Part IV.

Duty of the Lawyer to His Profession

A. Duty to Maintain the Dignity of the Profession

B.M. No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 217;

Facts:
Mr. Elmo S. Abad, a successful examinee of the 1978 bar examinations, was charged by Atty. Procopio
Beltran, Philippine Trial Lawyers’ Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to
the Philippine Bar. He represented the respondent in a case, SBC-607, filed by complainant Jorge Uy.
Respondent explained, among others that: (1) he had already paid for the Bar Admission Fee; and (2) he was
notified of the oath-taking by the Supreme Court and signed the Lawyer’s Oath by one clerk in the Office of the
Bar Confidante.

Issue:
Whether Elmo S. Abad, undcer the facts given, is already entitled to practice law in the Philippines

Held:
No. Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances which he has narrated do not constitute his
admission to the Philippine Bar and the right to practise (sic) law  thereafter. He 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. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.)

Leda v. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992;

Facts:
Respondent finished his studies and took the bar exam. However, after passing the exam, the complainant
instituted Bar Matter No. 78, alleging that respondent fraudulently filled out his bar application by stating that he
was ‘single’ and that he became aloof and abandoned her.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents lack of good moral character was sufficiently established

Held: Yes.

His declaration in his application for admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made answerable. Rule
7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be
answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar."

Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007;

Facts:
Respondent Eala, married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three (3) children), has an affair with Irene,
wife of complainant Guevarra. Respondent even acknowledged Samantha as his daughter with Irene. Hence,
Guevarra filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. Respondent contendes that his relationship with
Irene was not under scandalous circumstance and he has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship
with his wife Marianne.
Issue:
WON respondent Atty. Eala’s extra-marital affair with Irene constitutes a disregard for the fundamental ethics
of the legal profession.

Held:
YES.
The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. In
carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant
was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held
sacred by the law. And he betrayed his fitness to be a lawyer.

Bansig v. Celera, AC 5581, Jan. 14, 2014;

Facts: 
Bansig filed a Petition for Disbarment against Juan Celera for Gross Immoral Conduct. She alleged that on
1997, Celera married her sister, Grace Marie Bunagan. However, on 1998, Celera married Alba while his first
marriage is subsisting. Celera also failed to file the required comment on the complaint. He likewise failed to
appear before mandatory conference and hearings set by the IBP-CBD.
Issue:
Whether Celera should be disbarred? 
Held:
Yes. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He
made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a
second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Nuezca v. Villa Garcia, A.C. No. 8210, Aug. 8, 2016

Facts: In their verified complaint, complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand letter dated
February 15, 2009, copy furnished to various offices and persons, which contained not only threatening but
also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its
recipients. Complainants likewise posited that several news clippings that were attached to the demand letter
were intended to sow tear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof caused them sleepless nights,
wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation. Thus, they maintained that respondent should be held
administratively liable therefor.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.

Held: Yes. Indeed, 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. As such, respondent could have besmirched
complainants' reputation to its recipients.

WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) month, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.  
B. Duty of Courtesy towards Fellow Lawyers

Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, Apr. 16, 2008;

Facts: Complaint Saberon filed  a complaint against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation for the bank's
refusal to return various checks and land titles despite alleged full payment of the loan and interests.
Respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an
Answer stating that this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by Saberon and his wife to coerce the
Bank for financial gain.
 
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Larong was guilty of misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleading.

Held:  Yes. The respondent is guilty of misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings. However,
the SC held that it is simple misconduct and not grave misconduct.
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. 
CPR Provisions related: (CANON 8, Rule 8.01 , CANON 11, Rule 11.03) (Please see digest version for full
provisions)
f
Gimeno v. Zaide, AC 10303, April 21, 2015;

Facts: Gimeno alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's admission4 to the Bar and receipt5 of his notarial
commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale and maintained
different notarial registers in separate notarial offices.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules and the CPR

Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the requirements of his notarial commission. His flagrant
violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules (A notary public shall keep only one active notarial
register at any given time.) is not merely a simple and excusable negligence. It amounts to a clear violation of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes."

Noble v. Ailes, AC 10628, July 1, 2015;

FACTS: Maximino Noble III filed a disbarment case against Orlando Ailes for maligning him and dissuading
Marcelo Ailes, Jr. from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and that he
charged exorbitant fees. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case on the ground that the
communication between Orlando and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately nor intended to be
published and known by third persons.

ISSUE: W/N the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando.

RULING: NO. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and
actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such
conduct of nobility and uprightness which should remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and
may be disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in this
case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in private.

Malabed v. De la Pena, A.C. No. 7594, Feb. 9, 2016

Facts: Atty. De la Pena was charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct for misrepresenting that he
submitted a certificate to file action when there was none, conflict of interest for notarizing a deed of donation
executed by complainant's family when eventually he is a counsel for those opposing parties in a case where
complainant’s family is involved, and for violation of prohibition in employment in government office after his
dismissal as a judge. In his pleadings before the IBP, Atty. Dela Pena called the counsel of the complainant a
“silahis by nature and complexion” andalso accused complainant of “cohabiting with a married man before the
wife of that married man died.” The IBP found that Atty. De la Pena is guilty of dishonesty and gross
misconduct.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Held: Yes. Respondent committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted a certificate to
file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none; (2) using improper language in his
pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition on reemployment in any government office as
accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge. Gross misconduct is defined as "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 a mere error in judgment."

C. Duty to be Fair to Fellow Lawyers

Binay-an v. Addog, AC 10449, July 28, 2014

Facts: Respondent communicated with the Palos, complainants in the aforesaid civil case, and convinced
them to execute their affidavits of desistance in the civil case in exchange for monetary consideration. This
respondent did without informing Atty. Selmo, the representative of complainants. Hence, a complaint for
misconduct was instituted. 

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct?

Held: YES. Canon 8,  Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: 

A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. 

In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were represented by counsel, Atty. Selmo. His act
of preparing the affidavit of desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul, Isabela
Daniel, and Romana which he drafted and notarized was true, nonetheless encroached upon the legal
functions of Atty. Selmo.

D. Duty to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law

Tapay v. Bancolo, AC 9604, Mar. 20, 2013;

Tapay and Rustia filed a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and his partner, Atty. Jarder. They alleged that they
were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the OMB with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo.
They attached a report of the PNP Crime Lab which report concluded that the questioned signatures in the
letter-complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and the same
person. 

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

YES Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman
was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in
good standing.

Angeles v. Baggay, AC 8103, Dec. 3, 2014

Facts: 18 documents were “notarized “ by Atty. Bagay’s secretary while he was out of the country. 

Issue/s: Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the country
constituted negligence.

Held: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist
in the unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as
notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law.
Respondent cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did not authorize. He is
responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving
his secretary in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his secretary, fully aware that
his secretary could use these items to notarize documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence
cannot be countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence.

Part V. Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts

A. Duty of Candor

Umaguing v. De Vera, A.C. No. 10451, Feb. 4, 2015

Facts:

Atty de Vera falsified the signatures of two material witnesses to the election protest case filed by petitioners by
allowing the witnesses’ nearest kins to sign on their behalf even without the authorization from the material
witnesses. 

Issue:

Whether Atty de Vera should be held administratively liable

Held:

Yes. Atty de Vera should be held liable for violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. In this case, Atty de
Vera sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit by allowing unauthorized persons to sign the affidavits.
Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: 

“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.”

B. Duty of Respect

Nestle Phils. V. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542;

Facts: Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism-Olalia, intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting in front of the Padre Faura
gate of the Supreme Court building. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had
been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the demonstration must cease immediately for the
same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as
the pickets were maintained. The Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to
withdraw graciously and requiring their counsels and other individuals to appear before the Court and then and
there to show cause why they should not then held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas was further
required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively dealt with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court for the above
described acts, together with an assurance that they will not be repeated

Issue: Whether or not the respondents should be held in contempt

Held: No. The Court accepted the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition
of the sanction warranted by the contemptuous acts described earlier.||

Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 295 SCRA 78;

Facts: this Court takes notice of the language utilized by counsel for petitioners (ATTY. LEO B. DIOCOS)  in
their petition for review on certiorari. Thrice in the petition, counsel for petitioners made reference to the
researcher of the CA. First, he alluded to the lack of scrutiny of the records and lack of study of the law "by the
researcher." Second, he cited the researcher of the CA as having "sweepingly stated without reference to the
record" that "[w]e have scanned the records on hand and found no evidence of any partition." Finally, counsel
for petitioners assailed the CA decision, stating that "this will only show that there was no proper study of the
case by the researcher."

Issue:  whether it was proper for petitioner’s counsel to use such words in the petition?

No.  It is highly improper and unethical for counsel for petitioners to berate the researcher in his appeal.
Counsel for petitioner should be reminded of the elementary rules of the legal profession regarding respect for
the courts by the use of proper language in its pleadings and admonished for his improper references to the
researcher of the CA in his petition. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language
or behavior before the courts. 

Habawel v. CTA, G.R. No. 174759, Sep. 7, 2011;

This is a tax-related case. CTA ruled adversely against petitioners. The CTA Division further required them to
explain within 5 days from receipt why they should not be liable for indirect contempt or be made subject to
disciplinary action for language the petitioners employed in the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioners submitted a compliance... in which they appeared to apologize but nonetheless justified their
language as, among others, "necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Court's attention to the grievousness of
the error by... calling a spade by spade."... The CTA First Division found the petitioners' apology wanting in
sincerity and humility, observing that they chose words that were "so strong, which brings disrepute the Court's
honor and integrity" for brazenly pointing to "the Court's alleged... ignorance and grave abuse of discretion,"

ISSUE: Guilty of direct contempt?

HELD: Yes. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court xxx including disrespect
toward the court xxx may be summarily adjudged in contempt.

In re Kapunan, A.M. No. 13-11-09 SC, Aug. 12, 2014;

Facts: Kapunan made unwarranted remarks which tended to erode public trust and confidence in the judiciary,
saying there are judges and justices who can be paid off or bribed.
Issue: Can Atty Kapunan be held in contempt?

Held: Referred for further investigation. These rules of courteous demeanor must, according to the Court, be
observed not only in open court, but also out of court. While it appears that, at the moment, there is no solid
basis to proceed against her, the Court is not disposed to shelve the matter in the meantime. Justice Brion,
thus, suggests as an alternative that the matter be referred for further investigation.

In his Reflections, he said, that the Court should "proactively react to the smoke that Atty. Kapunan has raised"
as a fire must have existed somewhere behind her statements which, according to him, should not be left
unattended to.

Enriquez v. Lavadia, A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015

Facts: Disbarment complaint was received by the OBC against Atty. Lavadia. 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.

Issue: WON Atty. Lavadia should be disbarred

Held: Yes.
           While this Court is not unsympathetic to the plight of Atty. Lavadia, the court 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. 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.

C. Duty to Assist in the Admin of Justice

Crisostomo v. Nazareno, A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014;

Facts: Complainants jointly filed for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno for making false declarations in the
certifications against forum shopping attached to the complaints that no similar actions or proceedings have
been commenced by Rudex or remained pending before any other court, tribunal or agency, when in fact,
similar actions or proceedings for rescission had been filed by herein complainants before the HLURB against
Rudex and Atty. Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, again represented by Atty.
Nazareno against Sps. Sioting. Further, complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as a
notary public since he only assigned one document number in all certifications against forum shopping.

Issue: W.O.N Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for making false entries in the subject
certifications against forum shopping

Held:
YES. It has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications against forum
shopping attached to Rudex's pleadings, for which he should be held administratively liable. In doing so, the
Court held that Atty. Nazareno violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, and Rule 10.1 of the Code of
Professional Conduct. Further, the Court finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a notary public for
assigning only one document number to the certifications against forum shopping and for notarizing said
certifications despite being fully aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood.

De los Santos v. Barbosa, AC 6681, July 17, 2015;

Facts: It was purported that a falsification of a public document was made in the birth certificate of De Los
Santos, when the latter’s parents indicated therein that they were married.
The Respondent sent letters to the Office of the Civil Registrar - Quezon City, the National Census and
Statistics office, and St. Luke’s Hospital to prevent the prosecution from obtaining a certified true copy of the
birth certificate of his client (De Los Santos) which proved to be necessary in a criminal case of Falsification of
Public Document. A dismissal/suspension complaint ensued against the respondent for the acts made by him
intended to delay the criminal proceedings.

Issue: Whether Atty. Barbosa should be suspended for violation of the CPR.

Held: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR which states that "[a] lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." A lawyer should avoid
any unethical or improper practices that may impede, obstruct or prevent the realization of a speedy and
efficient administration of justice as part of the machinery thereof. Here, The act of sending letters constitutes
as willful disobedience of the court orders intended to avoid further delay of the proceedings in the criminal
case.

Floran v. Ediza, A.C. No. 5325, Feb. 9, 2016

Facts: Atty. Ediza was ordered by the court in a decision to refrain from the practice of law for 6 months, return
to the complainants two sets of documents, and pay said complainants an amount with legal interest as a
result of the Court’s finding that Ediza deceived the complainants. Ediza employed several tactics to delay, and
it has been 4 years since the decision, he still hasn’t complied with the Court’s orders.

Issue: W/N Ediza committed violations of the CPR. 

Held: Yes, he did. As a member of the legal profession, Atty. Ediza has the duty to obey the orders and
processes of this Court without delay and resistance. Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The intentional delay and utter refusal to abide with the Court’s orders is a great disrespect to
the Court which cannot be tolerated. A disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct
and gross or willful insubordination which warrant disciplinary sanction by the Supreme Court (SC)

D. Duty to Refrain from Impropriety

In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 532;

Facts: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title” wherein he
asserts that the Supreme Court is "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who
ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of
the Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's
"unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” He alludes
to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that justice
as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and
dumb."

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen should be meted disciplinary sanctions for his acts

Held: Yes. As a member of the Bar, Atty. Almacen vowed solemnly to conduct himself “with all good fidelity to
the courts”. The Rules of Court reminded him to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and
judicial officers. Thus, statements made by an attorney if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn
and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.
In re Bagabuyo, A.C. No. 7006, Oct. 9, 2007

Facts: Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo objected to the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond filed by
the defense counsel of the accused on the ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion
perpetua, was non-bailable. When the case was transferred to Judge Tan who favorably resolved the Motion to
Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, the respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting
bail to the accused in an issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily which maligned the integrity and independence
of the court and its officers.

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute grave violation of oath of office.

Held:  YES. He violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the CPR for not resorting to the proper authorities only for
redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. He also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge
Tan was displaying judicial arrogance in the article entitled,  “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out”. Respondent's statements in the article, which were made while Crim.
Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer
shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party."