JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

THE JUSTICE ALFREDO BENJAMIN S.

CAGUIOA
CASE DOCTRINES
IN
LEGAL ETHICS

PREPARED BY:

P RO F . ERI CK S ON H. B A L MES 
THESE NOTES ARE MEANT TO BE SHARED
SHARING THEM IS A GOOD KARMA WAITING TO HAPPEN!

ROMMEL N. REYES VS. ATTY. GERALD Z. GUBATAN

A.C. No. 12839, November 03, 2020

ON LAWYERS BORROWING MONEY / FUNDS FROM THEIR

CLIENTS

The relationship between lawyers and their clients is inherently imbued with
trust and confidence — and as true as any natural tendency goes, this
trust and confidence is susceptible to abuse.

The rule prohibiting lawyers from borrowing from their clients is intended
to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the client

Atty. Gubatan clearly violated the following provisions of the CPR:

CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and

properties of his client that may come into his possession.

xxxx

RULE 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from

his client unless the client's interests are fully


Chairperson, 2022 Bar Examinations
 Deputy Commissioner, Insurance Commission.
 MCLE Lecturer, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) MCLE Lectures.
 Bar Reviewer in Legal Ethics and Mercantile Law - Jurists Bar Review Center, Villasis Bar Review, Chan
Robles Internet Review, PCU Bar Review, the Magnificus Review Center, Legal Edge Review Center , the
University of Cebu Bar Review, the University of San Jose Recoletos Bar Review, the University of Santo
Tomas Bar Review, the PUP Bar Review, the UP LAW Center Bar Review Institute and the Arellano University
Bar Review.
 Member, COMMITTEE ON SUGGESTED ANSWERS in LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS , UP Law Center.
 Author, 300 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, A Pre Week Companion.
(2021). www.central.com.ph
The compiler wishes to acknowledge the generosity of Ms. Erika Liv Cervantes, Ms. Geraldine Yu, Atty.
Kevin Shawn Rey Belarde and Mr. Clarito Sante who donated their weekends in the research of the cases
used in this compilation. MABUHAY KAYO!

1
 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.

Further, in unduly borrowing money from Reyes and the Corporation and
refusing to pay the same, Atty. Gubatan abused the trust and confidence
reposed in him by his clients. In doing so, he failed to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, in contravention of Canon 7 of the CPR,
which provides:

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.

ON ISSUES BETWEEN LAWYERS AND THEIR CLIENTS ON THE

MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL FEES.

Indeed, a lawyer is entitled to protection against any attempt on the part

of a client to escape payment for legal services. However, any disagreement
as regards professional fees is not a matter that a lawyer could simply take
into his own hands, for there are proper legal steps to be followed in order
to recover his just due.

Lawyers are not entitled to unilaterally appropriate their clients' money for
themselves by the mere fact that the clients owe them attorney's fees.

Jurisprudence holds that the deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes
gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law.

Lawyers 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 is ensured. They must, at all
times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts, and
their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.

ON FUNDS INTRINSICALLY LINKED WITH PROFESSIONAL

ENGAGEMENT OF LAWYERS

As a final point, the Court notes that the IBP Board was correct in not
including an order for the return of the money borrowed by Atty. Gubatan
from Reyes and the Corporation since these loans were contracted in his
private capacity. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias, the Court held that the "findings
during administrative-disciplinary proceedings have no bearing on the
liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature — meaning,
those liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional
engagement — as the same should be threshed out in a proper
proceeding of such

2
 nature."

ATTY. HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS VS.

ATTY. DANILO A. BASA
A.C. No. 8789, March 11, 2020

It is inexcusable for Atty. Basa to not be aware of his duty under his
Lawyer's Oath not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same." This duty has
also been expressly provided for in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR, to wit:

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or

interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.

Hence, inasmuch as lawyers must guard themselves against their own

impulses of initiating unfounded suits, they are equally bound to advise a
client, ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the
merit or lack of merit of his or her case. If the lawyer finds that his or her
client's cause is defenseless, then it is his or her bounden duty to advise the
latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.
Lawyers must resist the whims and caprices of their clients and to temper
their propensities to litigate.

In a long line of cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers who resorted to
clearly derogatory, offensive, and virulent language against their opposing
counsels, in violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR, viz.:

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH

COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

3
 Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.

