Week 4

Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument
of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as fact that which has not been proved.
Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist
on similar conduct by others.
11. 03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts
Gimeno v • Canons 8, 8.01, 11, 11.03, 15.03
Zaide • Charge against Atty. Zaide in the IBP for
o Usurpation of a notary’s public office – not violated. Wasn’t even a lawyer
o Falsification – violated; maintained different notarial registers in separate notarial
offices
▪ Court: Notary public should not trivialize his functions as his powers and
duties are impressed with public interest
o Use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language - violated
▪ Canon 8, 8.01, 11, 11.03 – called Gimeno a notorious extortionist in the
reply he drafted in the Ombudsman case, “…. Public prosecutor suffers
serious mental incompetence”
▪ Court: While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage,
it does not justify using offensive and abusive language.
o Violation of lawyer-client trust – not violated
▪ Canon 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts
▪ Test 1 – whether the acceptance of the new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s duty to undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client
or invite suspicion on faithfulness or double-dealing - lawyer-client
relationship between Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Zaide left the law firm.
The relationship
▪ Test 2 – use confidential info against former client – cleared nothing in the
record shows that Atty. Zaide used confidential info against Gimeno
• IBP Punishment: 1-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and if existing, two
years suspension from being commission as a notary public
• Court Punishment: Same as IBP

Saberon v • This is in pleadings before the BSP of petitioner (complainant) v respondent (defendant)
Larong • Canons 8, 8.01, 11, 11.03
• Charge against Atty. Larong in the Office of the Bar Confidant for using abusive and offensive
language in pleadings before BSP
o In one of his Answers: That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by
plaintiff [herein complainant Jose C. Saberon] and his wife to coerce the Bank and
Mr. Bonpin for financial gain
o In his rejoinder: "totally malicious, viscous [sic] and bereft of any factual or legal
basis”
• Court has reminded 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 justice of the cause with which he is charged.

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM

 • It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious statements of respondent were made not
before a court but before the BSP.
• Guilty of using infelicitous language, but such transgression is not of a grievous character
as to merit respondent's disbarment. Respondent also apologized, so the Court found it best
to give him simple misconduct.
• Court Punishment: Simple Misconduct for using intemperate language. Fined P2,000 with
stern warning that a repetition will be dealt more severely.

Ng v Alar • Canons 8, 8.01, 11, 11.03, 11.04

• NLRC case wherein Alar was defending employees. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
employers
• In respondent’s MR with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI):
o We cannot help suspecting that the decision under consideration was merely copied
from the pleadings of respondents-appellees with very slight modifications.
o That the actual writer of the said decision is not at all connected with the NLRC First
Division.
o If this is not grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, First Division, it is
ignominious ignorance of the law on the part of the commissioners concerned
o Is jurisprudence on this not clear enough, or is there another reason known only to
them?
o The NLRC wants proof from the complainants that the fire actually resulted in
prosperity and not losses. xxx Respondents failed to prove their claim of losses. And
the Honorable Commissioners of the First Division lost their ability to see these
glaring facts.
o How much is the separation pay they should pay? One month per year of service –
and all of it to the affected workers – not to some people in the NLRC in part
o They should have taken judicial notice of this prevalent practices of employers xxx.
If the Honorable Commissioners, of the First Division do not know this, they are
indeed irrelevant to real life.
o We invite the Honorable Commissioners of the First Division to see for themselves
the evidence before them and not merely rely on their reviewers and on the word of
their ponente. If they do this honestly, they cannot help seeing the truth. Yes,
honesty on the part of the Commissioners concerned is what is lacking, not the
evidence. Unfair labor practice stares them in the face.
o If labor arbiter Santos was cross-eyed in his findings of fact, the Honorable
Commissioners of the First Division are doubly so – and with malice thrown in.
o before, the established rule was, in cases of money claims the employer had the
burden of proof of payment. Now it is the other way around. But Commissioner
Dinopol opted to believe the myth instead of the facts. He fixed his sights on the
tent in front of the wall and closed his eyes to the open wide passage way and
gate beside it. His eyes, not the ingress and egress of the premises, are blocked
by something so thick he cannot see through it. His impaired vision cannot be
trusted, no doubt about it
o For lack of a better name we should call this new rule the "Special Dinopol Rule".
But only retirable commissioners are authorized to apply this rule and only when the
money claims involved are substantial. When they are meager the ordinary rules
apply.
• The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and
intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM

 diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not
admit any justification
• Court Punishment: Imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Atty. Paras and Cruz’s
didn’t do misconduct.

