1. JUAN DULALIA vs. ATTY. PABLO C.

CRUZ April 25, 2007

2. Emilia R. Hernandez v. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla June 20, 2012
3. FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA August 25, 2005
4. JONAR SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. EDISON RAFANAN October 5, 2004
5. Spouses David and Williams vs. Enriquez February 27, 2006
6. De Roy vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757 January 29, 1988
7. Zualo vs. CFI of Cebu, CA-G.R. No. 27718-R, July 7, 1961
8. Abad v. Bleza 145 SCRA 1 1986
9. BENITO, vs. BALINDONG February 23, 2009
10. PITCHER, vs. ATTY. GAGATE October 08, 2013
11. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT July 13, 1995

JUAN DULALIA vs. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ

Facts: Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, respondent, ischar
ged by Juan Dulalia, Jr., complainant, of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainants wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for buildingpermit for the
construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the requirements for the purpose, she
failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a
letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan
saying that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects
particularly the imminent danger and damage to their properties, health and safety of the
neighbors adjoining the site. By complainants claim, respondent opposed the application for
building permit because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to
respondents marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano while respondents marriage with Carolina
Agaton is still subsisting. Respondent married Imelda Soriano at the Clark County, Nevada,
USA, when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect. He invokes good faith,
however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was
Article 83of the Civil Code. For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall
have retroactive application, there is a qualification there under that it should not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. In
respondents case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the
doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable provision when he
contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned
him, an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is
no showing that he was romantically involved with any woman. And, it is undisputed that his first
wife has remained an absentee even during the pendency of this case. Respondents
misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the time he contracted his
second marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards his
second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may not go cot free.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Responsibility?

Held: Yes. Respondents claim that he was not aware that the Family Code because he was in
the United Stated does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith." It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the
forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments,
recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal
principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge
competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.

DUTIES OF A LAWYER, Failure to apply proper legal matters

Emilia R. Hernandez v. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla
A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012
Sereno, J.:

FACTS:
The records show that Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in an
ejectment case filed against them by Duigan with the RTC which ruled in favor of complainant.
Hernandez appealed with Court of Appeals ordering them to file their Appellants Brief. On their
behalf, Atty. Venancio Padilla filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants Brief.
Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the CA granted.

A disbarment case was then filed by Emilia Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B.
Padilla, for negligence in the handling of her case. It was claimed that by ignoring the resolution,
the lawyer acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law". It was also raised
that when asked about the status of the appeal, Atty. Padilla failed to inform them of the adverse
decision.

In his defense, respondent argued that he was not the lawyer of complainant as he had never
met the complainant. The respondent claimed that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because
he honestly believed that it is this pleading which was required.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Padilla has neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by improperly
submitting a wrong motion.

HELD:
Yes. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it was
respondents duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. As a
litigator, he was expected to know the proper procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads that a
lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education
programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical

training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint him with the facts of the case does
not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not
complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from
his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough
time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainants husband
only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent
should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever
pleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

The failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment is negligence on his part.
Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the clients case. Lawyers
should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their
duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.

Thus, Atty. Venancio Padilla is suspended him from the practice of law for 6 months.

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA, Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25,
2005, discussed the tests of conflicts of interest. THUS:
X x x.
The issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.
Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts. This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste.[8] In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the clients 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.[9] It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery 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.[10]
In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one
client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.
[11]Developments in jurisprudence have particularized various tests to determine whether a
lawyers conduct lies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight
for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the
other client.[12] Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same
lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of
that duty.[13] Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.[14]
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no
moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer
has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly
unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit,
are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.[15]
In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent filed the replevin case on behalf of
AIB he was still the counsel of record of the complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do
not sustain respondents theory that since the ejectment case and the replevin case are
unrelated cases fraught with different issues, parties, and subject matters, the prohibition is

inapplicable. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously
constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. While the
respondent may assert that the complainant expressly consented to his continued
representation in the ejectment case, the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the
facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the complainant and AIB
as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
X x x.
In view of all of the foregoing, we find the respondent guilty of serious misconduct for
representing conflicting interests.
X x x.
In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests a
penalty ranging from one to three years suspension was imposed.[28] In this case, we find that
a suspension from the practice of law for one year is warranted.

