cruz-pre-week-ethics-TO READ ONLINE

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
Chan-Robles
Online Pre-Week Lecture
On
Legal & Judicial Ethics
(2021)
ATTY. TERESITA L. CRUZ

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
PRACTICE OF LAW
– is a profession, not a business
or trade. Lawyering is NOT primarily meant
to be a moneymaking venture and law
advocacy is NOT a capital that necessarily
yields profits. Duty to the public service
and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers and
gaining a livelihood is a secondary
consideration.
- any activity, in and out of court, which

requires the application of law, legal
principles and procedures and calls for legal
knowledge, training and experience.
Q: Distinguish a “practicing lawyer” from a

“trial lawyer”.
A: A “practicing lawyer” is engaged in the

practice of law which is not limited to
the conduct of cases in court but
includes legal advice and counseling
and the preparation of instruments and
contracts by which legal rights are
secured, which may or may not be
pending in court. A “trial lawyer” is one
who conducts litigation in court.
Q: Distinguish a “counsel de officio” from

a “counsel de parte” ?
PRACTICE OF LAW
is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It is limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in
education and character. Adherence to
rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of
morality, faithful observance of the rules
of the legal profession, compliance with
the MCLE requirement and payment of
IBP fees are conditions required for
membership in GOOD STANDING in the
bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law.
But while the practice of law is a privilege, a

lawyer cannot be prevented from practicing law
except for valid reasons, the practice of law not
being a matter of the state’s grace or favor. The
lawyer holds office during good behavior and can
only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the Supreme Court
after opportunity to be heard has been afforded
him. The State cannot exclude an attorney from
the practice of law in a manner or for reasons that
contravene the due process or equal protection
clauses of the Constitution.
WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHIL.?

GEN. RULE: Any person admitted to the bar and of
good and regular standing may practice law
in the Philippines.
1. Passed the bar examination;
2. Took the Lawyer’s Oath together

with other bar passers at the PICC;
3. Signed in the Roll of Attorneys;
4. Paid the IBP annual dues;
5. Paid the Professional Tax in the

locality where he intends to
practice his profession.
IN RE PETITION TO SIGN IN THE

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, MICHAEL A.
MEDADO, B.M. NO. 2540, SEPT. 24,
2013.
1. 1979 – graduated from the UP COL;
passed the bar w/ a GWA of 82.7%;
2. May 7, 1980 – took the

Lawyer’s Oath at the PICC;
3. 1980 onwards – engaged in the

practice of law doing
corporate and taxation work.
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.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to sign

the Roll of Attorneys is hereby GRANTED.
Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after
the receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is
likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000.00
for his unauthorized practice of law.
What are the primary characteristics of

the legal profession?
1. A duty of public service;
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 with the highest degree

of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues in 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.
What are the essential criteria

determinative of engaging
in the PRACTICE OF LAW?
1. Habituality – implies customarily or habitually

holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer;
2. Compensation – implies that one must have

presented himself to be in active practice and that
his professional services are available to the public
for compensation;
3. Application of law, legal principles, practice or

procedures which call for legal knowledge, training
and experience;
4. Attorney-client relationship.
WHO ARE NON-LAWYERS WHO

ARE ALLOWED TO APPEAR IN
COURTS, ADM. BODIES AND
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES?
1. person representing himself or a friend in the MTC
(Sec. 34 Rule 138);
2. in criminal proceedings, in the MTC in a locality
where no licensed member of the bar is available
(Sec. 7 Rule 116);
3. person representing himself in the RTC (Sec. 34 Rule
138);
4. person authorized to represent the government in a
case (Sec. 33 Rule 138);
5. union representatives (Labor Code);
6. law students under Sec. 1 Rule 138-A;
7. person representing a claimant under the Cadastral
Act.
Who are lawyers who CANNOT ENGAGE

in the private practice of law?
1. Judges and other officials or

employees of Superior Courts;
2. Officials/employees of the office of the SOLGEN;
3. Government prosecutors;
4. Pres.,V.P.,cabinet secretaries, deputies & assistants;
5. Members of Constitutional Commissions;
6. Ombudsman & his deputies;

7. Governors, city & municipal mayors (RA 7160);
8. Those who, by any special law, are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of law.
Loss of Phil. Citizenship Loss

of the right to practice law in the
Philippines.
EXCEPTION: Re-acquisition of Philippine

Citizenship by virtue of R.A. 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) AND
1. updating and payment in full of IBP fees;

2. payment of professional tax;
3. completion of at least 36 credit hours of
MCLE;
4. retaking of the Lawyer’s Oath.
(Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of

Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, BM. No. 1678,
Dec. 17, 2007)
Best advertisement for a lawyer

well- merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust, which must
be earned as the outcome of character
and conduct. (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc.,
223 SCRA 378, June 17, 1993)
Exceptions to the rule against advertising/

solicitation:
1. Publication in a reputable law list, in

a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data;
2. Use of an ordinary simple

professional card (containing the lawyer’s
name, the name of his law firm, address,
telephone number, and special branch of
law practiced);
3. Publication of 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;
4. Listing the lawyer’s name in a
telephone directory but not under a
designation of a special branch of law.
A LAWYER SHALL:
CANON 3. USE ONLY true, honest,

fair, dignified, and objective
information/ statement of facts in
making known his legal services.
Rule 3.01. NOT USE false, fraudulent,

misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement/claim re:
his qualifications or legal services.
Q: A lawyer advertised in a newspaper:

“Can secure annulment of marriages
promptly; Expert in annulment & legal
separation cases. Consult anytime.”
Is this advertisement proper?
A: No. A lawyer in making known his legal

services should not use any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified or self-
laudatory statement regarding his
qualification or legal services. The claim that
he can secure annulment of marriages
promptly is false and misleading and his claim
that he is an expert in annulment and legal
separation cases is self-laudatory.
Atty. Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino,

