promise of marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual intercourse with

CANON 1 her. He, however, admitted that sometime in June, 1955, he and the
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS complainant became sweethearts until November, 1955, when they
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL broke off, following a quarrel. He left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958,
PROCESSES. to practice law.
 
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Puno should be disbarred (YES)
One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
deceitful conduct. evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 138). If that
qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance upon the practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. practice and the exercise of the privilege. When his integrity is
challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm) and
show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. Respondent
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. denied that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had
sexual intercourse with her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present
evidence to show where he was on that date.
In re CARLOS S. BASA  
Carlos Basa, admitted in the bars of California and the Philippines, was With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent that the
charged with abduction with consent, was found guilty and sentenced to allegations do not fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or
be imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven months and eleven suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule
days. The decision was by the Supreme Court. The issue in this case is 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the
WON his crime involved moral turpitude as described under Sec 21 of statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is
the Code of Civil Procedure as a ground for disbarment or suspension not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to
from office of a lawyer. suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its
   officers can not be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme
Issue: Court held that an attorney will be removed not only for
1. WON the crime of abduction with consent, as punished by article 446 malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross
of the Penal Code, involves moral turpitude (YES) misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and
2. WON Atty. Basa should be disbarred (NO; 1yr suspension after unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer
discharge from prison) upon him. (In re Pelaez, citing In re Smith; Balinon vs. de Leon; Mortel
  vs. Aspiras). As a matter of fact, "grossly immoral conduct" is now one
Held: of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138,
1. "Moral turpitude," it has been said, "includes everything which is Rules of Court).
done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."  
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary, cited by numerous courts.) Although no Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned
decision can be found which has decided the exact question, it cannot profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the
admit of doubt that crimes of this character involve moral turpitude. The highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the
inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the Canons of Judicial Ethics:
accepted rule of right conduct. The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the
  admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified
However, even when his crimes are of such character. The Court was because deficient in either moral character or education. He
willing to strain the limits of our compassion to the uttermost in order should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain
that so promising a career may not be utterly ruined. Instead of being the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law
disbarred, he was suspended from his office of lawyer for one year.  but the administration of justice.

Arciga v. Maniwang
IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO. FLORA QUINGWA vs.
Magdalena T. Arciga in her complaint asked for the disbarment of
ARMANDO PUNO
lawyer Segundino D. Maniwang  on the ground of grossly immoral
Flora Quingwa and Armando Puno were engaged to be married. Puno
conduct because he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
invited the complainant to attend a movie but on their way the he told
Their illicit relationship resulted in the birth of their child,
Flora that they take refreshment before going to the Lyric Theater; that
they proceeded to the Silver Moon Hotel. Puno then proposed to
Segundino passed the bar examinations (admitted to the Bar in 1975 ).
complainant that they go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her that
Several days after his oath-taking, he stopped corresponding with
'anyway we are getting married; that with reluctance, complainant
Magdalena. Fearing that there was something amiss, Magdalena went
acquiesced, and Puno signed the registry book as 'Mr. and Mrs. A.
to Davao to contact her lover. Segundino told her that they could not get
Puno; that after registering at the hotel, respondent shoved complainant
married for lack of money. On another trip to Davao, she was told that
inside the room; that as soon as they were inside the room, Puno
they cannot be wed because he had married Erlinda Ang on November
proceeded to the bed and undressed himself; Flora begged respondent
25, 1975. She was broken-hearted when she returned to Davao where
not to molest her but respondent insisted, telling her: 'anyway I have
Segundino followed and inflicted physical injuries upon her because she
promised to marry you'; Flora had no other recourse but to submit to
had a confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang.
respondent's demand and 2 sexual intercourse took place from 3:00pm
until 7:00pm that same evening. After their sexual intimacy on June 1,
Segundino admits in his answer that he and Magdalena were lovers
1958 and feeling that she was already on the family way, Flora
and that he is the father of the child Michael. He also admits that he
repeatedly implored Puno to comply with his promise of marriage but
repeatedly promised to marry Magdalena and that he breached that
Puno refused to comply; that on February 20, 1959, she gave birth to a
promise because of Magdalena's shady past. She had allegedly been
child.
accused in court of oral defamation and had already an illegitimate child
 
before Michael was born.
On April 16, 1959, Flora filed before this Court a verified complaint
charging Puno with gross immorality and misconduct. He denied all the
ISSUE: W/N Segundino should be disbarred- NO.
material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred
that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or
SC: A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by
suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member
The Solicitor General asked for the disbarment of the respondent.
of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
 
Puno denied that he took Flora to the Silver Moon Hotel and that on the
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest,
what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency immoral or deceitful conduct”. It explained that betrayal of the marital
and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered
member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution.
conduct that warrants disbarment.
As for the money lending business, the court ruled that it was not
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, sufficiently established he lending of money to a single person without
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the showing that such service is made available to other persons on a
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is
engaged in the business of lending.
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance
with the canons of the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary (Effect of Reconciliation of Parties to Disbarment)
action because his misbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is Cordova v. Cordova
not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with
the opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises. immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.
Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or
without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and had two children. Thereafter
"grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the surrounding Atty. Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of Court
circumstances. of the RTC in Quirino Province, and went to Surigao del Sur with one
Fely G. Holgado who was herself married and left her own husband and
Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the childre. They lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with Cordova
following cases (SEE RATIO Nos 1-7) introducing Fely to the public as his wife, and Fely Holgado using the
name Fely Cordova. He gave Fely Holgado funds with which to
The instant case can easily be differentiated from the foregoing establish a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while at the
cases. This case is similar to the case of Soberano vs. Villanueva, same time failing to support his legitimate family.
where lawyer Eugenio V. Villanueva had sexual relations with Mercedes
H. Soberano before his admission to the bar in 1954. They indulged in Years later, Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent
frequent sexual intercourse. She wrote to him in 1950 and 1951 several reconciliation, promising that he would separate from Fely and brought
letters making reference to their trysts in hotels. his legitimate family to Bislig, Surigao del Sur. He would, however,
frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and
On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family. Soon after,
tantalizing and vulgar nature as to render them unquotable and to complainant found, upon returning from a trip to Manila necessitated by
impart the firm conviction that, because of the close intimacy between hospitalization of her daughter Loraine, that Cordova was no longer
the complainant and the respondent, she felt no restraint whatsoever in living with the children in their conjugal home but was with another
writing to him with impudicity. mistress and had taken his younger daughter Melanie along with him.
They hid Melanie from the complainant, compelling her to go to court
According to the complainant, two children were born as a and to take back her daughter by habeas corpus which was granted
consequence of her long intimacy with the respondent. In 1955, she
filed a complaint for disbarment against Villanueva. Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to live
with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant support to his legitimate family. Finally, the Commission received a
was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. telegram message apparently from complainant, stating that
complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each other.
GILBERT TUMBOKON vs. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO,
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. WON Atty. Laurence D. Cordova is liable despite his reconciliation
Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and with the complainant? —YES
grossly immoral conduct. He alleged that they had an agreement
whereby Atty. Pefianco was to give him 10% commission (orginally the most recent reconciliation assuming the same to be real, does not
20%) from the atty’s fees he would receive in representing the Sps. excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the
Yap, whom he referred to the former, in a partition. He however failed to respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting
do the same notwithstanding his receipt of his atty.’s fees and instead upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An
informed through a letter that the Sps Yap had assumed the applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show
responsibility after Atty. Pefianco agreed to have his fees reduced (25% that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not
to 17%). Hence, Tumbokon demanded for his payment but was exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the
ignored. Moreover, in his complaint, he alleged that Atty. Pefianco failed bar but persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in
to uphold the moral standards required of a lawyer for abandoning his good standing.
legal wife with whom he had children and cohabiting with another with
whom he also has children. Additionally, Tumbokon accused him of It is important to note that the lack of moral character that referred to as
engaging in money lending services without authorization from the BSP. essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge
Atty Pefianco moved to dismiss the case arguing that the letter of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral
embodying their agreement was a forgery and that they had clarified it delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
was the Spouses that would assume the payment as evidence by the continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally
letter he sent informing Tumbokon of the same. However, he did not accepted moral standards of the community, such as that which
deny that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress makes "a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage."
with whom he begot four children.
In the instant case, Cordova maintained for about 2 years an adulterous
IBP recommended that Atty. Pefianco be suspended for 1 year from the relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the
practice of law for violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 7, and 9 of general public, to the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family
the CPR. which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused to support. After
a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with another woman
ISSUE: WON Atty. Pefianco violated the mentioned canons of the CPR not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter
– YES to live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the
SUSPENDED from the active practice of law ONE (1) YEAR fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations
before his own daughter and the community at large.
The SC adopted the findings of the IBP. It affirmed that Atty. Pefianco
had committed a violation of Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which RULING: SUSPENDED from the practice of law indefinitely and until
prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal farther orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting his
services with persons not licensed to practice law. Further, since Atty. suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the
Pefianco admitted to cohabiting with a mistress, the court affirmed that Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide for the
he violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
 support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral complainant's affidavit of desistance cannot have the effect of
course of conduct that he has clung to. abating the administrative proceedings in view of the public
service character of the practice of law and the nature of
(Effect of Acquittal) disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern.
CRISTINO G. CALUB vs. ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER
A criminal complaint was filed against by him the as well as the present The SC found sufficient evidence to show that Anquilo-Garcia notarized
disbarment case for gross immoral conduct was filed by Calub against the affidavits without the affiants personally appearing before her and
Suller for allegedly raping Calubs wife. The narration goes: while Calub that they were handed to the voters in the precincts on the election day.
was away, Suller went to the house to ostensibly to borrow a blade.  
Since he was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the wife let him in. Atty. Anquilo-Garcia's failure to perform her duty as a notary public
Thereafter, he began touching her in different parts of her body. undermines the integrity of a notary public and degrades the function of
When she protested, he threatened her and forced her to have notarization. Thus, she should be liable for such negligence, not only as
sexual intercourse with him. At that moment, Calub returned home a notary public but also as a lawyer.
to get money to pay for real estate taxes. When he entered the  
house, he saw them having sexual intercourse on the bed. She was In conclusion, the SC found Anquilo-Garcia liable and revoked her
kicking respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms notarial commission, disqualified her for applying for the same for 1
and other leg. The lower court did not find him guilty beyond reasonable year, and suspended her for 6 months.
doubt of the crime charged and The Board of Governors recommended
that he be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
(Effect of Pardon to Disbarment
SC: DISBARRED The record discloses that the CFI acquitted Suller for In re Lontok
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In 1918, Marcelino Lontok was convicted of the crime of bigamy. The
Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of this administrative SC affirmed the decision. In 1921, he was granted pardon by the
case. The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, Governor-General on condition that he shall not again be guilty of any
particularly that of the complainant suffice to show that respondent misconduct.
acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of  
his neighbor's wife without her consent in her very home. The Attorney General, however, seeks to have Lontok disbarred
because bigamy, the crime he was convicted of, is a crime involving
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his moral turpitude. He contends that while the pardon removes the legal
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in infamy of the crime, it cannot wash out the moral stain. Lontok, on the
moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to other hand, contends that the pardon reaches the offense for which he
continue as an officer of the court. was convicted and blots it out so that he may not be looked upon as
guilty of it.
In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by  
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient punishment Issue: May Lontok be disbarred after being granted pardon? – NO
for the immoral act of respondent. The rape of his neighbor's wife
constituted serious moral depravity even if his guilt was not Held: No. "A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for
proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is
rape. He is not worthy to remain a member of the bar. The privilege to full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt,
practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent so that in the eye of the law the offender is an innocent as if he
intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally." Good had never committed the offense.
moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to
the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and
order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and disabilities, consequent upon conviction, from attaching;
honored fraternity." if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities,
and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new
(Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint) man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.
Bernaldez v. Anquilo-Garcia  
Bernaldes is a mayoral candidate in Biri, Northern Samar. Anquilo- There is only this limitation to its operation; it does not restore offices
Garcia’s husband is also a mayoral candidate in that municipality. forfeited, or property or interest vested in others in consequence of the
Bernaldez alleged that the respondent, abusing her position as notary conviction and judgement." (Ex parte Garland case)
public, forced and intimidated voters into signing blank affidavits saying  
that they were illiterate and needed assistors in voting, when they were Petition of the Attorney-General denied. However, if Marcelino Lontok
not so, which she denied having done. should again be guilty of any misconduct, the condition of his pardon
  would be violated, and he would then become subject to disbarment.
During the pendency of the administrative proceedings, the Bernaldez
filed his Affidavit of Withdrawal of the complaint stating that he is (Effect of Conditional Pardon to Disbarment)
desisting from pursuing the instant disbarment case. He stated that the In re GutierreZ
filing of the instant case was merely due to misapprehension of facts Doctrine: The rule that pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and
  is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the
The IBP CBD held that the case should be dismissed as it was pardon has been granted applies only where the pardon is absolute,
premature to rule on the administrative liability of the respondent but not where, as in this case, the pardon granted is conditional and
pending the election protest filed by the complainant against the merely remitted the unexecuted portion of the penalty. In such a case,
respondent’s husband. The IBP further ruled that the withdrawal of the the attorney must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for the crime
complaint was not sufficient to terminate the proceedings. he has committed.
 
Issue: Whether or not respondent Anquilo-Garcia should be sanctioned Gutierrez was convicted of the murder of Samaco (former municipal
for her actions, considering that complainant filed a withdrawal mayor) and together with his co-conspirators was sentenced to the
  penalty of death and upon review by the Court, the penalty was
Held: Yes. The SC first dealt with the IBP’s contention that it was changed to reclusion perpetua. After serving a portion of the sentence,
premature to rule on the administrative liability of Anquilo-Garcia. The Gutierrez was granted a CONDITIONAL PARDON by the President
SC explained that administrative proceedings against lawyers are on August 19 1958.
sui generis and they belong to a class of their own. They are neither - The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted "on
civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws
into the conduct of its officers. The instant administrative case is, of the Philippines."
thus, distinct from and may proceed independently of the election  
case. Widow of the deceased Samaco filed a verified complaint praying that
  Gutierrez be removed from the roll of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127,
As regards the withdrawal, the SC agreed with the IBP and cited the Section 5.
case of Ventura v. Samson where the Court held that the  
 Gutierrez admitted the facts alleged in the complaint but pleading the recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for
conditional pardon in defense, on the authority of the decision of this 2years and the cancellation of his commission as Notary Public. The
Court in the case of In Re Lontok IBP Board of Governors: adopted, with modification, the Report and
  recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for
ISSUE/S: 6months. The case was forwarded to the SC.
WON the conditional pardon extended to respondent Gutierrez places  
him beyond the scope of the rule on disbarment (NO) Respondent filed a MR before the IBP. Respondent stated that he was
-WON the ruling in In Re Lontok is applicable in the case at bar (NO) already 76 years old and would already retire by 2005 after the
SC: Pursuant to Rule 127, Section 5 and considering the nature of termination of his pending cases. He also said that his practice of law is
the crime for which respondent Gutierrez has been convicted, he his only means of support for his family and his six minor children. MR
is ordered DISBARRED and his name stricken from the roll of was denied because the IBP had no more jurisdiction on the case as
lawyers the matter had already been referred to the Court.
   
SC is of the view that the ruling in In Re Lontok does not govern WON Atty. Tansingco should be held liable (YES)
the question now before us. In making it the Court proceeded on  
the assumption that the pardon granted to respondent Lontok was The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02
absolute of the Code. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to
  any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to
"‘A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme
the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies
punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eyes disciplinary action against the lawyer.
of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed  
the offense. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen,
penalties and disabilities, consequent upon conviction, from attaching; if was disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for
granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and reconsideration, respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of
restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of
and gives him a new credit and capacity.’ the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in
  complainant’s name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by
Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for murder preparing several documents, including the Occupancy Agreement, that
without regard to the pardon he invokes in defense. The crime was would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner of the property
qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in despite its transfer in complainant’s name. In effect, he advised and
band, by taking advantage of his official position (respondent being aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign
municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of a motor vehicle. The ownership of lands by preparing said documents.
degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged  
from the profession Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his
  oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands.
measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end.
For the admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of Court not Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be
only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require suspended.
satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These
standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission; NARCISO L. HIPOLITO vs. ATTY. MA. CARMINA M. ALEJANDRO-
the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk ABBAS and ATTY. JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO
of suspension or removal. Case: This is an administrative complaint for grave abuse of authority
  and for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in relation to Canon 1, Rule
As stated in Ex parte Wall; "Of all classes and professions, the 1.01 of the CPR against siblings Attys. Ma. Carrnina M. Alejandro-
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their Abbas and Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro (collectively, respondents).
sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate  
and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore SUMMARY: Narciso L. Hipolito and his family were in actual and
the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and physical possession of a percel of land where they farmed mangoes
office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and and other fruti bearing trees. In this land also stands their family home.
dangerous elements of the body politic." In the morning of February 8, 2015, respondents, together with some 30
to 40 unidentified men, entered complainant's property and began
demolishing his house, structures, and other farming implements. When
(Assisting in the Defiance of the Law) complainant and his family attempted to stop said activity, Atty.
Donton v. Tansingco Alejandro-Abbas and Atty. Alejandro shouted threats at them. The
A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Tansingco for serious above incident was repeated on February 14, 2015, after which, Atty.
misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1 of the CPR. Alejandro-Abbas left with a warning. These incidents were reported to
Complainant stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru the barangay hall and the police, but they, too, were allegedly
falsification of a public document against Stier, Maggay and Atty. threatened by the respondents.
Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy  
Agreement. Because of these events, complainant lodged the instant administrative
  complaint before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondents
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter- moved for the consolidation of the case with an earlier case on the
charge for perjury against complainant.  Complainant averred that ground that both cases were related to the case filed by complainant
respondent’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite before the DARAB.  Respondents averred that the administrative
knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real complaint was related to the DARAB complaint where the complainant
property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate alleged similar facts and that the DARAB complaint constitutes the civil
violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred aspect of the administrative complaint, and, as such, the outcome of the
for advising Stier to do something in violation of law and assisting Stier former should be considered in resolving the latter.
in carrying out a dishonest scheme.
  Respondents contended that the instant administrative complaint, which
Respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case against was filed immediately after the DARAB complaint was filed, was a
him upon the instigation of complainant’s counsel, Atty. Alentajan, harassment case meant to scare respondents because complainant
because respondent refused to act as complainant’s witness in the knew that his DARAB complaint was weak.
criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he  
"prepared and notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its IBP Commission on Bar Discipline: recommended a penalty of 3
genuineness and due execution. months suspension from the practice of law.  Resolution of the IBP
  Board of Governors: increased the recommended penalty of
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation found respondent liable and suspension from the practice of law to six months.
 
ISSUE: W/N respondents are guilty of grave abuse of authority and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of
the CPR. (YES. Also liable for violation of Rule 7.03) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, dated April
  16, 2010. Accordingly, Atty. Lintang H. Bedol is found GUILTY of
RATIO: violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is
Admin complaint not dependent on DARAB complaint hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
It is plain error to argue that the administrative complaint one (1) year, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
constitutes the civil aspect of the DARAB complaint. Complaints for a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
disbarment or suspension are intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members for the protection of the public SC: Based on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 (see Ratio for the
and the courts. It is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a provision), the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special
civil case. Proceedings to discipline erring members of the bar are elections shall be decided by the majority vote of the members of the
instituted not only for the protection and promotion of the public good, COMELEC en banc. In this case, the COMELEC en banc issued a
but also to maintain the dignity of the profession by weeding out those Resolution dated July 27, 2004 declaring the failure of election and the
who have proven themselves unworthy.  holding of a special election on July 28, 2004. However, prior to the
  issuance of the said Resolution, respondent, as the Provincial Election
Respondents should be disciplined by the Court Supervisor of Maguindanao, had already issued the following, to wit:
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State only on those Notice dated July 23, 2004 of the special election to be done on July 28,
who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications of the 2004; Invitation dated July 25, 2004 for conference at his office in
profession. Thus, lawyers are expected to maintain, at all times, a high Cotabato City; and Notice dated July 26, 2004 informing that the
standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair canvassing of votes shall be held in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
dealing, and must perform their four -fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients. Respondent's act of issuing those notices ahead of the issuance
  of the COMELEC en banc Resolution calling for a special election
These standards hold true whether a lawyer acts in his or her was not in compliance with the procedures under the law and the
professional or private capacity. As such, a lawyer is required to COMELEC rules. In so doing, he breached his duty to obey the
observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, thus,
public or private capacity. Consequently, a lawyer may be disciplined violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
not only for malpractice in connection with his or her profession, but
also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity. Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and
legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to
The allegations that respondents forcibly entered the property and respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that
demolished the structures thereon, shouted invectives and used is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
abusive language against complainant remain undisputed. In fact, speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the
respondents did not deny that these incidents actually occurred, nor did law, on the part of the public. As servants of the law and officers of the
they offer any justification for said acts. As lawyers, respondents are court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and
deemed to know the law, but their actions demonstrate a deliberate maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves
disobedience to the rule of law, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what a lawyer's
CPR. As lawyers, they ought to be keepers of public faith, and, are obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes entails.
thus, burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and must Moreso, a lawyer who is occupying a public office. 18
handle their personal affairs with greater caution.
  Lawyers in public office, such as respondent who was then a Provincial
Aside from the IBP Board of Governors' finding that respondents Election Supervisor of Maguindanao, are expected not only to refrain
violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, we also find respondents to be guilty of from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence
violating Canon 7, Rule 7.03.For the Court, respondents erred in their of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal
conduct, especially in taunting complainant to file a case against them profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
and threatening the latter that they can defend themselves as they are dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is
lawyers. Part of respondents' duties as lawyers is to maintain the dignity burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his
owing to the profession. When respondents misused their profession to brethren in private practice.
intimidate complainant, they transgressed the mandates of Canon 7,
Rule 7.03.
Respondent's claim that he issued those notices as there was no more
time to prepare for the special elections has no basis in law. To stress,
We find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to
the notices were issued even prior to the COMELEC Resolution for the
discipline respondents.
holding of a special election. Members of the Bar are reminded that
MIKE A. FERMIN, vs. ATTY. LINTANG H. BEDOL
their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek
Mike A. Fermin filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bedol for exceptions as loopholes. Respondent is expected to promote respect
violation of Canon 1 of the CPR. He averred that one of his opponents for the law and legal processes
and defeated candidate for the mayoralty post filed with the COMELEC
en banc a petition to declare a failure of election, and the subsequent
holding of a special election; and that the COMELEC declared a failure
of election and the holding of the special election. However, before the JUDGE NIMFA P. SITACA, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIEGO M.
issuance of the COMELEC Resolution, Atty. Bedol, in his capacity as PALOMARES
the Provincial Election Supervisor III issued the following notices: Notice Judge Nimfa Sitaca filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Diego
dated July 23, 2004 of the special election to be done on July 28, 2004; Palomares charging him with falsification of documents. She alleged
Invitation dated July 25, 2004 for conference at his office in Cotabato that Atty. Palomares, who was the counsel on record of his son for the
City; and Notice dated July 26, 2004 informing that the canvassing of latter’s murder case of which Judge Sitaca was the presiding judge,
votes shall be held in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. presented falsified bail bond and order of release for his son’s
temporary release which contained the signature of Judge Chavez, then
IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of Canon 1 and presiding judge of the RTC of Cagayan De Oro City where his son was
recommended that he be penalized with reprimand, with a stern then detained. She learned of the fact when Atty Muralon, the Branch
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. Clerk of court informed her of a letter from the Cagayan RTC Clerk of
Commissioner found that respondent started issuing notices of special court advising that the bail bond was inexistent and that Branch had
election and invitation to prepare for the special election even before never processed it. Atty. Palomares argued that he sought help from
the COMELEC had issued its Resolution on the need for a special Bently House Int’l Corp, a client of his, to facilitate his son’s release
election which was highly irregular if not totally wrong. from detention hence he was referred to a William Guialani who
secured the signature of Judge Chavez for the bail bond and release
IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted and approved with order signed by that branch’s Clerk of Court. He also blamed the clerk
modification that Atty. Bedol is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of court for not ascertaining the veracity of the document and that he
of law for a period of 1 year. never had a hand in the production of the spurious bail bond and
release order since he could easily secure one from other insurance
companies, which happened to be his clients, too. 
ISSUE: W/N Respondent should be held administratively liable- YES.
IBP found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 10 (Rule 10.01) of
the CPR and recommended a suspension of 18 months. However, this
was remanded by the SC for failure of IBP to follow prescribed
procedure pertaining to investigation of administrative complaints.
Thereafter IBP set several hearing dates all of which Judge Sitaca
failed to attend citing her submission of the case on basis of the
records. Atty. Palomares moved to dismiss the case for lack of
evidence which was dismissed. On the amended report, IBP increased
his suspension from 18 months to 3 years.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Palomares is guilty of violating Canon 1 and Canon

10 of the CPR - YES

The SC held that Atty. Palomares was without a doubt the one who
conceptualized, planned, and implemented the falsified bail bond and
release order for his son's temporary release. The Court considered the
following factual findings of the IBP:
 He was the counsel of his son who was charged with murder,
a non-bailable offense.  knew there was no petition for bail at
all, much less any hearing thereon, nor an order granting or
fixing the amount thereof at P200,000.00. But despite his
knowledge of these attendant circumstances, he personally
went to present to Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Murallon the
supposed bail bond and release order with the end in view of
securing his son's temporary liberty. More than anyone else,
it was he who knew these documents were falsified and did
not legally exist. his vehement denial only further exposes to
all and sundry his wicked tendencies and unworthiness to
continue being a member of the Philippine Bar.
 Respondent unabashedly turned the table on the persons
accusing him of falsifying the bail bond and release order
which the Court stated to be moral depravity on his part

No one ordinary mortal, nay, a member of the bar could ignore the
glaring irregularity of the circumstances under which the falsified bail
bond and the release order were obtained. From beginning to end,
everything on its face looked wrong, smelled fishy, and revealed a
despicable design to tamper with court processes and records, with
impunity.

Based on the evidence on record, respondent committed a serious

breach of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 Canon 10 of CPR.

The Court also cited jurisprudence as regards to lawyer’s acts being "so
reprehensible, violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting moral
unfitness and inability to discharge duties as a member of the bar, 
unlawful, dishonest, immoral[,] and deceitful conduct, and lessened the
confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of being an
advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His
reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal
profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed
upon him."

Accordingly, following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court likewise finds

respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. Hence, he
is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken
off from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately.
GOOD LAWYER PART TWO collected exorbitant fees from her.

