Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 119

CASES FOR LEGAL ETHICS 2015

G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991


RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as
Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.
Facts:
Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino t
o the position ofchairman of the COMELEC. (person who approaches a
court for help) argued/against thenomination because (claimed to
be) Monsod does not possess needed/demanded qualificationof having
been started/ working
at the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitutionprovi
des in Section 1, Article IX-C: There will be a Commission on Elections c
omposed of a Chairman and six (government workers in
charge) who will be natural-born people (who lawfully live in a country,
state, of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at leastt
hirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have
been candidates for anyelective position in the immediately previous/c
oming before elections. However, a majority of that/of
it, including the Chairman, will be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been started/working
at the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been started/working
at the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments did/done/performe
d grave (very mean, unfair treatment) of (ability to make wise
decisions) in confirming Monsod's appointment.
Held:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or law
suits in court. Ithugs/supports the preparation of pleadings and other p
apers event to actions and special (series of
events), the management of such actions and (series of
events) for clients, and other workswhere the work done involves the st
rong desire/formal decision about
something of the trainedlegal mind of the legal effect of facts and cond
itions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986(agreeing with, or
related to, the Constitution) commission show that the (understanding/
explanation) of the term practice of law was liberal as to think

about lawyers employed in theCommission of Audit as started/working


at the practice of law gave/given that they use their legalknowledge or
talent in their (pertaining to each person or
thing) work. The court also referred toan article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers now/recently have theiro
wn (made to do one thing very well) fields such as tax lawyers, lawyers
(who try to prove people
guilty), etc., that because of the demands of their (focusing on doing
one thing very well), lawyersstart/work
at other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, mo
st corporationlawyers are involved in management policy creation. The
refore, Monsod, who passed the bar in1960, worked with the World Ban
k Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment banktill 1986,
became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member
of the DavideCommission in 1990, can be thought
about/believed to have been started/working
at the practiceof law as lawyer-money-flow expert, lawyermanager, lawyer-small business starter, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give give permission for/agree
to the nomination of the ComelecChairman by the president is ordered
by the constitution. The power of appointment is (almost
completely/basically) within the (ability to make wise
decisions) of whom it is so vested subject tothe only condition that the
appointee should possess the qualification needed/demanded by law.Fr
om the (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something), there is no occasion for the SC to exerciseits corrective po
wer since there is no such very bad/very serious (very mean, unfair
treatment) of(ability to make wise decisions) on the part of the CA.

G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995


RAUL SESBREO, petitioner,
vs.
HON, COURT OF APPEALS, and PATRICIA GIAN, SOTERO BRANZUELA,
ANDRES C. YPIL, SANTIAGO BACAYO, BRIGIDO COHITMINGAO,
VICTORINO DINOY, GUILLERMO MONTEJO and EMILIO RETUBADO,
respondents.

Facts:
Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino t
o the position ofchairman of the COMELEC. (person who approaches a
court for help) argued/against thenomination because (claimed to
be) Monsod does not possess needed/demanded qualificationof having
been started/working
at the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitutionprovi
des in Section 1, Article IX-C: There will be a Commission on Elections c
omposed of aChairman and six (government workers in
charge) who will be natural-born people (who lawfully live in a country,
state,
etc.) of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at leastthi
rty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have be
en candidates for anyelective position in the immediately previous/com
ing before elections. However, a majority of that/of
it, including the Chairman, will be members of the Philippine Bar who h
ave beenstarted/working at the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been started/working
at the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments did/done/performe
d grave (very mean, unfair treatment) of (ability to make wise
decisions) in confirming Monsod's appointment.
Held:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or law
suits in court. Ithugs/supports the preparation of pleadings and other p
apers event to actions and special (series of
events), the management of such actions and (series of
events) for clients, and other workswhere the work done involves the st
rong desire/formal decision about
something of the trainedlegal mind of the legal effect of facts and cond
itions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986(agreeing with, or
related to, the Constitution) commission show that the (understanding/
explanation) of the term practice of law was liberal as to think
about lawyers employed in theCommission of Audit as started/working
at the practice of law gave/given that they use their legalknowledge or
talent in their (pertaining to each person or
thing) work. The court also referred toan article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers now/recently have theiro
wn (made to do one thing very well) fields such as tax lawyers, lawyers
(who try to prove people
guilty), etc., that because of the demands of their (focusing on doing
one thing very well), lawyersstart/work
at other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, mo

