1

BASIC LEGAL &

JUDICIAL ETHICS
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 2

CASES
• Pimentel v. Llorente, 339 SCRA 154 (2000)
• Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007)
• Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
• Saburnido v. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 (2001)
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 3

CASE # 1:
[ A.C. No. 4680, August 29, 2000 ]
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE AND LIGAYA P. SALAYON,
RESPONDENTS
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 4

FACTS:
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. (Complainant) filed complaint for disbarment
against respondents against private respondents Attys. Ligaya Salayon and Antonio
Llorente (Respondents), Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the City
Board of Canvassers for Pasig City for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust,
and violation of the lawyer's oath in connection with the discharge of their duties as
members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 1995 Elections.
Complainant made the following allegations that the respondents (1) have
tampered with the votes he received, and the said votes were credited to other
Senatorial candidates (2) in 101 precincts, Juan Ponce Enrile’s votes higher than the
number who voted (3) the votes from 22 precincts were twice recorded in 18
Statements of Votes (SoVs).
Both Respondents denied the allegations against them claiming that that the
errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight,
and/or fatigue.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 5

FACTS:
Pursuant to Rule 139-B, §13, in relation to §20 of the Rules of Court,
the case was referred to the IBP, who recommended the dismissal of the
complaint due to lack of merit.
The Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the IBP
Board of Governors. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court pursuant to
Rule 139-B, §12(c). In a related but separate case filed before the COMELEC
(E.O. Case No. 96-1132 for violation of R.A. No. 6646, §27(b)), the
COMELEC dismissed Complainant's charges for insufficiency of evidence.
On a Petition for Certiorari filed by Complainant (G.R. No. 133509, Feb. 9, 2000)
with the Supreme Court, the Court set aside the resolution and directed the
COMELEC to file appropriate criminal charges against Respondents.
Reconsideration was denied.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 6

ISSUE:
Whether or not Attys. Llorente and Salayon committed gross
misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath.

DOCTRINE:
Rule 6.02: 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.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 7

HELD:
YES, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question,
respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which says that a
lawyer shall not engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.“ This is made applicable to lawyers in government service by Canon
6. They also violated their oath of office as lawyers to "do no falsehood."
As lawyers in the government service, Respondents has greater
obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal profession because a public
office is a public trust.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente and
Ligaya P. Salayon GUILTY of misconduct and imposes on each of them a
FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 with a WARNING that commission of
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 8

CASE # 2:
[ A.C. NO. 7136, August 01, 2007 ]
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, RESPONDENT
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 9

FACTS:
On March 4, 2002, Joselano Guevarra (Complainant) filed a Complaint for
Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline
(CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly
immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath.“
Guevara met Eala, who at the time was married with Marianne Tantoco and have
three children through his then-fiancé Irene Moje. After his marriage to Irene, the
Complainant noticed that Irene has been receiving phone calls and messages that "I love
you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall.“
Guevara also noticed that Irene would habitually come home very late at night and
on some occasions early the following day; and when he would question her, she would
reply that she had spent the night at her parent’s or that she was busy with work.
Guevarra confronted Eala and Irene which led to Irene leaving their conjugal house.
Irene went back to their conjugal house and took all her personal belongings, pieces of
furniture, and her share of the household appliances. Guevarra also found a “I LOVE YOU”
letter addressed to Irene from Eala dated the same day as his wedding with her and later
learned that Irene was pregnant.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 10

FACTS:
Eala admitted to having sent the “I LOVE YOU” but denies having flaunted their
adulterous relationship as the same was kept as low profile and known only to their
respective immediate family members. He also denied the allegations that his adulterous
relationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity, because his relationship
with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that he maintained a civil and
peaceful relationship with his wife Marianne, who was aware of his “special friendship” with
Irene.
After an investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner found the charge
against Eala to be sufficiently proven and recommended disbarment for violation Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states: “A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct” and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of
the same Code that states: “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”
However, the IBP Board of Governors, in setting aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case for lack of merit, gave no reason on
their RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 11

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala should be
disbarred due to "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath.“

DOCTRINE:
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct
Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 12

HELD:
YES, the adulterous relationship was sufficiently proven by the above
statement and Samantha Louise Irene Moje's Certificate of Live Birth as
corroborating document indicating Eala as the father.

Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for

grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 13

CASE # 3:
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 3319, June 08, 2000 ]
LESLIE UI, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, RESPONDENT
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 14

FACTS:
The Complainant, Leslie Ui filed an administrative complaint for the
disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying immoral relationship with
Carlos L. Ui, husband of Complainant.
Leslie married Carlos in January 1971 and their marriage brought them four
(4) children. Sometime around December 1987, Leslie found that her husband,
Carlos was in an illicit relationship with Iris whom he fathered a daughter and had
been living together in Ayala Alabang Village.
Carlos admitted to the affair with Iris. Leslie visited Iris at her office and
introduced herself as Carlos’ legal wife. Iris admitted that she has a child with
Carlos and that their extra-marital relationship is over. Leslie believed what Iris
told her.
Leslie again learned that the illicit relationship of Carlos and Iris continued
and had a second child. Leslie met with Iris again and pleaded to stop the illicit
relationship with Carlos but to no avail.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 15

FACTS:
In her defense to the complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm.
Case No. 3319, Iris in her answer stated that she had known Carlos as a
bachelor and have children with a Chinese woman whom he has been
estranged with. She also stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos
asked her to marry him and eventually got married in Hawaii.
Iris also contended that her relationship was not illicit because they
were married abroad and upon discovery of Carlos’ true civil status, she cut
off all her ties with him.
The proceedings before the Integrated Bar was dismissed in favor of
Iris but she was reprimanded for knowingly and willfully attaching to her
Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 16

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Respondent, Atty. Iris Bonifacio upheld herself to the
highest standard of morality

DOCTRINE:
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct
Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the
bar.
Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 17

HELD:
No, Respondent Atty. Iris Bonafacio did not upheld herself to the highest moral
standards as it is a bounden duty of lawyers.
The Court on their decision of the case at bar, “The legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free
from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the
court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.”
The Court also, referencing Narag vs. Narag (291 SCRA 454, 464(1998)), the fact remains
that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community.
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L.
Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED.
However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a
photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date thereof, with a
STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition
of the same or similar offense in the future.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 18

CASE # 4:
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001 ]
MR. AND MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO, COMPLAINANTS,
VS.
ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADRONO, RESPONDENT
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 19

FACTS:
Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Florante E. Madrono. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
has been harassing the Complainants by filing numerous complaints against them and the
former also committed acts of dishonesty.
Prior to this complaint, there were three separate administrative cases filed by the
Complainants, the husband, a member of the PNP and the wife, a public-school teacher
against the Respondent, a former judge Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
The first case the Complainants filed against the Respondent resulted to the latter’s
dismissal from the service with prejudice to reemployment in government but without
forfeiture of retirement benefits. The second case resulting to the Respondent’s retirement
benefits being forfeited.
The Complainants claims that the Respondent file the said cases against them as
retaliation for the latter’s dismissal from the judiciary. They also asserted that due to the
complaints filed against them, they suffered much moral, mental, physical, and financial
damage; causing their children to stop going to school since the family funds were used up
in attending to their cases.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 20

FACTS:
In his defense the Respondent contends that the grounds mentioned in the
administrative cases in which he was dismissed, and his benefits forfeited did not
constitute moral turpitude. He then argues that none of the complaints he filed
against complainants was manufactured.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation. In its report, the IBP noted that the
Respondent and his counsel failed to appear and present evidence in the hearing of
the case, despite notice; which was considered as the Respondents’ waiver to his
right to present evidence in his behalf. Respondent also failed to submit his
memorandum as directed by the IBP.
The IBP concluded that Complainants submitted convincing proof that
respondent indeed committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant the
imposition of administrative sanction and recommends that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 21

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Respondent, Atty. Florante E. Madrono is
violation of the lawyer's oath and upheld himself a lawyer in Government
Service

DOCTRINE:
Rule 6.02: 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.
05/09/2023 BASIC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS 22

HELD:
No, Atty. Madrono did not upheld himself as a Lawyer in Government Service and
was in violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which commands all
lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.
The Supreme Court also said, “respondent's act of filing multiple complaints against
herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His act
evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or another
individual, as complainants were instrumental in respondent's dismissal from the judiciary.
We see in respondent's tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants not the
persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying
to exact revenge.”
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E. Madrono is found GUILTY of gross
misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent's
suspension is effective upon his receipt of notice of this decision. Let notice of this decision
be spread in respondent's record as an attorney in this Court, and notice of the same
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.
THANK
YOU!