Three Characteristics of Purpose WON the allegations in Rodica’s Complaint merit the disbarment or
1. Rock-solid suspension of respondents? -NO; Complaint for disbarment against
2. Fire-Tested respondents Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo,
3. Time-Proven Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro and Atty. Joseph C. Tan
is DISMISSED. However, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo is WARNED to be
ROCK-SOLID more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.
1. Lawyer for something bigger than you
 Albert Schweitzer: the tragedy of life is what dies inside a Atty. Espejo admitted drafting Rodica’s Manifestation and Motion to
man while he lives. The tragedy of life is what dies inside Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration indicating the firm name of the
the man, while he lives Lazaro Law Office as well as his name and the names of Atty. Manuel
 Opposite of barrenness -> Fruitfulness and Atty. Michelle without the knowledge and consent of his superiors,
2. Must be bigger than your profession and in likewise affixing his signature. Atty. Espejo acknowledged
 Purpose – womb to tomb committing the abovementioned acts as a way of assisting Rodica who
 Calling – changes over time had already become his close friend.
 Anchoring purpose to your calling will make it very unstable
3. Must be worth dying for At the outset, Atty. Espejo was well aware that Rodica was represented
 Lawyering is high risk profession by another counsel in the RTC case. As a practicing lawyer, he
 Must be willing to risk life, reputation, security for this should know that it is the said counsel, Atty. Ibutnande, who has
profession the duty to prepare the said motion. In fact, he himself stated that it is
Atty. Ibutnande who is in a better position to evaluate the merit of the
withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration.

Atty. Espejo’s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just to
CANON 2:
extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true that
A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if
PROFESSION. he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the
person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented
the defenseless or the oppressed. by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her rights are amply
safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.
shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to
Moreover, the Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well that
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rodica is not their law firm’s client and without the knowledge and
consent of his superiors, gave in to Rodica’s request for him to indicate
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed in the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty. Manuel and Atty.
primarily to solicit legal business. Michelle for the purpose of "giving more weight and credit to the
pleading." As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know that
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant. their merit or lack of it, and not on the reputation of the law firm or the
lawyer filing the same. More importantly, he should have thought that
Jasper Junno F. Rodica vs. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al. in so doing, he was actually assisting Rodica in misrepresenting
William Strong, an American, was arrested and detained by the before the RTC that she was being represented by the said law
operatives of the Bureau of Immigration. His neighbor referred him to firm and lawyers, when in truth she was not.
Atty. Manuel, who is a partner at the Lazaro Law Office, who then,
together with Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo, senior and junior It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he
associates, respectively, at the Lazaro Law Office, agreed to meet is first and foremost an officer of the court. Hence, he is expected to
Strong and thereafter agreed to handle his case. maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealings and must conduct
himself beyond reproach at all times. He must likewise ensure that he
During the course of their meeting, Strong casually mentioned that he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware
has a property in Boracay and that he suspected his neighbors as the that he is an instrument of truth and justice. As shown by his actuations.
persons who caused his arrest. According to Strong, his live-in partner Atty. Espejo fell short of what is expected of him. Under the
Rodica filed a Complaint before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, for recovery circumstances, Atty. Espejo should have exercised prudence by first
of possession and damages in connection with the 353-square meter diligently studying the soundness of Rodica’s pleas and the
property they bought in Boracay. He disclosed that he and Rodica had repercussions of his acts.
been trying to sell the Boracay property to rid themselves of the
problems but could not find buyers because of the said case. They even We note that on August 5, 2011, or even before the filing of the
offered the property to Apostol but the latter was hesitant because of disbarment complaint, Atty. Espejo already caused the filing of his
the said pending case. Atty. Manuel averred that towards the end of the Motion to Withdraw Appearance before the RTC. Therein, Atty. Espejo
interview with Strong, Rodica arrived. Strong described Rodica as his already expressed remorse and sincere apologies to the RTC for
"handyman" who will act as his liaison in the case. wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office. Considering
that Atty. Espejo is newly admitted to the Bar (2010), we deem it
On May 25, 2011, the Bureau of Immigration, rendered its Judgment proper to warm him to be more circumspect and prudent in his
granting the motion of Strong to voluntarily leave the country. On May actuations.
31, 2011, Strong left the Philippines. Subsequently, or on June 6, 2011,
Rodica filed with the RTC a motion effectively withdrawing her MARCELINA ZAMORA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARILYN V.
complaint. GALLANOSA
Marcelina Zamora averred that Atty. Gallanosa approached her and
Rodica alleged that after the deportation of Strong and the withdrawal of inquired about the illegal dismissal of her husband and the “papers” that
the RTC case, she heard nothing from the Lazaro Law Office. She also she has. Atty. Gallanosa remarked “Walang kadating dating ang ginawa
claimed that contrary to her expectations, there was no "simultaneous ng abogado mong PAO, matatalo ang demanda mo dyan”. She replied
over-all settlement of her grievances with the defendants in the RTC that she provided them to the lawyer from the PAO but the latter did not
case. Thinking that she was deceived, Rodica filed the instant attach the same to the position paper. Respondent then remarked,
administrative case. Rodica claimed that she is a client of the Lazaro "Kaya hindi niya ikinabit, ayaw niya kalabanin ang arbiter na humawak
Law Office and that she was deceived into causing the withdrawal of ng papel mo kasi magkakasabwat yang mga yan. Yong arbiter na
the RTC case. Further, she claimed that the Lazaro Law Office humawak ng papel mo at saka attorney ng kumpanya. Alam ko yan kasi
dati akong government pero umalis na ako kasi nga ayaw ko yong  
ginagawa nila, nag pro-labor na lang ako." Atty. Zamora thus opined There being a lawyer-client relationship existing between the parties,
that complainant should change the position paper and, subsequently, respondent was duty-bound to file the appeal she had agreed to
listed the documents to be attached to the new position paper, assuring prepare in the case at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the
the latter that once said documents were completed she will surely win client's interest. Her failure to do so made her liable for transgressing
the case. Complainant visited respondent’s office to confirm whether it Canon 17 which enjoins lawyers to be mindful of the trust and
was possible to replace the position paper she had already submitted, confidence reposed on them, as well as Rule 18.03 of the CPR which
to which respondent replied, "Pwede. Eto nga, tumatawag ako ng ibang prohibits lawyers from neglecting legal matters entrusted to them.
hahawak," giving her the impression that another Labor Arbiter will  
handle the case. When she asked how much respondent's professional In Hernandez v. Padilla, a lawyer who similarly denied the existence of
fee was, the latter informed her that the same shall be twenty percent any lawyer-client relationship with the complainant and was negligent in
(20%) (of the judgment award) but on a contigent basis. handling his client's case was suspended from the practice of law for six
(6) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar
Thereafter, the LA confirmed that the respondent will appear at the next offense will be dealt with more severely. Consistent with this case, the
hearing via phonecall. However, Atty. Gallanosa failed to appear at the Court agrees with the IBP's recommendation to suspend respondent for
next scheduled hearing, resulting to the submission of the case for the same period
resolution sans hearing. The case was dismissed. Complainant was
assured by respondent that the necessary appeal would be filed,
however, the reglementary period lapsed without an appeal being
perfected. When she confrotnted respondent, the latter denied being CANON 3:
complainant's lawyer since she did not sign the position paper and A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE
never received any fees therefor. ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Thus, Zamora approached Raffy Tulfo about the case and referred it to
the PAO. complainant prevailed upon respondent to agree to file an
appeal after the latter comes back from Bicol where she was attending
to some family matters. Upon respondent's return, complainant called Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
her but was informed that the appeal was already too late. Thus, a fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
complaint was filed by complainant against respondent. The IBP statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
recommended that respondent be suspended for 6 months. Hence, the
present case. Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
Issue: WON respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that
acts complained of. – Yes. SC adopted IBP recommendation. said partner is deceased.

SC: Respondent admitted having met complainant (albeit under Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from
different circumstances as claimed by complainant), advised the latter the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
to see her in her office so they can discuss her husband's labor case,
allows him to practice law currently.
and prepared the position paper for the case, all of which constitute
practice of law. Case law states that the "practice of law" means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Thus, to engage in the representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by publicity to attract legal business.
members of the legal profession requiring the use of legal knowledge or
skill, and embraces, among others: Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie

(a) the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to Atty. Vicente Torres used the letterhead “Baker & McKenzie” to write a
actions and special proceedings; letter to the complainant, demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay
(b) the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of Products to their client H.E. Gabriel.
clients before judges and courts; and  
(c) advising clients, and all actions taken for them in matters Cathay’s counsel, Dacanay, refused and asked why they were using
connected with the law, where the work done involves the Baker & McKenzie as a letterhead since the name is that of an Illinois
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effects of law firm. Dacanay did not receive a reply and initiated this complaint.
facts and conditions.  
  Issue: Whether it was proper for the respondents to use “Baker &
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment McKenzie” as their firm name
respondent discussed with complainant the labor case of her husband  
and advised her as to what legal course of action should be pursued Held: No. Respondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
therein. By respondent's acquiescence with the consultation and constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they
her drafting of the position paper which was thereafter submitted could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
in the case, a professional employment was established between business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
her and complainant. investment" This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practice law here. The SC concluded that since Baker &
To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client McKenzie is an alien law firm, it cannot practice law in the Philippines
employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion, or that
any retainer be paid, promised, or charged. The fact that one is, at the
end of the day, not inclined to handle the client's case, or that no formal CANON 4:
professional engagement follows the consultation, or no contract A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW
is hardly of consequence. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
JUSTICE.
matter pertinent to his profession.
 
Corollarily, the Court finds that respondent is likewise guilty of violation
of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. Settled is the rule that a lawyer should not
steal another lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him by a CANON 5:
promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. It A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
is undisputed that respondent was aware of the professional PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
relationship between the PAO and complainant/her husband with SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW
respect to the labor case, yet, she assumed the drafting of a new
position paper, especially to replace the one originally filed by the PAO.
  
SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW Ruling: Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND undergo continuing legal education "to ensure that throughout
JURISPRUDENCE. their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence,
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards
of the practice of law.” 
 
SAMUEL B. ARNADO vs. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA The records of the MCLE Office showed that respondent failed to
Atty. Arnado called the attention of the SC to the practice of Atty. Adaza comply with the four compliance periods and that he filed an
of indicating “MCLE application for exemption under process” in his application for exemption only on 5 January 2009, exemption
pleadings filed in 2009-2012, and “MCLE Application for Exemption for which covered the First and Second Compliance Periods only. He
Reconsideration” in a pleading filed in 2012. did not apply for exemption for the Third Compliance Period.
   
Arnado informed the SC that he inquired from the MCLE Office of the His application for exemption for the First and Second Compliance
status of Adaza’s compliance and received a Certification from the Periods was filed after the compliance periods had ended. He did
MCLE Executive Director that Adaza did not comply with the not follow-up the status of his application for exemption.
requirements of Bar Matter No. 850 for the periods: First Compliance In his Compliance and Comment before this Court, respondent
Period (April 15, 2001 – April 14, 2004); Second Compliance Period stated that because of his involvement in public interest issues in
(April 15, 2004 – April 14, 2007); and Third Compliance Period (April the country, the earliest that he could comply with Bar Matter No.
15, 2007 – April 14, 2010). Also, his application for exemption from 850 would be on 10-14 February 2014 and that he already
MCLE requirement on 2009 was denied by the MCLE Governors on the registered with the MCLE Program of the University of the
ground that the application did not meet the requirements of expertise in Philippines (UP) Diliman on those dates.
law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
  The Member may use the 60-day period in Section 12(5) of the
In his Comment, Adaza stated that he was wondering why his MCLE Implementing Regulations to complete his compliance with
application for exemption could not be granted. Adaza then enumerated the MCLE requirement. Credit units earned during this period may
his achievements as a lawyer and claimed that he had been practicing only be counted toward compliance with the prior period
law for about 50 years. requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned
  in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the
He stated: current compliance period requirement.
1. that he was the first outsider of the SC whom president Cory offered  
a seat as Justice of the SC but refused the intended appointment A member who is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance
because he hid not like some of the Cory crowd; period shall pay a non-compliance fee of PI,000.00 and shall be
2. That he almost single-handedly handled the case of Cory in listed as a delinquent member of the IBP by the IBP Board of
canvassing of the results in the 1986 snap elections, discussing Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in
constitutional and legal issues which finally resulted to EDSA I which case Rule 13 9-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.
revolution;
3. That he was one of the two lead counsels of Senator MDS in the Even if respondent attended the 10-14 February 2014 MCLE
national canvassing for President, the other counsel being the former Program of UP Diliman, it would only cover his deficiencies for the
Justice Serafin Cuevas; First Compliance Period. He is still delinquent for the Second,
 4. The he handled the 1987 and 1989, as well as the 2003 Coup Third, and Fourth Compliance Periods. The Court has not been
cases; furnished proof of compliance for the First Compliance Period.
5. That he filed a case in the SC contesting the constitutionality of 2010  
national elections; The Court notes the lackadaisical attitude of respondent towards
6. That he filed a case together with another lawyer in the SC on the Complying with the requirements of Bar Matter No. 850. He
constitutionality of the Corona impeachment; assumed that his application for exemption, filed after the
7. That he have been implementing and interpreting the Constitution compliance periods, would be granted. The MCLE Office is not
and other laws as Governor of Misamis Oriental, Commission of without fault in this case. While it acted on respondent's
Immigration and senior member of the Opposition in the regular application for exemption on 14 January 2009, it took the office
Parliament in the Committee on Revision of Laws and Constitutional three years to inform respondent of the denial of his application.
Amendments; However, after he had been informed of the denial of his
8. That he was the leading Opposition member Parliament that drafted application for exemption, it still took respondent one year to file a
the Omnibus Election Law; motion for reconsideration.
9. That he was the leading member of the Parliament that prepared and Respondent's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and
orchestrated the debate in the complaint for impeachment against disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his
President Marcos; declaration as a delinquent member of the IBP.
10. That he has been engaged as lawyer for a number of lawyers who
have exemptions from the MCLE. He also further claimed that he had
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
written five books.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
                 
The OBC recommended that Adaza be declared a delinquent member
of the Bar and guilty of noncompliance with the MCLE requirements. It Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
further recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or
months. the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
  accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Issue:   Is Adaza administratively liable for his failure to comply with
the MCLE requirements? YES. The Court resolves to: Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
(1) REMIND the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
promptly act on matters that require its immediate attention, such as but interfere with his public duties.
not limited to applications for exemptions, and to communicate its action
to the interested parties within a reasonable period; Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
(2) DENY the prayer of Atty. Homobono A. Adaza to be exempted from
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
MCLE compliance as the matter had already been denied with finality
intervened while in said service.
by the MCLE Governing Board on 28 November 2013;
(3) DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a delinquent member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and SUSPEND him from the Berenguer v. Florin
practice of law for SIX MONTHS, or until he has fully complied with the Berenguers are the registered owners of a parcel of land in, Sorsogon.
MCLE requirements for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth A notice of coverage was then issued by the DAR regarding the
Compliance Periods, whichever is later, and he has fully paid the acquisition of their landholding pursuant to CARP. They then protested
required non-compliance and reinstatement fees. and applied for the exclusion of their land with the DAR and for a notice
to lift coverage based on the ground that their landholdings have been Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Isabel Florin. Just why
used exclusively for livestock pursuant to DAR AO 09. she issued a writ of execution and eventually a Writ of
  Possession in favor of respondent Baribag puzzles us no end.
DAR Secretary: Without acting on the application for exclusion, She knew that Baribag is not a party in petitioners’
cancelled the Berenguers’ certificate of title on the land and issued application for exclusion filed with the Office of DAR
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of the members Regional Director Percival Dalugdug. Obviously, she never
of Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative acquired jurisdiction over Baribag. She also knew that
(BARIBAG) petitioners appealed to the DAR Secretary from the Order of
  Regional Director Dalugdug dismissing petitioners’
DAR Regional Director Dalugdug: Denied their application for application for exclusion. Clearly, such order was not yet
exclusion from the CARP’s coverage based on the report that said area final and executory when she issued the assailed writs of
sought to be excluded is principally devoted to coconuts and not raising execution and possession. Thus, the writ are [sic] void and
of livestock. would be set aside.”38
   
Berenguers filed notice of appeal with the Secretary of DAR IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS:
-While the case was pending appeal, BARIBAG filed a petition for the -Modified the recommended penalty – Atty Florin is suspended from the
implementation of the order before the RARAD. This was granted by practice of law for 1 year; charges against Jornales & Vega are
Florin, as RARAD. Florin then directed the issuance and dismissed for failure of complainants to substantiate the charges
implementation of the writ of possession against respondents.
   
-Berenguers filed MR claiming that they were denied due process as FLORIN: In her opposition, Florin averred that:
they were not furnished with a copy of BARIBAG’s petition for (1) jurisdiction was acquired over BARIBAG at the time it filed a petition
implementation. Florin denied the MR. for the implementation
-Florin issued a writ of possession in favor of BARIBAG. Florin (2) the DARAB has jurisdiction to issue the CLOAs;
subsequently directed the full implementation of the writ of possession (3) as RARAD, she has concurrent jurisdiction with DARAB;
in spite of Berenguers’ protestations. (4) the Berenguers were not denied due process; and
-Berenguers’ moved to quash the writ of possession, to no avail. (5) the Berenguers never questioned the regularity of the DAR’s
  acquisition of their landholding nor did they file a petition for the
Complainants filed this complaint for disbarment of respondents Florin, cancellation of the CLOAs issued to BARIBAG.
Jornales (in his capacity as Assistant Regional Director for DAR), and  
Vega (in his capacity as DAR Legal Officer V) for allegedly conspiring ISSUE/S:
and confederating in the commission of the following acts: WON Atty Florin (Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator), Atty Jornales
1. Atty Florin, as Regional Adjudicator, knowingly rendering an (Assistant Regional Director for DAR), and Atty Vega (DAR Legal
unjust judgment, orders & resolutions adverse and prejudicial to Officer V) should be disbarred? NO but Atty Florin is penalized with
the interest of petitioners suspension from the practice of law for 3 months.
2. Issuing an order & granting a writ of execution ex-parte and  
subsequently issuing and signing the writ of possession w/o HELD:
certification of finality issued by the proper officer fully knowing that WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent ATTY. ISABEL E.
she has no authority and totally disregarding the applicable rules FLORIN is found guilty of violating the CPR. Accordingly, she is
and in contravention with the new rules of procedure of the penalized with SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3)
DARAB; further, hiding the writ of possession from petitioners months effective upon notice hereof.
inspite of request for a copy The complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro
3. Refusing to take action on pleadings filed by petitioners thru Vega is DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence.
counsel and failing and refusing to conduct a hearing as prayed for  
by counsel; failing and refusing to forward the appeal to the proper SC:
appellate board; In the instant case, the Berenguers want this Court to impose
4. Unwarranted interference in lawyer-client relationships to the disciplinary sanction against the three (3) respondents as members of
prejudice of petitioners and lawyer; abuse of authority to cite the bar. The grounds asserted by the complainants in support of
counsel for petitioner in contempt and issuing an order of arrest the charges against the respondents, however, are intrinsically
without hearing contrary to the rules of court; connected with the discharge of their quasi-judicial functions.
5. Atty. Jornales and Atty Vega, inspite of their knowledge of the Nevertheless, in Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig the Court already ruled
illegality of the writ of possession, persisted and assisted in the that if a misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation
illegal implementation of the writ of possession to the prejudice of of his oath as a lawyer, then a lawyer may be disciplined by this Court
legitimate farmers and petitioners as a member of the Bar
  Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office
IBP COMMISSIONER: may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in
-Recommended that Florin be suspended from the practice of law the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if
for 3 years for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, orders & said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a
resolutions adverse and prejudicial to the interests of the violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined
complainants by this Court as a member of the Bar.
-Recommended that charges against Jornales & Vega be dismissed
for failure of complainants to substantiate the charges against them A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not
Commissioner San Juan’s recommendation against Florin is based on shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of
the findings of the CA: Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988,
“1) Respondent DAR Secretary has no jurisdiction over the was not meant to govern the conduct of private
subject properties being devoted to pasture and livestock and practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in
already classified as residential and industrial land, hence, government service. This is clear from Canon 644 of said Code.
outside the coverage of Republic Act 6657. (Comprehensive Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost
Agrarian Reform Law) The generation and issuance of fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more
Certificate of Landownership Award (CLOA) was therefore sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as
void”; their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
  public.
2) Being outside the coverage of CARL (Republic Act 6657),  
respondent Hon. Isabel E. Florin who is exercising delegated For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from
jurisdiction from the DARAB has no jurisdiction over Petitioners’ any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
Properties as held in Krus na Ligas Farmer’s Coop vs. confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold
University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 107022[,] 8 December the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
1992[,] which is squarely in point with the case at bar.” standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer
xxx in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is
The court further stated—“We cannot xxx close this discussion burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
without mentioning our observation on the actuations of higher than her brethren in private practice. 45
  and sufficient evidence to show that respondents did engage in
Thus, in Tadlip v. Atty. Borres, Jr., the Court ruled that an administrative dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in their capacity as
case against a lawyer for acts committed in his capacity as provincial lawyers. The appreciation of the contested ballots and election
adjudicator of the DARAB may be likened to administrative cases documents involves a question of fact best left to the
against judges considering that he is part of the quasi-judicial system of determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with
our government. the supervision of elections all over the country.
 
Similarly in this case, Florin, being part of the quasi-judicial system Sps. Buffe v. Sec. Gonzales et al.,
of our government, performs official functions of a RARAD that are On 15 July 2008, former President GMA appointed Karen M. Silverio-
akin to those of judges. Accordingly, the present controversy may Buffe as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon
be likened that of a judge whose decision, including the manner of province. On 15 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe took her oath of office
rendition, is made subject of an administrative complaint. before Judge Maningas. On 19 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe informed
  the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon that she was
While a judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment absent proof officially reporting for work beginning that day.
that such error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to
cause an injustice,51 the facts on hand prove otherwise. Florin’s Romblon Provincial Prosecutor Almadin asked former Secretary of
issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to Justice Gonzalez to confirm the appointment of Silverio-Buffe since the
fully implement Regional Director Dalugdug’s Order dated February Provincial Prosecution Office did not receive any official communication
15, 1999 clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a rule, a regarding Silverio-Buffe's appointment.
writ of execution is issued only after the subject judgment or order
has already become final and executory. As aptly stated by IBP Gonzalez ordered Silverio-Buffe "to cease and desist from acting
Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such writs as prosecutor in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon, or
despite the pendency of the appeal with the DARAB.53 in any Prosecutor's Office for that matter, considering that she has no
Consequently, the Court finds merit in the recommendation of appointment to act as such, otherwise she will be charged of usurpation
suspension. of public office.”

Silverio-Buffe, together with her husband, filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant a Joint Complaint-Affidavit alleging that former
Congressman Madrona, acting out of spite or revenge, persuaded
Duque Jr. v. Comelec et al., and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Exconde into
This case is a disbarment complaint filed by Duque against former refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's oath of office and into
COMELEC Chairman Sixto Brillantes, 8 other COMELEC withholding the transmittal of her appointment papers to the DOJ
Commissioners, and Prosecutor Noel Adion for Conduct Unbecoming a Regional Office.
Lawyer, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct.  
  Madrona denied that he acted out of spite or revenge against
Duque who ran for Punong Barangay of Lomboy, La Paz, Tarlac but Silverio-Buffe or that he persuaded, induced, or influenced anyone
lost, filed a petition for recount contesting the results in a number of to refuse to administer oath to Silverio-Buffe and to withhold the
precincts where respondents were chairman and members of the Board transmittal of her appointment papers.
or Election Tellers (BETs), respectively. Duque alleged that there were  
several irregularities in the canvassing of the ballots, i.e., the discovery Gonzalez and Exconde claimed that: (1) the complaint is unfounded
of alleged crumpled official ballots during the recount proceedings and and purely for harassment because Silverio-Buffe's appointment papers
unsigned election returns. Respondents, however, vehemently denied were not endorsed by the Office of the President to the DOJ for
said allegations. Hence, Duque filed a complaint against respondents implementation; (2) the Court has no jurisdiction over the complaint
for violation of election laws. because a case for violation of RA 6713 and civil service rules should
  be filed with the Civil Service Commission and a case for violation of RA
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Noel S. Adion recommended that the 3019 should be filed with the Sandiganbayan; (3) the proper venue for
complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the COMELEC has the her grievance is with the Office of the President; (4) assuming that her
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election appointment papers were withheld, such act was presumed to be the
offenses, and to prosecute the same.  The records of the case were act of the President herself, with the presumption of regularity of official
forwarded to the COMELEC. The COMELEC En Banc dismissed the functions; and (5) Exconde was erroneously impleaded since he never
complaint for lack of probable cause. It found no violation of any of the signed any document relating to Silverio-Buffe's appointment.
pertinent election laws. It likewise pointed out that Duque failed to  
substantiate the complaint by clear and convincing evidence. The IBP's Report and Recommendation: recommended the penalty
  of censure against the respondents. The Investigating Commissioner
Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant disbarment complaint against found respondents' united action of stopping the appointment of
Commissioners Brillantes, et al. Respondents contend that being Silverio-Buffe unethical.
COMELEC Commissioners, they may only be removed from office  
solely by impeachment. In Resolution No. XX-2012-215, the IBP Board of Governors
  reversed the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
WON the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners and the Recommendation. In Resolution No. XX-2013-307, the IBP Board of
Prosecutor should be held liable (NO) Governors denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence,
-disbarment complaint is dismissed complainants filed a petition before this Court.
   