A.C. No. 6672, 11/4/09
Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
profession and not a business; lawyers should not
advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.
To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that
high character of service to which every member of the bar is
called.
RULE 16.04. A lawyer shall NOT borrow money from his

client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advise. Neither shall a
lawyer 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.
PENALTY: 1-year suspension from the practice of law.
Q: Must a lawyer always provide his legal services

for free?
A: NO. A lawyer is entitled to attorney’s
fees for legal services rendered to a client.
TWO (2) CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES:
1. Reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer for
the legal services he has rendered to a client;
2. Indemnity for damages ordered by a court to
be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
party in litigation. (Art. 2208 NCC).
CONCEPT OF RETAINER FEES:
1. General retainer - intended to secure services
for future legal problems;
2. Special retainer - intended for specific or
particular case.
REQUISITES FOR A LAWYER TO BE ENTITLED

TO COMPENSATION:
1. Existence of a lawyer-client relationship;
2. Rendition of services by the lawyer.
REMEDIES FOR CLIENT’S UNJUSTIFIABLE

REFUSAL TO PAY HIS ATTY’s FEES:
1. Retaining lien – a lien over the funds of the client
already in lawyer’s possession which he may
apply as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client;
2. Charging lien – lien on all money
judgments and executions a lawyer
has secured for his client.
CONCEPT OF QUANTUM MERUIT:

1. “As much as the lawyer has earned”;
2. “As much as the lawyer deserves or has
merited”.
“QUANTUM MERUIT” APPLICABLE WHEN:
1. no agreement as to attorney’s fees;
2. agreement as to attorney’s fees invalid;
3. client and lawyer disregard contract for
attorney’s fees;
4. amount of attorney’s fees unconscionable;
5. services of attorney was terminated for a
just cause;
6. stipulated fees in excess of what is
expressly fixed by law.
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT –
agreement whereby a lawyer agrees to
pay all expenses of the proceedings to
enforce the client’s rights.
CONTINGENT FEE – usually a fixed

percentage of what may be recovered,
made to depend on the SUCCESS of the
action.
*
BARRATRY – offense of frequently inciting
and stirring up quarrels and suits, either
at law or otherwise; a lawyer’s act of
fomenting suits among
individuals, offering his
services to one of them.
AMBULANCE CHASER – a lawyer or his

agent who haunts hospitals and visits
the homes of the afflicted/injured,
officiously intruding their presence and
PERSISTENTLY OFFERING
his legal services based
on a contingent fee.
DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED
KNOWLEDGE
- knowledge acquired by a lawyer at the

time he is acting w/n the scope of his
authority is imputed to the client. The
doctrine applies whether or not the
lawyer actually communicated to his
client whatever he learned in his
professional capacity since the lawyer
and his client, are in legal contemplation
of law, one juridical person.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Communications or the physical object
must have been transmitted to the lawyer
by the client for the purpose of seeking
legal advise;
Privilege is limited only to

communications within the ambit of lawful
employment and does not extend to those
transmitted in contemplation of future
crimes or frauds.
GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT/ SUSPENSION

OF A LAWYER: (SEC. 27 RULE 138 ROC)
1. deceit;
2. malpractice;
3. gross misconduct in office;
4. grossly immoral conduct;
5. conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. violation of the Lawyer’s Oath;
7. wilful disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court;
8. corruptly or wilfully appearing as attorney
without authority;
9. soliciting cases at law for purposes of gain
Sui generis A CLASS BY ITSELF
1. neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding;

2. can be initiated motu proprio by the SC or
by the IBP, upon the verified complaint of
any person;
3. can proceed regardless of interest/ lack of
interest of the complainant;
4. double jeopardy is not a defense;
5. imprescriptible;
6. confidential;
7. in ITSELF due process.
Q: What is the quantum of proof required

in disbarment proceedings?
A: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
That amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; “Mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges
based on mere suspicion and speculation, likewise, cannot be
given credence.“ (CABAS vs. ATTY. SUSUSCO, A.C. No. 8677,
June 15, 2016)
The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must
establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing
and satisfactory proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt
as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power.
Thus, the adage that he who asserts not he who denies, must
prove. x x x. (ADVINCULA vs. ATTY. MACABATA, A.C No. 7204,
March 7, 2007)
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal
processes.
RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall NOT
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall NOT, for any

corrupt motive or interest , encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
RULE 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his

clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement.
RULE 2.01. A lawyer shall NOT REJECT,
except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
RULE 2.02. A lawyer shall NOT REFUSE to

render legal advice to the person concerned,
to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s rights.
Buenaventura vs. Atty. Dany B. Gille,

AC # 7446, Dec. 9, 2020
Michelle Atty. Gille
Sometime in 2006, consulted Atty. Atty. Gille borrowed P300K from
Gille about a property mortgaged to Michelle; As a collateral, R gave Michelle
her; R offered his legal services to a copy of TCT # N-272977 w/c allegedly
Michelle for P25K; R prepared an covered a 1,000 sq. m. lot in QC worth
adverse claim for her; P20M and a check postdated 8/10/06 as
When Michelle and her father went to payment for the principal obligation;
the QC RD, they were informed by
the RD that the TCT was a forgery R promised to pay on 7/18/06 but failed
issued by a syndicate; Michelle to pay on said date; R executed a
demanded from R the return of the notarized PN acknowledging issuing the
borrowed money; postdated check and promising to pay
•
the outstanding amount on 9/10/06;
On due date, Michelle deposited the
check but it was dishonored for the
reason “Account closed”;
Michelle filed a criminal case for estafa against R before the QC Prosecutor’s
Office and a Petition for suspension or disbarment against R for committing
deceit, and gross immoral conduct in violation of his Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The SC HELD: Atty. Gille violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the

CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from borrowing money from his
client.
Rule 16.04 — A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer 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.
The mere act of borrowing money from his client is considered

unethical and an abuse of the latter's confidence reposed upon
him. In doing so, Atty. Gille took advantage of his influence over his
client, Michelle. Michelle was at a disadvantage because of
respondent's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to evade his
obligation. The act of borrowing money from a client by a lawyer is
highly uncalled for and a ground for disciplinary action. It degrades
a client's trust and confidence in his or her lawyer. This trust
and confidence must be upheld at all times in accordance with
a lawyer's duty to his or her client.
Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the CPR provides that "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct."
The "conduct" under the Rule does not pertain solely to a lawyer's
performance of professional duties. It has long been settled that "[a]
lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his or her
professional or private capacity. The test is whether [a lawyer's
conduct manifests his or her wanting] in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or [unworthiness] to
continue as an officer of the court."
Atty. Gille committed Gross Misconduct clearly manifested in the

following acts: (a) borrowing money from his client; (b) presenting a
spurious title of a mortgaged property; (c) refusing to pay his debt
despite demand; (d) issuing a worthless check; and (e) failing to comply
with the orders of the IBP. His lack of honesty and good moral
character are evident and renders him unworthy of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him by his clients. This warrants the
imposition of the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT plus a FINE of
P5,000.00 for his disobedience to the orders of the IBP.
Manalang vs. Atty. Cristina B. Buendia,

AC # 12079, Nov. 10, 2020
Eduardo
Atty. Buendia
Manalang
9/7/12 – R & C met in the office of Atty.
2011- Declaration of nullity
Neil Salazar located at Visayas Ave.; C
of his marriage for a total
was told Atty. Salazar was the one
amount of P275K; paid R
handling the case w/c was filed in
P10K, P15K, P120K & P30K
Ballesteros, Cagayan;
on separate dates;
4/15/13 – R messaged C that the case
From June-Sept 2012, tried to
was finally resolved & the decision
follow-up his case but R
was already available;
could not be reached by
phone nor found in her office; 4/28/13 – C & R met in R’s Kamuning
office where R gave C a copy of a
C went to Ballesteros, Decision issued by RTC Br. 33,
Cagayan and discovered that Ballesteros, Cagayan dated
there was “absolutely NO 12/28/2011 and a Certificate of
case filed for dissolution of Finality dated 2/17/2012 declaring C’s
his marriage”. marriage void; R demanded P50K for
C filed this administrative registration of the nullity of marriage
case before the IBP on w/ the PSA, w/c amount was
6/27/2014. deposited by C in R’s BPI account;
The SC HELD: It is clear that respondent violated her sworn

duties under the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR when she
deliberately misled and deceived her client by fabricating a court decision.
Rule 1.01 of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Membership in
the legal profession is a privilege that is bestowed upon individuals who
are not only learned in law, but are also known to possess good moral
character. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all
times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,
and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension
and disbarment.
For her failure to uphold the standards required in the legal

profession, respondent no longer deserves to be a member of
the bar. Not only did she fail to observe the duties of competence and
diligence required from lawyers, she also continuously deceived her client
in utter disregard of the duties and obligations required from a member
of the legal profession. PENALTY: DISBARMENT.
Taday vs. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr.,

AC NO. 11981, July 3, 2018
Leah Atty. Apoya,Jr.
Taday
P140K acceptance fee payable in
staggered basis; prepared PAM
OFW in Norway; Thru her
dated 4/20/11; sent petition to C for
parents, she retained Atty.
her signature; notarized petition;
Apoya Jr. as counsel for
filed w/ Br. 131 RTC Caloocan the
annulment of her marriage;
annulment case.
Upon verification, she 11/17/11- Leah paid R P14,500.00; R
discovered that BOTH RTC handed to Leah a Decision by Judge
Br. 162 and Judge Eliza Eliza Becamon-Angeles, RTC Br 162
Becamon - Angeles DO NOT Caloocan, dated 11/16/11 annulling
EXIST in the RTC. her marriage.
Q: Did Atty. Apoya, Jr. violate the Lawyer’s Oath,

Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR and the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?
A: YES. Respondent notarized the petition even

though the affiant was not present but was
abroad. Respondent authored a fake decision
and delivered it to his client. Respondent
committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and
deceitful conduct and lessened the confidence of
the public in the legal system. Instead of being
an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator
of injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit
him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession.
Thus, the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT must
be imposed on him.
CHU vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR.,

A.C. NO. 10573, JANUARY 13, 2015
Fernando Atty. Guico
Chu
Demanded & received P300K from
Chu to be given to an NLRC
Retained Atty. Guico as
Commissioner for a favorable
counsel to handle the
decision;
labor disputes against his
company, CVC; Handed Chu an NLRC draft
decision favorable to CVC printed
Demanded the return of on used paper apparently coming
the P580K from Atty. from his office; demanded P300K
Guico but the latter from Chu who was able to give
failed to return the P280K only;
money.
NLRC decision adverse to CVC.
Q: Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer’s Oath

and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR?
A: YES. The sworn obligation to respect the law

and the legal processes under the Lawyer’s Oath
and the CPR is a continuing condition for every
lawyer to retain membership in the Legal Profession.
To discharge this 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 was always bound as an
attorney to be law abiding, and to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession. Any
lawyer found to violate this obligation forfeits his
privilege to continue such membership in the Legal
Profession and deserves
to be DISBARRED.
GARCIA vs. ATTY. RAUL SESBREñO,

A.C. Nos. 7973 & 10457, Feb. 3, 2015
Melvyn Atty. Sesbreño
Discovered Atty. Sesbreño’s Represented Melvyn’s daughters
murder conviction by the Cebu in a case for support in 2005
RTC; downgraded to homicide by when Melvyn’s daughters were
SC; released on parole on 7/10/01. already 35 and 39 years old.
Q: Is moral turpitude involved in Atty. Sesbreño’s

conviction for homicide?
A: YES. The circumstances leading to the death of
Amparado solely caused by respondent, bear the
earmarks of moral turpitude. Amparado and Yapchangco
were just at the wrong place and time. They did not do
anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done
by Sesbreño that eventually led to the death of Amparado.
The executive clemency merely “commuted” the

penalty imposed on Sesbreño. Commutation is a
mere reduction of penalty. Commutation only
partially extinguished criminal liability. The
penalty for Sesbreño’s crime was never wiped
out. Even if he was granted pardon, there is
nothing in the records that shows that it was a full
and unconditional pardon.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege.

It is granted only to those possessing good
moral character. A violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty of
DISBARMENT.
FABAY vs. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA,

A.C. No.8732, FEBRUARY 26, 2016
Atty. Rex Amador Perez

Resuena (+)9/7/88 (+)4/26/76
Valentino Perez
Gracia Perez
Gloria Perez
SPA in favor of Apolo Perez Oct. 15, 2003

signed “BY: REMEDIOS PEREZ”
In Gonzales v. Ramos, the SC HELD: Notarization is not an

empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary
public converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document
is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the
public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document
would be undermined.
Atty. Resuena committed a serious breach of the fundamental
obligation imposed upon him by the CPR particularly Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an
officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to
corrupt it.
PENALTY: DISBARMENT AND PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION
from being commissioned as a notary public.
Q: May a lawyer AUTOMATICALLY RESUME

his/her practice of law after the lapse of the period
of his/her suspension?
A: NO. There is NO right on the part of the

lawyer to AUTOMATICALLY resume his/her practice
of the legal profession.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 44 – 2014, April 1, 2014
“XXX The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is NOT
AUTOMATIC upon the end of the period stated in the
Court’s decision, and an ORDER from the Court LIFTING
THE SUSPENSION at the end of the period is necessary
in order to enable him or her to RESUME the practice of
his or her profession.”
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER

& THE LEGAL PROFESSION
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.
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.
RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CRESENCIO

P. CO UNTIAN, JR., A.C.5900, April 10, 2019
This is an Anonymous Complaint dated May 14, 2002 against Atty.

Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. (respondent) for his alleged sexual
harassment of students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro
City, particularly Antoinette Toyco (Toyco), Christina
Sagarbarria (Sagarbarria) and Lea Dal (Dal).
Toyco claimed that respondent sent her flowers anonymously

through another law student, texted her romantic messages,
poems, love notes and sweet nothings using his own phone and
invited her to go to Camiguin with another law student but she
turned it down.
Sagarbarria narrated that respondent showed her a photograph of

a naked woman who looked like her and teased her within hearing
distance of other law students. This incident caused her depression,
fearing what other law students may think of her causing her to be
unable to participate in a scheduled moot court competition because
she broke down in the middle of practice and cried uncontrollably.
Dal recounted that during recitation in respondent's class, she

clarified a question propounded to her saying "Sir, come again?"
Respondent retorted "What? You want me to come again? I have
not come the first time and don't you know that it took me five
minutes to come, and you want me to come again?" Dal learned
that Respondent narrated this incident to almost all of his classes.
She felt offended that she was subjected to such sexually charged
language and that her embarrassment was retold in other classes.
The SC HELD: R.A. 7877 or the Anti- Sexual Harassment

Law of 1995 defines education - related sexual harassment
as sexual harassment committed by a teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainer or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in an
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires
any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the same is
accepted by the object of the act. R.A. 7877 does not require
that the victim had acceded to the sexual desires of the
abuser. It is not necessary that a demand or request for
sexual favor is articulated in a categorical manner as it may
be discerned from the acts of the offender.
*
Clearly, respondent abused the power and authority he
possessed over the complainants. His sexually laced conduct had
created a hostile and offensive environment which deeply
prejudiced his students. In what was supposed to be a safe place
for them to learn and develop, they were instead subjected to
unwarranted sexual advances. What makes respondent's act
of sexual harassment even more reprehensible is the fact
that he is both a professor and a member of the legal
profession.
Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not

engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands lawyers not to
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, or behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
PENALTY: Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for (five) 5 years and ten (10) years from teaching
law in any school.
Dr. Elmar Perez vs. ATTY. TRISTAN CATINDIG,

et. al., A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015
Corazon Tristan Dr. Perez Atty. Karen
Gomez Baydo
7/14/84 – USA
5/18/68
Tristan Joseph
4 children
Filed PDNM of 1st 4/25/01- Discovered the
1984- divorce decree, marriage on 8/13/01; alleged relationship of Atty.
Dominican Republic abandoned Dr. Perez Catindig with Atty. Baydo
& Tristan on 10/31/01
The SC HELD: Contracting a marriage during the

subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly
immoral conduct. The facts gathered from the evidence
adduced by the parties and, ironically, from Atty. Catindig’s own
admission, indeed establish a pattern of conduct that is
grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt and unprincipled,
but reprehensible to a high degree.
There is no dichotomy of morality. A lawyer and a

professor of law, both in his official and personal
conduct, must display exemplary behavior.
Respondent’s bigamous marriage and his proclivity
for extramarital adventurism have definitely
caused damage to the legal and teaching
professions. How can he hold his head up high and
expect his students, his peers and the community to
look up to him as a model worthy of emulation when he
failed to follow the tenets of morality? In contracting a
second marriage notwithstanding knowing fully
well that he has a prior valid subsisting marriage,
Atty. Catindig has made a mockery of an otherwise
inviolable institution, a serious outrage to the
generally accepted moral standards of the
community.
PENALTY: DISBARMENT.
ADVINCULA vs. ADVINCULA, A.C. NO. 9226,

JUNE 14, 2016,
Atty.
Dr. Ma. Cecilia Advincula Judith
Gonzaga
3 children Ma.
Alexandra
The good moral character or conduct must

be possessed by lawyers at the time of their
application for admission to the Bar, and must
be maintained until retirement from the
practice of law.
Although his siring the child with a woman other than his legal
wife constituted immorality, Atty. Advincula committed the immoral
conduct when he was NOT yet a lawyer. The degree of his
immoral conduct was not grave than if he had committed the
immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar,
hence, the Court considers suspension from the practice of
law for three months to be appropriate.
The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer

like him ought to know that it is only the Court that wields the
power to discipline lawyers. It is the Court’s final determination of
his liability as lawyer that is the reckoning point for the service of
sanctions and penalties. His supposed compliance with the IBP’s
recommended 2-month suspension could not be satisfied by his
going on leave from his work at the NBI. His being a
government employee necessitates that his suspension from
the practice of law should include his suspension from
office. A LEAVE OF ABSENCE WILL NOT SUFFICE.
Keld Stemmerick vs. Atty. Leonuel N.

Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009.
Keld Stemmerick Atty. Leonuel Mas

(citizen/resident of (Attorney-in-fact)
Denmark)
86,998 sq.m. lot in lot located within the

Subic, Zambales; former US Military
P3.8M price of lot; Reservation (RA 141)
P400K for
preparation of
documents
Q: Was respondent properly given notice of the

disbarment proceedings against him?
A: YES. Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from

his disappearing act. He can neither defeat this Court's
jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade
administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his
whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other
orders and processes on respondent's office was sufficient
notice to him.
Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by
informing the IBP National Office or their respective
chapters of any change in office or residential address and
other contact details. In case such change is not duly
updated, service of notice on the office or residential
address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office
shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him.
The SC HELD: A lawyer who resorts to

nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and
uses his legal knowledge to further his selfish
ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
RULE OF LAW AND TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
He does not only tarnish the image of the bar
and degrade the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, he also betrays everything
that the legal profession stands for.
PENALTY: DISBARMENT
Mendoza vs. Atty. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5338, 2/23/09

Mendoza Atty. Deciembre
(mail sorter) (Rodela Loans Inc.)
1. P20K loan; payable w/n 6 2 blank checks for

months; 20% interest P50K each
2. 12 blank checks
3. payment of P30,240.00
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his
private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the
legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the
public. Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in a lawyer’s private life or in
his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his
personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. As respondent’s misconduct brings intolerable
dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his privilege
to practice law for life is in order.
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER

AND THE COURTS
CANON 10. A lawyer

owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
CANON 12. A lawyer shall exert
every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of
justice.
A LAWYER SHALL:
RULE 11.01/11.02. appear in
court properly attired; punctually
RULE 11.03. abstain from scandalous,

offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
RULE 12.01. NOT appear for trial unless he

has adequately prepared himself with the
law and the facts of his case, the evidence
he will adduce and the order of its
preference; ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD VS. ATTY. ANSELMO

S. ECHANEZ, AC NO. 10911, JUNE 6, 2017
Q: Should a lawyer who falsified his MCLE
Compliance Number in pleadings he filed in court,
repeatedly ignored legal orders of the Court and
notices from the IBP-CBD and who had been
sanctioned twice for performing notarial acts
without a notarial commission be administratively
disciplined based on allegations in the complaint
and evidence on record?
A: YES. Respondent’s culpability is further highlighted

by the fact that he had already been sanctioned by the
IBP twice for being found guilty of engaging in notarial
practice without a notarial commission.
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of

justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain legal proficiency and a high
standard of honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Of all
classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound
to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him,
of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws,
to trample them underfoot and ignore the very bonds of
society, is unfaithful to his position and office and sets a
detrimental example to the society.
SANTECO vs. Atty. AVANCE, A.C. NO. 5834, 2/22/11

Teresita Santeco Atty. Luna Avance
Gross
misconduct (5- year suspension from the
practice of law)
Letter of Judge Consuelo
Amog- Bocar, RTC Br. 71, OCA
Iba, Zambales dated 11/12/07 “Atty. Liezl Tanglao”
The SC HELD: Respondent's cavalier attitude in

repeatedly ignoring the orders of the SC constitutes
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively.” Respondent's obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court's orders not only “betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her
disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too
deserving of reproof.“ PENALTY: DISBARMENT.
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE

CLIENT
A LAWYER SHALL :
CANON 14. NOT REFUSE
his services to the needy.
Rule 14.01. NOT DECLINE to represent
a person due to the latter’s race, sex, creed
or status of life, or because of his own
opinion re: guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02. NOT DECLINE, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de officio or as
amicus curiae, or a request from the IBP for
rendition of free legal aid.
EXCEPTIONS : (Rule 14.03)

A lawyer MAY REFUSE to accept
representation of a client IF:
1. he is in no position to
carry out the work
effectively or competently;
2. he labors under conflict of
interest between him and
the prospective client or
between a present client
and a prospective client.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: (Rule 15.03)

GEN. RULE: A lawyer shall NOT represent
conflicting interests.
EXCEPTION: written consent

of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.
TESTS: “Whether or not in behalf of one

client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty
to oppose if for the other client.”
“If he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when
he argues for the other client.”
Aniñon vs. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr.,

A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012
Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Josefina
Zenaida (+)
Preparation
Annulment of & execution
Deed of Sale of Deed of
Atty. Sabitsana
Sale
Q: Is Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct in

representing conflicting interests?
A: YES. To be held accountable under this rule, it

is “enough that the opposing parties in one case,
one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients
and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s
respective retainers with each of them would affect
the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to
both clients.” PENALTY: ONE - year - suspension.
Daging vs. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis,

A.C. No. 9395, Nov. 12, 2014
Davis & Sabling
Law Office
Daria Retainer Agreement
signed by both partners Atty. Amos Sabling
Owner/operator of Nashville
Atty. Riz Davis
Country Music Lounge; Acted as counsel of Balageo in
the ejectment case filed by Daria
Filed ejectment suit vs. Balageo against Balageo.
Q: Did Atty. Davis transgress Rule 15.03 of the CPR?

A: YES. A lawyer may NOT, w/o being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his present or former client. The
prohibition against representing conflicting interests is
absolute & the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in
good faith & with NO intention to represent conflicting
interests. PENALTY: SUSPENSION FOR 6 MONTHS.
FOSTER vs. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG,

A.C. No. 10579, Dec. 10, 2014
Erlinda
paid P20K acceptance
fee to R and P5K for Atty. Agtang Tierra Realty had
incidental expenses borrowed P100K & legal relationship
P22,000.00 w/ PNs; w/ R since 2007;
discovered filing fee
R prepared Tierra
was only P22,410; R asked for P150K filing fee;
Realty’s sister
was the one who P50K for judge & P2,500
company’s docs.
notarized DOAS. for wine given to judge.
Q: Was respondent guilty of misconduct?

A: YES. For taking advantage of the unfortunate situation of
the complainant, for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct,
for maligning the judge and the Judiciary, for undermining the
trust and faith of the public in the legal profession and the entire
judiciary, and for representing conflicting interests,
respondent deserves the penalty of DISBARMENT.
WHO MAY TERMINATE THE

SERVICES OF A LAWYER?
GEN. RULE: CLIENT, at any

time, WITH or W/O just cause.
EFFECTS OF TERMINATION:
1. If w/o just cause lawyer MUST be
paid FULL compensation agreed upon.
2. If with just cause lawyer’s
compensation based on
quantum meruit.
MAY A LAWYER WITHDRAW FROM A CASE?

GEN. RULE: YES, WITH CONSENT of client.
EXCEPTION: W/O consent of client but WITH
COURT APPROVAL.
GROUNDS: (Rule 22.01 CPR)
1. Client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct
in connection with the matter he is handling;
2. Client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct
violative of these canons and rules;
3. Inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of client;
4. Lawyer’s mental/physical condition renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
5. Client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services/
fails to comply with retainer agreement;
6. Lawyer is elected or appointed to public office.
Chang vs. Atty. Jose Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934,

April 6, 2016
Helen Atty. Hidalgo
Paid Atty. Hidalgo P61,500.00 to Insisted that due to Chang’s
handle her collection cases stubbornness & uncooperative
pending in several courts; Atty. attitude, he could no longer
Hidalgo never appeared in court perform his job as Chang’s
resulting to the dismissal of all counsel adequately so he
cases. decided to withdraw from the
cases;
Respondent admittedly withdrew from the cases but he failed to

provide any evidence to show that his client agreed to the
withdrawal or, at the very least, knew about it. The offensive
attitude of a client is not an excuse to just disappear and
withdraw from a case W/O notice to the court and to the
client, especially when attorney's fees have already been
paid. PENALTY: 1 - year suspension from the practice of
law; return the P61,500.00 w/ 6% interest/annum.
CANON 15. A lawyer shall observe candor,

fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
CANON 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all

moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
RULE 16.01. A lawyer shall account

for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
RULE 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
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.
CANON 18. A lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence.
RULE 18.03. A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
CANON 19. A lawyer shall represent

his client with zeal, within the bounds of
the law.
*
SISON, JR. vs. ATTY. MANUEL CAMACHO,
A.C. No. 10910, Jan. 12, 2016
The RTC awarded Marsman - Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings

Inc. (MDAHI) approximately P65M. Paramount Insurance offered
a compromise settlement in the amount of P15M but MDAHI
never consented to the offer. Despite the lack of a written special
authority, Atty. Camacho agreed to a lower judgment award on
behalf of his client and filed a satisfaction of judgment before the
RTC. 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.
PACAO vs. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS,

A.C. 11246, JUNE 14, 2016
BHF
Pawnshop
Arnold & Mariadel Pacao

Gave P200K initial
payment to Atty.
Limos; BHF vault
Atty. Limos custodian;
Learned from BHF charged w/
Received P200K; rep. that Atty. Limos qualified
did not remit the was no longer BHF theft before
money to BHF; counsel & she was Mand. RTC.
Did not return the NOT authorized to
P200K despite receive money in
Pacao’s demand. BHF’s behalf.
Q: Was respondent guilty of misconduct?

A: YES. The Court notes that Atty. Limos had already

been twice suspended from the practice of law for 3
months each in Villaflores v. Atty. Limos and Wilkie v.
Atty. Limos. In Villaflores, she received P20K attorney’s
fees plus P2K miscellaneous fees but she was found guilty of
gross negligence and dereliction of duty. In Wilkie, she was
held liable for her deceitful and dishonest conduct by
obtaining a P250K loan from her client and issuing 2
postdated checks which were dishonored for insufficiency of
funds.
That this is Atty. Limos' 3rd transgression

exacerbates her offense. It demonstrate her
propensity to employ deceit and misrepresentation. It
is not too farfetched to conclude that from the very
beginning, Atty. Limos had planned to employ deceit on the
complainant to get hold of a sum of money. Such a conduct
is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of
the Bar. PENALTY: DISBARMENT.
ENRIQUEZ vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA,

A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015
Teodulo Enriquez Atty. Lavadia
Defendant in NO Position Paper

ejectment case NO Appeal Memorandum
Filed disbarment case despite 4 extensions
In Jan. 2002 w/ the OBC totalling 71 days
SC issued 8 resolutions ordering Atty. Lavadia to comment;

SC granted him a total of 155 days extension to file his
comment; after a lapse of 8 yrs., on Aug. 18, 2010, the SC
referred the case to the IBP; Atty. Lavadia filed a motion to
file his Position Paper but failed to file the same; Sept. 28,
2013, the IBP-BOG adopted the IBP-CBD report and
recommendation.
Q: Is Atty. Lavadia administratively liable?

A: YES. The duties transgressed by Atty. Lavadia fall

under those duties to his client and to the court:
Rule 12.03. - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period
lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
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.
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Q: What is meant by proper judicial

conduct?
A: It is conduct of a member of the

Bench to be beyond reproach and
suspicion and be free from
appearance of impropriety in
their personal behavior not only
in the discharge of official duties
but also in their everyday life.
Q: What is meant by the phrase “cold

neutrality of an
impartial judge”?
A: The judge should not only render

a just , correct and impartial
decision but also do so in a
manner free from suspicion as to
its fairness and impartiality and as
to his integrity. It is an
indispensable requisite of due
process and fair play.
Q: What must be the attitude of a judge

towards counsel who appear before
him?
A: The judge must be courteous

especially to the young and
inexperienced. He should not interrupt
their arguments except to clarify his
mind as to their positions. He must not
be tempted to an unnecessary display
of learning or premature judgment. He
may criticize & correct unprofessional
conduct of a lawyer but not in an
insulting manner.
Q: What must be the attitude of a

judge towards litigants and
witnesses?
A: He must be considerate,
courteous, and civil, and he must
not utter intemperate or insulting
language against litigants and
witnesses during court hearings.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct

For The Philippine Judiciary
CANON 1. INDEPENDENCE
SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of
their assessment of the facts and in
accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or
indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason.
CANON 2. INTEGRITY
SECTION 1. 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.
SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate

appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.
CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the
proper discharge of the judicial
office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the
process by which the decision is
made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their

judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
Sec. 5. Disqualification of a Judge

(a) Judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
the proceedings;
(b) Judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy;
(c) Judge or a member of his family has an
economic interest in the outcome of the matter
in controversy;
(d) Judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter
in controversy, or a former associate of the
judge served as counsel during their association,
or the judge or lawyer was a material witness
therein;
(e) Judge’s ruling in a lower court is the

subject of review;
(f) Judge is related by consanguinity or

affinity to a party litigant within the 6th
civil degree or to counsel within the 4th
civil degree; or
(g) Judge knows that his or her spouse or

child has a financial interest, as heir,
legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise,
in the subject matter in controversy or in
a party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome
of the proceedings.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as

stated above may, instead of withdrawing
from the proceeding disclose on the
records the basis of disqualification. If,
based on such disclosure, the parties and
lawyers independently of the judge’s
participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial, the judge may then
participate in the proceeding. The
agreement, signed by all parties and
lawyers, shall be incorporated in the
record of the proceedings.
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of
propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities
of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid

impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities.
OCA vs. Judge Florentino Floro Jr.,

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, Mar. 31, 2006
A judge should avoid being queer in his behavior, appearance

and movements. He must always keep in mind that he is the
visible representative of the law. Judge Floro, Jr.'s claims that
he is endowed with psychic powers, that he can inflict pain and
sickness to people, that he is the angel of death and that he
has unseen "little friends" are manifestations of his
psychological instability and casts doubt on his capacity to
carry out the functions and responsibilities of a judge.
Judge Floro's separation from the service is not a penalty as
we ordinarily understand the word to mean. It is imposed
instead upon Judge Floro out of necessity due to a medically
disabling condition of the mind which renders him unfit, at
least at present, to continue discharging the functions of his
office.
CANON 5. EQUALITY
SECTION 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.
CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites
to the due performance of judicial office.
SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge
take precedence over all other activities.
Atty. Caneda vs. Judge Eric Menchavez,

A.M. RTJ-06-2026, Mar. 4, 2009
A judge was fined P40K due to vulgar &
unbecoming conduct in the courtroom. He
even brought a handgun from his
chambers into the courtroom, placing it on
his table, threatening by asking the
complainant, “What do you want?” This
reaction was uncalled for as he had ample
powers to address any hostile
or unfriendly
situation in his
court.
Q: What is the quantum of proof required in

administrative proceedings against
judges?
A: Administrative charges against judges

are in their nature highly penal in
character and are to be governed by the
rules applicable to criminal cases. The
charges in such cases must be PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (Datoon
vs. Judge Bethany G. Kapili, A.M. No.
RTJ-10-2247, March. 2, 2011).
Sy vs. Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, RTC

Br.24, Koronadal City, A.M. No. RTJ-
09-2189, Jan. 18, 2011
Complainant claims that while 2 cases
where he is a party-litigant were pending
before Judge Dinopol’s sala, the judge
1. obtained commodity loans from him in the

form of construction materials for the
construction of the judge’s house in the total
amount of Php 17,630.00;
2. Obtained cash loans from him on various

occasions between Dec. 2, 2005 – July 14, 2006
in the total amount of Php 121,000.00;
3. Borrowed from him his SUZUKI multi-cab

and returned it only after he was
suspended by the SC in Sept. 2007.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct

for the Philippine Judiciary mandates
that judges must not only maintain
their independence, integrity and
impartiality, they must also avoid any
appearance of impropriety or
partiality which may erode the
people’s faith in the judiciary.
Judge Dinopol is a repeat offender as

demonstrated by the following cases:
Cases Offense Penalty
1. A.M. No. Gross Php 20,000.00

RTJ-06- Ignorance of fine
1969 the Law
decided
6/15/2006
2. A.M. No. Gross Php 20,000.00
RTJ-06- 20 Ignorance of fine
decided the Law and
9/20/2006 abuse of
authority
3. A.M. NO. RTJ- undue delay in Php 11,000.00

06-2003 rendering a fine
decided decision or
8/23/07 order
4. A.M. OCA IPI Gross Strong

No. 05-2173- Ignorance of admonition with
RTJ decided the Law and warning that a
8/8/2006 Grave abuse of repetition of the
authority and same shall be
discretion dealt w/ more
severely.
Case Offense Penalty

5. A.M. No. Entertaining Strong
RTJ-07- litigants warning
2050 outside court
decided premises
3/30/2009
PENALTY: Dismissal from the service and

forfeiture of all benefits except accrued
leave credits and perpetual
disqualification from re-employment
in any government office.
Atty. Lugares vs. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez –

Torres, MTC Br. 60, Mand. City, A.M. No. MTJ-
08-1719, November 23, 2010.
Judge Torres failed to decide ejectment and damages

cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
within 30 days following the receipt of the last affidavit
and position paper or the expiration of the period for
filing the same.
The magnitude of Judge Torres’ transgressions – gross
inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of
duty, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
insubordination – taken collectively, cast a heavy
shadow on her moral, intellectual and attitudinal
competence. She is unworthy of the judicial robe and
deserves dismissal from the service.
Samson vs. Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, RTC Br.

30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, A.M. No. RTJ-
08-2138, August 5, 2009
Respondent’s act of making an obviously false statement in his

Personal Data Sheet (PDS) was reprehensible. It was not mere
inadvertence on his part when he answered “NO” to that very simple
question in the PDS. Whether or not the charges were dismissed was
immaterial, given the phraseology of the question “Have you ever
been formally charged?”, meaning charged at anytime, in the past
or present.
Respondent, a judge, knows (or should have known) fully well that the
making of a false statement in his PDS could subject him to dismissal.
Being a former public prosecutor and a judge now, it is his duty to
ensure that all laws and rules of the land are followed to the letter. His
being a judge makes it all the more unacceptable. There was an
obvious LACK OF INTEGRITY, the most fundamental
qualification of a member of the judiciary.
Q: Can this administrative case against respondent

RTC judge be also considered as a disciplinary
case against him as a member of the bar?
A: YES, in accordance with A.M. No. 02-9-02- SC,

a Resolution entitled “RE: Automatic
conversion of Some Adm. Cases Against
Justices of the CA & the Sandiganbayan;
Judges of Regular & Special Courts & Court
Officials who are Lawyers as Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Them Both as such
Officials & as Members of the Philippine
Bar.”
Since membership in the bar is an integral

qualification for membership in the bench, the moral
fitness of a judge also reflects his moral fitness as a
lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of
judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer.
Respondent’s dishonest act was against the
Lawyer’s Oath to “do no falsehood nor consent to
the doing of any in court”.
Respondent judge is DISMISSED FROM THE

