FACTS: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) instituted an administrative case against Atty Kho, a former clerk of court of an RTC, after an audit by the former found that the latter failed to remit P60K (confiscated cash bonds) and P5K(Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund). Atty Kho stated that these amounts were stored in the courts safety vaults, as his usual practice. The audit team advised him that he should deposit such amounts to the Judicial Development Fund account and Atty Kho complied with the directives. Subsequently, the ICA received a complaint that Atty Kho, along with his common-law wife, a stenographer, was engaged with lending out to court employees money in his possession as clerk of court, personally deriving profit from the interest earned. The OCA found Atty Kho liable of violating an OCA Circular because he kept the funds in a safety vault for more than a year. The OCA then recommended that its report be docketed as an A.C. and Kho be imposed a P10K fine.
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty. Kho is liable.
HELD: YES. OCA recommendations VALID.
RATIO: Dishonesty Conduct Kho failed to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with him. The failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. It diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time. His malfeasance prima facie contravenes Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. And although Kho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, he was nevertheless liable for failing to immediately deposit the collections for the judiciary funds.
Unlawful conduct Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.
CHUA V. MESINA
Facts: Mesina was, for years, the Chua spouses legal counsel and adviser upon whom they reposed trust and confidence. They were in fact lessees of a building (Burgos Property) owned by Mesinas family, and another property (Melencio Property), also owned by Mesinas family where the Chua spouses constructed their house. These two properties were mortgaged by the registered owner, Mesinas mother, Mrs. Mesina, in favor of the Planters Development Bank to secure a loan she obtained. As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, Atty. Mesina convinced the Chua spouses to help Mrs. Mesina to settle her obligation in consideration for which the Melencio property would be sold to them at P850.00/sq. m. The spouses Chua and their business partner, Marcelina Hsia, settled Mrs. Mesinas bank obligation in the amount of P983,125.40. A Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985 conveying the Melencio property for P85,400.00 was thereafter executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose name appears therein as Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of complainants. As complainants were later apprised of the amount of capital gains tax they were to pay, they consulted respondent about it. Respondent thus suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be executed, antedated to 1979 before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment of capital gains tax. As suggested by respondent, another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated February 9, 1979 was executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose name again appears therein as Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of complainants wherein the purchase price was also indicated to be P85,400.00. After liquidating the advances made by the Chua spouses in the redemption of the MESINA properties, Mrs. Mesina was found to have an existing balance due the spouses in the amount of P400,000.00, on account of which they advised respondent about it. Respondent, by Affidavit acknowledged such obligation to be his and undertook to settle it within two years. Complainants were subsequently issued on a title over the Melencio property. Not long after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale or in February 1986, one Tecson filed an Affidavit dated charging Mrs. Mesina, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the said Deed of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code. In his complaint affidavit, Tecson alleged that he was also a lessee of the Melencio property and was, along with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that contrary to their agreement, the property was sold only to complainant and her co-complainant, to his exclusion. Tecson went on to relate that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the Melencio property and was antedated to evade payment of capital gains tax. Tecson submitted documents showing that indeed the July 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale was antedated. Respondent thereupon hatched a plan to dodge the falsification charge against Mrs. Mesina et al. He proposed to complainants that they would simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina. Heeding the proposal of respondent, complainants executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1986 conveying to Felicisima M. Melencio the Melencio property for P85,400.00.A new title was accordingly issued in the name of Felicisima M. Melencio, the owners copy of which was entrusted to complainants. Tecson subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance dated September 5, 1986 alleging that his filing of the criminal complaint arose out of mere misunderstanding and difference with herein complainants and their co-respondents and he had no sufficient evidence against them. Some years later, Mesina approached the Chua spouses and told them that he would borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas title with the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of sale over the Melencio property in complainants favor. In fact, respondent gave complainants a written undertaking dated May 2, 1990. In the meantime, Mrs. Mesina died in the early part of 1991. Despite respondents repeated promises to effect the transfer of title in complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio property was being offered for sale to the public. The spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina Hsia thus filed a complaint against Mesina for Declaration of Nullity of Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property.