First of all, the SC takes notice that the COMELEC Chairman and 2 ISSUE: W/N Gonzalez, Exconde, and Madrona should be
other commissioners are all retired from the COMELEC on 2015, but administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint.
that does not necessarily call for the dismissal of the complaint (NO)
considering that the thrust of the complaint is the resolution they issued  
when they were still members of the COMELEC. RULING: WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the administrative complaint
  against now deceased Secretary of Justice Gonzalez for being moot.
Second, according to jurisprudence, an impeachable officer who is a We also DISMISS the administrative complaint against respondents,
member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. former Undersecretary of Justice Exconde, Jr. and former
As impeachable officers who are at the same time the members of the Congressman Madrona, for lack of jurisdiction.
Bar, respondents-commissioners must first be removed from office via  
the constitutional route of impeachment before they may be held to RATIO: We dismiss the administrative case against Exconde and
answer administratively for their supposed erroneous resolutions and Madrona for lack of jurisdiction. The present administrative case should
actions. be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman, considering that
  complainants have filed a complaint before it on 12 February 2009. In
Third, even if the Court were to look into the assailed actions of the case of Gonzalez, his death on 7 September 2014 forecloses any
respondents-commissioners as well as respondents-lawyers under the administrative case against him.
Code of Professional Responsibility, We find no specific actuations
The authority of the Ombudsman to act on complainants'
administrative complaint is anchored on Section 13(1), Article XI of
himself from further proceedings. His act of presiding constituted
the 1987 Constitution, which provides that: "the Office of the
intervention within the meaning of the rule whose text does not
Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1)
mention the degree or length of the intervention in the particular case or
investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
matter. It is also plain and unquestionable that Canon 36, supra, from
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such
which the canon was derived, prohibited him as a former member of the
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient."
Bench from handling any case upon which he had previously acted in a
 
judicial capacity. In this context, he not only exercised the power to
Section 19 of RA 6770 states that the Ombudsman shall act on all
influence the outcome of the proceedings but also had a direct hand in
complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are
bringing about the result of the case by virtue of his having the power to
unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or discriminatory.
rule on it.
Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The
charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair and discriminatory, respondent could not accept work or employment from anyone that
involving their official functions during their tenure, the present case would involve or relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a
should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the appropriate judge except on behalf of the body or authority that he served during his
government agency. Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over public employment.10 The restriction as applied to him lasted beyond his
government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses tenure in relation to the matters in which he had intervened as judge. 11
involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall Accordingly, the fact that he was already retired from the Bench, or that
under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or the he was already in the private practice of law when he was engaged for
Ombudsman. Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP the case was inconsequential.
asserts jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer, while the
disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government lawyer. Although the respondent removed himself from the cases once his
neutrality and impartiality were challenged, he ultimately did not stay
away from the cases following his retirement from the Bench, and acted
thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of the defendants.
ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK v. ATTY. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS
The respondent has pleaded for the sympathy of the Court towards his
Atty Pasok filed Civil Case No. 330 entitled "Rupinta vs. Conol" before plight of "poverty." Although we can understand his current situation
the MTCC, Tangub City where Atty Zapatos was the presiding judge. and symphatize with him, his actuations cannot be overlooked because
He rendered a decision dismissing the same. Thereafter, Pasok, as they contravened the express letter and spirit of Rule 6.03 of the Code
counsel of Anastacia Rupinta Largo and Ronald Rupinta, filed Civil of Professional Responsibility. In any case, his representing the
Case No. 357 for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, defendants in the civil cases was not the only way by which he could
Reconveyance of Ownership, etc., with Petition for the Appointment of a improve his dire financial situation. It would not be difficult for him, being
Receiver and Civil Case No. 356 entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate a lawyer and a former member of the Bench, to accept clients whom he
Estate of the Deceased Perfecto Rupinta, Petition for Letters of could ethically represent in a professional capacity. If the alternatives
Administration, Mrs. Anastacia Rupinta Largo, Petitioner". Zapatos as open to him were not adequate to his liking, he had other recourses,
Presiding Judge inhibited himself from conducting the trial of the two like serving as a notary public under a valid commission. His taking on
cases as provided on the ground that Pasok as counsel for the plaintiffs of the defendants' civil cases despite his previous direct intervention
and petitioner in the aforesaid cases have doubted the absolute thereon while still a member of the Bench was impermissible. He should
neutrality or impartiality of Zapatos. have maintained his ethical integrity by avoiding the engagement by the
Zapatos was then promoted as RTC Judge until he retired. Thereafter, defendants.
due to poverty, he engaged in the private practice of law. Four years
after he retired from the judiciary and more than 10 years after he
inhibited himself from conducting trial on Civil Case No. 357,
respondent filed a Manifestation for the defendants in Civil Case 357.
Ignoring the warnings of the complainant, the respondent persisted in
his representation of the defendants in Civil Case No. 357. Hence, the
complainant commenced this administrative case.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated Canon 6 Rule 6.03- YES.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES ATTY. FELIPE
G. ZAPATOS guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for a period of ONE (1) MONTH effective immediately upon receipt
of this decision, with warning that a similar offense by him will be dealt
with more severely.
SC: Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A
lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
This rule, according to Presidential Commission on Good Government
v. Sandiganbayan,8 traces its lineage to Canon 36 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics, viz.:
36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment 
A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in
any matter upon the merits of which he has previously acted
in a judicial capacity.
A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the
public employ should not, after his retirement, accept
employment in connection with any matter he has
investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.
To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the respondent must be shown to have accepted the
engagement or employment in relation to a matter that, by virtue of his
judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the
outcome of the proceedings.9  That showing was sufficiently made
herein. The respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC of
Tangub City, presided over the case before eventually inhibiting
GOOD LAWYER PART THREE
Reyes filed the instant complaint to which Atty. Nieva countered that
Three Characteristics of Purpose such instances never occurred as he is a 79-year old retiree who was
1. Rock-solid acting on a consultancy basis and all allegations would be improbable
2. Fire-Tested because of the small size of the office and the ever-present employees
3. Time-Proven in the office. He pointed out hat the administrative case filed against him
before the CODI was already dismissed for lack of basis and that the
FIRE-TESTED complaint is being used by CAAP employees who were agitated by the
 Fire removes impurities and purifies purpose reforms he helped implement upon his assumption as CAAP consultant
 Lawyer is placed inside the furnace called legal profession and eventually as Acting Corporate Board Secretary. IBP Investigating
o When he emerges, he becomes a better person Commissioer dismissed the complaint which the IBP Board reversed
before ultimately being restored by the IBP-CBD.
FIRE-LIKE TESTS
1. Pressure – let pressure bring out the best in you, not the worst ISSUE: WON respondent should be held administratively liable for
in you violating the Code of Professional Responsibility - YES
2. Practicality – learn not what is legal but what is extra-legal
 Extra-legal: things you do more than what’s legal The SC held that Atty. Nieva is administratively liable for violations of
(being kind to people, courtesy to people, tax the CPR. The evidence submitted by Atty. Nieva did not actually refute
avoidance rather than tax evasion) the allegation that he attempted to kiss her. The transcript he submitted
 Be willing to do everything to be able to give your proves that there was indeed a period of time where theyt were left
client the best service alone in the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary which gave him a
3. Pride – don’t let pride defeat your purpose, let it fulfill your window of opportunity to carry out his acts constituting sexual
purpose harassment. He also never refuted the allegation that he would
 let pride push you to become excellent in what you do regularly watch "pampagana" movies in his office-issued laptop. In fact,
4. Pain – saturate, don’t separate he readily admitted that he indeed watches "interesting shows" while in
 Saturate the legal profession with good lawyers the office, albeit insisting that he only does so by himself and even asks
his male staff to regularly play such shows for him as he is not well-
 Teach
versed in using computers. 
TIME-PROVEN
Since it has been established that he habitually watches pornographic
 Purpose should stand the test of time
materials in his office-issued laptop while inside the office premises,
 Hold on to idealism until your very last breath during office hours, and with the knowledge and full view of his staff, the
 Do not compromise your values Court cannot countenance such audacious display of depravity not only
because his obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the government
Enthusiasm vs. Zeal agency he works for - the CAAP as Acting Corporate Secretary - but
- Enthusiasm fluctuates, it goes up and down, it does not stand also because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light. As a
the test of time lawyer in the government service, he is expected to perform and
- Zeal is consistent, regardless of what happens in your career, it discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence,
is time proven professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty. However, his habit miserably fails to showcase these
standards, and instead, displays sheer unprofessionalism and utter lack
CANON 7 of respect to the government position he was entrusted to hold. The
A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND legal profession - much more an engagement in the public service
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE should always be held in high esteem, and those who belong within its
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. ranks should be unwavering exemplars of integrity and professionalism.
As keepers of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must
handle their personal affairs with greater caution.
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application As to Reyes, her allegations are adequately supported by the fact that
for admission to the bar. she had a Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation as regards her PTSD
and major depression resulting from the incident and that there was no
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the evidence to establish that she was impelled by any improper motive or
bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, that she had reasons to fabricate her allegations against him.
education, or other relevant attribute. Therefore, absent any competent proof to the contrary, her story of the
incident was not moved by any ill-will and was untainted by bias.
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, Belo-Henares v. Guevarra, AC No. 11394, December 01, 201
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Atty. Guevarra is the lawyer of Josefina Norcio, who filed criminal cases
against Belo for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
Reyes v. Nieva, AC No. 8560, September 6, 2016 buttocks causing infection and making her ill in 2009. In the same year,
In a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nieva, Reyes alleged that Atty. Guevarra posted insults and and inflammatory statements about
during her employment as an Administrative Aide at the Civil Aviation Dr. Belo on his Facebook account particulary calling Dr. Belo a quack
Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), she had been sexually harassed doctor, Reyna ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Kapalpakan) Such remarks
multiple times by her superior, Atty. Nieva who was then acting as were allegedly intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel,
CAAP Board Secretary. She narrated that he would oftentimes watch as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees. He also
“pampangana videos in his office laptop. Further, among the things allegedly threatened Dr. Belo with criminal conviction. Dr. Belo averred
done to her, she alleged that Atty. Nieva would consistently ask for her that some of the posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of women.
company in which he would try and have his way with her and at one  
time offered her a cellphone to serve as a means of their Finally, Dr. Belo averred that the attacks against her were to extort
communication. One particular instance happened in the morning of money from her, as apparent from the replies made by Atty. Guevarra
April 2, 2009 when Atty. Nieva asked her to encode a memorandum on a comment on his Facebook post. She also asserted that the said
and proceeded to touch and caress her torso and afterwards, while they posts were designed to inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation,
were left alone in the office at 11 am, suddenly closed the door, and and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of
attempted to kiss her. Reyes raised her voice in retaliation to ask for P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter.
help and reminded Atty. Nieva that they were both married. She then  
asked assistance from her former supervisor who advised her to file an Atty. Guevarra on the other hand claimed that the complaint was filed in
administrative case against respondent before the CAAP Committee on violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting
Decorum and Investigation (CODI). After the ordeal, Reyes was that the posts were private remarks on his private account, meant to be
diagnosed to have PTSD with recurrent major depression.  shared only with his circle of friends. He also averred that he wrote the
posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the
 complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio,
had filed against complainant. He denied that the remarks were vulgar Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
and obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public hatred. which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her,
explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
filing of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
damages against her.  Finally, he pointed out that Dr. Belo was a public lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
 
IBP CBD: recommended that he be suspended for a period of 1 year
from the practice of law, with a stem warning that a repetition of the Aseron v. Dino, Jr., AC No. 10782, September 14, 2016
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. It held Atty. Aseron first met a vehicular accident with a bus operated by NATI
respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03, Rule 8.01, and Rule 19.01 which, at that time, driven by Jerry Garcia. A criminal and civil case was
of the CPR for having posted the remarks on his Facebook account, filed by the complainant, in which respondent was the counsel for the
pointing out that respondent cannot invoke the "private" nature of his bus operator and driver. The case is stemmed from a reply letter sent
posts, considering that he had at least 2,000 "friends" who can read and by the respondent to the complainant which stated: With reference to
react thereto. Moreover, the IBP-CBD maintained that the criminal said Criminal Case No. 09-025403, we received information that [the
cases he had filed against complainant on behalf of Norcio had been complainant] allegedly used his "influence" in persuading the former
dismissed for insufficient evidence; therefore, he can no longer handling Prosecutor of Inquest Case No. 09-388, not to allow the
campaign against complainant whose alleged crimes against Norcio release of the Passenger Bus with Plate No. TWL-653, unless our client
had not been established. agrees to immediately pay the mercenary claim of Php 2 Million as
  demanded by [the complainant]. Fortunately, our client heeded our Law
IBP Board of Governors: adopted Report and Recommendation of the Office's persistent advice not to fall prey to such hustler tactic.
IBP-CBD; However, upon motion for reconsideration reduced the -Aseron allegedly influenced the prosecutor of the first case
penalty to 6 months.  not to allow the release of the bus unless Habitans client
  agrees to pay 2Million.
WON respondent should be held administratively liable based on the
allegations of the verified complaint? YES Atty. Aseron filed a libel case and the present case due to the alleged
WON respondent violated Rule 7.03?—YES insinuations made against him. The IBP recommended that respondent
  be reprimanded.
SC ruling: Respondent Atty. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of
Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the CPR. Suspended for 1 yr with Issue: WON there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be respondent liable for violation of the CPR – YES
dealt with more severely. -REPRIMANDED
 
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed SC: The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP-CBD and the Board
that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish of Governors that the respondent violated the CPR when he used
the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack intemperate language in his letter to the complainant.
doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng
Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to conduct
destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their fellow
besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. He lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the CPR provides:
posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
BMGI's services all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases improper.
that Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened
complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa which is In the present case, the respondent's actions failed to measure up to
contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice."· this Canon. Records show that he imputed to the complainant the
  use of his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass his
In view of the foregoing, his inappropriate and obscene language, and clients during the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof or
his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of evidence to support the same.
complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in
complete and utter violation of the Rule 7.03, 8.01 and 19.01 of the As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge
CPR.  against the complainant in a proper forum and without using offensive
  and abusive language. He should refrain from being tempted by the
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong language in pursuit
and BMGI, he disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to of his duty to advance the interest of his client. 
observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private
life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner Commissioner Cachapero's Report and Recommendation in part
befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and stated:
decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used Indeed, there is a strong showing that the Respondent had failed to
words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself conduct himself toward his fellow lawyer with that courtesy that all have
in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning the right to expect. When he mentioned that Complainant had used his
complainant's and BMGI's reputation. influence in persuading the fiscal, he used a language which was
  abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. He showed ill-feelings
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a toward Complainant and allowed such feeling to influence him in
public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify his conduct and demeanor towards the latter.
respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all
criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Lazaro et al., AC No.
decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against
7045, September 5, 2016
complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must
A libel case was filed in the RTC of Quezon City in which Atty. Chavez
be administratively sanctioned.
was the counsel for the accused Soriano. Chavez filed a motion to seek
the cancellation of Soriano’s arraignment, allegedly due to the petition
for review filed before the DOJ. This motion was denied. Because of
CANON 8 such denial, Chavez filed a motion to inhibit the judge therein.
A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND Soon after, respondents Attys. Lazaro and Morta filed a vehement
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. opposition to the motion for inhibition. In the opposition filed, the
respondents had this to say:
 Atty. Villagracia could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative to
If indeed the petition was duly filed with the DOJ on October the alleged indebtedness of complainants to his client, made the
10, 2005, why is it that the accused did not present a copy of demand for settlement thereof, and refrained from the imputation of
the petition stamped "received" by the DOJ? Why did he not criminal offenses against them, especially considering that there is a
make a manifestation that he forgot to bring a copy? He could proper forum therefor and they have yet to be found criminally liable by
have easily convinced the Presiding Judge to suspend the a court of proper jurisdiction. His use of demeaning and immoderate
arraignment upon a promise that a copy thereof will be filed language put complainants in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is
with the court in the afternoon of October 11, 2005 or even important to consider that several other persons had been copy
the following day. furnished with the demand letter. As such, he could have besmirched
complainants' reputation to its recipients.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that the accused was able
to antedate the filing or mailing of the petition. At this juncture, it bears noting that he failed to answer the verified
complaint and attend the mandatory hearings set by the IBP. A lawyer's
Thus, the instant complaint was filed by Chavez. The IBP found the failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at
respondents to have violated the CPR and their duty to observe civility the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders
and propriety in their pleadings, as members of the bar. The IBP cited of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in
the Supreme Court case of Asa which held that there was a breach of violation of Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court."
Canon 8 of the CPR and admonished the respondent therein to refrain
from using offensive and improper language in her pleadings. The IBP Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it
recommended that the respondents herein be reprimanded. The IBP should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of
Board of Governors approved and adopted such recommendation. the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language
Issue: whether or not respondents violated canon 8 when they accused abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
the complainant of antedating the DOJ petition? - YES respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not
offensive. In this regard, all lawyers should take heed that they are
Held: Yes. This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity
respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, of the legal profession, hence, they must conduct themselves honorably
in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Their and fairly.[21] Thus, respondent ought to temper his words in the
arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the performance of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the court.
court and the opposing counsel and should consist only of such
words as may be properly addressed by one honorable member of ATTY. GIRLIE Y. DIMACULANGAN, petitioner, vs. ATTYS. CYRUS
the bar to another. In this case, respondents twice accused D. JURADO AND TEODORO S. STA. ANA
complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ Atty Dimaculangan filed this administrative case against Atty Jurado &
without any proof whatsoever. Atty Sta. Ana before the IBP on the ground of conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer in relation to Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR
The SC cited in Re: Supreme Court Resolution Dated 28 April 2003 in
G.R. Nos. 145817 & 145822 where the Court declared that The Court Dimaculangan, together with other lawyers, were inside the courtroom
cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of when they were informed that the scheduled proceedings were
strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and postponed because the presiding judge was in a seminar at the SC.
unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing While waiting for the court staff to reset the scheduled proceedings,
against other members of the legal profession. Jurado entered the courtroom where he & Dimaculangan engaged in a
casual conversation. Then, Sta Ana arrived at the courtroom looking
We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive language angry & shouted at Dimaculangan saying:
does not merit the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Nonetheless,  
respondents should be disciplined for violating the Code of I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU DID GIRLIE!
Professional Responsibility and sternly warned that the Court will  
deal with future similar conduct more severely Nakadalawa ka na ... imagine you will ask for a resetting
tapos dadating kayo. Papaano kung hindi kami dumating,
Sps. Nuezca v. Villagracia, AC No. 8210, August 8, 2016 then your camp will move that the cross examination be
Sps. Nuezca averred that Villagracia sent them a demand letter which deemed waived?
contained not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary
obligations to Atty. Villagracia’s client, but also used words that -Sta Ana was referring to proceedings of another pending suit, in which
maligned their character. It also imputed crimes against them,  i.e., that they were opposing counsels to the party litigants. Dimaculangan
they were criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and  estafa.  calmly replied to Sta. Ana saying that it was "speculative" of him to
make such claims.  Sta. Ana went on scolding Dimaculangan for her
Allegedly, the demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed actions in filing a motion to the main case when there was still a
complainants to its recipients. Complainants likewise posited that pending Petition for Certiorari with the CA.  Regardless of the
several news clippings that were attached to the demand letter were explanation, Sta. Ana went on threatening Dimaculangan that if her
intended to sow tear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof client does not drop the case, he will pursue the administrative case he
caused them sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and besmirched filed against Dimaculangan's collaborating counsel.
reputation. Thus, they maintained that he should be held  
administratively liable therefor. Dimaculangan was surprised and humiliated by Sta. Ana's public
confrontation in the courtroom. She claims that Sta. Ana
Unfortunately, despite notices, complainants failed to appear for the disrespected her as a lawyer and accused her of asking for a reset in
scheduled mandatory hearings. Likewise, the notices sent to bad faith. She claimed having sleepless nights and suffering from
respondent were returned unserved. episodes of "emotional disturbances" due to the incident.
 
ISSUE: WON respondent should be held administratively liable based Dimaculangan also claims that Jurado impliedly threatened to file an
on the allegations of the verified complaint – YES. administrative case against her. She claims that Atty. Jurado mentioned
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is of filing administrative cases against other lawyers and even bragged
found GUILTY of violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code about his seeking judges to inhibit from cases that he is handling
of Professional Responsibility. He is  
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period Dimaculangan filed the instant administrative complaint with the
of one (1) month, effective upon his receipt of this IBP
Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of IBP Commissioner: Recommended dismissal of the complaint (no
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.     factual/ legal basis)
IBP Board of Governors: Resolved to adopt the recommendation of
RULING: Canon 8 of the CPR provides: IBP Commissioner
Rule 8.01. - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use  
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. ISSUE/S:
 -WON Atty. Sta. Ana is guilty for violation of Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When
CPR? YES – is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, Rustia showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the
with the stern warning that a repetition of the same/ similar act will be signature appearing above his name as counsel for Divinagracia was
deal with more severely. not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to
-WON Jurado is guilty for violation of Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR? attest to such fact.  Using Atty. Bancolo’s affidavit and other
NO – dismissed for lack of merit documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit
accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel,
SC: Atty. Bancolo.
Membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations  
to one another. These include observance of honorable, candid The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint
and courteous dealings with other lawyers, as provided in Canon 8 since the falsification of the counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial
of the CPR question to the Complaint’s validity. Also, it ordered that separate cases
  for Falsification of Public Document and Dishonesty be filed against
STA. ANA: Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
From the facts, Sta. Ana's remarks against Dimaculangan in front of  
other lawyers exhibit unprofessional conduct. While he may be Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he
frustrated of Dimaculangan's actuations, this does not excuse him falsified the signature of his former lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia
from not treating his opposing counsel with courtesy, dignity and presented as evidence an affidavit by the legal assistant of Atty.
civility. Aside from scolding Dimaculangan, Sta. Ana also publicly Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s
berated the former by saying that she erroneously filed a motion in case and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
the main case despite pendency of a Petition for Certiorari with the was signed by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions.
Court of Appeals. This criticism was uncalled for considering that  
Dimaculangan was only performing her legal duty of protecting the The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for
interest of a client. Sta. Ana's fault-finding remarks betray lack of falsification of public document and the administrative case for
understanding of the lawyer's duties to the client. dishonesty for insufficiency of evidence.
   
Sta. Ana's foregoing actions do not measure up to this Canon 8. A Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo
cordial and collaborative atmosphere among lawyers is expected and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law partner. The complainants alleged
in the practice of law. Sta. Ana could have privately aired his that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the
exasperation with Dimaculangan. Dimaculangan even exercised Office of the Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo.
efforts to maintain camaraderie amongst her fellow members of Complainants stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the
the bar by writing an apology letter immediately after the Complaint was not the only one that was forged. There are 3 other
confrontation at the postponed hearing. Despite this letter, however, letter-complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other clients, allegedly
Sta. Ana let his "emotional attitude" get the better of him. To Our mind, close friends of Atty. Jarder. The questioned signatures in the letter-
such unprofessional behavior must be reproached. complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo were
  not written by one and the same person. Thus, complainants
JURADO: maintained that not only were respondents engaging in unprofessional
Anent the incidents against Jurado, this Court does not find any and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification of
participation in the confrontation between Dimaculangan and Sta. Ana. documents used to harass and persecute innocent people.
The allegations of Dimaculangan do not show that Jurado threatened to  
file administrative case against her. In fact, the affidavit of Complainants filed a Supplement to the Disbarment Complaint Due to
Dimaculangan 's husband does not corroborate the allegations of Additional Information. They alleged that a certain Mary Jane
Dimaculangan, except that Jurado was also present at the time of the Gentugao, the secretary of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office, forged the
confrontation. signature of Atty. Bancolo.
 
Respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed
CANON 9 by Divinagracia against complainants before the Office of the
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE Ombudsman were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office.
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. However, due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permitted that the
pleadings and communications be signed in his name by the secretary
of the law office. Respondents also denied that Mary Jane Gentugao
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the was employed as secretary of their law office.
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a  
member of the bar in good standing. The IBP’s Report and Recommendation: found that Atty. Bancolo
violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the CPR while Atty. Jarder violated
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same Code and recommended that Atty.
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except: Bancolo be suspended for two years from the practice of law and
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or Atty. Jarder (as senior partner of the law firm (command
associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over responsibility)) be admonished for his failure to exercise certain
a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified responsibilities in their law firm.
in the agreement; or  
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal The Board of Governors of the IBP approved with modification the
business of a deceased lawyer; or Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. In
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a their decision, Atty. Jarder was absolved from liability. Tapay and Rustia
retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a filed a MR. Likewise, Atty. Bancolo filed his MR. The IBP Board of
profit sharing agreement. Governors denied both complainants’ and Atty. Bancolo’s MR.
 
WON Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia v. Attys. Charlie Bancolo
(Yes, but only to Atty. Bancolo)
and Janus Jarder; A.C. No. 9604. March 20, 2013  
Tapay and Rustia received an Order from the Office of the Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client
Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a
complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of
and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by Divinagracia, a co- Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint was  
allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. CANON 9
Bancolo. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN
  THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them before performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented member of the Bar in good standing.
  from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year with a stem warning
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, that repetition of a similar act would be dealt with more severely.
the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and  
policy. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and ISSUE: W/N Atty. Rivera is liable (YES)
the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to  
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It RULING: ACCORDINGLY, We find respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera
devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. administratively liable for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of
  Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10, of the CPR. He is hereby
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon
involving the practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members finality of this Decision with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
of the legal profession. Atty. Bancolo’s authority and duty to sign a or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a   
pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Atty. Rivera was indeed the one who filed the subject civil suit by
  allowing somebody to use his signature and other details in the
Further, under the Rules of Court, counsel’s signature serves as a preparation of pleadings and filing the same before the court.
certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; Atty. Rivera's act of allowing persons other than himself to use his
and (3) it is not interposed for delay. Thus, by affixing one’s signature to signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-
a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to lawyers to practice law. Worse, he failed to display or even manifest
these matters and give legal effect to the document. any zeal or eagerness to unearth the truth behind the events which led
  to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil suit, much less to
In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of some rectify the situation. He openly admitted his association with a disbarred
minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his
and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance. signature and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. By so doing,
Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional Atty. Rivera not only willingly allowed a non-lawyer to practice law;
Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law notwithstanding that
pleading. This violation Is an act of falsehood which IS a ground for this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.
disciplinary action.  
  Clearly, the foregoing acts of Atty. Rivera constituted violations of the
The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was CPR, particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Rule 1.10, Canon 1 and Rule
directly involved, had knowledge of, or even participated in the wrongful 10.01, Canon 10, which read: 
practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to sign  
pleadings for him. Thus, we agree with the finding of the IBP Board that Rule 9.01, Canon 9: A lawyer shall not delegate to any
Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable. In sum, we find that the unqualified person the performance of any task which by law
suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the practice of law for one year is may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
warranted. We also find proper the dismissal of the case against Atty. standing. 
Jarder.  
Atty. Rivera abused the privilege that is only personal to him when he
HERNANDO PETELO, complainant, vs. ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA, allowed another who has no license to practice law, to sign pleadings
respondent. (A.C. No. 10408, [October 16, 2019]) and to file a suit before the court using his signature and "details." By
Petelo narrated that sometime in 2011, his sister, Fe, designated him as allowing a non-lawyer to sign and submit pleadings before the court,
Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a JVA with Red Dragon Builders Atty. Rivera made a mockery of the law practice which is deeply imbued
Corporation for the construction of a townhouse. Complainant claimed with public interest; he totally ignored the fact that his act of filing a suit
that Jessie and Fatima Manalansan, the owners of Red Dragon will have a corresponding impact and effect on the society, particularly
Builders, managed to make him into surrender to them the original copy on the life and property rights of the person or persons he wittingly
of the TCT which they used as collateral for the loan they contracted involved in the litigation, in this case, Fe and Petelo. Atty. Rivera's
with World Partners Bank without the knowledge and consent of Petelo. cavalier act of allowing someone to use to his signature and his
When the Spouses Manalansan failed to pay the monthly amortizations, "details" in the complaint have concomitant and significant effects on
World Partners Bank instituted foreclosure proceedings. During the the property rights of Fe and Petelo. There is, thus, no question in our
auction sale, World Partners Bank emerged as the highest bidder and mind that by delegating to someone else the work that is reserved only
was issued a certificate of sale. for lawyers, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the CPR.
 