While it may be argued that the omnibus motion did not use language that
can easily be characterized as such, the Court finds Atty. Basa's method
underhanded, a subtle way of name-calling, and was improperly offensive
to Atty. Cabarroguis just the same.

To the mind of the Court, the act of Atty. Basa in poking fun at the name of
Atty. Cabarroguis has traversed these bounds and exhibited a conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court.

WILMA L. ZAMORA VS. ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY

A.C. No. 12622 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4651)
February 10, 2020

It is fundamental that the quantum of proof in administrative cases such as

disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that
amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally
reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.

While Zamora is correct that the very pleading itself is the best piece of
evidence to prove whether Atty. Mahinay had, indeed, violated Canon 11,
Rule 11.03 of the CPR, the Court finds that this proffered evidence failed to
reach the threshold of the quantum of proof required.

The Court does not find the language used in the subject motion for
reconsideration to be offensive, abusive, malicious, or intemperate in any
way. It did not spill over the walls of decency or propriety.

4
A sober reading of the quoted portion, however, does not call to mind
that Judge Medina is being labelled as partial. It neither insinuates so
in any way. It would be far too a stretch to say that after enumerating
all the points Judge Medina failed to consider, the above statement is
a conclusion of his partiality. There is no other statement to bridge
such a connection.

Furthermore, the Court finds nothing wrong with the last statement of
the subject pleading, to wit:

16. Defendants are furnishing a copy of this motion to the

Court Administrator, as they reserve to upgrade their
above perceived violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
to a formal administrative complaint.

The above statement cannot be construed as either a direct or veiled

threat against Judge Medina that should he fail to rule in favor of Atty.
Mahinay's clients, they would file an administrative case against him.

In the fairly recent case of Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal v.

Atty. Walter T. Young (NOTE: ALSO A CAGUIOA DECISION), the
Court reprimanded Atty. Walter Young (Atty. Young) for having
personally written a letter to Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal (Judge
Macapagal), who issued a writ of demolition against his clients in an
expropriation case, threatening her with an administrative case
should she insist on implementing the writ. The pertinent portions of
the letter read:

Modesty aside, I am also the counsel for the K-Ville

residents who recently figured in the so-called Torres land
grab scam which affected a 24-hectare parcel of land in the
heart of Quezon City and that I have[,] in coordination with
my colleagues, caused the filing of an administrative
complaint both against the Sheriff and the Presiding Judge
for the uncanny attempts to execute a judgment against
non-parties to the case.

Indeed, this expropriation case as well as the Torres land

grab case, though at first blush are distinct from each
other, have drawn certain parallels. The most significant
parallelism is that in both cases, both magistrates,
particularly Your Honor, in regard to this expropriation
case, are attempting to execute a judgment against non-
parties to the cases. The foregoing indeed is a very basic
violation of a fundamental precept of law which strikes at
the very heart of the concept of "due process."

5
 Having declared such, and with all due respect, but much to
our regret, we wish to make manifest that we will be
compelled to file an administrative complaint against you
before the Office of the Court Administrator as well as a
criminal complaint for "knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment" if you should persist in your stubborn actuation
of implementing the writ of possession/writ of demolition
against non-parties to the expropriation case.

Apart from the concept of judicial courtesy that ought to be

accorded the Honorable Court of Appeals, may we pray
therefore unto Your Honor that heretofore, Your Honor must
cease and desist from any action that would prove to be
violative of the basic right to due process of my clients by
refraining from implementing the writ of possession as well
as the writ of demolition. Thank you so much and please be
guided accordingly.

The Court found Atty. Young's act of sending the letter to Judge Macapagal
highly improper and held that the following portion of the letter
unquestionably demonstrated that he did threaten to file administrative and
criminal complaints against Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was
implemented:

[W]ith all due respect, but much to our regret, we wish to

make manifest that we will be compelled to file an
administrative complaint against you before the Office of
the Court Administrator as well as a criminal complaint for
"knowingly rendering an unjust judgment" if you should
persist in your stubborn actuation of implementing the writ
of possession/writ of demolition against non-parties
to the expropriation case.

CARMELITA CANETE VS. ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI

A.C. No. 10949 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3915)
August 14, 2019

To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in a condescending manner. To

be sure, the term "bakla" (gay) itself is not derogatory. It is used to describe
a male person who is attracted to the same sex. Thus, the term in itself is
not a source of offense as it is merely descriptive.

However, when "bakla" is used in a pejorative and deprecating manner,

then it becomes derogatory. Such offensive language finds no place in the
courtroom or in any other place for that matter. Atty. Puti ought to be
aware that using the term "bakla" in a derogatory way is no longer
acceptable — as it should have been in the first place.

As against the public prosecutors, Atty. Puti made the following statement:

6
"Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo." Such remark was
clearly unprofessional, especially since Atty. Puti used to be a public
prosecutor. By nonchalantly accusing the prosecutors of having been bribed
or otherwise acting for a valuable consideration, Atty. Puti overstepped the
bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor which he owes to the opposing
counsels.

For his statements against the private and public prosecutors, Atty. Puti
violated the following provisions under the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

7
 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.

As regards the final ground, the TSN of the May 22, 2013 hearing shows
that Atty. Puti made several remarks against the judge. Specifically, Atty.
Puti stated in open court that the judge was abusing his discretion and
implied that the judge was partial and biased. Moreover, Atty. Puti
threatened the judge that he would withdraw from the case and walk out if
his request was not granted. Again, such statements were improper.

While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to criticize the acts
of courts and judges, the same must be made respectfully and through
legitimate channels.

In this case, Atty. Puti violated the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

CANON 11 -A lawyer shall observe and maintain the

respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,

offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.

8
 Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.

As defense, Atty. Puti claimed that he was merely doing his duty to call out
the judge for being biased. He maintained that he was only discharging his
duties to his client by representing him with zeal. Such contention deserves
scant consideration.

While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable,

unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is
disfavored.

PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL, REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT, BR. 195, PARAÑAQUE CITY, VS. ATTY. WALTER
T. YOUNG
A.C. No. 9298 [formerly CBD Case No. 12-3504]
July 29, 2019

After much consideration, the Court finds Atty. Young's act of sending the
subject letter to Judge Macapagal highly improper.

Moreover, as shown in the following portion of the subject letter, there is

no question that Atty. Young did threaten to file administrative and criminal
complaints against Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was
implemented:

x x x with all due respect, but much to our regret, we wish

to make manifest that we will be compelled to file an
administrative complaint against you before the Office of
the Court Administrator as well as a criminal complaint for
"knowingly rendering an unjust judgment" if you
should persist in your stubborn actuation of implementing
the writ of possession/writ of demolition against non-
parties to the expropriation case.

While the Court agrees with the Board that Atty. Young violated Canon 11
of the CPR, it deems it appropriate to lower the penalty to reprimand,
considering that this is his first offense and in view of his advanced age. In
determining the penalty to be imposed, the Court considers the facts and
factors which may serve as mitigating circumstances, such as the
respondent's acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of
remorse, family circumstances, respondent's advanced age, humanitarian
and equitable considerations, among others.

9
 CARLOS V. LOPEZ V. ATTY. MILAGROS ISABEL A.
CRISTOBAL
A.C. No. 12146 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-4040), October 10, 2018

The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Cristobal's
failure to file the required position paper and her failure to properly
withdraw from the case reveals Atty. Cristobal's failure to live up to her
duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of her oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The acts committed by Atty. Cristobal thus fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 and Rule 22.01 of Canon
22 of the CPR, which provides:

CANON 18–A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.

xxxx

Rule 18.03.–A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04.–A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

CANON 22–A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01.–A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
cases:

(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

connection with the matter he is handling;

(b) When the client insists the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;

(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;

(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it

difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;

(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or
fails to comply with the retainer agreement;

(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

(g) Other similar cases.

Canon 18 clearly mandates that a lawyer is duty-bound to competently and

10
diligently serve his client once the former takes up the latter's cause. The
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed upon him.

Hence, his neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him amounts to inexcusable

negligence for which he must be administratively liable, as in this case. The
Court finds no credence to Atty. Cristobal's defense that her failure to
prepare and file the required position paper was justified because of Lopez'
refusal to pay her attorney's fees.

Here, the circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving
the amount of P35,000.00 as acceptance fee, Atty. Cristobal failed to render
any legal service in relation to the case of Lopez.