Atty. Pablo Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012.

Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege
bestowed on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications
for it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court
when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty.
Magat should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that
there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do
was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed. Rodrigo Molina vs.
Atty. Ceferino Magat A.C. No. 1900. June 13, 2012.
Attorney; Neglect etc. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. Once a lawyer agrees to
handle a case, it is that lawyers duty to serve the client with competence and
diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. When the RTC ruled against complainant and
her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what should apply is the rule on
ordinary appealed cases or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the
appellants brief be filed after the records of the case have been elevated to the CA.
Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads:
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint him with the facts of the case does
not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not
complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from
his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough
time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainants husband
only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent
should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever
pleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

JONAR SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. EDISON RAFANAN

Facts: Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP),
filed a complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan with the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). It charged Atty. Rafanan with
deceit; malpractice or other gross misconduct. Complainant alleged, among others, that
Respondent in notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to: a)make
the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants) enter the
details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make and execute the
certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in
violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. Likewise, he alleged that
Respondent executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the
case wherein he was actively representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that on a
certain date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for Complainant after the
hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his side arm and thereafter uttered
insulting words and veiled threats. Atty. Rafanan filed his verified Answer. He admitted having
administered the oath to the affiants whos Affidavits were attached to the verified Complaint. He
believed, however, that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and the
Counter-affidavits was allowed. He opined that the notation of residence certificates applied only
to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to
cases pending before courts and other government offices. He pointed out that in the latter, the
affidavits, which were sworn to before government prosecutors, did not have to indicate the
residence certificates of the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija -- some of
whom were older practitioners -- indicate the affiants residence certificates on the documents
they notarized, or have entries in their notarial register for these documents. As to his alleged
failure to comply with the certification required by Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, respondent explained that as counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or
not with the certification. To nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant who was duty-bound to
bring the said noncompliance to the attention of the prosecutor conducting the preliminary
investigation. The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2003-172 approving and
adopting the Investigating Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the entry of such
certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the affiants residence certificate. The
IBP Board of Governors found his excuse for the violations unacceptable.
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
.HELD: YES. Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires
respondent as notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that he has personally examined the affiants and
that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. Respondent
failed to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in the belief that as
counsel for the affiants -- he was not required to comply with the certification requirement. It
must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the

observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be wellinformed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments
and jurisprudence.

Spouses David and Williams vs. Enriquez [A.C. No. 6353 February 27, 2006]
Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Monday, March 26, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic
Mind
Facts: The respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in the case pending before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants.
According to the complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the
controversy.

In the case at bar, complainant argued that the counsel of thespouses acted in malicious
violation of the rules governing the practice of law, the counsel cited outdated material in his
complaint-affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then knowingly applied this stale
law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her Filipino
citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the
Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property
in Negros Oriental. As such, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez was charged with "unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney."

On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing. However, only the respondent appeared.
The parties were then directed to submit their verified position papers.

Issue: Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of professional
responsibility

Held: Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in
the latest laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act
as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge, respondent
should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the
Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.

In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution, the most basic
law of the land. Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest to the best of his/her
ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments,
and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus, in championing the interest of

clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed
by the lawyers oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the
latters cause be dismissed on a technical ground.

As such, for gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and
ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

De Roy vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757

It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep upbreast of decisions
of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistentlyreiterated, and
published in the advance report of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.s) and insuch publications as
the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.
Zualo vs. CFI of Cebu, CA-G.R. No. 27718-R, July 7, 1961
Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the rules and comply with their requirements.
They are also chargeable with notice of changes in the rules which have beenheld as including
not only express reglementary provisions but also a regular practice under the Rules of Court.
Abad v. Bleza (145 SCRA 1 [1986])
Judge charged with ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and misconduct.
To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position
unbearable As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such
acts are erroneous. However, while judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account
merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, yet it is highly imperative that they should
be conversant with basic legal principles. They are called upon to exhibit more than just a
cursory acquaintance with statutes and to keep themselves abreast of the latest laws, rulings
and jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction.