DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G.

VIZCONDE vs. ATTY.

FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.,
Adm. Case No. 8108 July 15, 2014
DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.,

Adm. Case No. 8108 July 15, 2014

DUTIES OF LAWYERS:

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his
client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

APPLICABLE CANONS:

Canon 1 – “a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for
legal processes.”

Canon 13 - "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court."

Rule 1.02 - "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system."

Rule 15.06 - "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body."

Rule 15.07 - "to impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

FACTS:

The complainants in Administrative Case (A.C.) No. 8108 are Dante La Jimenez and Lauro G. Vizconde,
while complainant in Adm. Case No. 10299 is Atty. Oliver O. Lozano. At the time of the filing of the
complaints, respondent Atty. Verano was representing his clients Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R.
Tecson.

Brodett and Tecson were the accused

in cases filed by the PDEA for the
illegal sale and use of dangerous
drugs.In a Joint Inquest Resolution,
the charges were dropped for lack of
probable cause. Because of the
failure of Prosecutor John R.
Resado to ask clarificatory
questions during the evaluation of
the case,
several media outlets reported on
incidents of bribery and "cover-up"
allegedly prevalent in investigations
of the drug trade.This prompted the
House Committee on Illegal Drugs to
conduct its own congressional
hearings. It was revealed during one
such hearing that respondent had
prepared the release order for his
three clients using the letterhead of the
DOJ and the stationery of then
Secretary Raul Gonzales. Jimenez
and Vizconde, in their capacity as
founders of Volunteers Against Crime
and Corruption (VACC), sent a
letter of complaint to Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno. They stated that
respondent had admitted to drafting
the release order, and had thereby
committed a highly irregular and
unethical act. They argued that
respondent had no authority to use the
DOJ letterhead and should be
penalized for acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.
In his Comment, respondent reasoned
that sheer faith in the innocence of his
clients and fidelity to their
cause prompted him to prepare and
draft the release order. Respondent
admits that perhaps he was
overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of
Justice approves it, then everything
may be expedited." In any case,
respondent continues, the drafted
release order was not signed by the
Secretary and therefore remained
"a mere scrap of paper with no effect
at all.
ISSUE
Is respondent guilty of Canon 13 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
RULING
YES, Canon 13 states that "a
lawyer shall rely upon the merits
of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance
of influencing the court."
Respondent’s
statements and others made during
the hearing establish respondent’s
admission that 1) he personally
approached the DOJ Secretary despite
the fact that the case was still pending
before the latter; and 2)
respondent caused the preparation
of the draft release order on
official DOJ stationery despite
being
unauthorized to do so, with the end in
view of "expediting the case.” This
manifested a clear intent to gain
special treatment and consideration
from a government agency. This is
precisely the type of improper
behavior sought to be regulated by the
codified norms for the bar.
Respondent is duty-bound to actively
avoid any act that tends to influence,
or may be seen to influence, the
outcome of an ongoing case, lest
the people’s faith inthe judicial
process is diluted. The primary duty of
lawyers is not to their clients but to
the administration of justice. To that
end, their clients’ success is wholly
subordinate. The conduct of a
member of the bar ought to and
must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics.
Any
means, not honorable, fair and
honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even inthe pursuit of his
devotion to his client’s cause, is
condemnable and unethical.
Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system."
Further, according to Rule 15.06, "a
lawyer shall not state or imply that he
is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative
body." The succeeding rule, Rule
15.07,
mandates a lawyer "to impress upon
his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness.”
Zeal and persistence in advancing a
client’s cause must always be within
the bounds of the law. A self-
respecting independence in the
exercise of the profession is
expected if an attorney is to
remain a
member of the bar. In the present case,
respondent fell short of these exacting
standards.
DISPOSITION
Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found
GUILTYof violating Rules 1.02 and
15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for which he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6)
months effective immediately. This
also serves as an emphatic
WARNING that repetition of any
similar
offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
Brodett and Tecson were the accused in cases filed by the PDEA for the illegal sale and use of dangerous
drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause. Because of
the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the case,
several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in
investigations of the drug trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own
congressional hearings. It was revealed during one such hearing that respondent Atty. Verano had
prepared the release order for his three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ and the stationery of
then Secretary Raul Gonzales. Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against
Crime and Corruption (VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated
that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly
irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead
and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
In his Comment, respondent reasoned that sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and fidelity to their
cause prompted him to prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was
overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited." In any case,
respondent continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore
remained "a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all.”

Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same or any similar
action.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the
bar.
2. Whether or not is respondent guilty of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

1. Yes, Atty. Verano still allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.
The Court ruled that zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the
bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is expected
if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case, we find that respondent fell
short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the
wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the offense.
2. Yes, the respondent is guilty of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s statements and others made during the hearing establish respondent’s admission
that 1) he personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case was still
pending before the latter; and 2) respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order
on official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of
"expediting the case.”

This manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government
agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be regulated by the codified
norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or
may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s faith in the judicial
process is diluted.

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

CORRECT AND INCORRECT SANCTION:

Correct Sanction

The Court agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold the respondent administratively
liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner, states that "a lawyer shall rely
upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility likewise prohibited acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even
in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a
member of the bar.

DISPOSITION:

Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective immediately. This also serves as an emphatic WARNING that repetition of any similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
 MYRNA M. DEVEZA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO, Respondent

A.C. No. 9574, June 21, 2016

FACTS:

Myrna M. Deveza filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado for
dishonesty and for acts unbecoming a lawyer.

According to the complainant, In February 2003, respondent Atty. Alexander del Prado bought bought a
land from the complainant which is located at No. 3242 Malvar St., Brgy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City,
consisting of 633.80 sq. meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 178828 of the Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City for P1,500.00 per square meters on installment basis. To document the sale both
parties executed a Contract to Sell wherein Atty. Del Prado took all the copies on the pretext that he will
have the document notarized but he never gave a copy of the said document to the complainant.
Eventually, Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation by leaving a balance of P565,950.00.
Consequently, complainant sent a demand letter to the respondent for the payment of the unpaid
obligation and/or rescission of the sale.

Upon receipt of the demand letter, respondent called the complainant and told her that he will meet
her and her son at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, where he will pay his unpaid balance. Respondent likewise
asked the complainant to bring the title over the property.

In the meeting, Atty. Del. Prado asked for the title of the property and brought out a completely filled up
Deed of Sale and he asked the complainant to sign it before he will give the full payment. After the
complainant signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, Atty. Del Prado gave the complainant only P5,000.00 and
he told her that the complete payment will be given once the document has been notarized. Atty. Del
Prado tried to put inside his bag the title over the property but the complainant was able to grab it from
him. Atty. Del Prado never paid the balance of the purchase price for the lot he bought from the
complainant. Worst, Atty. Del Prado used the Deed of Absolute Sale that he made the complainant sign
by means of fraud as evidence in the civil case I filed by the complainant against him for rescission of
contract that misled the court.

In a resolution dated September 3, 2012, the court required Atty. Del Prado to comment on the
complaint but he failed to do so. Thus, the Court issued a Resolution on November 18, 2013 to refer the
complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. When
the mandatory conference was set only the counsel of the complainant appeared despite due notice
was given to the respondent. Atty. Del Prado did not heed to the order of the IBP.
The IBP issued its Report and Recommendation stating that Atty. Del Prado’s failure to answer complaint
despite notices and his continuous absence on the scheduled hearings shows his flouting resistance to
the lawful orders of the court and illustrates his dissiliency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP-CBD
recommended that Atty Del Prado be suspended from practice of law and as member of the bar for a
period of 2 years. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado is GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates all lawyers to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code prescribes a lawyer
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. They should refrain from doing
any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession.

In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short of the standard of the norm of
conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and
making her believe that he would pay in full the balance of the purchase price after he had the
document notarized. Complainant waited for Atty. Del Prado to make good his promise to pay but
despite several demands, he continued reneging on his obligation which prompted her to file a case
against him.

Moreover, Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and IBP-CBD to file his
comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice. His
continued defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront
on the court’s authority which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Del Prado should bear in mind that he is a
lawyer and an officer of the court who is duty bound to obey and respect the court processes. He must
acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their authority over
him as a member of the bar.

RULING:

Respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado was found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
Five (5) years effective upon receipt of this decision with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
 Bumactao v. Atty. Fano,
A.C. 10286, Apr. 7, 2014

FACTS:

Atty. Restito F. Fano admittedly indicated a false MCLE compliance number. Respondent endeavors to
douse his culpability by shifting the blame to the MCLE providers, insisting that he acted in good faith.
He likewise attributes the indication of the false MCLE number to his secretary by reason of an honest
mistake because of the pressure of his many duties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Fano should be held responsible for falsely indicating his MCLE number.

HELD:

Yes. Bar matter no. 1922 requires “practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before
the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE certificate of compliance
or certificate of exemption, as may be applicable”. It further provides that “failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from
the records”.

At the very least, respondent was negligent in failing to monitor his own MCLE compliance. This is a sort
of negligence that is hardly excusable. As member of the legal profession, respondent ought to have
known that non-compliance would have resulted in the rendering inutile of any pleading he may file
before any tribunal.
 PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al

G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005

FACTS:

On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, who has currently resumed the private
practice of law, was sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987
case involving General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a
writ of sequestration by PCGG being alleged to be ill –gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime.
It was averred by the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza since he was the one who
filed a petition praying for assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK when
he was still a Solicitor General, which bank was subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group when it
submitted the winning bid. PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.” Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s
motion by arguing that CGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent
Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan
group and that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year
prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor
General in the year 1986.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza.

RULING:

No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service. It is worthy to note that in construing the words of such rule in
this case, the Court balanced the two policy considerations of having a chilling effect on
government recruitment of able legal talent and the use of former government employment as a
litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel.
 Facturan v. Barcelona,

A.C. No. 11069, Jun. 8, 2016

https://philsupreme.clubjuris.com/2016decisions.php?id=6

https://pdfcoffee.com/pale-case-survey-pdf-free.html

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/ateneo-de-naga-university/law/ethics-case-digest/17190971

FACTS:

This is a case of Complaint for disbarment based on gross misconduct, dishonesty and conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer.

On June 4, 2004, complainant FACTURAN filed a complaint for qualified theft against 5 persons before
the Provincial Presecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani. It was assigned to Prosec Amerkhan for PL.

Thereal Prosec Amerkhan forwarded the RECORDS of the case, together with his RESOLUTION, and the
corresponding INFORMATION, to the respondent BARCELONA for his approval and signature. However,
the respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he removed the case records from
the office and brought them to his residence. It appears that the respondents in the qualified theft case
filed by the FACTURAN were personally known to BARCELONA, as Elezar Barcelona is his cousin, while
the other 4 are his close friends.

Aggrieved, FACTURAN sought the intervention of the DOJ through the State Prosecutor. Unfortunately,
State Prosecutor could not take appropriate action as the case records remain in the possession of
BARCELONA who failed to turn them over despite the directive to do so.

On July 20, 2005, the complainant learned that the cased record had been turned over but without the
corresponding resolution and information. Neither did the respondent approve or act upon the same,
prompting the complainant to file the present complaint for disbarment against Barcelona.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT there are grounds to hold Prosecutor Barcelona administratively liable when he
failed to resolve the criminal case and turn over the case records despite being directed to do so.

HELD:

Yes. Prosecutor Barcelona violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the CPR. Canon 6 applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

Rule 6.02 provides that: a lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
PROMOTE or ADVANCE his private interests, nor ALLOW the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as
a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Rule 6.02 enjoins lawyers from using one's public position to: 1) promote private interests; 2) advance
private interests; or 3) allow private interest to interfere with public duties.

Moreover, the Court recognized that such private interest is NOT limited to direct interest, but extends
to advancing the interests of relatives.

In the case at bar, Prosecutor Barcelona's accountability in the Qualified Theft complaint has been duly
established when Prosec Amerkhan forwarded to him the case records, together with the resolution
recommending the filing of the appropriate information.

The Court notes respondent's defense that the complainant was already aware beforehand that he was
inclined to disapprove the resolution of Prosec Amerkhan. However, if such was the case, then nothing
should have prevented him from proceeding to disapprove the resolution. Yet, the records show that he
absolutely took no action thereon.

Worse, the respondent removed the case the records from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor and,
when directed to turn them over, failed to do so notwithstanding his assignment to the DOJ in Manila.
His assignment to the DOJ in Manila should have even prompted him to turn over the case record for
appropriate action, but still failed to do so, without any plausible reason.

Therefore, the Court held that absent any intelligent explanation, it can only be inferred that the
respondent not merely failed, but ostensibly and deliberately refused to perform his duties as a
prosecutor. Indeed, his actions and omissions in this case appear to have been committed for the
benefit of and to safeguard private interests.

It bears stressing that a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission
which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry to the government, but also uphold
the dignity of the legal profession at all times.

Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher that other lawyers in private practice.