ROLANDO N. UY VS. ATTY. EDMUNDO J. APUHIN,

A.C. No. 11826 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3801), September 05,2018

Mere reference to the record reveals that Uy was in fact in Taiwan — as

evinced by a Certification from the Bureau of Immigration — the day that
Atty. Apuhin notarized the Joint Waiver in his office in North Cotabato,
Philippines.

Suffice it to state that the notarization of a document is vested with

substantive public interest. Courts, administrative agencies and the public
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a
notary public and appended to a private instrument.

Consequently, acknowledgment of a
document (i.e., the act of a person who executed a deed, of going

11
before a competent officer to declare the same to be his act or deed) must
be done in accordance with the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.

Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed it and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein.

MARTIN J. SIOSON, VS. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., A.C.

No. 12044, July 23, 2018

The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s
refusal to return Sioson's money upon demand and his failure to respond to
Sioson's calls, text messages and letters asking for a status update on the
case filed before the DOJ reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s failure to live up to his
duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

The acts committed by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 16.01 of Canon 16, and Rule
18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which provides:

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.

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.

12
 CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xxxx

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request
for information.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and
abide by the law, and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the
same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his
character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law.

Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed
by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is
unlawful.

To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, on the

other hand, requires the lawyer to account for all money or property
collected or received for or from his client. Where a client gives money to
his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse
judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel
of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the
money for it, immediately return the money to his client.

13
 CELESTINO MALECDAN VS. ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO
[A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322), June 27, 2018 ]

A LAWYER IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM APPEARING BEFORE

BRGY. CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS.

The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that the language of
P.D. 1508 is MANDATORY in barring lawyers from appearing before the
Lupon.

As stated in the case of Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, Section 9 of

P.D. 1508 mandates personal confrontation of the parties because:

xxx

A personal confrontation between the parties without the

intervention of a counsel or representative would generate
spontaneity and a favorable disposition to amicable
settlement on the part of the disputants.

In other words, the said procedure is deemed conducive to the

successful resolution of the dispute at the barangay level."

xxxx

"To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal

confrontation between the parties, and thereby, the
effectiveness of the barangay conciliation proceedings as a
mode of dispute resolution, the above-quoted provision is
couched in mandatory language. Moreover, pursuant to the
familiar maxim in statutory construction dictating that 'expressio
unius est exclusio alterius', the express exceptions made regarding
minors and incompetents must be construed as exclusive of all
others not mentioned."

14
Atty. Baldo's violation of P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which provides:

A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.

1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes.

A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide by the
law: and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the same. A
lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but
it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law.

Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed
by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the
law is unlawful.

Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality

although the concept is broad enough to include such element.

Here, Atty. Baldo admitted that he appeared and participated in the

proceedings before the Punong Barangay in violation of Section 9 of P.D.
1508. Atty. Baldo therefore violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR in connection with
Section 9 of P.D. 1508 when he appeared as counsel for spouses James
and Josephine Baldo in a hearing before the Punong Barangay,
Barangay Pico, Municipality of La Trinidad in Benguet.

PELAGIO VICENCIO SORONGON, JR., V. ATTY. RAMON Y.

GARGANTOS, SR.
[A.C. No. 11326 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4305), June 27, 2018 ]

The respondent uttered the following words to the complainant:

"O ano? Dala ma ba yong hinihingi ko? Sinabi ka na

s[a]yo kahap[o]n kung di mo dala di ako sisipot sa
hearing mo at layasan kita."

When the complainant replied that he did not have

the money, the respondent allegedly shouted at him,
"Babaliktarin kita. Sasabihin ko na di mo ako
binabayaran at ipakukulong kita. Di mo ako kilala.
Umalis [kana] at baka ano pa ang mangyari s[a]yo.
Pagdating mo mamaya sa Sandiganbayan, sabihin at

15
 ikwento mo kung ano ang ginawa ko s[a]yo, hindi na
ako sisipot ngayong araw at magreresign na ako
bilang abagado mo."

The complainant alleged that he was traumatized by respondent's acts,

and with teary eyes and a cordial voice, he begged respondent not to
abandon him.