When Petelo got wind of the foregoing transactions, he instructed his Atty. Rivera cannot simply consent to anyone using his signature and
daughter to secure a certified true copy of TCT No. 455711. To his other bar details. Atty. Rivera did not have the authority to bestow
surprise, he learned that an entry of lis pendens pertaining to Civil Case license to anybody to practice law because by doing so, he usurped the
No. 13-580 for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, right and authority that is exclusively vested upon this Court
Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings in
Connection with TCT No. 455311 with Damages before the RTC of
Makati City was annotated at the back of the title. Upon further
investigation with the RTC, Petelo found out that the civil complaint was
filed by Atty. Rivera purportedly on Petelo's and Fe's behalf. Since he
never engaged the services of Atty. Rivera, Petelo wrote the latter a
letter seeking clarification/explanation as to how his services was
engaged, but the same went unheeded.
 
Petelo pointed out that during one of the scheduled mandatory
conferences before the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Rivera made
the following admission: "that he learned about the case thru a
disbarred lawyer, Bede Tabalingcos, with whom he had previous
collaborations; that his details were still being used by Tabalingcos'
office because before, he allowed them to sign for him on 'minor'
pleadings." Atty. Rivera said that he received a call from Tabalingcos'
office. He admitted that he remained in contact with the office of
Tabalingcos and that said office have been using his
signature/details without his authority."
 
Investigating Commissioner: submitted his Report with
recommendation that Atty. Rivera be suspended from the practice of
law for at least one (1) year.  IBP BOG: adopted the findings with
modification that Atty. Rivera must be meted the penalty of suspension
 Atty Magat filed a motion to quash the information on the 1 st case on the
CANON 10 ground of double jeopardy, claiming that a similar case for slight
A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE physical injuries was filed in court by Molina but no case of slight
COURT physical injuries was filed by Molina against de Leon

Atty Magat committed willful disobedience of the court order when he

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing appeared as counsel for de Leon on 2 occasions despite the fact that
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any he was suspended from the practice of law.
 
artifice.
Atty Magat: He explained that his appearance in a hearing was to
inform the court that the accused was sick and to prevent the issuance
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the of a warrant of arrest against the accused. In another hearing, he
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or appeared because the accused had no money and pleaded that his
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision testimony be finished. Atty. Magat begged for the indulgence of the
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact court and conveyed his repentance and apology and promised that the
that which has not been proved. same would not happen again.
 
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not IBP-CBD: Recommended that Atty Magat be reprimanded and fined
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. P50,000.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted the findings but deleted the fine
In re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos.  
145817 and 145822. A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012 ISSUE/S:
WON Atty Magat violated the CPR, particularly Rule 10.01? YES.
Pena filed a Motion to Inhibit against Justice Carpio, who was then the
There was deliberate intent on his part to mislead the court when
ponente of the subject cases. In the motion, Pena made insinuations
he filed the MTD the criminal charges on the basis of double
and allegations that the ponente had a special interest over the case,
jeopardy. Hence, he is ordered suspended from the practice of law
even imputing bribery, among others. He also made serious remarks
for 6 months WITH A WARNING that the commission of the same or
against the members of the Court and the judicial system. In support to
similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
his claim, Atty. Peña attached to the subject Motion to Inhibit two copies
 
of the official Agenda for 13 November 2002 of the First Division of this
SC: The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but not with respect
Court, which he claimed to have anonymously received through the
to the penalty.
mail. He also attached a copy of the Court’s internal Resolution
 
regarding the transfer of the case from the Third Division to the First
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that
Division, upon the request of Justice Carpio, to establish the latter’s
they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it.
alleged special interest in the case. These documents were however
Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of
allegedly falsified.
legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
Issue: WON respondent Pena made gratuitous allegations and
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values
imputations against members of the Court - YES
and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. 8
SC: Atty. Pena is administratively liable for making gratuitous
 
imputations of bribery and wrongdoing against a member of the Court,
Atty. Magat’s act clearly falls short of the standards set by the CPR,
as seen in the text of the subject Motion to Inhibit, his statements during
particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
the 03 March 2003 Executive Session, and his unrelenting obstinacy in
hurling effectively the same imputations in his subsequent pleadings. In Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
moving for the inhibition of a Member of the Court in the manner he doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
adopted, Peña, as a lawyer, contravened the ethical standards of the misled by any artifice.
legal profession. Peña insinuated ill motives to the then ponente of the
consolidated petitions with respect to the issuance of the 13 November  
2003 Resolution. To respondent’s mind and based on his interpretation In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IBP that there
of the two copies of the Agenda which he anonymously received, the was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the
First Division agreed only to simply note Urban Bank’s Motion for court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on
Clarification. Nevertheless, the questioned Resolution, which Atty. the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any
Singson sent to him by facsimile, had instead granted the Motion. false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that
Hence, Peña attributed the modification of the action of the First there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was really
Division to simply "note" the Motion, one apparently unfavorable to filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from
respondent Peña, to Justice Carpio, who had supposedly received a that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
Mercedes Benz for the supposedly altered resolution. Respondent  
made unfounded imputations of impropriety to a specific Member of the Furthermore, Atty. Magat expressly admitted appearing in court on
Court. Such conduct does not befit a member of the legal profession two occasions despite having been suspended from the practice
and falls utterly short of giving respect to the Court and upholding its of law by the Court.
dignity.  
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the
Other than being guilty of making gratuitous allegations against a bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for a
member of the SC, respondent was also held administratively liable for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court and/or for
submitting falsified documents consisting of internal documents of the corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do so.
Court, likewise for the contempt charges levelled against him in the  
Manifestation and Motion filed by the De Leon Group. Respondent As stated, if Atty. Magat was truly moved by altruistic intentions
was disbarred. when he appeared before the trial court despite having been
suspended, he could have informed the Presiding Judge of his
Rodrigo Molina vs. Atty. Ceferino Magat  A.C. No. 1900. June 13, plight and explained why the party he was representing could not
attend. On the contrary, Atty. Magat kept his silence and
2012
proceeded to represent his client as counsel.
Rodrigo Molina filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Magat. And
alleged among others that he filed 2 cases (Assault Upon an Agent of a
Person in Authority and Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest)
before the CFI of Manila against de Leon for whom the counsel of
record in both cases, was Atty Magat. A case for slight physical injuries
was filed against Molina by de Leon as a countercharge and Atty Magat
was also the private prosecutor
 Avida Land Corporation v. Argosino, AC No. 7437, August 17, 2016 responsibility of states in protecting its citizens’ human rights specifically
Atty. Argosino was the counsel of Rodman in an HLURB case, which pertaining to jus cogens norms and, second, a supplement thereto
involves the nullification of a rescission of a contract of sale, against asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different
Avida Land Corporation. The HLURB rendered a decision in favor of sources and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources were twisted
Avida Land, which became final and executory because neither parties by the ponente, Justice del Castillo, to suit the arguments laid down in
appealed the judgment within the allowed period. However, instead of said decision.
complying with the order of writ of execution, Atty. Argosino filed several
motions, thus delaying the execution. Vis-a-vis the Court’s formation of an ethics committee tasked to
  investigate the veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were
Is respondent's act of filing numerous pleadings, that caused delay in purportedly plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme
the execution of a final judgment, constitutes professional misconduct Court, noting the misreading and/or misrepresentation of their articles.
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Hence, in their articles, they argue that the crimes of rape, torture and
Oath? (YES; SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR) sexual slavery can be classified as crimes against humanity, thus
  attaining the jus cogens status; consequently, it shall be obligatory upon
Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. However,
towards its resolution became long, tedious, and frustrating because of the Vinuya decision cited them to support the contrary stand.
the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the actual execution of
the judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College of Law came
passed upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made up with a statement entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the
unfounded accusations of bias or procedural defects. These acts Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
manifest his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court”
abuse court processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice. (Restoring Integrity Statement), which statement alleged plagiarism
  against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an
The defense that respondent is merely defending the cause of his client established fact, but as a truth. Said statement was posted online and
is untenable. As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause at the College’s bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme
of his client and is expected to serve the latter with competence and Court.
diligence.  Professional rules, however, impose limits on a lawyer's zeal
and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. Under the The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya
CPR, lawyers are required to exert every effort and consider it their duty v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Code misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. The authors also
also obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest means to attain the not only assumed that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they
lawful objectives of their client. went further by directly accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary
  injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women in Vinuya v.
It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial Executive Secretary. They further attempt to educate this Court on how
process - such as the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation, and to go about the review of the case. The insult to the members of the
frivolous appeals - for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the
execution of a judgment. resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted
  sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as
What is patent from the acts of respondent - as herein narrated and well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the
evident from the records - is that he has made a mockery of judicial Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.
processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately caused unjust
delays in the administration of justice. These acts are in direct The manner in presenting the arguments and the language used
contravention of Rules 10.3 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional therein, the Court believed, were inappropriate considering its
Responsibility, which provide: signatories are lawyers. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show
  Cause Resolution directing respondents to show cause why they should
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violations of the CPR.
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
  ISSUE: Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1,
execution of judgment or misuse court processes. 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the CPR? (NO)

RULING: The Common Compliance of 35 respondents is found

CANON 11 UNSATISFACTORY. These 35 respondent law professors are
A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the CPR,
THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. offensive language tending to influence the Court on pending matters or
to denigrate the Court and the administration of justice and warned that
the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
RATIO:
The Court has already clarified that it is not the expression of
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. respondents’ staunch belief that Justice Del Castillo has committed a
misconduct that the majority of this Court has found so unbecoming in
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or the Show Cause Resolution. No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in
menacing language or behavior before the Courts. the righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating
the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported and the legal profession into disrepute. This doctrine, which we have
by the record or have no materiality to the case. repeatedly upheld in such cases as Salcedo, In re Almacen and
Saberong, should be applied in this case with more reason, as the
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the respondents, not parties to the Vinuya case, denounced the Court
proper authorities only. and urged it to change its decision therein, in a public statement
using contumacious language, which with temerity they
subsequently submitted to the Court for "proper disposition."
Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of
the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court”, A.M. No. 10-10-4- favor of the Malaya Lolas was one of the objectives of the Statement
SC, March 8, 2011) could be seen in the following paragraphs from the same:
Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya
v. Executive Secretary, the case involving the Filipino comfort women And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not
during the Japanese occupation, the counsel for the petitioners therein only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who have
filed, first, a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of
war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on nature of the criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the
the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts. same on the Judiciary. When the criticism comes from persons outside
the profession who may not have a full grasp of legal issues or from
(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the  Vinuya case individuals whose personal or other interests in making the criticism are
does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the obvious, the Court may perhaps tolerate or ignore them. However,
ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left without when law professors are the ones who appear to have lost sight of
legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein. the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would justify the
same as an exercise of civil liberties, this Court cannot remain
Whether or not respondents’ views regarding the plagiarism issue in silent for such silence would have a grave implication on legal
the Vinuya case had valid basis was wholly immaterial to their liability education in our country.
for contumacious speech and conduct. These are two separate matters
to be properly threshed out in separate proceedings. The Court With respect to the 35 respondents named in the Common
considers it highly inappropriate, if not tantamount to dissembling, Compliance: considering that this appears to be the first time these
the discussion devoted in one of the compliances arguing the guilt respondents have been involved in disciplinary proceedings of this sort,
of Justice Del Castillo. In the Common Compliance, respondents even the Court is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were
go so far as to attach documentary evidence to support the plagiarism for the most part well-intentioned in the issuance of the Statement.
charges against Justice Del Castillo in the present controversy. The However, it is established in jurisprudence that where the
ethics case of Justice Del Castillo, with the filing of a motion for excessive and contumacious language used is plain and
reconsideration, was still pending at the time of the filing of undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating. As this Court
respondents’ submissions in this administrative case. As respondents expounded in Salcedo:
admit, they are neither parties nor counsels in the ethics case against
Justice Del Castillo. Notwithstanding their professed overriding interest Thus, the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance should,
in said ethics case, it is not proper procedure for respondents to bring notwithstanding their claim of good faith, be reminded of their lawyerly
up their plagiarism arguments here especially when it has no bearing on duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the courts and
their own administrative case. to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence
the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the courts and the
It is also proposed that the choice of language in the Statement was administration of justice.
intended for effective speech; that speech must be "forceful enough to
make the intended recipients listen." One wonders what sort of effect With respect to Prof. Vasquez: the Court favorably notes the
respondents were hoping for in branding this Court as callous, differences in his Compliance compared to his colleagues. In our view,
dishonest and lacking in concern for the basic values of decency and he was the only one among the respondents who showed true
respect. The Court fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if we candor and sincere deference to the Court. He was able to give a
allow respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to straightforward account of how he came to sign the Statement. He was
effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their point of view candid enough to state that his agreement to the Statement was in
is to be offensive. principle and that the reason plagiarism was a "fair topic of discussion"
among the UP Law faculty prior to the promulgation of the October 12,
This brings to our mind the letters of Dr. Ellis and Prof. Tams which 2010 Decision in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was the uncertainty brought
were deliberately quoted in full in the narration of background facts to about by a division of opinion on whether or not willful or deliberate
illustrate the sharp contrast between the civil tenor of these letters and intent was an element of plagiarism. He was likewise willing to
the antagonistic irreverence of the Statement. In truth, these foreign acknowledge that he may have been remiss in failing to assess the
authors are the ones who would expectedly be affected by any effect of the language of the Statement and could have used more
perception of misuse of their works. Notwithstanding that they are care. He did all this without having to retract his position on the
beyond the disciplinary reach of this Court, they still obviously took plagiarism issue, without demands for undeserved reliefs (as will be
pains to convey their objections in a deferential and scholarly manner. It discussed below) and without baseless insinuations of deprivation of
is unfathomable to the Court why respondents could not do the same. due process or of prejudgment. This is all that this Court expected from
respondents, not for them to sacrifice their principles but only that they
As for the claim that the respondents’ noble intention is to spur the recognize that they themselves may have committed some ethical lapse
Court to take "constructive action" on the plagiarism issue, the Court in this affair. We commend Prof. Vaquez for showing that at least one of
has some doubts as to its veracity. For if the Statement was primarily the respondents can grasp the true import of the Show Cause
meant for this Court’s consideration, why was the same published and Resolution involving them. For these reasons, the Court finds Prof.
reported in the media first before it was submitted to this Court? It is Vasquez’s Compliance satisfactory.
more plausible that the Statement was prepared for consumption
by the general public and designed to capture media attention as As for Prof. Lynch: in view of his Manifestation that he is a member of
part of the effort to generate interest in the most controversial ground in the Bar of the State of Minnesota and, therefore, not under the
the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Vinuya case disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused from these
by Atty. Roque, who is respondents’ colleague on the UP Law faculty. proceedings. However, he should be reminded that while he is
engaged as a professor in a Philippine law school he should strive
In this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a lack of to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his
observance of fidelity and due respect to the Court, particularly when students even without the threat of sanction from this Court. For
respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the Vinuya even if one is not bound by the CPR for members of the Philippine Bar,
decision and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at the time of the civility and respect among legal professionals of any nationality should
Statement’s issuance, were still both sub judice or pending final be aspired for under universal standards of decency and fairness.
disposition of the Court. These facts have been widely publicized. On
this point, respondents allege that at the time the Statement was first Case: For disposition are the various submissions of the 37 respondent
drafted on July 27, 2010, they did not know of the constitution of the law professors in response to the Show Cause Resolution, directing
Ethics Committee and they had issued the Statement under the belief them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of
that this Court intended to take no action on the ethics charge against the Bar for violation of specific provisions of the CPR enumerated
Justice Del Castillo. Still, there was a significant lapse of time from the therein. It must be stressed that the Show Cause Resolution clearly
drafting and printing of the Statement on July 27, 2010 and its dockets this as an administrative matter, not a special civil action for
publication and submission to this Court in early August when the indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Neither is this a
Ethics Committee had already been convened. If it is true that the disciplinary proceeding grounded on an allegedly irregularly concluded
respondents’ outrage was fueled by their perception of indifference on finding of indirect contempt.
the part of the Court then, when it became known that the Court did
intend to take action, there was nothing to prevent respondents from The provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility involved in
recalibrating the Statement to take this supervening event into account this case are as follows:
in the interest of fairness.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
Speaking of the publicity this case has generated, we likewise find no the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
merit in the respondents’ reliance on various news reports and RULE 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
commentaries in the print media and the internet as proof that they defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
are being unfairly "singled out." This Court takes into account the
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the incident which should not be reported to the whole nation. His claim that
court. the Resolution might have been stolen and sold by someone (using his
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the name) for a fee is a wild conjecture. Not only did his conduct give an
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be image that he could not manage his work effectively, but it also
misled by any artifice. indicated that he had corrupt personnel. Moreover, it dragged innocent
parties as possible culprits.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, Justice Badoy's aberrant behavior deserves administrative sanction. As
or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision the Chairman of the Division hearing the plunder case against the
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a former President of the Philippines, he should have been more
fact that which has not been proved. circumspect in his actuation. A short pause for reflection might have
yielded a better judgment. The loss of the Resolution, being an internal
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not matter, could have been addressed inside his own chamber. That he
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. brought it to the arena of public opinion is pure vanity. It cannot be
countenanced. If lawyers are prohibited from making public statements
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due in the media regarding a pending case to arouse public opinion for or
to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar against a party, with more reason should judges be prohibited from
conduct by others. seeking publicity. Judges are not actors or politicians who thrive by
RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to publicity. Publicity undermines the dignity and impartiality of a
the proper authorities only. judge. Thus, at no time should he be moved by a desire to cater to
public opinion to the detriment of the administration of justice."
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the The fact that Justice Badoy, just three (3) weeks prior to the
appearance of influencing the court. "ambulance incident," was strictly ordered by Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., "to cease and desist from holding press conferences,
In the Matter of the Alleged Improper Conduct of Sandiganbayan issuing press statements, or giving interviews to the media on any
Associate Justice Anacleto Badoy, Jr., 395 SCRA 231 matter or incident related to the issues subject of the controversy" 38 all
A.M No. 01-12-01-SC: Justice Badoy, aboard an ambulance, "whisked the more punctuates his indiscretion.
himself" to the GMA Broadcast Station in Quezon City for a live
interview in the news program Saksi. where he announced the loss of a As we mentioned earlier, judges are subject to human limitations.
Resolution he penned in connection with the plunder case against Imbedded in their consciousness is the complex of emotions, habits and
former President Joseph Estrada. Hence, this Court directed Justice convictions. Aware of this actuality, it behooves them to regulate these
Badoy to show cause why he should not be administratively charged deflecting forces and not to let them loose, either to their own detriment
with conduct unbecoming a Justice of the Sandiganbayan. In his or to that of the courts they serve. This is the high price they have to
compliance, Justice Badoy alleged that three days prior to the incident, pay as occupants of their exalted positions.
he could not find his Resolution ordering that former President Estrada
be detained at Fort Sto. Domingo. So he requested the National Bureau We now resolve AM No. SB-02-10-J. At this juncture, let it be stressed
of Investigation to conduct an investigation, but to no avail. Thus, on that the administration of justice is primarily a joint responsibility of the
November 29, 2001, agitated that someone might have stolen the judge and the lawyer. The judge expects a lawyer to properly perform
Resolution and claimed that he sold it for a fee, he decided to go to the his role in this task in the same manner that the lawyer expects a judge
GMA-7 Broadcast Station and report its loss, in order that the public to do his part. Their relation should be based on mutual respect and on
may know he is honest. In going there, he chose to ride in an a deep appreciation by one of the duties of the other. Only in this
ambulance because he felt very sick and cold, intending to proceed to a manner can each minimize occasions for delinquency and help attain
hospital after the interview. effectively the ends of justice.

A.M No. SB-02-10-J is set on a different factual milieu, to wit: The conflict between the herein parties could have been avoided if only
Subsequent to the descent of former President Estrada from power, the they heeded the foregoing clarion call.
Office of the Ombudsman filed several criminal cases against him, his
family, and friends. One of them is Criminal Case No. 26558 wherein II. We now come to complainants' allegation of oppression and gross
he, his son Jose "Jinggoy" and Atty. Edward Serapio stand accused for misconduct. Oppression is a "misdemeanor committed by a public
violation of Republic Act No. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law. In the course officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflict upon any person
of an argument between Sandiganbayan Justice De Castro and Justice any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury." It is an "act of cruelty,
Cuevas, Atty. Saguisag intervened. In the process, he argued severity, or excessive use of authority. Upon the other hand, the word
simultaneously with Justice Cuevas. Despite Justice De Castro's "misconduct" implies wrongful intention. For gross misconduct to exist,
request to wait for his turn, Atty. Saguisag persisted, prompting her to the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by an
bang the gavel twice and order him to stop arguing. This led Justice intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal
Badoy to order four Sheriffs to take Atty. Saguisag out of the courtroom. rules. We find no evidence to prove complainants' charges of
oppression and misconduct.
ISSUES: W/N Justice Badoy guilty of conduct unbecoming a Justice
(ambulance incident)- YES Records show that Atty. Saguisag was asking the court for a copy of the
Pre-trial Order so that he could follow up the court's discussion. He did
W/N Atty Saguisag failed to comply with Canon 11 when he argued not utter any disrespectful remark against respondents nor attack their
simultaneously with Justice Cuevas- YES integrity or authority. However, he kept on speaking simultaneously with
Justice Cuevas and refused to yield to the court's repeated order to
RATIO: We shall resolve A.M No. 01-12-01-SC first. An introspective stop. Such actuation must have constrained respondents to lose their
appraisal of the "ambulance incident" yields reasons for this Court to cool and order the sheriffs to take him out of the courtroom. At that
adjudge Justice Badoy guilty of conduct unbecoming a Justice. point, what respondents should have done was to cite him in direct
contempt of court pursuant to Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "a judge should Procedure, as amended.
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." He  
should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the It has been consistently stressed that the role of a judge in relation to
integrity of the Judiciary. Concomitant with this is the express mandate those who appear before his court must be one of temperance,
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics that "justice should not be bounded by patience and courtesy. In this regard, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial
the individual idiosyncrasies of those who administer it." A judge should Conduct states: "A judge should be patient, attentive and courteous to
adopt the usual and expected method of doing justice, and not seek to all lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and
be spectacular or sensational in the conduct of his court. others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously
falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts
Justice Badoy tramples upon the foregoing judicial norms. We see no instead of the courts for the litigants."
reason why he should rush to the GMA-7 Broadcast Station just to
inform the public about the loss of a Resolution. This is an internal office In Echano vs. Sunga, respondent judge, during the course of an
argument in his sala, lost his cool and called the sheriff to take away the
arguing attorney. And when the attorney kept on talking, respondent that refers to matters under or before a judge or court; or matters under
judge countered, "Submitted, Buntalin kita dian." This Court judicial consideration. In essence, the sub judice rule restricts
admonished him to be more prudent and restrained in his behavior. comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings.
The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general,
For his part, pursuant to Canon 11 of the Code of Professional and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench. While it is a
Responsibility, Atty. Saguisag should have observed the respect due to foreign law concept, it finds support in the provision on indirect
respondent magistrates for the maintenance of the court's supreme contempt under the ROC. The blatant disregard of the sub judice rule
importance. Upon being ordered to stop arguing simultaneously with had caused Sereno to violate the CPR and NCJC. Her public
Justice Cuevas, he should have complied and behaved accordingly. utterances did not only tend to arouse public opinion on the matter but
Had he done so, he would not have been ordered to leave the as can be clearly gleaned from the tenor of the statements, such
courtroom. Indeed, he failed to comport himself in a manner required of comments, speeches, and interviews given by the respondent in
an officer of the court. different forums indisputably tend to tarnish the Court's integrity and
unfairly attributed false motives against its Members. Her public
RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018 statements did not only reiterate those already found in her pleadings,
IN G.R. No. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, contrary to her defense. 
REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA v.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO), A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, [July 17, She miserably failed to discharge her duty as a member of the Bar to
observe and maintain the respect due to the court and its officers.
2018])
Specifically, respondent violated CANON 11. It is the duty of the lawyer
In the impeachment case against CJ Sereno for culpable violation of the
to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the
Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust, the
court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to
Court sought to order her to show cause why she should not be
which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for
sanctioned for violating the CPR and the New Code of Conduct for the
the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions which,
Philippine Judiciary. This stemmed from the Court’s observance that
without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
since the advent of the impeachment proceedings, and even after the
quo warranto proceedings, CJ Sereno continuously opted to defend
Her actions and statements are far from being an innocent discharge of
herself publicly in speaking engagements before students and faculties
duty of upholding the Constitution, the laws, rules, and legal processes.
in different universities, several public forums, interviews on national
On the contrary, they were direct and loaded attacks to the Court and
television, and public rallies, all the while neglecting to assist in the
its Members, which constitute a blatant disrespect to the institution.
resolution of the matter. Her public appearances are allegedly
Respondent cannot justify her attacks against the Court under the guise
punctuated by discussing the merits of the case and making comments
of merely discharging her duties as a Justice and a member of the Bar.
thereon to vilify the members of the Congress, cast aspersions on the
No matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his cause or
impartiality of the Members of the Court, degrade the faith of the people
what he believes in, he must not forget to display the appropriate
to the Judiciary, and falsely impute ill motives against the government
decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal profession, and
that it is orchestrating the charges against her. The Court stated that
to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts. As
through such acts, not only did she violate the sub judice rule, but also
the nation's then highest-ranking judicial official, it is with more reason
the CPR and NCJC. 
that she is expected to have exercised extreme caution in giving her
opinions and observed genuine confidence to the Court's processes.
CJ Sereno argued that she should not be judged on the standards set
Her reckless behavior of imputing ill motives and malice to the Court's
forth in the CPR and NCJC since her participation in the quo warratno
process is plainly evident in the present case. Her public statements
case is not as counsel/judge but a party-litigant and that the imputed
covered by different media organizations incontrovertibly brings the
acts did not create any serious and imminent threat to the
Court in a position of disrepute and disrespect, a patent transgression
administration of justice to warrant the Court's exercise of its power of
of the very ethics that members of the Bar are sworn to uphold. 
contempt in accordance with the "clear and present danger" rule. She
further alleged that assuming arguendo that they violate the CPR and
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring
NCJC, they do not warrant the exercise of the Court’s power to
judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure
discipline because the SolGen repeatedly made personal attacks
for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always
against her and publicly discussed the merits of the case and that she
be maintained.
was not given her right to due process despite repeated demands. 