RULING:
Wherefore, the respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is suspended for year, and is sternly warned that repetition of similar acts be dealt
with more severely.

Noble v. Ailes,
AC 10628, July 1, 2015
FACTS:
This instant administrative case arose from a verified Complaint for disbarment dated April
16,2012 filed by complainant Maximino Noble III(Maximino) against respondent Atty. Orlando
O. Ailes(Orlando) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Atty. Orlando O. Ailes filed
an action for damages against his brother Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo) who filed a separate
case of Grave Threat and Estafa against the respondent. Maximino was the counsel of Marcelo
who represented him in his civil case (Action for Damages). When Maximino was furnished a
copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through text messages, Orlando had been maligning
him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was
incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees. “Better dismiss your hi-track lawyer who will
impoverish you with his unconscionable professional fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records,
never appeared even once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial stage, get rid of Noble as your
lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from you, daig mo nga mismong abogado mong
polpol”
Affronted, Maximino filed the instant complaint charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and prayed for the
disbarment of respondent as well as the award of damages.
In his defense, Orlando insisted that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages sent to
Marcelo was used in a "brother-to-brother communication" and were uttered in good faith.
The IBP Commissioner did not find any violation of the CPR so gross or grave as to warrant any
administrative liability on the part of Orlando, considering that the communication between
Orlando and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to
Maximino nor intended to be published and known by third persons.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando.
HELD:
NO. The IBP is not correct to dismissed the complaint against Orlando. A lawyer must at all
times, whether in public or private life, act in a manner beyond reproach especially when dealing
with fellow lawyers.
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practicelaw, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discreditof the legal profession.
Canon 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - 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.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum. In Buatis Jr. v. People, the
Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English," "stupidity," and
"satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which effectively
maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing
counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as casual
communications considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind, however,
the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to
malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise,
Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the services of Maximino indicates
Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation of the above-quoted rules.
Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case
filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill,
insulted, and disrespected Maximino - a departure from the judicial decorum which exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that 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.26 Thus, in this case, it is
inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in private. As a
member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect in his words, being fully aware
that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is owed. It was highly
improper for Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino to his client.
RULING:
The Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7
as well as the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with his professional colleagues and
STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.

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

Petitioners Habawel and Medina were the counsel of Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield).
Surfield sought the refund of excess realty taxes paid by it from 1995 until 2000 from the Office of the
Treasurer of Mandaluyong City, which the latter denied. Surfield filed a Special Civil Action for
Mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which dismissed the petition on the ground that the
period to file the claim had already prescribed and that Surfield had failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. The RTC ruled that the grant of a tax refund was not a ministerial duty compellable by writ of
mandamus. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division affirmed the decision of the RTC. On its motion
for reconsideration, the petitioners insists that the CTA had jurisdiction pursuant to Section 7(a)(3) of
Republic Act No. 9282 and there was no need to file an appeal before the Local Board of Assessment
Appeals pursuant to Section 22 of RA 7160.

The CTA denied the motion for reconsideration, explaining that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 7(a)
(3) of Republic Act No. 9282 referred to appeals from the decisions, orders, or resolutions of the RTCs in
local tax cases and did not include real property tax, an ad valorem tax, the refund of excess payment of
which Surfield was claiming. Accordingly, the CTA First Division ruled that the jurisdiction of the CTA
concerning real property tax cases fell under a different section of the same law and under a separate
book of Republic Act No. 7160.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the Petitioners’ language in the subject motion and compliance was contumacious.

HELD:

We dismiss the petition for certiorari, and declare that the CTA First Division did not abuse its discretion,
least of all gravely, in finding that the petitioners committed direct contempt of court.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all attorneys to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically enjoins all attorneys thus:

Rule 11.03. – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.

It is conceded that an attorney or any other person may be critical of the courts and their judges
provided the criticism is made in respectful terms and through legitimate channels. In that regard, we
have long adhered to the sentiment aptly given expression to in the leading case of In re: Almacen:

xxx every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers. This right
is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a
lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation, because
then the court’s actuation are thrown open to public consumption.

RULING:

ACCORDINGLY, we DISMISS the petition for certiorari; UPHOLD the resolutions dated May 16, 2006 and
July 26, 2006; and MODIFY the penalty imposed on Attorney Denis B. Habawel and Attorney Alexis F.
Medina by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and sentencing them only to pay the fine of ₱2,000.00
each.