Adez Realty • Canons 10, 10.02

v CA • Dacanay intercalated a material fact in the judgement of the court a quo, altering the factual
findings with the apparent purpose of misleading the Court
o His defense: Secretary’s fault. He only dictates which decisions are to be copied.
Also, there have been many more important pleadings that were being filed at that
time, so secretary must have had a mishap
o Court: Unbelievable. The phrase is too accurate and most probably has been dictated
word-by-word by Dacanay
• In the basis on one of his causes of action, the law provides among others that notice should
be given to the occupants or persons in possession of the property. The inserted phrase
"without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," made it highly
improbable to be unintentionally, much less innocently, committed; and by the secretary at
that
• Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision constitutes willful disregard
of the lawyer's solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth
• Court Punishment: Disbarment

Florido v • Canons 10, 10.01, 10.02

Florido • Atty. Florido served a spurious CA resolution in order to try and get custody of his children
from his wife.
• Respondent went his wife’s residence and demanded that the custody of their two minor
children be surrendered to him. He showed her a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued
by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody.
She called up her lawyer, but the latter informed her that he had not received any motion for
temporary child custody filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original
copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her.
She then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001
and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their
children to respondent. A few months later, while complainant was with her children,
respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender
to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away with the help
of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.
Van arrived at the hotel where respondent and the children were staying. She rushed to the
hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in the morning.
Habeas corpus petition filed by wife.
• Whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and
attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
o His defense: Good faith, he thought it was true.
• Records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing
complainant and her relatives.
o By calling complainant, a “sly manipulator of truth” as well as a “vindictive
congenital prevaricator”, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a
lawyer.

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM

 • Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the
defense of a client’s cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth
• IBP Punishment: Suspension for 6 years
• Court Punishment: Changed to 2 years

Manahan v • Canons 11, 11.03.

Flores • Atty. Flores was the lawyer of a defendant in a civil case (suit for damages). Atty. Flores filed
his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was was expunged from
the records without prejudice to the filing of another. Respondent Atty. Flores later filed it
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date
and place of compliance.
• He made manifestations:
o When you took your oath as member of the Bar, you promised to serve truth, justice
and [fair play]. Do you think you are being truthful, just and fair by serving a cheater
o Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by
the Sandiganbayan. But [even worse] is a lawyer who violates the law.
o Last but not the least, God said Thou shall not lie. Again the Philippine Constitution
commands: Give every Filipino his due. The act of refusal by the plaintiff is violative
of the foregoing divine and human laws.
• There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his
MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. “Court orders are to
be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the
respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government.
• He also employed intemperate language in his pleadings
• Court Punishment: Since this is his first infraction, and that he has been in practice for half a
century, a fine of P5,000 with stern warning that repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt
with more severely

Tiongco v • Canon 11, and Rule 138 of RoC

Aguilar o to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers
• Counsel for defendants in a civil suit, said, when the court ruled against them:
o Truly, it is hard to imagine that this Honorable Court had read the petition end the
annexes attached thereto and hold that the same has "failed to sufficiently show that
the respondent Court had committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
questioned judgment
o in order to fool the winning party'
o 'hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs' favor'; one 'you could have sworn it was the Devil
who dictated it
o 'perfidious character
o 'joined the defendants and their counsel in a scheme to unlawfully deprive petitioners
of the possession and fruits of their property for the duration of the appeal'
• In his compliance to show cause:
o If the undersigned has called anyone a 'liar' 'thief' 'perfidious' and 'blasphemer' it is
because he is in fact a liar, thief, perfidious and a blasphemer
o But adds the following:
▪ WITH THE UNDERSIGNED'S RESPECTFUL APOLOGIES - AND
UNDYING LOVE
• The phrases and words used in the petition were intemperate and scurrilous totally uncalled
and entirely irrelevant to the petition