The respondent allegedly failed to return, despite demand, the

complainant's documents after he withdrew as his counsel in violation of
Canon 16, Rule 16.01 which provides that a lawyer shall account for and
hold in trust the money or property from the client. Moreover, despite
respondent's legal services having been allegedly paid in the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), which, as allegedly agreed upon,
was to cover the acceptance fee, appearance fees, and other fees until the
resolution of the cases, he allegedly abandoned his client when the latter
was not able to give him the "pocket money" he had demanded.

This is a serious charge which the respondent should have addressed and
answered, as well as the other allegations, during the IBP proceedings.
However, after requesting for a copy of the Affidavit Complaint in order to
be able to prepare his Answer, respondent failed to participate in the IBP
proceedings.

While we adopt the findings of Commissioner Villamor, we note that this is

respondent's first offense, and we shall also take into consideration his
advanced age (i.e., he stated that he was already 82 years old in his
abovementioned handwritten letter dated November 6, 2014 addressed to
Director Solis).

We note that, in several cases, the Court, in determining or tempering the

penalty to be imposed, has considered mitigating factors, such as the
respondent's advanced age, health, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, as well as whether the act complained of was respondent's
first infraction.

In the present case, in view of the respondent's advanced age and the fact
that this is his first offense, respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months and warned that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Respondent should also return the legal fees paid to him by the complainant
in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), and the
documents in respondent's possession which pertain to the case of the
complainant.

16
 READY FORM INCORPORATED, VS. ATTY. EGMEDIO
J. CASTILLON, JR.
[A.C. No. 11774 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4186), March 21, 2018]

Ready Form's central issue against Atty. Castillon is that he allegedly

violated the law, particularly the NIRC, when he supposedly attached a copy
of its ITR for 2006 when he filed the Petition for Blacklisting.

A perusal of the records will reveal, however, that what Atty. Castillon
attached in the Petition for Blacklisting is Ready Form's audited financial
statement for the year 2006 and not the latter's ITR.

Ready Form repeatedly made an issue out of the fact that its ITR was
mentioned in the Petition for Blacklisting, and later on in the Position Paper
filed by Eastland, both signed by Atty. Castillon. They did not, however,
offer proof to substantiate its claims that its ITR was attached to the Petition
for Blacklisting despite the clear and express statement therein that only its
audited financial statement, which is available to the public through the
SEC, was attached thereto.

During the mandatory conference, it was clear that only an audited financial
statement was attached by Atty. Castillon.

An individual should not be allowed to claim relief just because a lawyer

is aiding or was hired by an opponent. To do so would create more
injustice and lead to an even more erroneous practice. He who alleges
should prove his case in a very clear and convincing manner.

While courts will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment
upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, they will on the other
hand, protect them from the unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. The
success of a lawyer in his profession depends most entirely on his
reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored.
Private persons and particularly disgruntled opponents, may not,
therefore, be permitted to use the courts as vehicles through
which to vent their rancor on members of the Bar" (Santos vs.
Dichoso, Adm. Case No. 1825, August 22, 1978).

All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to
support the allegations against Atty. Castillon. As such, the Court fails to
see how Atty. Castillon had violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, the Court affirms the IBP's
recommendation to dismiss the Complaint.

17
 SPOUSES FELIX AND FE NAVARRO, VS. ATTY. MARGARITO G.
YGOÑA
A.C. No. 8450, July 26, 2017

A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A
notary public must exercise utmost care in performing his duties to preserve
the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

Notarization is not merely an empty or meaningless exercise. It is invested

with public interest, such that only those qualified and authorized may act
as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity.

A notarized document is, therefore, entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face, and the courts, administrative agencies, and the public at large must
be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public.
Corollary to this, notaries public must observe utmost care and diligence in
carrying out their duties and functions.

Here, Atty. Ygoña should have been more circumspect in notarizing the
Deed of Absolute Sale. Assuming that there is truth in Atty. Ygoña's
assertion that the Spouses Navarro freely and voluntarily signed and
executed the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Court agrees with Commissioner
Andres that the discrepancies in the CTCs used in the Deed of Absolute
are too glaring to ignore. Thus, serious doubt exists as to whether the
Spouses Navarro did indeed appear before Atty. Ygoña to have the Deed of
Absolute Sale notarized, as required by the Rules on Notarial Practice.