ISSUE Whether or not Mesina is guilty of Gross Misconduct?
HELD This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government is aggravating. Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed dishonesty. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of his mothers title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at arms length. In fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more specifically, Canon 1, Rules. 1.01 and Rules 1.02.
SORIANO V. DIZON
Facts: A taxi driver (Soriano) filed an action for the disbarment of Atty. Dizon, on the grounds that Dizon was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violated Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Soriano allegedly fell victim to Dizon, who was found to have: a. Driven his car under the influence of liquor; b. Reacted violently and attempted assault for over a simple traffic incident; c. Shot at Soriano, who was unarmed and not in the position to defend himself (treachery); d. Denied his acts despite positive evidence against him (dishonesty); e. Guilty of dishonesty, claiming to be mauled by the victim (Kawawang driver, binaril na nga, may lakas pa daw mag maul ng attorney na may baril. Hindi din tanga mag rason si Dizon diba?); f. Despite neing granted probation, he did not satisfy his civil liabilities to the victim (Ano ba problema nito?!)
Issues: (1) Is Dizons crime of Frustrated Homicide considered a crime involving moral turpitude (2) Does his guilt to such crime warrant disbarment?
Held: (1) Yes. Moral Turpitude is everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals! Dizon was obviously the aggressor for having pursued and shot Soriano, not only because of his treachery, but also his intent to escape, betrayed by his attempt to wipe off his prints from the gun. His inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident clearly indicates his non-fitness to be a lawyer. (2) Yes. His illegal possession of fire-arms, and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities all justify disbarment. The court reminds him that in oath and in the CPR, he is bound to obey the laws of the land. The liabilities in question have been sitting for 4 years, unsatisfied, despite it being the condition for his probation (you ungrateful person!) Dizon displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. Manuel Dizon, hereby disbarred.
STEMMERIK V. MAS
FACTS: Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which the latter advised him that he could legally buy such properties. Atty Mas even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy, assuring that it is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he went back to Denmark. After some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found the owner of the big piece of property and stated the price of the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas the money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the necessary paperwork. When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property registered in his name, Atty Mas cant be found. He returned to the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his horror, was informed that aliens couldnt own Philippine Lands and that the property was also inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled that Atty Mas abused the trust and confidence of Stemmerik and recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of Governors adopted such recommendations.
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred.
HELD: YES! Disbarred.
RATIO: Disobeyed the Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution prohibits foreigners from buying Philippine Lands. Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
Deceitful Conduct By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately deceived his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant.
Illegal Conduct By pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
DE YSASI III V. NLRC
Facts: Petitioner was employed by his father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental sometime in April, 1980. As farm administrator, petitioner was responsible for the supervision of daily activities and operations of the sugarcane farm and attending to such other tasks as may be assigned to him by private respondent. For this purpose, he lived on the farm, occupying the upper floor of the house there. Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved to Bacolod City with his wife and commuted to work daily. He suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on two separate occasions in June and August, 1982. In November, 1982, he underwent fistulectomy, or the surgical removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. His recuperation lasted over four months. In June, 1983, he was confined for acute gastroenteritis and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from December, 1983 to January, 1984. During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private respondent took care of his medical expenses and petitioner continued to receive compensation. However, in April, 1984, without due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner made oral and written demands for an explanation for the sudden withholding of his salary. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.
Issues: (1) whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed; (2) whether or not he is entitled to reinstatement, payment of back wages, thirteenth month pay and other benefits; and (3) whether or not he is entitled to payment of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees because of illegal dismissal.
Held:
The decision of NLRC is set aside. Private respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner back wages for a period not exceeding three (3) years, without qualification or deduction, and, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year of service, a fraction of six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year. Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." Counsels must be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients with zeal
goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in court. It is just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients. The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. Both counsels herein fell short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. The records do not show that they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation even as they may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective clients. In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter "shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction."
If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same.