ISSUE: WON respondent may be held administratively liable for her

actions and public statements as regards the quo warranto case against
her during its pendency - YES CANON 12
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
The SC held that she is guilty of violating CANON 13, Rule 13.02, and DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION
CANON 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Sections 3, 7, OF JUSTICE.
and 8 of CANON 1, Sections 1 and 2 of CANON 2, Sections 2 and 4 of
CANON 3, and Sections 2 and 6 of CANON 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Thereby, after deep Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
reflection and deliberation, in lieu of suspension, respondent is prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
meted the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING that a adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the
repetition of a similar offense or any offense violative of the Lawyer's original documents for comparison with the copies.
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall merit a heavier
penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment. Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.
The Court reiterated that even if she was merely a party-litigant in the
quo warranto case, not a counsel nor a judge, there can be no Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in lawyers'
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
private lives or in their professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide
his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
another.  It does not strip her off of her membership in the Bar, as well
as her being a Member and the head of the highest court of the land at Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution
that time. Her being a litigant does not mean that she was free to of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
conduct herself in less honorable manner than that expected of a
lawyer or a judge. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a
lawyer and/or a judge, be it in their public or private activities, which break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
tends to show said lawyer/judge deficient in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent
disbarment. himself or to impersonate another.

In discussing the sub judice rule, the Court explained that it is a term
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and
needlessly inconvenience him. hate driven by anger and frustration against his former client who filed
the disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity in the custody of a
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: client’s funds.
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody
of an instrument, and the like; or As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing
frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his
testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
A lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like
the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends – the speedy,
Alcantara, et al. v. De Vera (Adm. Case No. 5859, November 23, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and
2010) the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help
The respondent is a member of the Bar and was the former counsel of attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or
Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the RTC of Davao improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization,
City and an administrative case filed before the SEC Davao City charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and
Extension Office. efficient administration of justice. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility promulgated on 21 June 1988 is very explicit that lawyers
Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy
was issued in favor of Rosario P. Mercado. De Vera, as her legal and efficient administration of justice.
counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not turn
over the proceeds to Rosario and still failed to do so after the latter’s Bergonia v. Merrera, Adm. Case No. 5024, February 28, 2003
demands, claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge This administrative case stems from an Affidavit-Complaint filed by
while the balance was his, as attorney’s fees. Hence, Rosario filed an Arsenia T. Bergonia on March 2, 1999, seeking the disbarment of Atty.
administrative case for disbarment against the respondent. Arsenio A. Merrera for violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Bergonia alleged that Merrera’s
IBP Board of Governors promulgated a Resolution holding the inexcusable negligence, while acting as her counsel, caused the
respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of client’s unceremonious dismissal of her appeal. Specifically, despite
funds and recommending to the Court his one-year suspension from obtaining two extensions, he still failed to file the required
the practice of law. appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals.
Following the release of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, De Vera filed a IBP Commissioner’s Report recommended his 6-month suspension of
series of lawsuits against the Mercado family as well as against the from the practice of law was adopted by the IBP Board of
family corporation, the corporation’s accountant and the judge who Governors.
ruled against the reopening of the case where he tried to collect the
balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Later on, he also filed cases SC: Agreed with the IBP recommendation.
against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
voted to recommend his suspension from the practice of law for one requires all the members of the bar to observe the following:
year. Complainants allege that the respondent committed barratry, "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
language when he filed several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure
against the complainants and their family members, their lawyers, and to do so."
the family corporation. They maintain that the primary purpose of the
cases is to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension In this case, respondent twice moved for an extension of time to file the
from the practice of law meted out by the IBP against the respondent. required appellant’s brief. In his first Motion, he alleged that he had a
Thus, they pray that the respondent be disbarred for malpractice and hectic daily schedule of hearings and other pressures from work. In his
gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. next Motion, he claimed he had acute arthritis and asthmatic attacks.
The granting of his two Motions implied that he had been given ample
In his defense the respondent basically offers a denial of the charges time either to finish researching his case or to withdraw his appeal. Yet,
against him. he still failed to file the required brief. In its June 25, 1998 Resolution,
the CA noted that the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal was filed
WON respondent violated Canon 12? —YES only after forty (40) days from the expiration of the last extension.
(WON respondent should be disbarred? —YES)
We concur in the IBP’s finding that respondent was negligent in the
In the present case, the respondent committed professional malpractice performance of his duties as counsel for complainant, and that his
and gross misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients negligence was inexcusable. If indeed it was true that he found her
after the issuance of the IBP Resolution suspending him from the case to be futile, he should have just withdrawn the appeal, instead of
practice of law for one year.  filing several Motions for extension to file the appellant’s brief.
In summary, the respondent filed against his former client, her family Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s
members, the family corporation of his former client, the Chairman and honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to
members of the Board of Governors of the IBP who issued the said act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the
Resolution, the RTC Judge in the case where his former client received conduct of litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing
a favorable judgment, and the present counsel of his former client, a parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath
total of twelve (12) different cases in various fora which included the to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of
Securities and Exchange Commission; the Provincial Prosecutors their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their
Office of Tagum, Davao; the Davao City Prosecutors Office; the IBP- clients. Canon 18.03 of the Code requires that "a lawyer shall not
Commission on Bar Discipline; the Department of Agrarian Reform; and neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
the Supreme Court. therewith renders him liable."
In addition to the twelve (12) cases filed, the respondent also re-filed
cases which had previously been dismissed. The respondent filed six
criminal cases against members of the Mercado family, 5 of which
cases are re-filing of previously dismissed cases.

The nature of the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re-filing
them after being dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases, the fact that
the respondent was in conspiracy with a renegade member of the
complainants’ family, the defendants named in the cases and the foul
language used in the pleadings and motions all indicate that the
respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His
 the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside
CANON 13 interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the
A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND administration of justice."
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE,
OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT. We realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They
are not aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence
to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges. courts of justice through the exercise of either right amounts to an
abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection,
nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the course of
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
justice constitutes contempt of court. The duty and responsibility of
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders
party. of their counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was
called by this Court, did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another untenability of their acts and posture. Let this incident therefore serve
branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial as a reminder to all members of the legal profession that it is their duty
proceedings. as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of
decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice, and to labor
Nestle Philippines v. Sanchez, GR. No. L-75209, September 30, leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their
1997 members.
Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union for
Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia intensified the intermittent Lantoria v. Bunyi, Adm. Case No. 1769, June 8, 1992
pickets they had been conducting since June 17, 1987 in front of the This is an administrative complaint filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, manager
Padre Faura gate of the SC building. They set up pickets' quarters on of the farm subject of the dispute, seeking disciplinary action against
the pavement in front of the SC building and constructed provisional Irineo L. Bunyi, member of the Philippine Bar, on the ground that
shelters along the sidewalks, set up a kitchen and littered the place with respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption,
food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and dishonesty, and corruption of the judge and bribery", in connection with
sanitation. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans, the handling of Civil Cases then pending before the Municipal Court of
and took turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loud Experanza, Agusan del Sur, presided over by Municipal Judge Vicente
speakers. Galicia in which Bunyi was the counsel of one of the parties, namely,
Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas.
These acts were done even after their leaders had been received by
Justices Yap and Fernan as Chairmen of the Divisions where their The present administrative case stems from 3 civil cases involving
cases are pending, and Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of ejectment wherein Bunyi was a counsel. These cases were assigned to
Filipro Employees, had been called so he may relay to them that the then judge Vicente Galicia. The defendants in the mentioned civil cases
demonstration must cease immediately as such is direct contempt of were, in due course, declared in default. In relation to the same 3
court and that the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as cases, records show that complainant and respondent had an
the pickets were maintained. exchange of letters. In these letters Bunyi said that he was drafting
the decision of the civil cases on behalf of judge Galicia.
Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders, apologized Eventually, complainant filed this present case against Bunyi for
to the Court for the above-described acts, together with an assurance allegedly committing acts of graft and corruption, dishonesty, and
that they will not be repeated. He likewise manifested to the Court that corruption of the judge and bribery in connection with respondent’s
he had explained to the picketers why their actions were wrong and that handling of civil cases. In his motion to dismiss, Bunyi admitted that he
they were willing to suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the indeed was drafting the decisions but asserted that the judge asked him
circumstances. He, however, prayed for the Court's leniency to draft the decisions and this without any consideration. Solicitor
considering that the picket was actually spearheaded by the leaders of General recommended that respondent suspended for 1 year from the
the PAMANTIK, an unregistered loose alliance of about 75 unions in the practice of law.
Southern Tagalog area, and not by either the involved unions.
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of unethical practice in attempting to
Atty. Espinas further stated that he had explained to the picketers that influence the court where he had pending civil case – YES suspended
any delay in the resolution of their cases is usually for causes beyond for 1 year
the control of the Court and that the Supreme Court has always
remained steadfast in its role as the guardian of the Constitution. SC: The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous
communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft
ISSUE: W/N the contempt charges against respondents shall be decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact
dismissed- YES prepared. Although nothing in the records would show that respondent
  got the trial court judge's consent to the said preparation for a favor or
RULING: WHEREFORE, the contempt charges against herein consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless amount to conduct
respondents are DISMISSED. Henceforth, no demonstrations or pickets unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
intended to pressure or influence courts of justice into acting one way or
the other on pending cases shall be allowed in the vicinity and/or within Clearly, respondent violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Professional
the premises of any and all courts. Ethics (which were enforced at the time respondent committed the acts
admitted by him), which provides as follows:
SC: We accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this
time, forego the imposition of the sanction warranted by the 3. Attempts to exert personal influence on the court
contemptuous acts described earlier. The liberal stance taken by this
Court in these cases as well as in the earlier case of Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a
AHS/PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES UNION vs. NATIONAL LABOR judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both
RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., G.R. No. 73721, March 30, 1987, the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be
should not, however, be considered in any other light than an avoided. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with the
acknowledgment of the euphoria apparently resulting from the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke and
rediscovery of a long-repressed freedom. The Court will not hesitate in denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special
future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for personal consideration or favor. A self-respecting independence in the
contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way discharge of professional duty, without denial or diminution of the
or the other in any case pending before it. Grievances, if any, must be courtesy and respect due the judge's station, is the only proper
ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate foundation for cordial personal and official relations between bench and
petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to bar.
the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to
In the new Code of Professional Responsibility a lawyer's attempt to - Finally, we cannot ignore the impact of courtroom
influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule television on the defendant. Its presence is a form of
13.01, which read: mental—if not physical—harassment, resembling a police
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and line-up or the third degree. The inevitable close-up of his
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the gestures and expressions during the ordeal of his trial
appearance of influencing the court. might well transgress his personal sensibilities, his
Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or dignity, and his ability to concentrate on the proceedings
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges. before him—sometimes the difference between life and
Therefore, this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in death—dispassionately, freely and without the distraction of
attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case. wide public surveillance. A defendant on trial for a specific
crime is entitled to his day in court, not in a stadium, or a city
Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan or nationwide arena. The heightened public clamor resulting
of the Plunder Cases Against Former President Joseph E. Estrada, from radio and television coverage will inevitably result in
Adm. Matter No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001 prejudice.”
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), an association  
representing television and radio networks throughout the country, sent In his concurring opinion in Estes, Mr. Justice Harlan opined that live
a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the television and radio coverage could have mischievous potentialities for
anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed intruding upon the detached atmosphere that should always surround
against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the the judicial process.
Sandiganbayan in order “to assure the public of full transparency  
in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history.” The The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in its Resolution of 16 April
request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001, expressed its own concern on the live television and radio
2001 to the Chief Justice and, still later, by Senator Renato Cayetano coverage of the criminal trials of Mr. Estrada; to paraphrase: Live
and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. television and radio coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of
  witnesses during the hearings intended to assure a fair trial; at
Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the stake in the criminal trial is not only the life and liberty of the accused
instant petition, submitting the following exegesis: but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system, and live
- the foregoing criminal cases involve the previous acts of television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the “hooting
the former highest official of the land, members of his throng” to arrogate unto themselves the task of judging the guilt
family, his cohorts and, therefore, it cannot be over of the accused, such that the verdict of the court will be
emphasized that the prosecution thereof, definitely involves acceptable only if popular; and live television and radio coverage of
a matter of public concern and interest, or a matter over the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only pander to
which the entire citizenry has the right to know the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.
- There is no gainsaying that the constitutional right of the   
people to be informed on matters of public concern, as in The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of
the instant cases, can best be recognized, served and great dimensions so involving as they do a former President of the
satisfied by allowing the live radio and television coverage of Republic. It is undeniable that these cases have twice become the
the concomitant court proceedings. nation’s focal points in the two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and
- live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also EDSA III where the magnitude of the events has left a still divided
serve the dual purpose of ensuring the desired nation. Must these events be invited anew and risk the relative
transparency in the administration of justice in order to stability that has thus far been achieved? The transcendental events
disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past regime of in our midst do not allow us to turn a blind eye to yet another possible
any and all unfounded notions extraordinary case of mass action being allowed to now creep into even
  the business of the courts in the dispensation of justice under a rule of
ISSUE/S: law. At the very least, a change in the standing rule of the court
WON the request for live television and live radio broadcast coverage of contained in its resolution of 23 October 1991 may not appear to be
the anticipated trial of the plunder & other criminal case filed against propitious.
former President Estrada should be granted? NO  
  Unlike other government offices, courts do not express the popular will
SC: of the people in any sense which, instead, are tasked to only adjudicate
This Court, in the instance already mentioned, citing Estes vs. justiciable controversies on the basis of what alone is submitted before
Texas, the United States Supreme Court holding the television them. A trial is not a free trade of ideas. Nor is a competing market of
coverage of judicial proceedings as an inherent denial of due thoughts the known test of truth in a courtroom.
process rights of an accused, also identified the following as  
being likely prejudices: The Court is not all that unmindful of recent technological and scientific
- The potential impact of television is perhaps of the greatest advances but to chance forthwith the life or liberty of any person in a
significance. From the moment the trial judge announces that hasty bid to use and apply them, even before ample safety nets are
a case will be televised it becomes a cause celebre. The provided and the concerns heretofore expressed are aptly addressed, is
whole community, becomes interested in all the morbid a price too high to pay.
details surrounding it. The approaching trial immediately
assumes an important status in the public press and the Bildner v. Singson, GR No. 15384, June 5, 2009
accused is highly publicized along with the offense with This case is was filed for two reasons: the first, for indirect contempt
which he is charged. Every juror carries with him into the against Erlinda Ilusorio and the second for the disbarment of her
jury box these solemn facts and thus increases the chance of lawyer Atty. Singson.
prejudice that is present in every criminal case.  
- The quality of the testimony in criminal trials will often be For the Indirect Contempt case: A case was filed by Erlinda Ilusorio
impaired. The impact upon a witness of the knowledge that for habeas corpus over her husband Potenciano Ilusorio. That petition
he is being viewed by a vast audience is simply incalculable. was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court after finding that
Some may be demoralized and frightened, some cocky and Potenciano was of sound mind and was not being kept against his will
given to overstatement; memories may falter, as with anyone by his children.
speaking publicly, and accuracy of statement may be  
severely undermined. x x x. Indeed, the mere fact that the Despite the final disposition made by the Supreme Court, Erlinda
trial is to be televised might render witnesses reluctant to Ilusorio continued to file several motions indicating the same premise:
appear and thereby impede the trial as well as the discovery for the decision of the SC to be reconsidered. The SC denied with
of the truth. finality Ilusorio’s motion for reconsideration yet she filed another an
- .A major aspect of the problem is the additional Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Clarification which the court did not
responsibilities the presence of television places on the act upon.
trial judge. His job is to make certain that the accused  
receives a fair trial. This most difficult task requires his Next, Ilusorio began writing letters to chief justice Davide, where one of
undivided attention. the letters called the decision of the court “appalling,” “unilaterally
brazen,” and “unprecedented in the annals of the Supreme Court
Decision making process.” The stated that the Court was giving special
treatment to particular litigants. CANON 14
  A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
Finally, Ilusorio wrote a book titled “On the Edge of Heaven” where she
recounted her experience with the proceedings for habeas corpus. In
her book, she consistently implied that justice was not served and that Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
justice was for sale. account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his
 
own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
For the disbarment complaint against Singson, the facts follow.
Singson was the lawyer for Ramon Ilusorio in a civil case which was
lodged in the sala of Judge Reyes. Judge Reyes had a close family Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
friend in the name of Atty. Sevilla. Sevilla and Singson were cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a
classmates. Singson coursed through Savilla his messages to Judge request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
Reyes, to inform the latter that Singson and Sevilla were classmates. rendition of free legal aid.
 
Further, Singson called up Judge Reyes in Baguio and Manila Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an
Residence usually in the hours of the night allegedly offering ₱500,000 indigent client unless
to the judge in exchange for a favorable decision for Ramon Ilusorio’s (a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
case. The calls ranged from 20-50 times. This allegation was supported competently;
by an affidavit executed by Judge Reyes and was further supported by (b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
the stenographic notes in the trial court where Judge Reyes drilled prospective client or between a present client and the prospective
Singson’s co-counsel about the latter’s attempt at bribery.
client.
 
In his defense, Singson claims that the phone calls were for a lawful
purpose—to inquire as to the status of the case and to inquire as to the Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
status of a pending application for temporary restraining order. Singson professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing
denies attempting to bribe Judge Reyes and cited the fact that Reyes his relations with paying clients.
did not report the matter to the IBP as evidence of the falsity of the
charge. RULE 138
  Attorney and Admission to Bar
Issue: Whether Singson should be disbarred; Whether Erlinda Ilusorio
should be held in indirect contempt of court Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
  (a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
Held: Singson was suspended for 1 year. The Court finds the support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.
explanation proffered as puerile as it is preposterous. Matters touching (b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
on case status could and should be done through the court staff, and and judicial officers;
resetting is usually accomplished thru proper written motion or in open
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
court. And going by Judge Reyes’ affidavit, the incriminating calls were
sometimes made late in the evening and sometimes in the most appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes
unusual hours, such as while Judge Reyes was playing golf with Atty. to be honestly debatable under the law.
Sevilla. (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to
  him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor,
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge––or a and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
judge evincing a willingness––to discuss, in private, a matter related to artifice or false statement of fact or law;
a case pending in that judge’s sala cannot be over-emphasized. The (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that compensation in connection with his client's business except
Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his from him or with his knowledge and approval;
client’s favor. This conduct is not acceptable in the legal profession. (f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
  prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
As to Ilusorio, the SC held her in indirect contempt of court. While the
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
Court did not find anything wrong with the multiple motions filed by
Ilusorio and also did not find anything wrong with her letters to Chief (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance
Justice Davide, the Court cited her in indirect contempt for her book, of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any
“On the Edge of Heaven.” corrupt motive or interest;
  (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the
The SC said that the statements and their reasonably deducible cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
implications went beyond the permissible bounds of fair criticism. (i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and
Erlinda Ilusorio minced no words in directly attacking the Court for its honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the
alleged complicity in the break up of the Ilusorio family, sharply guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
insinuating that the Court intentionally delayed the resolution of her permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
motion for reconsideration, disregarded the Family Code, and unduly liberty, but by due process of law.
favored wealthy litigants. But the worst cut is her suggestion about the
Court selling its decisions. She posed the query, "Nasaan ang Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an
katarungan? (Where is justice?)," implying that this Court failed to
attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if
dispense justice in her case. While most of her statements were in the
upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to
form of questions instead of categorical assertions, the effect is still the
same: they constitute a stinging affront to the honor and dignity of the employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to
Court and tend to undermine the confidence of the public in the integrity secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be
of the highest tribunal of the land. the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless
  he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.
While the alleged attempted bribery may perhaps not be supported by
evidence other than Judge Reyes’ statements, there is nevertheless RULE 116
enough proof to hold Atty. Singson liable for unethical behavior of ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
attempting to influence a judge, itself a transgression of considerable
gravity. However, heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment Sec. 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before
where a lesser sanction would suffice to accomplish the desired end, a arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and
suspension for one year from the practice of law appears appropriate. ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend
himself in person or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must
assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. 
 Dee's outstanding account was around $1,000,000. Further
Sec. 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court, considering the investigations, however, revealed that said account had actually been
gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey Dee merely signing for the chits.
shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good  
standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently Mutuc personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace. The
defend the accused. But in localities where such members of the bar are president told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge
not available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province the obligation, Dewey Dee would be exculpated from liability. Upon
private respondent's return to Manila, he conferred with Ramon Sy and
and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.
the latter was convinced to acknowledge the indebtedness. Thereafter,
the account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered
RULE 134 him. 
Perpetuation of Testimony  
Then, Mutuc sent several demand letters to petitioner demanding the
Section 2. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be entitled in the balance of P50,000 as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however, ignored said
letters. Mutuc filed a complaint against Dee in the RTC for the collection
name of the petitioner and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be
of attorney's fees and refund of transport fare and other expenses.
a party to an action in a court of the Philippines by is presently unable to
 
bring it or cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected Petitioner: Mutuc had allegedly volunteered his services "as a friend of
action and his interest therein; (c) the facts which he desires to establish by defendant's family" to see what he could do about the situation. As for
the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the P50,000 inceptively given, petitioner claims that it was not in the
the names of a description of the persons he expects will be adverse nature of attomey's fees but merely "pocket money" solicited by the
parties and their addresses so far as known; and (e) the names and former for his trips to Las Vegas and the said amount of P50,000 was
addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the already sufficient remuneration for his strictly voluntary services.
testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order  
authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be TC: rendered judgment ordering herein petitioner to pay private
examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their respondent the sum of P50,000 with interest thereon at the legal rate
testimony. from the filing of the complaint
IAC: judgment was affirmed
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6033  
Petitioner, in due time, filed a motion for reconsideration contending that
AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL
the Appellate Court overlooked two important and decisive factors, to
CASES WHERE THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVE ARE INDIGENTS. wit:
1) At the time Mutuc was ostensibly rendering services to
petitioner and his father, he was actually working "in the
CANON 15 interest" and "to the advantage" of Caesar's Palace of
A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN which he was an agent and a consultant, hence the
ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS. interests of the casino and private respondent were united in
their objective to collect from the debtor; and
2) Mutuc is not justified in claiming that he rendered legal
services to petitioner and his father in view of the
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall conflicting interests involved.
ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a  
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith CA: reinstating the aforesaid decision
inform the prospective client.  
ISSUE: WON respondent Mutuc is entitled to attorney’s fees– YES, he
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege is entitled to P50,000
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective  
client. RULING: Plaintiff-appellee maintains that Caesar's Palace would not
have listened to, and acted upon, the advice of plaintiff-appellee if he
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by were no longer its consultant and alter ego.
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Why not? We are witnesses to many successful negotiations between
contending parties whose representing lawyers were not and were
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act never in the employ of the opposite party. The art of negotiation is
as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. precisely one of the essential tools of a good practitioner, and mastery
of the art takes into account the circumstance that one may be
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and negotiating, among others, with a person who may not only be a
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, complete stranger but antagonistic as well. The fact that Mutuc was
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case. able to secure a favorable concession from Caesar's Palace for
defendant-appellant does not justify the conclusion that it could have
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence been secured only because of his professional relationship with
Caesar's Palace. It could have been attributable more to his stature as
any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
a former ambassador of the Philippines to the United States, his
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the personality, and his negotiating technique.
 
laws and the principles of fairness.
Assuming, however, that he was employed by Caesar's Palace during
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation the time that he was rendering professional services for Dee, this would
not automatically mean the denial of additional attorney's fees to Mutuc.
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether
The main reason why the IAC denied him additional compensation was
he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. because the latter was allegedly receiving compensation from Caesar's
Palace, and, therefore, the amount of P50,000 plaintiff-appellee had
Dee. V. CA, GR No. 77439, August 24, 1989 previously received is 'reasonable and commensurate. This conclusion,
Petitioner and his father went to the residence of Mutuc, to seek his however, can only be justified if the fact and amount of remuneration
advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's had been established. These were not proven at all. No proof was
brother, Dewey Dee, to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino presented as to the nature of his remuneration, and the mode or
at Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. Petitioner's father was apprehensive over manner in which it was paid.
the safety of his son, Dewey, having heard of a link between the mafia  
and Caesar's Palace and the possibility that his son may be harmed at Both the lower court and the appellate court concur in their findings that
the instance of the latter.  there was a lawyer-client relationship between the parties. We find no
  reason to interfere with this factual finding. The absence of a written
Mutuc’s services were reportedly contracted for P100,000. From his contract will not preclude the finding that there was a professional
residence, Mutuc called up Caesar's Palace and found that Dewey relationship which merits attorney's fees for professional services
rendered. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the Commissioner believes that there was no malice & bad faith
employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. in the said acceptance and this can be shown by the move of
To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and the complainant to unilaterally withdraw the case which she
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter filed against Atty Cabucana.
pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is  
implied on the part of the attorney from his acting on behalf of his ISSUE/S: WON Atty Marcelino Cabucana is guilty for violating the CPR,
client in pursuance of a request from the latter. specifically 15.03? YES
 
Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained, Mutuc's RULING: Atty Marcelino Cabucana is fined the amount of P2,000 with a
role was not ethically or legally indefensible. Generally, an attorney is stern warning that a commission of the same/ similar act in the future
prohibited from representing parties with contending positions. shall be dealt with more severely.
However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the
court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of SC: Before going to the merits, let it be clarified that contrary to the
the parties.16 A common representation may work to the advantage of report of Commissioner Reyes, respondent did not only represent
said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and the Gatcheco spouses in the administrative case filed by Gonzales
impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions, may well be against them. As respondent himself narrated in his Position
better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences, Paper, he likewise acted as their counsel in the criminal cases filed
being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and by Gonzales against them
confidence of said parties.  
  With that settled, we find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Here, even indulging petitioner in his theory that private respondent was Canon 15 CPR: Rule 15.03—A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
during the period in question an agent of Caesar's Palace, petitioner interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
was not unaware thereof, hence he actually consented to and cannot disclosure of the facts.
now decry the dual representation that he postulates.  
  It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded
of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-
serve and represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
his just fees. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for
Gonzales vs. Cabucana A.C. No. 6836.  January 23, 2006 only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
Gonzales filed a petition before the IBP alleging that she was the lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
complainant in a civil case for sum of money & damages filed before the justice.
MTCC where she was represented by the law firm: CABUCANA,  
CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the
Edmar Cabucana & Atty Marcelino Cabucana handling the case. acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of
Thereafter, a decision was rendered in favor of them ordering the losing the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
party to pay Gonzales however Sheriff Gatcheco failed to fully invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
implement the writ of execution which prompted Gonzales to file a performance of that duty.27
complaint against the said sheriff.  
  The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case,
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, harassed as the civil case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is the
& asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the
complaint before the court. Gonzales then filed against Gatchecos Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit.
criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, -   The representation of opposing clients in said cases,
simple coercion & unjust vexation though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the
  very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this
Notwithstanding the pendency of the civil case for sum of money & Court cannot allow.
damages, Atty. Cabucana represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed  
by Gonzales against the spouses. Hence, Atty Marcelino Cabucana Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented
should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondent’s Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there could be no
acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer- conflict of interests. We do not agree.
client relationship between complainant and respondent’s law firm -  As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which
and renders respondent liable under the CPR particularly Rule represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case,
15.03 the rule against representing conflicting interests applies.
   