Moreover, the Court notes the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of
Court confirming that the notarial report submitted by Atty. Ygoña did not
contain the subject Deed of Absolute Sale. This failure on the part of Atty.
Ygoña to record the transaction in his books and include the same in his
notarial register, as required by the Rules on Notarial Practice, warrants a
corresponding sanction.

18
 ORLANDO S. CASTELO et., al. VS. ATTY. RONALD
SEGUNDINO C. CHING
A.C. No. 11165, February 06, 2017

A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus,
a notary public should observe utmost care in performing his duties to
preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

Gross negligence on the part of a notary public encompasses the failure to

observe any of the requirements of a notarial act under the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice which would result in putting the rights of a person to his
liberty or property in jeopardy.

This includes, among others, failing to require the presence of the

signatories to a notarial instrument and ascertaining their identities through
competent evidence thereof, and allowing, knowingly or unknowingly,
people, other than the notary public himself, to sign notarial documents,
affix the notarial seal therein, and make entries in the notarial register.
Atty. Ching still failed in ensuring that only documents which he had
personally signed and sealed with his notarial seal, after satisfying himself
with the completeness of the same and the identities of the parties who
affixed their signatures therein, would be included in his notarial register.
This also means that Atty. Ching failed to properly store and secure his
notarial equipment in order to prevent other people from notarizing
documents by forging his signature and affixing his notarial seal, and
recording such documents in his notarial books, without his knowledge and
consent. This is gross negligence.

Such gross negligence on the part of Atty. Ching in letting another person
notarize the Deed had also unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy of losing
their property. To make matters worse, the real property subject of the
Deed was the residence, nay, the family home of the Castelo heirs, a
property that their parents had worked hard for in order to provide them
and their children a decent shelter and the primary place where they could
bond together as a family - a property which had already acquired
sentimental value on the part of the Castelo heirs, which no amount of
money could ever match.

One can just imagine the pain and anguish of losing a home to unscrupulous
people who were able to transfer title to such property and file a case in
court in order to eject them - all because of the negligence of a notary public
in keeping his notarial books and instruments from falling into the wrong
hands.

As a final note, this case should serve as a reminder for notaries public,
as well as for lawyers who are applying for a commission, that the duty to
public service and to the administration of public justice is the primary
consideration in the practice of law.

19
This duty to public service is made more important when a lawyer is
commissioned as a notary public. Like the duty to defend a client's cause
within the bounds of law, a notary public has the additional duty to preserve
public trust and confidence in his office by observing extra care and
diligence in ensuring the integrity of every document that comes under his
notarial seal, and seeing to it that only documents that he personally
inspected and whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his
notarial books.

In addition, notaries public should properly secure the equipment they use
in performing notarial acts, in order for them not to fall into the wrong
hands, and be used in acts that would undermine the public's trust and
confidence in the office of the notary public.

20
 ARTHUR O. MONARES V. ATTY. LEVI P. MUÑOZ
A.C. No. 5582, January 24, 2017

A LAWYER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE WHO IS GRANTED THE

AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW CANNOT
ENGAGE IN SUCH PRACTICE DURING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT
TIME UNLESS A PROPER LEAVE IS FILED.

Munoz's DILG authorization prohibited him from utilizing

government time for his private practice.

As correctly observed by Commissioner Aguila, Rule XVII of the Omnibus

Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent
Civil Service Laws (Omnibus Rules), requires government officers and
employees of all departments and agencies, except those covered by special
laws, to render not less than eight (8) hours of work a day for five (5) days
a week, or a total of forty (40) hours a week.

The number of required weekly working hours may not be reduced, even
in cases where the department or agency adopts a flexible work schedule.

Notably, Muñoz did not deny Monares' allegation that he made at least
eighty-six (86) court appearances in connection with at least thirty (30)
cases from April 11, 1996 to August 1, 2001. He merely alleged that his
private practice did not prejudice the functions of his office.

Court appearances are necessarily made within regular government working

hours, from 8:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon, and 1:00 to 5:00 in the
afternoon. Additional time is likewise required to study each case, draft
pleadings and prepare for trial. The sheer volume of cases handled by
Muñoz clearly indicates that government time was necessarily utilized in
pursuit of his private practice, in clear violation of the DILG authorization
and Rule 6.02 of the CPR.