CORDON V. BALICANTA
FACTS: Cordon, along with her daughter, inherited some properties from her husband with the help of Atty Balicanta. Subsequently, Atty Balicanta enticed them to form a corporation to develop the real properties inherited. Such corp. was formed, and the properties were registered in the corp.s name. Atty Balicanta was the one who single- handedly ran the corp.s affairs, by being its Chairman, President, General Manager, and treasurer. By being such officers, he made a number of acts: 1) made Cordon sign a voting trust agreement; 2) made Cordon sign a SPA to sell/mortgage properties; 3) transferred title of some of the properties to other people. And by using spurious Board resolutions, Atty Balicanta also made the following acts: 1) obtained a loan from Land Bank using the properties as collateral; 2) Sold the Corps right to redeem the properties to another person; 3) demolished the ancestral home of the Cordons and sold the lot to another person. In all of these, Atty Balicanta did not account for the proceeds coming the sales and dispositions. The Cordons made several demands for Atty Balicanta to give back the properties and to account the proceeds of the loan. When such demands were unheeded, The Cordons terminated Balicantas services and filed a complaint for disbarment against the latter in the IBP. The Commissioner, in its report, recommended for Balicantas disbarment as well. The IBP Board of Governors resolved that Balicanta be suspended for 5 years for such conduct.
ISSUE/S: W/N Balicanta be disbarred 1 .
HELD: YES! Disbarred.
RATIO: Deceitful Conduct The fraudulent acts he carried out against his client followed a well thought of plan to misappropriate the corporate properties and funds entrusted to him. He started his devious scheme by making himself the President, Chairman of the Board, Director and Treasurer of the corporation, although he knew he was prohibited from assuming the position of President and Treasurer at the same time. He also entered into dishonest transactions under the cloak of sham resolutions. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him in trust by complainant and her daughter.
Side Doctrine: Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his clients property, reputation, his life, his all.
CANONS 2 & 3
IN RE: TAGORDA
Facts: Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to the last election, he admits that he made use of a card written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate for third member of the Province of Isabela & offering services as notary public (such as free consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also
1 8y vlrLue of SecLlon 12(b), 8ule 139-8 of Lhe 8ules of CourL, Lhls resoluLlon ls auLomaLlcally elevaLed Lo Lhe SC for flnal acLlon. admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of a barrio if his home municipality saying that he will continue his practice of law and for the lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary public (including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every registration).
Issue: W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising
Held: Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations is unprofessional. His acts warrant disbarment, but because of the mitigating circumstance of his youth and inexperience, he is therefore suspended. The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional. It is also unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the bar (as it results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).
ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO
FACTS A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isnt served in any way by the prohibition.
ISSUE Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
HELD Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an annulment of marriage specialist he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond. Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyers name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine!etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.
CANOY V. ORTIZ
Facts: A complaint was filed on April 2001 by Canoy against Atty. Ortiz, accusing him for misconduct and malpractice. It is alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the process of the case. On April 2000, Canoy was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the case. Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes his failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer.
Issue: W/N Atty. Ortiz should be sanctioned?
Held: Yes. Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned, suspension for 1 month. Atty. Ortiz violated Canons 18 and 22. Under Canon 18.03, a lawyer owes fidelity to his clients cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him. He owes his entire devotion to the interest of the client. His negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Under Canon 18.04, the relationship of a lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is an ever present need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark. A lawyer cannot shift the blame to complainant for failing to inquire the status about the case as this is one of the lawyers duties. The adoption of additional duties due to the election of Atty. Ortiz as councilor does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The CPR allows a lawyer to withdraw his legal service if the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office since councilors are not expressly prohibited to exercise their legal profession.
LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
Facts: A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients & encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising financial assistance and expeditious collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-atty relationship with Linsangan. Also, he attached respondents calling card:
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719
Back
SERVICES OFFERED: CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS ABROAD. In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulating of said calling card.
Issue: W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services
Held: Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Thus, lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the profession in the publics estimation). With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03, which proscribes ambulance chasing (involving solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to protect community from barratry and champertry. As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by Linsangan, a lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited. reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: (a) lawyers name; (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; (c) address; (d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced. Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance. The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal profession.
CANONS 4, 5 & 6
SUAREZ V. PLATON
Facts: Suarez was charged with sedition which was subsequently dismissed. He in turn filed a case for arbitrary detention against Lieutenant Orais. After the case was handed to Judge Platon following several changes in trial judge and several refusals by fiscals to prosecute the case.
Issue: Should mandamus issue to compel the fiscal to reinstate the case?
Held: Yes. It is unquestionable that in the proper cases, the prosecutors must reinvestigate in order to properly dispense justice. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that a prosecutor is the representative of a sovereignty; he is interested only in the fact that justice is served, and this also includes his refusing to prosecute if the innocence of the accused is quite clear. He is a servant of the law, and his two-fold aim is not to let the guilty escape nor let the innocent suffer. He is not at liberty to strike foul blows because it is his duty to refrain from doing so as much as it is to use legitimate methods of prosecution.
RAMOS V. IMBANG
FACTS In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only. The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each appearance in court, respondent charged her P350. After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
HELD Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides: Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful: xxx xxx xxx (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: xxx xxx xxx (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function.hLLp://sc.[udlclary.gov.ph/[urlsprudence/2007/augusL2007/6788.hLm - _fLn26#_fLn26 Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession. Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides: Sec. 14. xxx The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary. Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law.hLLp://sc.[udlclary.gov.ph/[urlsprudence/2007/augusL2007/6788.hLm - _fLn31#_fLn31 This undertaking includes the observance of the above- mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel. Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done), respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood. Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice. There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obligation in favor of the client)hLLp://sc.[udlclary.gov.ph/[urlsprudence/2007/augusL2007/6788.hLm - _fLn34#_fLn34 nor was it given to him for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail bond). Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept them.
CATU V. RELLOSA
FACTS Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the possession of one of the units in the said building by Elizabeth (sister in law of Catu) and Pastor, who ignored demands to vacate the place. The parties went to the Lupon Tagapamayapa to try to settle the issue amicably. Respodent Rellosa as Punong Barangay presided over the conciliation proceedings. The parties failed to settle their case, and the petitioner brought the case to court. Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an administrative complaint against Rellosa for his act of impropriety. IBP committee on bar discipline, after investigation, ruled that Rellosa violated Rule 6.03 2 and RA 6713 3 . The committee recommended Rellosas suspension from practice for 1 month.
ISSUE W/N Rellosa violated Rule 6.03
HELD No. Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government service. Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of. As such incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA 7160 4 , which actually allows him to practice his profession. However, being a public official, he is also governed by Revised Civil Service Rules, which requires him first to obtain a written permission from his department head who is the Sec. of DILG. This he failed to do. SC ruled that Rellosa violated the lawyers oath (to uphold and obey law), Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct), and Canon 7 (lawyer shall uphold integrity and dignity of the profession), for a lawyer who disobeys law disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. SC punished Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly advised him to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza. __________
Hofilena question: under RA 6713, are lawyers allowed to practice their profession? Answer: Yes, RA 6713 says if the constitution or law allows it Public officers however are subject to Civil Service Rules which state that should they engage in private practice of their profession, they should first secure a written permission from their department head.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
2 A lawyer shall noL, afLer leavlng governmenL servlce, accepL engagemenL or employmenL ln connecLlon wlLh any maLLer ln whlch he lnLervened whlle ln servlce 3 Code of ConducL and LLhlcal SLandards for ubllc Cfflcers and Lmployees 4 Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent. Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK's liquidation. After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former President Marcos. These respondents were represented by Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General
and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting 'engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza?
HELD NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept of 'matter under Rule 6.03. The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition. The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al. The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096. Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation case is not significant and substantial. We note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK. Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been a dead issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed more than four years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Supreme Court which were subsequently remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances under which the motion to disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect. It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger that former government employee may compromise confidential official information in the process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for there were no sides.