ATTY CABUCANA: The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with
Atty Cabucana averred that he never appeared and represented honest intention will also not exculpate him as such claim does
complainant in the said civil case since it was his brother, Atty Edmar not render the prohibition inoperative.
Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in the said case.  
However, he admitted that he is representing the Sheriff Gatcheco and In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses
his wife in the cases filed against them but claimed that his appearance as no other lawyer is willing to take their case cannot prosper as it is
is pro bono & the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was settled that while there may be instances where lawyers cannot
willing to take their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and decline representation they cannot be made to labor under conflict
opted to represent the spouses rather than leave them defenseless. of interest between a present client and a prospective one.
   
The civil case filed by Gonzales where respondent’s brother served as Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle
counsel is different and distinct from the criminal cases filed by the spouses’ case other than him, still he should have observed the
complainant against the Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with the
canon on legal ethics.8 prospective client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the
  matter would involve a conflict with another client then seek the
GONZALES: Filed a reply – written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the
Contending that the civil case handled by respondent’s brother is facts.35 These respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the
closely connected with the case of the Gatchecos which the respondent charge of double-dealing.
is handling.  
  We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we
IBP-CBD: Recommended that Atty Marcelino be sternly warned & are not bound by such desistance as the present case involves
reprimanded public interest.36 Indeed, the Court’s exercise of its power to take
-  Found that respondent made a mistake in the acceptance cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the
of the administrative case of Gatcheco, however, the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the
court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
his profession.37 transactions with their clients. Specifically, Canon 15.03 demands that:
  "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
We shall consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact that consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono and that it was  
his firm and not respondent personally, which handled the civil A conflict of interest exists where a lawyer represents inconsistent
case of Gonzales. interests of two opposing parties, like when the lawyer performs an act
-   As recounted by complainant herself, Atty. Edmar that will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
Cabucana signed the civil case of complainant by stating first represented him, or when the lawyer uses any knowledge he previously
the name of the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE acquired from his first client against the latter. A lawyer who agrees to
GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, under which, his represent a client's interests in the latter's business dealings is duty-
name and signature appear; while herein respondent signed bound to keep the confidence of such client, even after their lawyer-
the pleadings for the Gatcheco spouses only with his name, 39 client relationship had ended. If he represents any other party in a case
without any mention of the law firm. against his former client over a business deal he oversaw during the
-  We also note the observation of the IBP Commissioner that there was time of their professional relationship, he is guilty of representing
no malice and bad faith in respondent’s acceptance of the Gatchecos’ conflicting interests, and should be properly sanctioned for ethical
cases as shown by the move of complainant to withdraw the case misconduct.
 
Diongzon v. Mirano, AC No. 2404, August 17, 2016 When he appeared in court for the benefit of the Gonzaleses to try the
In 1979, Complainant retained Atty. Mirano as his legal counsel in 2 case against the complainant, Atty. Mirano unquestionably incurred a
cases.  In January 1982, the parties herein signed a retainer contract conflict of interest. Having become privy to the terms of the sale subject
for legal services that covered legal representation in cases and of the civil case, the conflict of interest became unmitigated because the
transactions involving the fishing business of the complainant. complainant had not expressly consented in writing to his appearing in
  behalf of the Gonzaleses. It would have been more prudent for him to
In February 1982, the Gonzaleses sued the complainant for replevin have excused himself from representing either party in the civil case.
and damages, and sought the annulment of some deeds of sale. They  
were represented by Atty. Romeo Flora, the associate of Atty. Mirano in In cavalier fashion, the respondent has cited his accomplishments as a
his law office. It appears that the bond they filed to justify the manual member and officer of the IBP in his region to buttress his claim of
delivery of the boats subject of the suit had been notarially being more credible than the complainant, supposedly a convicted
acknowledged before Atty. Mirano without the knowledge and prior felon. But such a defense is unworthy of consideration in this instance
consent of the complainant; and that Atty. Mirano eventually entered his because the praiseworthiness of one's accomplishments and
appearance as the counsel for the Gonzaleses against the respondent. professional reputation never furnishes the license for any ethical
On May 24, 1982, therefore, the complainant initiated this administrative lawyer to flagrantly and knowingly violate the CPR.
complaint for disbarment against the respondent by verified letter-
complaint. Castro v. Barin, A.C. No. 9495 (Resolution), March 2, 2020
  Castro filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against one Perlita G.
Atty. Mirano contends that the complainant had been his client in a Calmiong before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Tarlac. During
different civil case; that the complainant had never consulted him upon its pendency, complainant went to the OCP-Tarlac City to inquire on
any other legal matter; that the complainant had only presented the the status of his complaint, and was surprised when he was
deeds of sale prepared by another lawyer because he had not been furnished a copy of a motion to withdraw information with an
contented with the terms thereof: that he had not been the attached affidavit of desistance allegedly notarized by Atty. Barin,
complainant's retained counsel because the retainer agreement did not counsel of Ms. Calamiong. Complainant denies that he prepared
take effect; that he had returned the amount paid to him by the and/or signed both the motion to withdraw and the affidavit of
complainant; that he had appeared for the Gonzaleses only after their desistance, and alleges forgery on the part of Ms. Calamiong and
evidence against the complainant had been presented; that the Atty. Barin. Further, he claims that he did not personally appear
complainant wanted him to falsify documents in relation to that estafa before Atty. Barin for the notarization of the affidavit of desistance.
case, but because he had refused his bidding, the complainant had Hence, he prays for the disbarment of Atty. Barin.
then filed this administrative case against him.  
  Atty. Barin refutes complainant's allegation that he falsified the
The case was heard over a long period of time spanning 1985 to 2003, motion to withdraw and the affidavit of desistance. He admits that
and the IBP Board of Governors finally recommended on February 13, Ms. Calamiong is a client of his law office. He explains that
2013 that Atty. Mirano should be punished with suspension from the complainant, accompanied by Ms. Calamiong, went to his office to
practice of law for 1 year. personally subscribe on the affidavit of desistance. Atty. Barin
  further states that complainant presented his Senior Citizen card, and
Was the respondent guilty of representing conflict of interest? (YES; 1 that he required the latter to present additional proof of identification, to
year suspension) which he presented his Philippine passport. After signing the above-
  mentioned documents, Atty. Barin advised Ms. Calamiong to submit the
The lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client seeks same to the OCP-Tarlac City, to which she acceded. He asserts that
the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern. No written agreement is he did not falsify the signature and that complainant personally
necessary to generate a lawyer-client relationship, but in formalizing it, appeared before him to acknowledge the documents.
the lawyer may present a retainer agreement to be considered and  
agreed to by the client. Contrary to the assertion of the respondent, the IBP-CBD: issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Barin
retainer agreement did not contain a suspensive condition that affected liable for violation of Rule 15.01, Canon 15, and recommended the
its effectivity as of the date of its execution. It simply stipulated that the penalty of reprimand.  IBP Board of Governors: issued a Resolution
respondent would represent the interests of the complainant in all adopting the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Espina
matters pertaining to his fishing business, thereby formalizing their with modification that Atty. Barin be suspended for 3 months.
lawyer-client relationship. The respondent's insistence that the  
complainant should return all the checks to the Gonzaleses relative to ISSUE: Whether Atty. Barin violated the CPR (YES)
the sale of the fishing boats was clearly not part of the contract.   
  The Court finds Atty. Barin's act of notarizing complainant's affidavit of
The lawyer-client relationship between the parties was duly established desistance violative of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Code of
beginning in 1979 and lasted until 1982. The respondent's claim that he Professional Responsibility which reads:
returned the retainer fee did not alter the juridical existence of their  
lawyer-client relationship. When the complainant consulted him on the Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
sale of the boats to the Gonzaleses, the respondent reviewed the dealings and transactions with his clients.
contracts of sale in the capacity of the complainant's lawyer, and even
notarized the same. He became aware of the details of the sale by Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall
virtue of the confidentiality generated by his lawyer-client relationship ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a
with the complainant. conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith
  inform the prospective client.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers to
The concept of conflict of interest was discussed in Hornilla v. Atty.
Salunat, to wit:
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. 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. Based on the records, there exists a conflict of interest. Atty.
Barin admits that he is the counsel of Ms. Calamiong in the Estafa
case filed by herein complainant. His act of notarizing the affidavit
of desistance of complainant, which was later submitted to the
investigating prosecutor, is a clear violation of the above-cited
Rule.
 him by his client and behaving in a manner not befitting a member of
CANON 16 the bar, respondent violated the following Canons of the Code of
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES Professional Responsibility:
OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal
processes.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client. CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and integrated bar.
apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client properties of his client that may come into his possession.
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds Rule 16.01. - A lawyer shall account for all money or property
and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful collected or received for or from the client.
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He
shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
him.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by and diligence.
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 Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
legal matter he is handling for the client. entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.1âwphi1
Plumptre v. Rivera, AC No. 11350, August 9, 201 Rule 18.04. - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the
Complainant alleges he called respondent and asked for help in his status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
application for a work permit from the Bureau of Immigration.2 They met to the clients request for information.
a few days later, and complainant paid respondent ₱10,000.00 as
professional fee.  They met again, and complainant gave respondent As his client's advocate, a lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client's
another Pl 0,000.00, together with his passport. This was allegedly for interests and the degree of service expected of him in this capacity is
the processing of his work permit.  They met for a third time since his "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
respondent asked complainant to submit ID photos. 5 Respondent maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
asked complainant for another ₱10,000.00, but complainant refused as learning and ability."26 The lawyer also has a fiduciary duty, with the
they only agreed on the amount of ₱20,000.00.  Respondent also asked lawyer-client relationship imbued with utmost trust and confidence. 27
complainant for P8,000.00, allegedly for complainant's other case,
Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence, and
which respondent was also working on. He explained that P5,000.00
diligence. He not only neglected the attorney-client relationship
would be given to a Las Pifias judge to reverse the motion for
established between them; he also acted in a reprehensible manner
reconsideration against complainant, while P3,000.00 would be used to
towards complainant, i.e., cussing and threatening complainant and his
process the motion for reconsideration. Complainant gave him the
family with bodily harm, hiding from complainant, and refusing without
P8,000.00.
reason to return the money entrusted to him for the processing of the
Complainant claims that after respondent received the money, he never work permit. Respondent's behavior demonstrates his lack of integrity
received any updates on the status of his work permit and pending and moral soundness
court case. Further, whenever he called respondent to follow up on his
work permit, respondent hurled invectives at him and threatened him Egger v. Duran, AC No. 11323, September 14, 2016
and his wife. After inquiring -and researching on respondent's The Spouses Egger and Reposo hired Atty. Duran for the annulment of
whereabouts, complainant was able to track down respondent and get their marriage and paid him a total amount of P100,000 as lawyers
back his passport, which respondent coursed through complainant's fees. Despite the payment, Atty. Duran never prepared nor filed the
aunt.  However, despite the return of complainant's passport, petition for annulment, prompting Egger to terminate his services and
respondent still refused to return the ₱28,000.00 earlier endorsed to demand for the return of the amount already paid. Demands for the
him.  return of the payment were made multiple times, all of which Atty.
Duran failed to heed hence the present complaint was filed before the
Complainant then decided to file a complaint against respondent before Court. Atty. Duran contended that his client is Egger’s wife, Reposo and
the IBP. not him and that the failure to file was due to Reposo’s failure to pay
Investigating Commissioner: suspension for 2 years from the practice of him the full P150,000 amount. Further, he claims that he could not
law and the return of P28,000.00 to complainant. IBP Board of return the payment due to being affected by Typhoon Yolanda. IBP
Governors: modified it to disbar respondent from the practice of law. recommended for him a suspension from the practice of law for 6
months, and ordered him to return the amount paid to which was
ISSUE: W/N Respondent violated Canon 16- YES. adopted.
RULING: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera 1s
ISSUE: WON Atty. Duran should be held administratively liable for
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years. He is
violating the CPR -YES
ORDERED to return to complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre the amount
of ₱28,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
The SC held that Atty. Duran admittedly breached this duty when he
promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid. He is likewise
failed to prepare, much less file, the appropriate pleading to initiate
DIRECTED to submit to this Court proof of payment of the amount
complainant and Reposo's case. before the proper court.  The Spouses
within 10 days from payment.
had already forged a lawyer-client relationship with respondent,
RATIO: This Court modifies the findings of the Board of Governors. considering that he agreed to file a petition for annulment of marriage in
Respondent's repeated failure to comply with several Resolutions of the their behalf, and, received the aggregate amount of P100,000
Integrated Bar of the Philippines requiring him to comment on the representing legal fees. A lawyer-client relationship commences when a
complaint lends credence to complainant's allegations. It manifests his lawyer signifies his agreement to handle a client's case and accepts
tacit admission. Hence, we resolve this case on the basis of the money representing legal fees from the latter, as in this case.His act of
complaint and other documents submitted to the Integrated Bar of the agreeing to handle complainant's case, coupled with his acceptance of
Philippines. the partial payment of P100,000.00, already established an attorney-
client relationship that gave rise to his duty of fidelity to the client's
In Macarilay v. Serina,24 this Court held that "[t]he unjustified withholding cause. 
of funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action against the lawyer." By absconding with the money entrusted to He also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he
failed to return the amount of P100,000.00 representing the legal fees fact, what Atty. Rivera did to the complainant demonstrates the
that complainant paid him. The relationship between a lawyer and his complete opposite of how a lawyer should approach and treat a client.
client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and Atty. Rivera made the complainant believe that collection cases would
good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon be filed to recover money from persons who had obligations to pay
the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or complainant. However, after receipt of the funds intended as filing fees,
received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon Atty. Rivera duped the complainant as he did not spend the amount as
demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, intended and instead, appropriated the funds for his own benefit. He
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his resorted to false pretenses and misrepresentations to deceive the
own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is complainant into parting with its money. Atty. Rivera even had the
a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics audacity to use fake stamps of courts of justice and other government
offices to give his dishonest scheme an appearance of truth and
credibility. Atty. Rivera succeeded in deceiving his client and
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. besmirching the reputation of the courts.
RIVERA, A.C. No. 11241, November 3, 2020
Complainant is a medical care and hospital management business We note that this is not the first time Atty. Rivera has been found guilty
entity. It engaged the services of Atty. Rivera as Head of its Legal of deceit and grave misconduct. In Petelo v. Rivera, Atty. Rivera was
Services Department sometime in September 2008. As such, Atty. suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for
Rivera was tasked to determine what cases and legal actions could be allowing a non-lawyer to file an unauthorized civil complaint and to
filed and pursued to protect complainant’s interests. Most of these cause the annotation of a notice of lis pendens, which acts were found
cases involved collection cases. not only to be dishonest and deceitful, but at the same time an act
intended to deceive a court of law. And just recently in A.C. No. 9114,
To facilitate the filing of cases on complainant’s behalf, Atty. Rivera had Reyes v. Rivera, we disbarred Atty. Rivera and ordered his name
the authority to request for cash advances to cover the expenses stricken off the Roll of Attorneys for his reprehensible acts of
related to the filing of collection cases subject to liquidation and must be misrepresenting to have filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
supported by official receipts. marriage and furnishing his client with a fake decision despite due
receipt of professional fees. 
Complainant alleged that Atty. Rivera accepted and misappropriated
the amount of P14,358,477.15 through an elaborate scheme as follows: Considering that he has already been disbarred in A.C. No. 9114
{Reyes v. Rivera), the penalty of disbarment can no longer be imposed
but nevertheless should be considered in the event that he should apply
1. From 2009 to 2012, while still working for complainant, Atty. for the lifting of his disbarmen. Accordingly, penalty of fine in the
Rivera misrepresented and pretended to have filed civil amount of P100,000.00 is imposed upon him. Further he is ordered to
actions and/or instituted proceedings purportedly for and on return the amount of P14,358,477.15 to complainant Professional
behalf of complainant when in fact none was filed; Services, Inc. 
2. Atty. Rivera pretended to have paid filing and other
miscellaneous fees in connection with said actions and/or
proceedings he allegedly filed; CANON 17
3. Atty. Rivera pocketed the money purportedly for filing fees A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
and other related fees in the total amount of P14,358,477.15. SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN
HIM.
Atty. Rivera filled out cash advance slips and fraudulently stated that
the amounts he requested were for filing fees and/or expenses related
to the filing of collection cases for the complainant. To make the
transaction appear credible, Atty. Rivera attached a copy of the first CANON 18
page of the complaints he was supposed to file. He then submitted the A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
cash advance slip with the attached first page of the complaint to DILIGENCE.
complainant’s Accounting Department.

Relying on Atty. Rivera’s representations, complainant’s Accounting Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows
Department processed the requested cash advance and prepared the or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render
checks payable to Atty. Rivera. Upon release of the check, Atty. Rivera such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
immediately deposited and/or withdrew the amount specified therein. counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Since complainant requires liquidation for all cash advances by Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
authorized employees, Atty. Rivera submitted liquidation slips with fake preparation.
official receipts purportedly covering the expenses made in relation to
the fraudulent filing. Complainant found out that the receipts that Atty. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
Rivera had submitted were fraudulent because the Clerk of Court of the his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Pasig RTC certified that the purported official receipts were in fact
spurious. Thus, complainant filed the present disbarment case before Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
the IBP.  case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
Investigating Commissioner Din, Jr. recommended that Atty. Rivera be
disbarred from the practice of law.
Emilia R. Hernandez vs. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387,
WON Atty. Rivera should be disbarred? —YES; WON Atty. Rivera June 20, 2012
violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01?—YES Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment
case filed against them with the RTC which ruled against them so they
The Court has always stressed that, “the relationship between a lawyer filed a notice of appeal. The CA ordered them to file their Appellant’s
and his client is highly fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree Brief, in which they chose Atty Padillia to represent them. On their
of  fidelity and good faith.” Thus, when they receive money from a client behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’
for a particular purpose, they are bound to render an accounting of how Brief. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by the complainant
the money was spent for the said purpose; and, in case the money was therein which the CA granted. No MR was filed and eventually the
not used for the intended purpose, they must immediately return the resolution became final and executory.
money to the client.' Failure of a lawyer to return the money entrusted to
him by his/her client upon demand creates a presumption that he/she Hence, they filed the present disbarment case. The IBP recommended
has appropriated the same for his/her own use.  that he be suspended for 6 months, but was later reduced to 1 month
after respondent’s plea. Respondent explained that he was not the
In this case, Atty. Rivera undoubtedly fell short of such standard when lawyer of complainant stating that prior to the mandatory conference set
he performed a series of fraudulent acts against the complainant. In by the IBP, he had never met complainant, because it was her husband
who had personally transacted with him. He averred that the husband Cabanes thought that the pretrial would not push through. Furthermore,
pleaded for him to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because Cabanes alleged that there was an important provincial conference that
according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or he needed to attend.
three days." Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on  
Appeal because he honestly believed that "it is this pleading which was Finally, he argued that the reason why he did not act upon the heirs’
required." He further claims that there is no lawyer-client relationship. CA petition was because he opted instead to pursue
administrative remedies since he found out that the land was the
Issue: WON Atty. Padilla is guilty of mishandling his client’s case – Yes. subject of a petition for exemption from the coverage of PD 27
Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) (emancipation of tenants).
MONTHS  
Issue: Whether Cabanes should be suspended as per the IBP’s
SC: A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court recommendation
revealed that he had signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
therein, including complainant and her husband.  The pleading starts MONTHS,
with the following sentence: "DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLANTS, by  
counsel, unto this Honorable Court submit the Memorandum and further Held: Yes. The SC cited Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
allege that:." Nowhere does the document say that it was filed only on Canon 18 of the Code, which provide:
behalf of complainant’s husband.  
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
However, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney- and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s him.
cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s duty to  
serve the client with competence and diligence.  Respondent has failed CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
to fulfill this duty. and diligence.
  
With respect to the handling of the case, when the RTC ruled against Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
complainant and her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
Consequently, what should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases shall render him liable.
or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the  
appellant’s brief be filed after the records of the case have been Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
this procedure. to the client's request for information.
 
Moreover, respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the The SC explained that the relationship between an attorney and his
fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of explaining his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light,
side by filing a comment, as ordered by the appellate court, he chose to clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
ignore the CA’s Order. He claims that he was under the presumption cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in
that complainant and her husband had already settled the case, handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all
because he had not heard from the husband since the filing of the times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full
latter’s Memorandum of Appeal. attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
This explanation does not excuse respondent’s actions.  
Furthermore, the SC said that a lawyer’s duty of competence and
First of all, there were several remedies that respondent could have diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the
availed himself of, from the moment he received the Notice from the CA counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of
to the moment he received the disbarment Complaint filed against him. properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
But because of his negligence, he chose to sit on the case and do scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
nothing. pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch,
and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of prod him or her to do so
the status of their case.
Records show that he failed to justify his absence during the scheduled
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a preliminary conference hearing in Civil Case No. 1972 which led the
comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. same to be immediately submitted for decision. Cabanes could have
exercised ordinary diligence by inquiring from the court as to whether
Respondent was found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as the said hearing would push through, especially so since it was only
well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. tentatively set and considering further that he was yet to confer with the
opposing counsel. The fact that Cabanes had an important commitment
Josefina Caranza Vda de Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., during that day hardly exculpates him from his omission since the
A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013 prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute
An unlawful detainer case was filed against complainant Josefina counsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should have been more
Caranza, so she hired the services of Atty. Cabanes as her counsel. At circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearing would not have been
the MTC stage, Cabanes failed to submit the pretrial brief and also left unattended in view of its adverse consequences, i.e., that the
to attend the preliminary conference, resulting in a judgment defendant’s failure to appear at the preliminary conference already
without trial. Upon being confronted, Cabanes assured Caranza that entitles the plaintiff to a judgment.
she would not lose the property. The MTC ended up ordering
Caranza to surrender the possession of the property. Cabanes purposely failed to assail the heirs’ appeal before the CA.
  Records disclose that he even failed to rebut Caranza's allegation
The MTC was reversed on appeal to the RTC, but was subsequently that he neglected to inform her about the CA ruling which he had
reversed by the CA. However, when Cabanes received a copy of the duly received. As regards Cabanes’s suggested legal strategy to
CA ruling, he did not inform Caranza nor did he act upon such pursue the case at the administrative level, suffice it to state that the
decision. He then sought the services of another lawyer but same does not excuse him from failing to file a comment or an
because Cabanes failed to forward certain documents, her opposition to an appeal, or even, inform his client of any adverse
remedies were barred. Thus, this administrative complaint by Caranza. resolution, as in this case
 
In reply, Cabanes asserted that the reason why he failed to attend Gimena v. Sabio, AC No. 7178, August 23, 2016
the pretrial conference was because he asked for a suspension Vicente Gimena is the president and general manager of the Simon
thereof and such conference was preconditioned upon the heirs’ Peter Equipment and Construction Systems, Inc. He and the company
counsel’s submission of certain documents regarding the identity of the lost in a case for illegal dismissal filed against them because their
property. Thus, when the heirs’ lawyer did not submit the documents, counsel, respondent Atty. Salvador T. Sabio, filed an unsigned
position paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing
him to sign the same. Furthermore, he failed to inform complainant severely.
of the unfavorable decision rendered against them which then
became final and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona, AC No. 11064, September 27, 2016
file a timely appeal. Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment against Bienvenida Suarez went to the office of Atty Maravilla-Ona to seek legal
respondent. assistance in transferring title to a land under her name. Atty agreed to
  render her services for a consideration of P48,000 by way of
In his Comment, he countered that complainant’s failure to pay the professional and legal fees. Accepting the engagement, Bienvenida
expenses and attorney's fees for the preparation and filing of the Suarez turned over the necessary documents to Atty Maravilla-Ona and
position paper contributed to his oversight in the filing of the gave P1,000 as down payment as evidenced by an OR.
unsigned pleading. He also insisted that the unfavorable Decision of  
the labor arbiter is based on the merits and not due to default. He Bienvenida Suarez returned to Atty Maravilla-Ona’s office to make
further explained that he was not able to inform complainant of the another payment in the amount of P35,000 and P12,000, both are
outcome of the case because he does not know the address of the evidenced by ORs.
company after it allegedly abandoned its place of business in  
Barangay Mansilingan, without leaving any forwarding address. Finally, Despite the lapse of a considerable period, Bienvenida Suarez did
he claimed that complainant only communicated to him when the not receive any update on the status of the transfer of land title
writ of execution was issued. He faulted complainant and the under her name. Apparently, Atty Maravilla-Ona failed to do
company for being remiss in their legal obligation to be in constant anything to facilitate the said transfer of title. Thus, Bienvenida
communication with him as to the status of the case. Suarez opted not to push through with the transaction and instead
  claimed reimbursement for the amounts she paid to which Atty
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of gross Maravilla-Ona agreed.
negligence and recommended that he be suspended from the practice  
of law for two (2) years. The IBP Board of Governors approved and After a year of waiting, Atty Maravilla-Ona issued to Bienvenida
adopted the said recommendation. Suarez a BOC check for P58,000. However, the check was
  dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Atty then made several
ISSUE: WON respondent was negligent in handling the company’s promises to return Bienvenida Suarez’s money, which, up to this
labor case and thus liable under the Code of Professional moment, remain unfulfilled.
Responsibility. (YES)  
  Bienvenida Suarez filed this instant administrative case before the CBD
RULING: praying for the recovery of P58,000, representing the amount of the
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a dishonored check issued by Atty Maravilla-Ona.
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Corollarily,  
Rule 18.03 directs that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter Atty Maravilla-Ona did not submit any Answer and did not appear
entrusted to him. He must exercise the diligence of a good father of a during the mandatory conference. Therefore, considering the condition
family with respect to the case that he is handling. This is true whether and age of Bienvenida Suarez, who was already 84 years old at that
he accepted the case for free or in consideration of a fee. time, Commissioner Ata found it imperative to proceed with the
  investigation ex parte.
Here, clear and convincing evidence show that respondent was grossly  
negligent as counsel of the company and complainant in the case. IBP-CBD: Recommended that Atty Maravilla-Ona be suspended from
  practice of law for 1 year and ordered to pay Bienvenida Suarez in the
Every law student is taught that an unsigned pleading creates no legal amount of P58,000.
effect, such that the party may be deemed not to have filed a pleading  
at all. Yet, he, a long-standing legal practitioner, did not sign a position Found that Atty. Maravilla-Ona was guilty of gross misconduct and
paper that he filed in a labor suit allegedly due to oversight. What more, violations of the CPR for:
he claimed that his client's failure to pay legal expenses and attorney's (1) issuing a worthless check;
fees contributed to such oversight. These actuations of respondent (2) refusing to settle due obligations despite demand;
demean the legal profession. Due to such negligence, the labor arbiter (3) failing to serve the complainant with competence and diligence; and
did not consider the position paper of the company and the (4) failing to apprise her client of the status of the transactions.
complainant. This circumstance deprived the company of the chance to  
explain its side of the controversy — an unfortunate incident brought IBP-Board of Governors: Adopted the report & recommendation of
about by its own counsel. CBD with modification increasing Atty Maravilla-Ona’s penalty to
  disbarment.
His inattention is further highlighted by his disobedience to the labor  
arbiter's directive that he sign the position paper. His conduct evinces a ISSUE/S: WON Atty Maravilla-Ona is guilty of gross misconduct and
willful disregard to his duty as officer of the court. This alone warrants violation of the CPR, specifically Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and
the imposition of administrative liability. hence should be disbarred? YES
   
As to the failure to apprise the company and the complainant of the SC: Atty Maravilla-Ona is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation
adverse decision against them, the IBP correctly observed that of Canons 1, 16 and 18; and Rules 1.01, 16.01, 18.03 and 18.04 of the
respondent overlooked the attached affidavit of the complainant in the CPR. Accordingly, she is DISBARRED from the practice of law and her
unsigned position paper, which clearly indicated the principal office name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys, effective
address of the company. He himself had notarized the affidavit. Thus, immediately. The Court orders Atty. Maravilla-Ona to RESTITUTE
contrary to his contention, it appears from the records that he was fully complainant Suarez the amount of P58,000 w/in 30 days from receipt of
aware of the address of the company. There was no justifiable reason this Decision. Otherwise, Atty Maravilla-Ona may be held liable for
for him not to notify complainant and the company of the adverse contempt.
decision against them.  
  Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03
Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with Rule 18.04 of the Code, Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s agreement to render her legal services to
which requires that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the Bienvenida, sealed by her receipt of her legal fees, is an assurance and
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the representation that she would be diligent and competent in fulfilling her
client's request for information." responsibilities as Bienvenida’s lawyer. However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona
  acted to the contrary. Thus, the IBP correctly found that she violated
The failure of a lawyer to notify his client of a decision against him Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 thereof, which state:
manifests a total lack of dedication or devotion to his client's interest,
and signifies bad faith, for the relationship between an attorney and his Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
client is highly fiduciary. diligence
 
Since this is not the first time that respondent was subjected to Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
disciplinary proceedings, Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is SUSPENDED from to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS and STERNLY WARNED him liable.
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s negligence, her failure to return her client’s of law upon Atty. Maravilla-Ona. Membership in the legal
money, and her act of issuing a worthless check constitute profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that
dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence, and betrayal of her an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of her
client’s interests. These acts undoubtedly speak of deceit. clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the
duty of the Court to withdraw the same.
-Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done
contrary to justice, modesty or good morals. It is an act of baseness, Dongga-as v. Cruz-Angeles, et al., AC No. 11113, August 9, 2016
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a person Sometime in May 2004, complainant secured the services of Attys.
owes to his or her fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, Cruz-Angeles and Paler for the purpose of annulling his marriage with
honesty, modesty, or good morals. Such malfeasance is not only Mutya, and in connection therewith, paid them the aggregate sum of
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it P350,000 representing legal fees. However, despite the passage of
also reveals a basic moral flaw that makes her unfit to practice law. more than five months from the engagement, Attys. Cruz-Angeles
  and Paler failed to file the appropriate pleading to initiate the case
In the instant case, the misconduct of Atty. Maravilla-Ona is before the proper court; and worse, could not even show a finished draft
aggravated by her unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the IBP of such pleading.
directing her to file an answer to the complaint of Bienvenida and  
to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference. This constitutes Utterly frustrated with the delay in the filing of his petition for annulment,
blatant disrespect for the IBP which amounts to conduct unbecoming complainant went to respondents' law office to terminate their
lawyer. engagement and to demand for a refund of the amount he earlier paid
  them. However, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler refused to return the
Court also take note of the past disbarment complaints that had been said amount, and to complainant's surprise, sent him 2 billing
filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. statements in the amounts of P258,000 and P324,000, respectively.
-    In A.C. No. 10107 entitled Beatrice C. Yatco, represented Notably, one of the billing statement included a fee for "consultants
by her Attorney-in-Fact, Marivic Yatco v. Atty. Eleonor (prosecutors)" amounting to P45,000.
Maravilla-Ona, the complainant filed a disbarment case  
against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for issuing several worthless In view of the foregoing, complainant filed the instant Complaint-
checks as rental payments for the complainant’s property Affidavit before the IBP-CBD. The IBP-CBD recommended that Attys.
and for refusing to vacate the said property, thus forcing the Cruz-Angeles and Paler be suspended for 4 months. The IBP Board
latter to file an ejectment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. of Governors approved the said recommendation.   
The IBP required Atty. Maravilla-Ona to file her Answer, but  
she failed to do so. Neither did she make an appearance In her defense, Atty. Cruz-Angeles denied that she was remiss in
during the scheduled mandatory conference. In its her duties, explaining that the delay in the filing of the petition for
Resolution21 dated February 13, 2013, IBP found Atty. annulment of marriage was due to complainant's failure to give the
Maravilla-Ona guilty of serious misconduct and for violating current address of Mutya and provide sufficient evidence to
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code. The Court later adopted support the petition. Further, Atty. Cruz-Angeles alleged that it was
and approved the IBP’s findings in its Resolution dated Atty. Paler who was tasked to draft and finalize the petition. For his
September 15, 2014 and suspended Atty. Maravilla Ona part, Atty. Paler argued that complainant filed the present administrative
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. complaint only to avoid payment of attorney's fees.
-    In yet another disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-
Ona, docketed as A.C. No. 10944 and entitled Norma M. the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Attys. Cruz-Angeles and
Gutierrez v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, the complainant Paler administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that
therein alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. they be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
Maravilla-Ona and gave her the amount of P80,000 for the for four (4) months. Board of Governors adopted and approved the
filing of a case in court. However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed Report and Recommendation, increasing the recommended
to file the case, prompting the complainant to withdraw penalty to two (2) years suspension from the practice of law
from the engagement and to demand the refund of the  
amount she paid. Atty. Maravilla-Ona returned P15,000 and WON Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler should be held administratively
executed a promissory note to pay the remaining P65,000. liable for violating the CPR (YES; suspended for 3 years)
However, despite several demands, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed  
to refund the complainant’s money. Thus, a complaint for In this case, not only did Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler fail to file
disbarment was filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for grave complainant's petition for annulment of marriage and return what
misconduct, gross negligence and incompetence. But again, the latter paid them as legal fees, they likewise misrepresented
Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file her Answer and appear in the that they can find a court, judge, and prosecutor who they can
mandatory conference before the IBP. The IBP found that easily influence to ensure a favorable resolution of such petition,
Atty. Maravilla-Ona violated Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the to the detriment of the judiciary and the national prosecutorial service.
Code22 and recommended her suspension for a period of five The neglect of the legal matter entrusted to Attys. Cruz-Angeles and
(5) years, considering her previous infractions. The Court, Atty. Paler by their client, complainant Cleo, constitutes a flagrant
however, reduced Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s penalty to violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three  
(3) years, with a warning that a repetition of the same or CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
similar offense will be dealt with more severely. She was COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
also ordered to return the complainant’s money.  
  Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
Clearly, Atty. Maravilla-Ona exhibits the habit of violating her oath him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
as a lawyer and the Code, as well as defying the processes of the liable.
IBP. The Court cannot allow her blatant disregard of the Code and  
her sworn duty as a member of the Bar to continue. She had been Case law exhorts that, "once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client,
warned that a similar violation will merit a more severe penalty, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to
and yet, her reprehensible conduct has, again, brought such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he
embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession. accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must
  always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.
In her previous disbarment case, We showed leniency by reducing her Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his
penalty to suspension for a period of three (3) years. We cannot client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
similarly treat Atty. Maravilla-Ona this time. It is clear that she did not administratively liable,"
learn any lesson from her past experiences and since then has  
continued to exhibit traits of incorrigibility. It is time to write finis In this relation, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler also violated Rules 16.01
to Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s professional legal career for the sake of and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when they failed to return to
the public, the profession and the interest of justice.23 complainant the amount of P350,000 representing their legal fees.
   
Considering all of the foregoing, We deem it fit to affirm the The two lawyers are also liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 when
imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice they misrepresented to complainant that the delay in the filing of his
petition for annulment was due to the fact that they were still looking for suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years for
a "friendly" court, judge, and public prosecutor who will not be too much violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR. IBP Board of
of a hindrance in achieving success in the annulment case. In fact, in Governors: adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
the 2 billing statements, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler made it appear Commissioner Chan. Upon Atty. Atienza's MR, the IBP Board of
that they went to various locations to look for a suitable venue in filing Governors issued a Resolution wherein it modified the penalty of Atty.
the said petition, and even paid various amounts to prosecutors and Atienza by reducing his period of suspension to one year.
members of the NBI to act as their "consultants."
  ISSUE: W/N Atty. Atienza violated the Canon 18 of the CPR (YES)
They also violated Canon 11 by not maintaining respect to the courts.  
As members of the Bar, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler should not RATIO:
perform acts that would tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity It is well-settled that a lawyer who accepts professional employment
of the courts, such as insinuating that they can find a "friendly" court from a client undertakes to serve his client with competence and
and judge that will ensure a favorable ruling in complainant's annulment diligence. Consequently, a lawyer's negligence in the performance of
case. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of the court to uphold his duties arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause
the dignity and authority of the courts. delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a
  litigant, particularly his client.
Lastly, they violated Canon 7 when they compromised the integrity not
only of the judiciary, but also of the national prosecutorial service, by In the present case, Atty. Atienza's attempt to evade responsibility by
insinuating that they can influence a court, judge, and prosecutor to claiming that his failure to file several pleadings in court was a legal
cooperate with them to ensure the annulment of complainant's strategy is bereft of merit. Indeed, his omission did not only violate the
marriage. Indubitably, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler also violated court's orders but is also inconsistent with the trust reposed to him by
Canon 7 of the CPR, and hence, they should be held administratively his client.
liable therefor.
ELADIO J. HIPOLITO, complainant, vs. ATTY. CIRIACO O. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall not
ATIENZA, respondent, A.C. No. 7359 (Notice), June 19, 2017 neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence therewith
Hipolito obtained a loan from Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank shall render him liable. Thus, once a lawyer agrees to handle a case,
(PBSB) secured by his 89-hectare property. After the loan was he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he
granted, Atty. Atienza, PBSB's counsel, convinced the Hipolito to sell should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyer's oath.
the subject property and then introduced to him Mr. and Mrs. Kintanar
who committed to purchase the subject property. Upon the advice of the Verily, Atty. Atienza demonstrated not only appalling disrespect
Atty. Atienza, Hipolito requested from the spouses Kintanar several and lack of responsibility to the courts and his clients but,
advances. Atty. Atienza would usually divide the amount equally likewise, showed a reckless disregard for his obligations as a
between him and Hipolito. Unfortunately, spouses Kintanar backed member of the bar.
out from the transaction. As such, Hipolito suggested to Atty.
Atienza that they return the advances made by spouses Kintanar Moreover, his workload does not justify neglect in handling one's case
on a 50-50 basis. Since Atty. Atienza could not raise his share yet, because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as
he convinced Hipolito to issue a promissory note. Meanwhile, CLT he can effectively handle them.
Realty Corporation negotiated for the purchase of the subject property.
Upon receipt of an initial payment, Hipolito asked Atty. Atienza about HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., represented by RECTO A. TAN vs.
their promissory note to spouses Kintanar to which he replied "Ako ang ATTY. NESTOR B. BELTRAN, A.C. No. 5819 (Resolution), February
bahala dun". 1, 2017
After agreeing to pay attorney's fees of ₱200,000, complainants
Mrs. Kintanar filed a complaint against Hipolito for Breach of Contract, engaged the services of Atty. Beltran for the filing of cases to recover
Sum of Money and Damages with an application for the issuance of a their commercial properties valued at approximately ₱30 million.
writ of Preliminary Attachment. Hipolito referred the matter to Atty. Complainants filed a criminal action for falsification of public
Atienza. documents and use of falsified documents against Spouses Melanio
and Nancy Fernando and Sixto Tan, Jr. but this case was dismissed by
Pursuant to the Writ of Attachment, Hipolito's property was the provincial prosecutor of Albay.
attached. Although the said property was Hipolito's family home,
Atty. Atienza allegedly failed to file any opposition. Instead, Atty. Atty. Beltran was notified of the order of dismissal on 18 October
Atienza merely assured him that the case was not a cause for any 2001. On 6 November 2001, he filed an appeal via a Petition for
immediate concern and he promised to work for a settlement Review before the SOJ. It was, however, filed beyond the 15-day
considering that Mrs. Kintanar's counsel is his close friend. Atty. reglementary period to perfect an appeal. Consequently, the SOJ
Atienza's promises, however, turned out to be untrue.  dismissed the belated Petition for Review. Respondent no longer
filed a motion for reconsideration to remedy the ruling.
Hipolito presented the following circumstances wherein Atty. Atienza
was remiss in his duties as his counsel: In this administrative case, respondent claimed  that he could no
(j) he failed to file a Pre-Trial Brief as required by the court; longer move for the reconsideration of the SOJ's dismissal of his
(a) (ii) he failed to appear in the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference belated Petition for Review as he had only learned of the dismissal
(PTC); after the period to file a motion for reconsideration had lapsed. He
(b) (iii) his failure to attend in the PTC resulted to Hipolito being argued that while he prepared the Petition for Review, his clients
declared in default to which Atty. Atienza again failed to themselves, through Nilo Tan and Recto Tan, signed and filed the
oppose; same. Thus, he imputed to complainants the belated filing of the
(c) (iv) as a result, the RTC rendered an unfavorable judgment appeal.
against Hipolito;
(d) (v) Hipolito's appeal to the CA was likewise dismissed for IBP: found respondent guilty of neglect in handling the criminal case
failure of Atty. Atienza to file the required Appellant's Brief; and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three
(e) (vi) he did not even move for the reconsideration of the CA's months.
Resolution dismissing Hipolito's appeal; and BOARD OF GOVERNORS: resolved to fully dismiss the administrative
(f) (vii) during the execution proceedings, Atty. Atienza failed to case against respondent without any explanation. Neither party has
inform Hipolito that his family home was already levied and filed a motion for reconsideration or petition for review thereafter.
sold on May 2004.

Atty. Atienza claimed that his failure to attend several hearings ISSUE: W/N Respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 18 for belatedly
was due to his heavy workload. As to his alleged failure to submit filling an appeal before the SOJ- YES
or file the required and necessary pleadings, he countered that his
actions were based on their understanding that their intention was RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty.
merely to buy time to be able to raise sufficient funds as payment Nestor B. Beltran is SUSPENDED FOR TWO MONTHS from the
to Mrs. Kintanar's claim. practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ADMONISHED to exercise
Commissioner Manuel T. Chan: recommended that Atty. Atienza be greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties. He is
 also ORDERED TO ACCOUNT for the ₱35,278 he received from his Commission (NLRC).
clients, with the obligation to return the entire amount, or so much
thereof remaining, to complainants.
Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical
standards, complainant filed an administrative complaint with the
RATIO: Respondent filed a belated appeal before the SOJ.
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.
In Reontoy v. Ibadlit, we ruled that failure of the counsel to appeal
within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and
malpractice. The Court elucidated that per Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader (Motion to Dismiss and
Code of Professional Responsibility, "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal Counterclaims) claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson, complainant's
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall legal counsel, played an important part in imputing the malicious,
render him liable." defamatory, and fabricated charges against him. Respondent also
pointed out that the complaint had no certification against forum
In the case at bar, respondent similarly admits that he failed to timely
file the Petition for Review before the SOJ. As a result of his delayed Investigating Commissioner: found that complainant, failed to file his
action, his clients lost the criminal case. Straightforwardly, this Court position paper and to comply with Administrative Circular No. 04-94
sanctions him for belatedly filing an appeal. requiring a certificate against forum shopping and, accordingly,
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent.
The excuse forwarded by respondent - that he delegated the filing of
the Petition for Review to complainants - will not exculpate him from
administrative liability. As correctly explained by the Investigating IBP Board of Governors: IBP Board of Governors adopted and
Commissioner of the IBP, respondent cannot disclaim negligence, approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
since he was the lawyer tasked to pursue the legal remedies Commissioner.
available to his clients.
Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution
Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) alleging that he personally
legal procedure. A client who deals with counsel has the right to expect submitted and filed with the IBP his position paper, after serving a copy
not just a good amount of professional learning and competence, but thereof on respondent by registered mail. He further alleges that he was
also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause. Thus, we find that deprived of his right to due process when the IBP dismissed his
passing the blame to persons not trained in remedial law is not complaint without considering his position paper and without ruling on
just wrong; it is reflective of the want of care on the part of lawyers the merits thereof.
handling the legal matters entrusted to them by their clients.

ISSUES: WON the lack of a certificate against forum shopping in a

disbarment complaint warrants its dismissal - NO
CANON 19 WON respondent violated Canon 19 when he sent the letter with the
A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE corresponding threats to the company - YES
BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
RULING: Respondent Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio is hereby found liable for
violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding. RATIO: ON THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING:
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in
the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely
civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance
but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its
with the Rules of Court.
officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public
handling the case. interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination
is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
Pena vs. Aparicio A.C. No. 7298. June 25, 2007 privileges as such.
Atty. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an
illegal dismissal case before the NLRC. Complainant Fernando
Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic), received a In view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against
notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the NLRC for a forum shopping to be attached to the complaint, if one is required at all
mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in in such proceedings, must refer to another administrative case for
behalf of his client, submitted a claim for separation pay arising disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent, because such
from her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant rejected the claim as other proceedings or "action" is one that necessarily involves "the same
being baseless. Complainant thereafter sent notices to Hufana for issues" as the one posed in the disbarment complaint to which the
the latter to explain her absences and to return to work. In reply to certification is supposedly to be attached.
this return to work notice, respondent wrote a letter to complainant
reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. The letter also contained It would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e., the
the following threat to the company: filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions,
rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said
BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be proceedings are either "taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio,
constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including moral or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of complaint of any person." Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment
cases and laws. In addition to other multiple charges like: case fails to attach a certification against forum shopping, the
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not pendency of another disciplinary action against the same
reported to the government. respondent may still be ascertained with ease.
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to ON THE ISSUE OF THE THREATENING LETTER – TOPIC:
violations of laws.
These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the Under Rule 19.01, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
above amounts as settlements in the National Labor Relations unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the
adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the Villarin filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision & to quash
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the the Writ of Execution for being null and void on the ground of lack of
lawyer's client. jurisdiction due to improper service of summons on his client
- This motion was not acted upon by the HLURB
In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule
proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the Villarin sent demand letters to complainants demanding that they
latter fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would file immediately vacate the property and surrender it to Purence Realty
and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple within 5 days from receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary
charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and action against them
cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.
The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they
Purence Realty (as represented by Villarin) filed a complaint for
also amount to blackmail.
forcible entry before the MTC against the 4 complainants. Hence, the
4 complainants filed an administrative case against Villarin. Some of
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of the buyers then filed a disbarment case against Villarin
accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints, obtaining of
value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an
IBP & affirmed by Board of Governors: Found that complainants
accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate
asserted in their respective verified Complaints that the demand letters
to his prejudice." In common parlance and in general acceptation, it is
sent by Villarin had been issued with malice and intent to harass them.
equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money
They insisted that the letters also contravened the HLURB Decision
either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the
ordering his client to permit the buyers to pay the balance of the
exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by
purchase price of the subdivision lots.
operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or
offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim.
Villarin moved for consolidation of the administrative cases and his
motion was granted by IBP Commissioner.
In fact, respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote,
dismissing the same as merely an act of pointing out massive violations
of the law by the other party, and, with boldness, asserting that "a VILLARIN:
lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to the government -Denied the allegations of harassment and claimed that no malice
commission of offenses punishable by the State." He further asserts attended the sending of demand letters
that the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition -When he inquired at the HLURB, he was informed that his client did
and that our laws allow and encourage the settlement of disputes. not receive summons pertinent to the complaint for specific damages
hence he formed the conclusion that HLURB decision was void & not
Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition binding on Purence Realty
in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the
principal-agent relationship that he has with his client, the principal. ISSUE:
Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked WON Villarin should be administratively sanctioned for sending the
to enforce his client's claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect demand letters despite a final & executory HLURB decision
it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a directing, not the ejectment of complainants, but the payment of the
specified period. However, the letter in this case contains more than just purchase price of the lots by the subdivision buyers?
a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory
charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's
claim for separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to secure SC: Atty Villarin is REPRIMANDED with a warning that a repetition of
leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters the same/ a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Proceeding to the contested demand letters, we adopt the
Responsibility. recommendation of the IBP board of governors that the issuance
thereof was not malicious. Espousing the belief that the proceedings
Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged in the HLURB were void, Villarin pursued the issuance of demand
communication rule under which a private communication executed in letters as a prelude to the ejectment case he would later on file to
the performance of a legal duty is not actionable. The privileged nature protect the property rights of his client.
of the letter was removed when respondent used it to blackmail
complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent is expected to
his client. champion the cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity, care,
and devotion.
However, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards,
we hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on
respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his Nevertheless, the CPR provides the limitation that lawyers shall
overzealousness to protect his client's interests perform their duty to the client within the bounds of law. They should
only make such defense only when they believe it to be honestly
Trinidad, et al. v. Villarin, AC No. 9310, February 27, 2013 debatable under the law. In this case, respondent’s act of issuing
demand letters, moved by the understanding of a void HLURB
This is a consolidated administrative complaint against respondent,
Decision, is legally sanctioned. If his theory holds water, the notice
Angelito Villarin, for allegedly harassing complainants through the
to vacate becomes necessary in order to file an action for
demand letters he sent them.
ejectment. Hence, he did not resort to any fraud or chicanery
prohibited by the Code, just to maintain his client’s disputed
The instant case stemmed from a complaint for specific performance ownership over the subdivision lots.
filed with the HLURB by the buyers of the subject lots in Don Jose
Zavalla Subdivision against the subdivision’s owner and developer
Even so, respondent cannot be considered free of error. The
– Purence Realty & Roberto Bassig.
factual findings of the IBP board of governors reveal that in his
- HLURB ordered respondents therein to accept the
demand letter, he brazenly typified one of the complainants,
payments of the buyers under the old purchase price.
Florentina Lander, as an illegal occupant. However, this description
- HLURB ordered the owner & developer to deliver the Deeds
is the exact opposite of the truth, since the final and executory
of Sale & TCTs to the winning litigants. The decision did not
HLURB Decision had already recognized her as a subdivision lot
evince any directive for the buyers to vacate the property.
buyer who had a right to complete her payments in order to
-Owner & developer did not appeal the decision hence it
occupy her property. Respondent is very much aware of this ruling
became final & executory
when he filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the HLURB Decision
- HLURB issued a writ of execution. It was at this point
and the appurtenant Writ of Execution.
that respondent Villarin entered his special appearance
to represent Purence Realty
Given that respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally
disregarded the HLURB Decision, he thus advances the interest of
 his client through means that are not in keeping with fairness and
honesty. What he does is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code
Atty. David then filed a MR of the order of dismissal of Judge Lantin
of Professional Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer shall employ
under the joint signatures of him and Atty. Alverez. Judge Lantin denied
only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Lawyers
the MR. Atty. David perfected the appeal from the order of dismissal.
must not present and offer in evidence any document that they know is
For purposes of said appeal the plaintiff prepared a 232-page brief and
false.
submitted the same before the SC in Baguio City. The plaintiff was the
one who orally argued the case before the SC. In connection with the
trip to Baguio for the said oral argument, the plaintiff used his car hich
broke down and necessitated extensive repairs paid for by the plaintiff
CANON 20 himself.The SC promulgated its decision reversing the order of
A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES. dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