Memorandum No. 17 dated September 4, 1986 (Memorandum 17) ,

which Muñoz himself cites in his Joint Petition, is clear and leaves no
room for interpretation. The power to grant authority to engage in the
practice of one's profession to officers and employees in the public
service lies with the head of the department, in accordance with Section
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which provides, in part:

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any

private business, vocation, or profession or be connected
with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head
of Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be
absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose
duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at
the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an

21
 employee is granted permission to engage in outside
activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours should
be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not
impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee x
x x.

Memorandum 17 was issued more than nine (9) years prior to Muñoz's
appointment as Provincial Legal Officer, hence, he cannot feign ignorance
thereof. As a local public official, it was incumbent upon Muñoz to secure
the proper authority from the Secretary of the DILG not only for his first
term, but also his second and third. His failure to do so rendered him
liable for unauthorized practice of his profession and violation of Rule
1.01 of the CPR.

ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, the Court explained the tests to

determine the existence of conflict of interest, thus:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The
test is "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 it for the other client.

22
 In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will
be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which
no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.

Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of

the new retainer will require the attorney to perform
an act which will injuriously affect his first client in
any matter in which he represents him and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.

Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the

acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from
the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double
dealing in the performance thereof.

AURORA AGUILAR-DYQUIANGCO VS. ATTY. DIANA LYNN M.

ARELLANO
[A.C. No. 10541 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3046), July 12, 2016

A lawyer, once he takes up the cause of his client, has the duty to serve
such client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with
diligence, care and devotion, whether he accepts the engagement for free
or for a fee.

Moreover, lawyers should refrain from obtaining loans from their clients, in
order to avoid the perils of abusing the trust and confidence reposed upon
him by such client.

Respondent violated Canon 18 when she failed to file the collection case
in court. In this regard, Canon 18 of the CPR mandates, thus:

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 thereof emphasizes that:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

In Reyes v. Vitan, this Court held that the failure of a lawyer to file a
complaint with the court in behalf of his client, despite receiving the
necessary fees from the latter, is a violation of the said canon and rule: The
act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling
complainant's case and subsequently failing to render such services is a
clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

23
A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his
genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.
An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his
client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise
serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to
the court, to the bar and to the public.

Further, as this Court ruled in Pariñas v. Paguinto, it is of no moment that

there is only partial payment of the acceptance fee, to wit:

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("the

Code") provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected for or from the client. Acceptance of
money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's
cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific
purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure
to file the case must immediately be returned to the
client on demand. Paguinto returned the money only after
Pariñas filed this administrative case for disbarment.

In the case before us, it is undisputed that after Complainant paid the filing
fees and also part of the acceptance fees, Respondent did not bother to file
any complaint before the court. Worse, Respondent knew for a long time
that she required additional documents from Complainant before filing the
complaint, yet Respondent did not appear to exert any effort to contact
Complainant in order to obtain the said documents and finally file the said
case.

In fact, in the occasions Respondent met with Complainant in order to

obtain a loan or discuss the magnetic bracelet business, Respondent never
brought up the needed documents for the case to Complainant. As correctly
held by Commissioner Cachapero, Respondent displayed a lack of zeal in
handling the case of Complainant in neglecting to remind the latter of the
needed documents in order to file the complaint in court.

In addition, 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.

We have previously emphasized that it is unethical for a lawyer to obtain

loans from Complainant during the existence of a lawyer- client
relationships between them.

The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client

is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to

24
renege on his obligation. Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money
or property from a client outside the limits laid down in the CPR
is an unethical act that warrants sanction.

Respondent even exacerbated her infractions when she issued worthless

checks to pay for her debts, the existence of which was admitted by
Respondent.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members

of the Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law.

Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

In Co v. Bernardino, [A.C. No. 3919, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 102] the
Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as violation of this Rule
and an act constituting gross misconduct.

Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient

funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral
conduct as to undermine the public confidence in the legal profession.

A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds or property held by him
on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that be has appropriated
the same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust
reposed in him by, his client. It is a gross violation of general morality as
well as of professional ethics; it impairs the public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.

Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross

violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence
in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction may be
disbarred or suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

The filing of baseless criminal complaints, even merely threatening to do so,

violates Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR.

Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded
or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client
designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

As we conclude, we remind lawyers that it is not only important to serve

their clients with utmost zeal and competence. It is also an equally
important responsibility for them to properly separate and account for any
money given to them by their clients, and to resist the temptation to borrow
money from their clients, in order to preserve the trust and confidence
reposed upon lawyers by every person requiring their legal advice and
services.

25
 JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., VS.
ATTY. ELLY L. PAMATONG
A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved

only for those who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and
morality.

It is so delicately imbued with public interest that it is both a power and

a duty of this Court to control and regulate it in order to protect and
promote the public welfare.

In this regard, this Court will not hesitate to hold its officers accountable
for misconduct and the violation of the duty to respect the courts.
It cannot be overemphasized that it is the sworn duty of a lawyer to
maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, "not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its
supreme importance."
It is precisely for this reason that the Lawyer's Oath enjoins all members of
the bar to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts in order
not to erode the faith and trust of the public in the judiciary.

A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument
or agency to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the
dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, "not
to promote distrust in the administration of justice." Faith in the
courts, a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial
edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment
of the liberties of the people." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "as
an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build
and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard
towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of
justice.

It is with this exacting standard that we measure respondent Pamatong,

and find him wanting.

It is not disputed that the Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent

Pamatong contained blatant accusations of corruption against complainant
Pantanosas., and then some.

As counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2006-176, it was incumbent
upon respondent Pamatong to observe and maintain respect towards the
judicial office then being occupied by complainant Pantanosas. Instead of
insisting on similar conduct from his clients, respondent Pamatong was the
first to cast doubt on the impartiality and independence of the court. Worth
repeating below are the invectives directed by respondent Pamatong
against complainant Pantanosas:

26
6. Finally, in my thirty (30) years of law practice, I
never encountered a Judge who appears to be as
corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the impression
that you are a disgrace to the Judicial System of
this land who does not deserved (sic) to be a member
of the Philippine Bar at all.

27
That the slanderous remarks cited above were inserted in no less than a
public record, i.e., Motion for Inhibition, makes matters even worse. Even
granting that the bribery charges were true, such personal attacks against
the person of complainant Pantanosas should have been reserved for a
different forum and certainly not included in a motion filed before a court
of law. To be sure, a lawyer is obliged to abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language before the courts.

As a supposed officer of the court, such behavior exhibited by respondent

Pamatong only serves to betray his utter lack of reverence towards the
courts, which promotes nothing but the degradation of the administration
of justice.

The records also disclose that a news article detailing the events that
precipitated the bribery charge against complainant Pantanosas was
published on September 15, 2006 with the participation of respondent
Pamatong. At the outset, it bears stressing that lawyers should refrain
from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or have
no materiality to the case.

Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and

as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the most hardened
judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001
motion on Judge Lacurom's Resolution. On its face, the Resolution
presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to
supporting law and jurisprudence.

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 unnecessary language is proscribed if we
are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial
administration.

Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and
avowed duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean
and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.

In closing, we find it befitting to reiterate that lawyers have the right, both
as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful
terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.

However, closely linked to such rule is the cardinal condition that criticisms,
no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety. To that end, the duty of a lawyer to his client's success is wholly
subordinate to the administration of justice.

True, lawyers must always remain vigilant against unscrupulous officers of

28
THE JUSTICE CAGUIOA CASE DOCTRINES IN LEGAL ETHICS
Professor Erickson H. Balmes
the law. However, the purification of our justice system from venal elements
must not come at the expense of decency, and worse, the discrediting of the
very system that it seeks to protect.

NO HONEST EFFORTS ARE EVER WASTED

WHEN OFFERED FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF
GOD!

GOD BLESS, GOOD LUCK AND

CONGRATULATIONS!
☺
WANNA JOIN OUR

FREE LAST MINUTE LECTURES

IN MERCANTILE LAW AND LEGAL ETHICS?
KINDLY SEND US A QUERY
@ balmesfreenotes@gmail.com

+
AMDG

29
THE JUSTICE CAGUIOA CASE DOCTRINES IN LEGAL ETHICS
Professor Erickson H. Balmes