Week 4

Case Digest
Legal Ethics
Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion vs Atty. Agustin Arcangel

Facts
 Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help the complainants, Olegaria Blanza and
Maria Pasion, in claiming the pension of their husbands.
 Blanza and Pasion handed Arcangel the necessary documents as well as
had their signatures on blank papers.
 The complainants noticed that Atty. Arcangel had lost interest in their case
and when they asked for the return of the documents six years later, the
respondent refused
 The complainants filed a disciplinary action against Atty. Arcangel
 The case was referred to Fiscal Rana by the Solicitor General. Atty
Arcangel answered the complaint and stated that he had indeed received
the documents, and the reason why he refused to return them was
because the complainants refused to pay for the photo-stating cost,
preventing him from withdrawing the documents.
 On December 13, 1961, Atty, Arcangel paid for the documents and
returned them to Blanza and Pasion.
 Fiscal Rana found the explanation satisfactory but Solicitor general
thought otherwise. The Solicitor General stated that Atty. Arcangel should
be severely reprimanded for his failure to attend the complainants pension
claim, where he reasoned that he had no obligation to follow up the
complainant’s pension claim since there was no compensation for his
services, and for his failure to immediately return all the documents as
claimed by the respondents.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Agustin Archangel should be reprimanded for his failure to
act

Ruling
The Court ruled in the negative. The court found the evidence to be
insufficient, however even if the evidence is not legally sufficient, it cannot be
denied that the respondent have not lived to the ideal standard as member of
the bar ( Duty of Lawyer to Society)
As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up
too as a model citizen.His conduct must be excellent especially in this case
where he volunteered his professional services.It was unnecessary to have
kept the complainants waiting for six years, he should have terminated their
agreement instead of letting them hanging indefinitely.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
Felipe Salcedo vs Francesco Hernandez
In re contempt proceddings against Atty. Vicente J. Francisco

Attorney Vicente Francisco, representing the petitioner-appellant, inserted

alleged contemptuous paragraph in his motion for reconsideration read as
follows:

“We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the resolution of this
court, denying our motion for reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an
outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will
expressed at the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the
means within out power in order that this error may be corrected by the very court which
has committed it, because we should not want that some citizen, particularly some voter
of the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has
a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the victim, and
because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this honorable court and of
each and every member thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the same time we wish to
state sincerely that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his
thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of “sakdalism”
and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice.”

The court required him to show cause, if any, why he should not be found
guilty of contempt, giving him a period of ten days for that purpose. In his
answer Atty. Francisco, far from regretting having employed the phrases
contained in said paragraph in his motion, reiterated them several times
contending that they did not constitute contempt because, according to him it
is not contempt to tell the truth and it was not in his intention to offend the
court.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent-appellee is guilty of contempt.
Ruling
The court ruled in the affirmative. The court held that what was stated in the
paragraph, specifically the part where he said that the voters of Tiaong would
resort to the press when he fails in his attempt for a motion of reconsideration,
was a more or less veiled threat and can only mean contempt to the dignity to
the court and disrespect of the authority on the part of Atty. Vicente Francisco.
In the provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter 2 of Legal Ethics, It is the duty of the
lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of
the temporal incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its
importance. It is also the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances
to the proper authority whenever there is ground for serious complaint.
As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J.
Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority
and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon him the high
privilege, not right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now is.
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights
of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable,
but it is not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to
intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity
of the courts require. The reason for this is that respect of the courts
guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty, said
institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
Leslie Ui. Vs Iris Bonifacio

Facts
 On January 24, 1971, complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos Ui and
begot 4 children. Sometime in December 1987, complainant found out
that her husband, Carlos, was carrying an illicit relationship with
respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter in 1986.
Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of
the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.
 Carlos admitted to Leslie his relationship with Atty. Bonifacio and the
latter likewise admitted that she had a child to Carlos and alleged,
however, that everything was over between her and Carlos.
 However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship
between her husband and respondent continued, and that in December
1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child.
Complainant pleaded to the respondent to discontinue her illicit
relationship with Carlos but to no avail.
 A complaint for disbarment as then filed on August 11, 189 by the Leslie
Ui against Atty. Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of immorality more
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui.
Issue
Whether or not Iris Bonifacio should be disbarred on the ground of immorality.

Ruling
The court ruled in the negative. The court held that a member of the bar is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationship but must also behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those morals. Since, the respondent was unaware of the true civil
status of Carlos Ui, believing their marriage to be valid, but upon her
knowledge of the truth, she left him, it cannot be considered immoral. The
burden of proving that such an immoral act exist falls on the complainant,
which the complainant in this case miserably failed to do so.

The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate should not have the right
to enjoy the practice of legal profession simply by passing the bar. It is a
privilege that can be invoked, subject to the mandate of due process once a
lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for
admission to the practice of law; must be a citizen, a resident, at least 21 years
old, a person of good moral character, he must show no charge against him
involving moral aptitude are filed or pending in court, possess required
educational qualifications and pass the bar. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to
adherer unwaveringly to the highest standard or morality, and that the legal
profession exacts from its members nothing less.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
Aurora Deles vs Vicente Aragona

Facts
 A complaint was filed by Aurora Deles on November 6,1937 against
Vicente Aragona on the ground that the respondent made, under oath,
false and unfounded allegations against her in a motion filed in Court of
agrarian relations which in turn caused her great mental, torture and
moral suffering.
 The respondent answered (December 10,1963) and claimed in his
defense that he relied those allegations on the information he had
received as well as on public record.
 The motion in question started when the complainant attempted to take
possession of the landholdings by placing her own tenants on the land
owned by their late mother (Joaquina Ganson) that is being occupied by
brothers Federico and Carlos Aglinao, upon the Authority of the lessee,
Enrique Soriano Jr.
 To protect their rights, the Aglinao brothers filed against the
complainants two petitions with the Court of Agrarian docketed as
C.A.R 1254 and 1255. An unauthorized entry prompted the brothers to
file the urgent motion for issuance of interlocutory order through their
counsel, respondent Vicente Aragon. (June 20, 1962)
 On October 2, 1962, Enrique Soriano sr. received a telegram which he
showed to the respondent that read; Tell daddy communicate Aragona
Immediately Albert harvest today. The telegram was from his wife,
Isabel and addressed to their daughter Gilda Acolado.
 Isabel confirmed that the person along with armed men who went and
harvested the palays despite the protest of the of the Aglinao brothers,
was a tenant and was ordered by the complainant.
 The respondent after gaining this knowledge filed the Urgent motion to
Declare Respondent in contempt of Court” for violating the previous
motion filed
 The case was first referred to the Solicitor Genera but was later referred
to the City Fiscal of Iloilo where it was dismissed
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Vicente Aragona should be disciplined or disbarred
for having prepared and filed under oath the Urgent Motion to Declare
Respondent in Contempt of Court”
Ruling
The court ruled in the negative. The court held that the respondent merely
acted in righteous indignation over the wrong supposedly done to his
aggrieved clients. The basis of the motion filed was obtained by him firsthand
from a person who claimed to have witnessed the incident in question along
with the complainant admitting that Albert indeed was a helper of Carlos
Fuentes, one of the tenants she illegally placed on the land holdings of the
Aglinao brothers.
Since there is no doubt that the allegations made by the respondent in the
questioned motion for contempt are statements made during a judicial
proceeding, besides being relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject mater
of the said cases, they are absolutely privileged, thereby precluding any
liability on the part of the respondent.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
The power to disbar attorneys ought to be exercised with caution and only in
clear cases of misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character o
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. There is no
evidence to prove the unfitness of the respondent to continue in the practice of
law, so the complaint is dismissed by the court.

MELANIO L. ZORETA vs. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO

A.C. No. 6492 November 18, 2004
Facts
This is a complaint about disbarment filed against Atty. Heherson Alnor
G. Simpliciano for allegedly notarizing several documents during the
year 2002 after his commission as notary public had expired.
Petitioner, Melanio L. Zoreta, showed that respondent notarized up to
Document No. 590, Page 118, Book No. II, Series of 2002 and his
commission expires December 31, 2002, which referred to the Affidavit
of Service signed and executed by Joseph B. Aganan Legal Assistant
of Simpliciano and Capela Law Office subscribed and sworn to before
Notary Public Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano whose commission
expires December 31, 2002.
The respondent who was not a duly commissioned Notary Public in
2002 per Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City
Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization The lawyer’s
act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission,
therefore, is reprehensible, constituting as it does not only
malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents;
Respondent is barred from being commissioned as a notary public
permanently and suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Simpliciano violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility under the Rules of Court?
Held
YES These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The practice
of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law
for the conferment of such privilege; An attorney may be disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and
counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically
any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
NOTARIAL PRACTICE

Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the
following purposes:
(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;
(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public;
and
(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.
Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge
to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and
maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province
where the commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with
clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime
involving moral turpitude.
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the
following notarial acts:
(1) acknowledgments;
(2) oaths and affirmations;
(3) jurats;
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications; and
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb
or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:
(1)the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public
and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument
or document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or
other mark;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or
Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of
(names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public";
and
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark
through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically
unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a
mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature: "Signature affixed by
notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two \2]
witnesses)"; and
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or
jurat.