After the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court reversing

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in the dismissal of the case the defendant wrote the plaintiff a letter, which
determining his fees: contains an attached check worth P2K. In a reply letter, the plaintiff
returned the check, saying that he was not motivated to render
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or
professional services primarily for a professional fee.
required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter; When the case was remanded for further proceedings before Judge
(d) The skill demanded; Lantin, Judge Lantin rendered his decision in favor of Corpus Corpus.
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of The SC affirmed said decision.
acceptance of the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of Thereafter, Atty. David’s law office made a formal demand upon Corpus
fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; for collection of 50% of the amount recovered by the defendant as back
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits salaries and other emoluments from the Central Bank. This letter was
resulting to the client from the service; written after Corpus failed to appear at an appointment with Atty. David
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation; so that they could go together to the Central Bank to claim the
possession of the office to which Corpus was reinstated and after a
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or
confrontation in the office of Atty. David wherein the plaintiff was
established; and
remanding 50% of the back salaries and other emoluments amounting
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer. to P203,000 recoverable by the defendant.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the
client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed Atty. David also wrote the Governor for of Central Bank requesting
and responsibility assumed. that the amount representing the back salaries of the defendant be
made out in two one in favor of the defendant and the other
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of representing the professional fees equivalent to 50% of the said
the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or back salaries being claimed by the plaintiff.
forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his To obtain the relief from the Governor of Central Bank, the plaintiff
professional employment from anyone other than the client. instituted this action before this Court. The RTC ordered Corpus to pay
30K to Atty. David. The latter appealed this judgment, saying that the
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his said fee is not enough. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC. Hence, this
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, petition.
injustice or fraud.
Corpus: contends that Atty. David is not entitled to attorney's fees
Corpuz v. CA, GR No. L-40424, June 30, 1980 because there was no contract to that effect.
Marino Corpus was charged administratively by several employees of
the Central Bank Export Department of which he is the director and Atty: David: contends that the absence of a formal contract for the
represented by Atty. Rosauro Alvarez. Pending the investigation, he payment of the attorney's fees will not negate the payment thereof
was suspended from office. After the investigating committee found the because the contract may be express or implied, and there was an
administrative charges to be without merit, and subsequently implied understanding between the petitioner and private
recommended the immediate reinstatement of the defendant, the then respondent that the former will pay the latter attorney's fees when
Governor of Central Bank, recommended that the defendant is a final decision shall have been rendered in favor of the petitioner
considered resigned because he had lost confidence in him. reinstating him to -his former position in the Central Bank and paying
his back salaries.
The defendant then filed with the CFI a petition for certiorari, mandamus
and quo warranto with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages Issue: WON private respondent Atty. Juan T. David is entitled to
against the Governor of Central Bank and Mario Marcos who was attorney's fees. (YES)
appointed to the position of the defendant. Judge Lantin dismissed a
case for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to the
herein defendant. While there was no express agreement between petitioner Corpus and
respondent David as regards attorney's fees, the facts of the case
support the position of Atty. David that there was at least an implied
6 or 7 days prior to the expiration of the period for appeal from the order agreement for the payment of attorney's fees.
of dismissal, respondent Atty. Juan David chanced to meet the late
Rafael Corpus, father of the defendant. After they talked about the
defendant's having lost his case before Judge Lantin, and knowing that Corpus's act of giving the check for P2,000 through his letter to
the plaintiff and the defendant were both members of the Civil Liberties respondent David indicates petitioner's commitment to pay the former
Union, Rafael Corpus requested the plaintiff to go over the case and attorney's fees, which is stressed by expressing that "I wish I could give
further said that he would send his son, the herein defendant, to the more but as you know we were banking on a SC decision reinstating
plaintiff to find out what could be done about the case. me and reimbursing my back salaries. This last sentiment constitutes a
promise to pay more upon his reinstatement and payment of his back
salaries. Petitioner ended his letter that he was "looking forward to a
The defendant called up the plaintiff the following morning for an continuation of the case in the lower court, to which the certiorari-
appointment, and the plaintiff agreed to am him in the latter's office. At mandamus-quo warranto case was remanded by the Supreme Court for
said conference, the defendant requested the plaintiff to handle the further proceedings.
case because Atty. Alvarez had already been disenchanted and wanted
to give up the case. Although at first reluctant to handle the case, the
plaintiff finally agreed on condition that he and Atty. Alverez would Moreover, David's letter-reply confirms the promise of Corpus to pay
collaborate in the case. attorney's fees upon his reinstatement and payment of back salaries.
Said reply states that David decided to be his counsel in the case propositions. Petitioner Corpus contends that said legal propositions
because of the value to him of their intimate relationship over the years were invariably rejected by the courts. This is, however, of no moment
and "not, primarily, for a professional fee." It is patent then, that because the fact remains that respondent David faithfully rendered legal
respondent David agreed to render professional services to petitioner services for the success of petitioner's case.
Corpus secondarily for a professional fee. This is stressed by the last
paragraph of said reply which states that "however, when you shall
The benefits secured for petitioner Corpus may also be considered in
have obtained a decision which would have finally resolved the case in
ascertaining what should be the compensation of respondent David. It
your favor, remembering me then will make me happy. In the meantime,
cannot be denied that both Atty. Alvarez and respondent David were
you will make me happier by just keeping the check."
instrumental in obtaining substantial benefits for petitioner Corpus which
consisted primarily of his reinstatement, recovery of back salaries and
Thereafter, respondent David continued to render legal services to the vindication of his honor and reputation. But, note should also be
petitioner Corpus, in collaboration with Atty. Alverez until he and Atty. taken of the fact that respondent David came at the crucial stage when
Alvarez secured the decision directing petitioner's reinstatement with the case of petitioner Corpus was dismissed by the lower court.
back salaries, which legal services were undisputedly accepted by, and .
benefited petitioner. In his complaint in the instant case, David asked for P75,000.00 as his
attorney's fees. The records reveal that petitioner Corpus actually
received only P150,158.50 as back salaries and emoluments after
Moreover, there is no reason to doubt respondent David's assertion that
deducting taxes as well as retirement and life insurance premiums due
Don Rafael Corpus, the late father of petitioner Corpus, requested
to the GSIS. The amount thus claimed by respondent David represents
respondent to help his son, whose suit for reinstatement was dismissed
50% of the amount actually received by petitioner Corpus. The lower
by the lower court. Likewise, it appears that after the SC affirmed the
court, however, awarded only P30,000.00 and it was affirmed by the
order of the lower court reinstating petitioner Corpus with back salaries
Court of Appeals. Considering the aforestated circumstances, WE are
and awarding attorney's fees of P5,000.00, respondent David made a
of the opinion that the reasonable compensation of respondent David
written demand upon petitioner Corpus for the payment of his attorney's
should be P20,000.00.
fees in an amount equivalent to 50% of what was paid as back salaries.
Note: Nacontempt rin sa case na’to si Atty. David kasi disrespectful
Corpus, in his reply to the aforesaid written demand, while disagreeing
daw siya sa court.
as to the amount of attorney's fees demanded, did not categorically
deny the right of respondent David to attorney's fees but on the contrary
gave the latter the amount of P2,500.00, which is one-half (½) of the Mortera vs. Pagatpatan (A.C. No. 4562 June 15, 2005)
court-awarded attorney's fees of P5,000.00, thus impliedly admitting the The complainants, sued their mother, Renato C. Aguilar and Philip
right of respondent David to attorney's fees. Arnold Palmer Bradfield for the rescission of a contract of sale.
They secured judgment under which Aguilar was to pay them
₱155,000.
It is further shown by the records that in the motion filed by Corpus
before the Court of Appeals for the reconsideration of its decision the
order of the lower court granting P30,000.00 attorney's fee's to On April 15, 1994, respondent, under a secret agreement with
respondent David, he admitted that he was the first to acknowledge that Aguilar, accepted ₱150,000 from the latter as partial payment,
respondent David was entitled to compensation for legal services issuing a receipt for the amount. He then deposited the money in his
rendered when he sent the check for P2,000 in his letter, and he is still personal bank account without the knowledge of complainants.
to compensate the respondent but only to the extent of P10,000.00. Until now, respondent adamantly refuses to surrender the money
This admission serves only to further emphasize the fact that petitioner to complainants, despite the successive Orders.
Corpus was aware all the time that he was liable to pay attorney's fees
to respondent David which is therefore inconsistent with his position Respondent: admits his secret agreement with and receipt of the
that the services of respondent David were gratuitous, which did not money from Aguilar, interposing as his defense the fact that the
entitle said respondent to compensation. complainants and their mother owed him the money he
appropriated for services previously rendered. In support of his
It may be advanced that respondent David may be faulted for not argument, the respondent narrated his years of service as counsel for
reducing the agreement for attorney's fees with petitioner Corpus in the complainants and their mother. He alleged the amounts they
writing. However, this should be viewed from their special relationship. owed him although he presented no evidence of any agreement
It appears that both have been friends for several years and were co- between him and the complainants for the exact amount of his
members of the Civil Liberties Union. In addition, respondent David and compensation.
petitioner's father, the late Rafael Corpus, were also close friends.
Respondent cited the need to protect the money from other persons
Moreover, the payment of attorney's fees to respondent David may also claiming to be heirs of Eusebio Montera and from the volatile
be justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and temperament of the complainants but did not present any evidence at
you give which is based on the principle that "no one shall unjustly all to prove either claim. Thus, these claims should be ignored.
enrich himself at the expense of another."
Because the respondent admitted concealing his clients’ money, the
There was no contract for contingent fee between Corpus and only question in our minds is how severe his punishment should be.
respondent David. Contingent fees depend on an express contract Board of Governors of the IBP: resolved to suspend the respondent
therefor. Thus, "an attorney is not entitled to a percentage of the for one year.
amount recovered by his client in the absence of an express contract to
that effect" ISSUE: What is the appropriate punishment for respondent?
(SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS)
In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to respondent David as
compensation for his services, on a quantum meruit basis, it is proper to RATIO:
consider all the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case
particularly the following:
In Aldovino v. Pujalte, respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte similarly faced
disbarment charges for having withheld his clients’ money in violation of
The extent of the services rendered by respondent David should be Canon 16. Pujalte alleged a lien for his fees over the contested amount
considered together with the extent of the services of Petitioner's other but adduced no evidence of this supposed lien. As a penalty for his
counsel, Atty. Rosauro Alvarez, It is undisputed that Atty. Rosauro infraction, Atty. Pujalte was suspended for a year.
Alvarez had rendered legal services as principal counsel for more shall
six (6) years while respondent David has rendered legal services as
collaborating counsel for almost four (4) years. However, in the more recent case of de Guzman Buado and Lising v.
Layag which involved a violation of Canons 15, 16 and 17, the Court En
Banc imposed the much heavier penalty of indefinite suspension.
While it appears that it was Atty. Alvarez who laid down the basic theory
and foundation of the case of petitioner Corpus in the administrative
case and later in the civil case, respondent David also advanced legal In that case, Atty. Eufracio Layag, the lawyer of the complainants Lising
and de Guzman, successfully prosecuted a case against Inland
Trailways, Inc., which issued three checks, one payable to Layag, one The amount of P500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair compensation for
payable to Lising and one payable to de Guzman who had already the legal services. The imposition of legal interest is unwarranted.
passed away. Layag received all three checks but did not inform the
complainants. He then gave them to one Marie Paz Gonzales for SC: There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense,
encashment on the strength of a SPA purportedly executed by the late attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a
de Guzman. This SPA authorized Gonzales to encash any check lawyer by his client for the legal services rendered to the latter. On
received in settlement of the case. Even after complainants learned of the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be
the issuance of the checks two years later and demanded delivery of awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the
the proceeds, Layag refused to do so. In imposing upon Layag the losing party to the prevailing party.
penalty of indefinite suspension, the Court En Banc considered his
years of experience as a lawyer, his ignorance of the law, and his
The issue in this case concerns attorney's fees in the ordinary
violation of three Canons.
concept. Generally, the amount of attorney's fees due is that stipulated
in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the
Even though, on its face, this case has more in common with Pujalte lawyer's compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney's
than with Layag, a one-year suspension seems too lenient for a fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth
number of reasons. of the attorney's services. Courts may ascertain also if the attorney's
fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable under the
circumstances. In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to
First, the respondent in this case has been a practicing lawyer since
recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138
1974 and even runs his own small law firm. For all his vast experience,
of the Rules of Court.
however, he claims that he has done nothing wrong by concealing
We have identified the circumstances to be considered in determining
and withholding his clients’ money from them. Coming from a
the reasonableness of a claim for attorney's fees as follows:
seasoned practitioner of the law, this attitude is inexcusable.
(1) the amount and character of the service rendered;
(2) labor, time, and trouble involved;
Second, the respondent had other means of recovering his fees, (3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which
having filed a case for that purpose which was, however, dismissed for the services were rendered;
his failure to properly implead an indispensable party. In short, having (4) the responsibility imposed;
botched his own effort to recover his fees, he sought to simply (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by
subvert both law and proper procedure by holding on to the the controversy or involved in the employment;
money. (6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the
services;
Bach vs. Ongkiko Law Offices G.R. No. 160334. September 11, (7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney;
2006 (8) the results secured; and
Petitioner Bach engaged the services of law firm Ongkiko Kalaw (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized
Manhit & Accorda Law Offices to represent him in a Petition for that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The parties signed a "Fee is contingent than when it is not.
Agreement," for the legal services to be rendered by respondent.
However, respondent withdrew its appearance as counsel of Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
petitioner, due to policy differences. Respondent sent the enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer in
termination billing for the services they rendered and billed petitioner determining his fees:
the total amount of P1,000,000.00 plus 2% interest for every month of (a) the time spent and extent of services rendered or
delay in payment, based on the provision for termination of services required;
stated in their Fee Agreement, thus: (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
Despite respondent's demands for his legal fees, petitioner failed and (c) the importance of the subject matter;
refused to pay. Thus, respondent filed a Complaint for a sum of money. (d) the skill demanded;
Respondent prayed for the payment of lawful fees for services (e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of
rendered, plus 2% interest from date of final demand until paid; the acceptance of the proffered case;
exemplary damages; billable time spent in prosecuting the case, plus (f) the customary charges for similar services and the
another P150,000.00 for any appeal taken; and P50,000.00 as litigation schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs;
expenses and the cost of suit. (g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
resulting to the client from the service;
Petitioner filed a MTD on the ground that respondent's claim had (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
already been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished. (i) the character of the employment, whether occasional or
Petitioner contended that prior to respondent's withdrawal as established; and
counsel petitioner had already paid respondent's services in the (j) the professional standing of the lawyer.
total amount of P200,000.00. On 9 August 1999, the Motion to Dismiss
was denied by the RTC for lack of merit. Petitioner failed to file his In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to respondent as
Answer; thus, he was declared in default and respondent was allowed compensation for their services on quantum meruit, based on
to present its evidence ex parte. the factors abovequoted, it is proper to consider all the facts
RTC rendered its judgment in favor of the respondent: 1. The and circumstances obtaining in this case.
amount of P750,000.00 as plaintiff's lawful fees for services rendered
under Civil Case No. 95-224, plus interest at the rate of 2% per month It is undisputed that respondent firm had rendered services as counsel
from the date of demand until paid; 2. P700,000.00 representing billable for the petitioners consisting of annotating notice of lis pendens on the
time which was spent in prosecuting this case; 3. P50,000.00 as and conjugal properties of petitioner and his wife; filing the Petition for
litigation expenses, and 4. Costs of suit. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; preparing and filing various pleadings
and documents relevant to the case; obtaining a freeze order of
CA modified the RTC Decision: Accordingly, the award of petitioner's funds in the UCPB; attending hearings in Civil Case No. 05-
P700,000.00 representing billable time allegedly spent in the 224, and sending notices to petitioner updating the latter of the status of
prosecution of the case a quo is hereby DELETED. All other aspects of the case. Nothing in Civil Case No. 95-224 so far appears complicated
the appealed DECISION are UPHELD. and no extra ordinary skill was needed for lawyers of respondent Law
Firm to accomplish what they had done in the case before they
Petitioner contends that the P750,000 awarded to the respondent by withdrew their appearance. We do not find herein a situation so intricate
way of quantum meruit, with interest of 2% a month from date of that demands more than a careful scrutiny of the legal matters involved.
demand until fully paid, is excessive, unreasonable and confiscatory. These are simply the normal duties of a lawyer that he is bound by law
Thus, petitioner prays for reduction of the same. to render to his clients with utmost fidelity for which his client must not
be burdened to pay an extra price. It bears stressing that at the time
ISSUE: W/N under the concept of quantum meruit, the amount of respondent firm withdrew their appearance due to policy differences
p750,000 as fees for services rendered with interest pegged at 2% a with petitioner, the case was still in its initial stage.
month from date of demand until fully paid is reasonable- NO.
Guided by the above yardstick and so much of the pertinent data as are ISSUE: WON respondents were entitled to additional legal fees - NO
extant in the records of this case and in the exercise of our sound
discretion, we hold that the amount of P500,000.00 is a reasonable and The SC held that the professional engagement between petitioner and
fair compensation for the legal services rendered by respondent to the respondents was governed by the principle of quantum meruit which
petitioner. means "as much as the lawyer deserves." The recovery of attorney’s
fees on this basis is permitted, as in this case, where there is no
The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to private express agreement for the payment of attorney’s fees. Basically, it is a
respondent as attorney's fees is unwarranted. Even as we agree legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running
that parties can freely stipulate on the terms of payment, still the away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it.
imposition of interest in the payment of attorney's fees is not justified. In In the same vein, it avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the lawyer
the case of Cortes v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that Article 2209 of the himself.
Civil Code does not even justify the imposition of legal interest on the
payment of attorney's fees as it is a provision of law governing ordinary Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility advises lawyers to
obligations and contracts. It deleted the 6% interest imposed by the avoid controversies with clients concerning their compensation and to
appellate court on the payment of attorney's fees. It ratiocinated by resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
citing Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Philippine National Bank, thus: Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when
circumstances force lawyers to resort to it.
Contracts for attorney's services in this jurisdiction stands
upon an entirely different footing from contracts for the In the case at bar, respondents’ motion for payment of their lawyers’
payment of compensation for any other services. x x x [A]n fees was not meant to collect what was justly due them; the fact was,
attorney is not entitled in the absence of express contract to they had already been adequately paid. Demanding P50 million on top
recover more than a reasonable compensation for his of the generous sums and perks already given to them was an act of
services; and even when an express contract is made, the unconscionable greed which is shocking to this Court. This despicable
court can ignore it and limit the recovery to reasonable behavior gives lawyering a bad name in the minds of some people. The
compensation if the amount of the stipulated fee is found by vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of law is a
the court to be unreasonable. This is a very different rule from decent profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation
that announced in section 1091 of the Civil Code with should be but a mere incident. Respondents’ claim for additional legal
reference to the obligation of contracts in general, where it is fees was not justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based on
said that such obligation has the force of law between the percentage, absent an express agreement to that effect. The payments
contracting parties. Had the plaintiff herein made an express to them in cash, checks, free products and services from petitioner’s
contract to pay his attorney an uncontingent fee of P2,115.25 business — all of which were not denied by respondents — more than
for the services to be rendered in reducing the note here in sufficed for the work they did. The "full payment for settlement" should
suit to judgment, it would not have been enforced against him have discharged petitioner’s obligation to them.
had he seen fit to oppose it, as such a fee is obviously far
greater than is necessary to remunerate the attorney for the Sps. Jacinto v. Banagot, Jr., AC No. 8494, October 5, 2016
work involved and is therefore unreasonable. In order to This administrative case stems from the complaint brought the Spouses
enable the court to ignore an express contract for attorney's Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, then 81 and 76 years of age, respectively,
fees, it is necessary to show, as in other contracts, that it is against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for the latter's unjust and dishonest
contrary to morality or public policy (Art.1255, Civil Code). It is treatment of them as his clients.
enough that it is unreasonable or unconscionable.
(Emphases supplied.) The complainants averred that a private survey team had conducted a
survey of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351 pursuant to the order of the RTC in
We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers connection with the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title of said lot
are not merchants. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital by the owners; that after conducting the perimeter survey, the survey
that yields profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done team had tried to enter the premises owned by them but they had
or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which prevented the team from doing so because their premises had already
enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is been segregated by virtue of the issuance of OCT No. P-3387; that their
impressed with a public interest, for which it is subject to State land covered by OCT No. P-3387 had already been subdivided into
regulation. nine lots; that the survey team had then desisted from proceeding with
their survey of their land but had nonetheless informed them that they
A lawyer is not merely the defender of his client's cause and a trustee of would return another time for the survey; and that this had forced them
his client's cause of action and assets; he is also, and first and to consult a lawyer on the legal remedies to prevent the intrusion on
foremost, an officer of the court and participates in the fundamental their property.
function of administering justice in society. It follows that a lawyer's
compensation for professional services rendered are subject to the The Complainants had then consulted with the respondent, briefing him
supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges on their concern, and delivering to him the documents pertinent to their
and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the services land; that after scrutinizing the documents, respondent had told them
rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal that he would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify
profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his attorney's oath as an the order of the RTC for the reconstitution of the lost title; Respondent
officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority of the had then insinuated that one of their lots would be his attorney's
courts to regulate his right to charge professional fees. fees; and that they had not initially agreed to the insinuation
because the lots had already been allocated to each of their 7
Pineda vs. De Jesus G.R. No. 155224. August 23, 2006 children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a
portion of Lot No. 37926-H with an area of 250 sq m.
The spouses Vinson sought to have their marriage declared null so
petitioner Vinson hired the respondents to represent him in the
Soon after the respondent unilaterally prepared the Memorandum of
proceedings. During the pendency of the case, Aurora Pineda proposed
Agreement (MOA). The complainants were then surprised to know that
a settlement to Vinson regarding visitation rights over their minor child
the terms of the MOA did not reflect the true intentions being
and separation of properties to which Vinson agreed. Such was also
contemplated in their previous discussions. Contrary to what they
approved by the trial court and subsequently, the court declared their
had agreed, a different area which is 37925-G under TCT No. 121708
marriage null and void. The respondents thereafter billed Vinson
was written and the lot area was also increased from 250 sq. m. to 300
additional legal fees amounting to P16 M despite having been
sq. m.
compensated throughout the proceedings and even availing of Vinson’s
products and services from his dermatology clinic for free, which was
The complainants then decided to see Atty. Bangot to have the MOA be
extended to their families and relatives. Vinson refused to pay the
revoked because they felt that they were deceived, and that respondent
additional legal fees and instead issued checks totalling P1.12M as full
took advantage of their old age. They also offered to pay respondent in
payment for settlement. However, the respondents filed a motion for
cash, fair enough for the services he had rendered.
payment of lawyers fees for P50M in the RTC which ordered Vinson to
pay them a few million each which was eventually reduced upon appeal
However, respondent refused to revoke the MOA. He even
to the CA.
challenged complainants to file an appropriate case in court
against him. Likewise, he refused the offer to pay his services in
cash alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and terms must be reasonable.
claimed that complainants possession would not be disturbed and that
he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised. He also breached the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, including among others, Canon 20 and Rule 20.4.
However, complainants came to know that the Manifestation filed by
respondent Atty. Bangot is not a preparatory pleading for certiorari. No Also, even if this charge was his first infraction, the grossness of his
way could it even stop the intrusion into their property. violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the various relevant canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility absolutely warranted his
Feeling aggrieved, the complainants decided to bring their complaint suspension from the practice of law for five (5) years effective upon his
against the respondent. receipt of this decision, with warning of sterner sanctions should he
hereafter commit a similar offense.
Respondent: denied the allegations of the complainants. He
insisted that the complaint against him was a harassment tactic In addition, the respondent should not be entitled to receive any
designed to intimidate him from seeking judicial remedies to settle attorney's fees in view of the worthlessness of the professional services
their dispute on the validity of the MOA; that the MOA was valid; that he supposedly rendered. There is no question, as ruled in Sanchez v.
the Manifestation for Information he had filed in court prevented the Aguilos, that every attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and
intrusion into the complainants' land; that the administrative complaint reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance
was designed to insure the derailment of his application for a judgeship and request of his client; and that for as long as the attorney is in good
position, and to cover up the negligence of the complainants' counsel as faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the
the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2008-302 (for annulment and/or client, he should have a reasonable compensation for such services.
rescission of agreement), which case was dismissed for failure to Yet, equally without question is that the attorney should not accept the
comply with the requirement for the prior barangay conciliation engagement that is way above his ability and competence to handle, for
proceedings; and that they had voluntarily signed the MOA without there will then be no basis for him to accept any amount as attorney's
intimidation, fraud or undue influence. fees; or that he should at least begin to perform the contemplated task
undertaken for the client to entitle him to be compensated on the basis
IBP Commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended of quantum meruit.
from the practice of law for 1 year for his unfair and injudicious
treatment of the complainants as his clients; IBP Board of Governors
increased the duration of the respondent's recommended penalty to
suspension from the practice of law for 2 years; CANON 21
A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF
WON the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
in his dealings with the complainants?—YES (penalty: 5 years TERMINATED
suspension)
WON respondent violated Canon 20 and Rule 20.4 of the CPR?—YES

To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the following

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his
factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit: (a) the time spent and the client except;
extent of the services rendered or required; (b) the novelty and difficulty
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
of the questions involved; (c) the importance of the subject matter; (d)
the skill demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a consequences of the disclosure;
result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for (b) When required by law;
similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he (c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
belongs; (g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits employees or associates or by judicial action.
resulting to the client from the service; (h) the contingency or certainty
of compensation; (i) the character of the employment, whether Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
occasional or established; and j) the professional standing of the information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
lawyer. same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with
full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged Manifestation
for Information constituted the respondent's rendition of professional Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client,
services for the complainants. Although he did claim that the filing of the give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such
Manifestation for Information had prevented any intrusion on their information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
property, thereby fulfilling his end of the contract, the worth of processing, or any similar purpose.
such minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when
taken in the context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925-G Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
with 300 square meters in area. The two-paged Manifestation for partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Information was not even the procedural precursor of the promised
petition for certiorari. Moreover, he did not actually file the petition for Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to
certiorari as he had promised. And, lastly, he did nothing more after prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
filing the Manifestation for Information. confidences or secrets of the clients.
The respondent appears to have impressed on the complainants at the Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's
time of their negotiations that the attorney's fees in the form of the lot affairs even with members of his family.
would be delivered to him only on a contingent basis. Again, he had
misrepresented himself to them because the express terms of the MOA Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
stipulated that "this agreement shall take effect immediately upon the particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
signing of the parties [and] cannot be revoked, amended or modified by
the Second Party without the consent of the First Party." Perez vs. Dela Torre [A.C. No. 6160.  March 30, 2006.]
Nestor Perez, the barangay captain in Camarines Sur, charged Atty.
As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee arrangement. Danilo de la Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a
Indeed, a contingent fee arrangement is a contract in writing in which lawyer for representing conflicting interests.
the fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the
action, is made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or The charge stemmed from an incident were suspects for murder and
defend a supposed right. The amount of the contingent fee agreed upon kidnapping, specifically Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila were
by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for apprehended. During such time, Atty. Dela Torre made representations
his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher that he could secure the suspects’ freedom if they sign prepared
compensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk extrajudicial confessions, and unknown to the two accused, Atty. Dela
that the lawyer may get nothing should the suit fail. Such arrangement Torre was already representing the heirs of the murder victim. Hence,
is generally recognized as valid and binding in this jurisdiction but its
cases were filed against them based on such confessions.

Atty. Dela Torre denied the accusations explaining that it was the
accused who approached him regarding the extrajudicial confessions
and conferred with them in the presence of their parents regarding their
rights.

IBP recommended that he be suspended for 1 year from the practice of

law for violating Rule 15.03 of the CPR which the Board of Governors
modified by increasing it to two years. It held that the complainant was
able to prove by substantial evidence his charge against Atty. de la
Torre due to the fact that Vicki de Chavez, the victim’s daughter testified
that they did retain the lawyer’s services and admitted she was present
when Atty. de la Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on one
occasion.

ISSUE: WON Atty. De la Torre is guilty of representation of conflicting

interests – Yes.
SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the practice of law

There is conflict of interests 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. 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.

There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance

of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything 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.

The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on

principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-
client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The
nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.

To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his
legal services to accused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who
sought his assistance in executing their extrajudicial confessions.
Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as counsel after
apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced
that the accused were under no compulsion to give their confession.

The excuse proferred by the respondent does not exonerate him from
the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.

As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was representing

Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in the murder of the victim
Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing the family of the
murder victim. Clearly, his representation of opposing clients in
the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity
to his clients.

What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by

the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their
participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully
well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the
victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the
law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding
to accused’s choice of counsel. It did not cross his mind to inhibit
himself from acting as their counsel and instead, he even assisted
them in executing the extrajudicial confession.