SERVICE w/forfeiture of all benefits except accrued
leave credits w/ prejudice to re-employment in any
government office. He is likewise DISBARRED.
OCA, etc. vs. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47,
PASAY CITY, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Nov. 22, 2016
A judge embodies the law; she

cannot be above it. She should not use it to advance
her personal convenience, or to oppress others. She
should be obedient to the rules and directives
enunciated by the Supreme Court for the effective
administration of justice; otherwise, she becomes an
arrogant tyrant. Being a magistrate of the law, she
must comport herself in a manner consistent with
the dignity of her judicial office, and must not
commit any act that erodes public confidence in the
Judiciary. www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
The administrative offenses Judge Yu committed were the following, to wit:
1. In A.M. No. MTJ-12-1823, insubordination and gross misconduct for her

non-compliance with A.O. No. 19-2011;
2. In A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 and A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815, gross

insubordination for her unwarranted refusal to honor the appointments of court
personnel and rejection of the appointment of Ms. Lagman; disrespect toward
the Court for her intemperate and disrespectful language in characterizing Ms.
Tejero-Lopez's valid appointment as void ab initio and a big joke; and grave
abuse of authority and oppression for issuing verbal threats of filing
administrative, civil and criminal charges against Ms. Tejero-Lopez unless the
latter withdrew her application;
3. In OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ and OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ, grave
abuse of authority and abuse of court processes for issuing the show-cause
order against her fellow Judges and court personnel; and gross misconduct
amounting to violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for not disqualifying
herself in acting on the supposedly contumacious conduct of her fellow Judges
and concerned court personnel in copying the records of her court;
4. In OCA IPI No. 12-2398-MTJ, refusal to perform official functions and

oppression for refusing to sign the application for leave of absence despite the
employee having complied with the requirements, and for doing so in retaliation
for the employee's having joined as signatory of administrative complaint filed
against her;
5. Gross ignorance of the law for: (a) allowing on-the-job trainees and
designating an OIC who did not possess the minimum qualifications for the
position and without approval from the Court (OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ); (b)
ordering the presentation of ex parte evidence before the OIC despite his not
being a member of the Bar (OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ); (c) allowing criminal
proceedings to be conducted without the actual participation of the public
prosecutor (A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815); and (d) authorizing the change of plea by
the accused without the assistance of counsel; and
6. In A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821, conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer for

sending inappropriate messages with sexual undertones to a fellow female Judge,
and for using the official letterhead of her judicial office in summoning a lawyer
to a conference.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES respondent

JUDGE ELIZA B. YU GUILTY of GROSS INSUBORDINATION;
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; GROSS MISCONDUCT;
GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY; OPPRESSION; and
CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDICIAL OFFICIAL; and,
ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSES her from the service EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY, with FORFEITURE OF ALL HER BENEFITS,
except accrued leave credits, and further DISQUALIFIES her
from.reinstatement or appointment to any public office or
employment, including to one in any government-owned or
government-controlled corporations.
Respondent JUDGE ELIZA B. YU is directed to show cause in

writing within ten (10) days from notice why she should not be
disbarred for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics as outlined herein.
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No.

12-5-42-MeTC), March 14, 2017
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the

Motion for Reconsideration with Explanation
for the Show Cause Order with FINALITY;
DISBARS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
respondent ELIZA B. YU pursuant to A.M.
No. 02-9-02-SC for violation of the Lawyer's
Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics; and ORDERS the
striking off of respondent ELIZA B. YU's
name from the Roll of Attorneys.
That’s all
Folks!!!
Thank you for listening…


cruz-pre-week-ethics-TO READ ONLINE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

cruz-pre-week-ethics-TO READ ONLINE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ATTY. TERESITA L. CRUZ

- any activity, in and out of court, which

Q: Distinguish a “practicing lawyer” from a

A: A “practicing lawyer” is engaged in the

Q: Distinguish a “counsel de officio” from

But while the practice of law is a privilege, a

WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHIL.?

1. Passed the bar examination;

2. Took the Lawyer’s Oath together

3. Signed in the Roll of Attorneys;

4. Paid the IBP annual dues;

5. Paid the Professional Tax in the

IN RE PETITION TO SIGN IN THE

2. May 7, 1980 – took the

3. 1980 onwards – engaged in the

While the practice of law is not a right but a

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to sign

What are the primary characteristics of

1. A duty of public service;

2. A relation, as an officer of the court, to the

3. A relation to clients with the highest degree

4. A relation to colleagues in the bar characterized by

What are the essential criteria

1. Habituality – implies customarily or habitually

2. Compensation – implies that one must have

3. Application of law, legal principles, practice or

WHO ARE NON-LAWYERS WHO

Who are lawyers who CANNOT ENGAGE

1. Judges and other officials or

4. Pres.,V.P.,cabinet secretaries, deputies & assistants;

5. Members of Constitutional Commissions;

6. Ombudsman & his deputies;

Loss of Phil. Citizenship Loss

EXCEPTION: Re-acquisition of Philippine

1. updating and payment in full of IBP fees;

(Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of

Best advertisement for a lawyer

Exceptions to the rule against advertising/

1. Publication in a reputable law list, in

2. Use of an ordinary simple

CANON 3. USE ONLY true, honest,

Rule 3.01. NOT USE false, fraudulent,

Q: A lawyer advertised in a newspaper:

Is this advertisement proper?

A: No. A lawyer in making known his legal

Atty. Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino,

RULE 16.04. A lawyer shall NOT borrow money from his

Q: Must a lawyer always provide his legal services

REQUISITES FOR A LAWYER TO BE ENTITLED

REMEDIES FOR CLIENT’S UNJUSTIFIABLE

CONCEPT OF QUANTUM MERUIT:

CONTINGENT FEE – usually a fixed

AMBULANCE CHASER – a lawyer or his

- knowledge acquired by a lawyer at the

Privilege is limited only to

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT/ SUSPENSION

Sui generis A CLASS BY ITSELF

1. neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding;

Q: What is the quantum of proof required

RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall NOT, for any

RULE 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his

RULE 2.02. A lawyer shall NOT REFUSE to