraw as
counsel for the accused. He wrote a letter to
PO3 Rolando Joaquin (PO3 Joaquin), who
served as the contact person between
respondent and complainants, explaining his
decision to withdraw as their counsel, and
attaching the Notice to Withdraw which
respondent instructed the accused to sign
and file with the Court. He sent the letter
through registered mail but unfortunately, he
could not locate the registry receipt issued
for the letter.
 Respondent states that he has asked the
accused that he be discharged from the case
and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to
PO3 Joaquin for the latter to file with the
Court.
 Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so, as
he was keenly aware that it would be difficult
to find a new counsel who would be as equally
accommodating as respondent.Respondent
suggests this might have been the reason for
the several calls complainants made to his
office.
Issue: W/N Atty. Portugal violated Rule 14.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: YES. “WHEREFORE, premises considered,
respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for three (3) months. Let a copy of
the Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for
appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.”
RATIO:
 the Court finds the suspension recommended
by the IBP proper
 In a criminal case like that handled by
respondent in behalf of the accused,
respondent has a higher duty to be
circumspect in defending the accused for it is
not only the property of the accused which
stands to be lost but more importantly, their
right to their life and liberty.
 As to respondent’s conduct in dealing with the
accused and complainants, he definitely fell
short of the high standard of assiduousness
that a counsel must perform to safeguard the
rights of his clients.
 The Court notes that though respondent
represented to the accused that he had
changed his office address, still, from the
examination of the pleadings he filed, it can
be gleaned that all of the pleadings have the
same mailing address as that known to
complainants.
 Presumably, at some point, respondent’s
office would have received the Courts
Resolution dismissing the petition. Of
278
 Block 2 – Ethics Digest for April 21, 2017

course, the prudent step to take in that  Rule 14.01of the Code of Professional
situation was to at least inform the client of the Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to
adverse resolution since they had constantly discriminate clients as to their belief of the
called respondents office to check the status guilt of the latter.
of the case. Even when he knew that  It is ironic that it is the defense counsel that
complainants had been calling his office, he actually branded his own clients as being the
opted not to return their calls. culprits that salvaged the victims.
 Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his  Though he might think of his clients as that,
appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer still it is unprofessional to be labeling an event
who is presumably steeped in court as such when even the Sandiganbayan had
procedures and practices, should have filed not done so.
the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the
accused. At the very least, he should have
informed this Court through the appropriate
manifestation that he had already given
instructions to his clients on the proper way to
go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal,
as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In
not so doing, he was negligent in handling the
case of the accused.
 The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has
the absolute right to terminate the attorney-
client relation at anytime with or without
cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or
terminate the relation other than for sufficient
cause is, however, considerably restricted.
 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes to
conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry
it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to
abandon it without reasonable cause.
 A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before
its final adjudication arises only from the
clients written consent or from a good cause.
 Respondent has time and again stated that he
did all the endeavors he enumerated without
adequate or proper remuneration
 However, complainants have sufficiently
disputed such claim when they attached in
their position paper filed before the IBP a
machine validated deposit slip in the amount
of P15,500.00 for the Metro Bank savings
account of one Jaime Portugal with account
number 7186509273.
 Hence, even if respondent felt under-
compensated in the case he undertook to
defend, his obligation embodied in the
Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility still remains unwavering.
 The zeal and the degree of fervor in handling
the case should neither diminish nor cease
just because of his perceived insufficiency of
remuneration.
 Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the
offensive appellation respondent called the
shooting incident that the accused was
engaged in. He described the
incident, thus: the accused police officers
who had been convicted of [h]omicide for the
salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M.
Chua and [a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario
C. Macato.

BLOCK 2 ETHICS 279