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act
outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on
certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at
the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial
jurisdiction:
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of
office may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of
instruments or documents requiring notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an
instrument or document is confined for treatment; and
(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring
notarization is under detention.
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory
to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified
by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules.

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a

notarial act if he:
(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee,
advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration,
except as provided by these Rules and by law; or
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative
by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial
act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he
tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act
or transaction is unlawful or immoral;
(b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the
notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the
consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and
(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own
free will.

SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not:

 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the
notary to be false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
incomplete.
SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall not
notarize:
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or
(b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics
A1- FINANCIAL SERVICES VS. VALERIO

 On November 13, 2001, the complainant, A-1 Financial Services, Inc, a

financing corporation, granted the loan of the respondent, Atty. Laarni N.
Valerio, amounting to PHP 50,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan,
Atty. Valerio issued a postdated check (Check No. 0000012725) dated
April 1, 2002, for the same amount. However, the check was dishonored
due to insufficient funds. Despite repeated demands, Atty. Valerio failed to
fulfill her obligation. Thus, the complainant filed a B.P. 22 case against the
respondent on November 10, 2003. The arraignment was scheduled but
she failed to appear despite due notice. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest
was issued but she posted no bail.
 An Administrative Complaint against Atty. Valerio was filed on January 18,
2006, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) wherein she was
required to file an answer but again, she did not file any responsive
pleading at all. However, in a letter dated March 16, 2006, the
respondent’s mother, Gorgonia N. Valerion (Mrs. Valerio), explained that
her daughter had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that she could
not properly respond to the complaint against her. Furthermore, she
undertook to personally settle her daughter’s obligation.
 Atty. Valerio was again directed by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) to appear before the mandatory conference on September 13, 2007,
still no Atty. Valerio showed up. In an order from the IBP dated November
15, 2007, the parties are ordered to submit their position papers, however,
Atty. Valerio did not submit any. After a year, the IBP-CBD made its report
and recommendation to suspend Atty. Valerio from the practice of law for
two (2) years for having been found guilty of gross misconduct. The
BP-CBD did not give credence to the medical certificate submitted by her
mother for failure to prove the truthfulness of such certificate or to present
the physician who issued the same. The recommendation of the IBP-CBD
was based on Atty. Valerio’s failure to obey court processes, more
particularly her failure to appear at her arraignment despite due notice and
to surrender to the Court despite the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
showed her lack of respect for authority and, thus, rendered her morally
unfit to be a member of the bar. Such recommendation of the IBP-CDB
was adopted and approved with modification by the IBP Board of
Governors, that Atty. Valerio was suspended from the practice of law only
for one year.
 Before the Court decides the case of Atty. Valerio, a resolution dated
December 15, 2010, directed the latter and/or her mother to submit a duly
notarized medical certificate issued by a duly licensed physician and/or
certified copies of medical records to support the claim of schizophrenia on
the part of Atty. Valerio within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days
from receipt hereof. However, no medical certificate or medical records
were submitted to the court.
 Week 4
Case Digest
Legal Ethics

Issues of Law: Whether the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and

violation of the Code of Professional responsibility

Rulings:
 Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 In Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, it was held that deliberate failure to pay
just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from
the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of
justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the
judicial system are ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, the courts, and to their clients, which include
prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in
a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 explicitly state that:

 Canon 1— A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
 Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct

 Atty. Valerio’s conduct in the course of the IBP and court proceedings is a
matter of serious concern. She failed to answer the complaint against her.
Despite due notice, she failed to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the
IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the court as she likewise
failed to both answers the complaint against her and appear during her
arraignment, despite orders and notices from the court. This conduct runs
counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
violates the lawyer’s oath which imposes upon every member of the Bar
the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Atty. Valerio has failed to
live up to the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution dated December 11, 2008,
issued by the IBP declaring the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility is affirmed with
Modification. Therefore, respondent, Atty. Laarni N. Valerio is hereby
suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law. So ordered.