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM

 • That Atty. Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety in making the false
and malicious insinuation against this Court, particularly the Members of the First Division,
and the scurrilous characterizations of the respondent judge is, indeed, all too obvious.
• He should give due allowance to the fact that judges are but men; and men are encompassed
by error, fettered by fallibility
• Court Punishment: Fine of P5,000 and warned that the commission of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be deal with more severely

Tambunting • Canons 11, 11.03

v CA • Criminal case for murder where the case was taking so long. Petitioner filed for motion for
recusation which essentially meant he wanted another judge to preside over the case
• Petitioner filed a Motion for Recusation based on the RoC on disqualification of judges
o The rule on the disqualification of judges is a mechanism for enforcing the
requirements of due process
o Thereby there is the legitimate expectation that the decision arrived at would be the
application of the law to the facts as found by a judge who does not play favorites.
o Cold neutrality of an impartial judge - although required primarily for the benefit
of the litigants, is also designed to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and more
fundamentally, to gain and maintain the people's faith in the institutions they have
erected when they adopted our Constitution.
o Why filed: allegedly, the judge has been conducting marathon hearings
• In his MR since Court denied above petition:
o “supervening events demonstrating partiality to the prosecution on one hand, and
hostility against petitioner, on the other hand."
o “the unchastened trial judge let out yet with two palpably biased and hostile orders,
infra, clearly and unmistakably demonstrating an unconstitutional prejudgment of
petitioner's culpability
▪ For overruling petitioner’s objection to the admissibility of a certain affidavit
(witness did not take the witness stand)
• Court: The mere fact that the trial judge overruled petitioner's
objection to the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence is not
proof of bias.
▪ For refusing to allow petitioner to show more witnesses
• Court: Respondent judge is correct in appreciating the nature of the
bail proceedings. These are summary.
• Petitioner filed another MR again imputing that the judge is partial
• To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar, in
pursuing their duty to advance the interests of their clients, to use strong language. But this
privilege is not a license to malign our courts of justice.
• Court Punishment: Fine of P500 with stern warning that a repetition of this or similar act and
language will be dealt with more severely.

Yared v • Canons 8, 8.01, 11.03

Ilarde • In a case on annulment of affidavit of adjudication, sales, transfer certificates of title,
reconveyance and damages. Petitioner and respondent Tiongco's father were siblings, and
both were among several heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco (Atty. Deguma is Luis’ lawyer)
o This case was a dispute over property, since both of them are allegedly heirs
• Tiongco Said Atty. Deguma (his opponent):

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM

 o Is a rambunctious wrestler-type female of 52 who does not wear a dress which is not
red, and who stampedes into the courtroom like a mad fury and who speaks slang
English to conceal her faulty grammar
o Is impelled by less than less than noble reasons in serving as counsel for petitioner.
▪ to please and tenderize and sweeten towards her own self the readily available
retired police major
o A love-crazed female Apache who is now ready to skin defendant alive for not being
a bastard
o Horned spinster and man-hungry virago and female bull of an Amazon who would
stop at nothing to molest, harrass (sic) and injure defendant - if only to please and
attract police-major Carmelo Tiongco Junior - the deeply desired object of her
unreciprocated affections - who happens not to miss every chance to laugh at her
behind her back
o He claims that Atty. Deguma, a lawyer with the Public Attorney's Office, is engaged
in a game of one-upmanship with a fellow employee, in that "she happens to be
ambitious enough to secretly plot to put one over her office-mate who simply netted
a corporal (if not a private) by aiming at no lest than an IMDC major - hoping to catch
him by sheer brass and audacity
• Court Punishment: (court only warned them) His lexicon of insults, though entertaining, do
not find a ready audience in us, and he should be, as he is hereby, warned accordingly: You
tittle-tattlers, and those who listen to slander, by goodwill shall all be hanged-the former by
their tongues, the latter by their ears.
o Petition of certiorari dismissed.

Apex Writing ATTY NATIVIDAD SYLLABUS | PGLM