st corporationlawyers are involved in management policy creation. The


refore, Monsod, who passed the bar in1960, worked with the World Ban
k Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment banktill 1986,
became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member
of the DavideCommission in 1990, can be thought
about/believed to have been started/working
at the practiceof law as lawyer-money-flow expert, lawyermanager, lawyer-small business starter, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give give permission for/agree
to the nomination of the ComelecChairman by the president is ordered
by the constitution. The power of appointment is (almost
completely/basically) within the (ability to make wise
decisions) of whom it is so vested subject tothe only condition that the
appointee should possess the qualification needed/demanded by law.Fr
om the (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something), there is no occasion for the SC to exerciseits corrective po
wer since there is no such very bad/very serious (very mean, unfair
treatment) of(ability to make wise decisions) on the part of the CA.
G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995
RAUL SESBREO, petitioner,
vs.
HON, COURT OF APPEALS, and PATRICIA GIAN, SOTERO BRANZUELA,
ANDRES C. YPIL, SANTIAGO BACAYO, BRIGIDO COHITMINGAO,
VICTORINO DINOY, GUILLERMO MONTEJO and EMILIO RETUBADO,
respondents.
Facts:
Fifty-two workers sued the Area of control/area of
land of Cebu and Governor Rene Espina forrestoring back (to a
previous state) and backwages begging
for Atty. Pacquiao as advice who waslater replaced by Atty. Sesbreno. T
he workers and Atty. Sesbreno agreed that he is to be paid30% as lawy
er's fees and 20% as expenses taken from their back (moneys paid for
working). Trialcourt decided in favor of the workers and ordered the Are
a of control/area of land of Cebu torestore back (to a previous
state) them and pay them back (moneys paid for
working). The samewas promised/stated as
true in toto by the Court of Appeals and (in the
end) the Supreme Court.A (related to everyone giving something up to
reach
agreement) agreement was entered into bythe parties in April 1979. Th
e former workers gave up/canceled their right to restoring back (to a
previous state) among others. The Area of control/area of
land of Cebu released P2,300,000.00 tothe (giving out written

requests/asking) workers through Atty. Sesbreno as "Partial Happiness


(from meeting a need or reaching a
goal) of Judgment." The amount represented back (moneys paid for
working), terminal leave pay and tip pay due to the workers. Ten worke
rs filed visible signs before the trial court strongly defending/strongly
expressing that they agreed to pay Atty.Sesbreno 40% to be taken only
from their back (moneys paid for
working). The lower courtissued two orders, with which (person who
approaches a court for
help) obeyed,needing/ordering him to release P10,000.00 to each of th
e ten private people who
respondedand to keep/hold 40% of the back (moneys paid for
working) having to do with the last thing just
mentioned out of the P2,300,000.00 released to him. On March 28,
1980, the trial court fixed thelawyer's fees a total of 60% of all monies
paid to the workers. However, trial court changed theaward after notin
g that (person who approaches a court for help)'s lawyer's legal
hold wasaccidentally and
carelessly placed as 60% when it should have been only 50%. Atty. Ses
brenoappealed to the Court of Appeals claiming added/more fees for le
gal services but was evenfurther reduced to 20%.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals had the authority to reduce the amount
of lawyer's fees awardedto ask/to beger Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo, not
prevented by/not part of the
issue the contract forprofessional services signed by private people
who responded.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court noted that the contract of professional service
s entered into by theparties 6 approved (person who approaches a
court for help) to take a total of 50% from theworkers' back (moneys
paid for
working) only. The trial court, however, fixed the lawyer's fee onthe bas
is of all monies to be awarded to private people who
responded. Fifty per cent of allmonies which private people who
responded may receive from the (related to a local
area)government, according to the Court of Appeals, is too much/too
many and shocking and totally
irresponsible, not to say, opposite to the contract of professional servic
es. What a lawyer maycharge and receive as lawyer's fees is always su
bject to (law-related) control. A condition on alawyer's payment in a wri
tten contract for professional services normally controls the amount off
ees that the contracting lawyer may be allowed, unless the court finds

such specifically saidamount unreasonable shocking and totally


irresponsible. A contingent fee arrangement is validin this legal
control/area of legal
control and is generally recognized as valid and binding butmust be lai
d down in an express contract. if the lawyer's fees are found to be too
much/too many, what is reasonable under the facts or conditions (that
surround someone). (related to tiny, weird movements of
atoms) meruit, meaning "as much as he deserves," is used as the basis
fordeciding/figuring
out the lawyer's professional fees without a contract. The Supreme Cou
rtpromised that in balancing the setting apart and
distributing of the money-based award,
50% ofall monies to the lawyer and the other 50% to be set apart and
given out among all his 52 clients,is too lopsided in favor of the lawyer. The ratio makes the practice of law a com
mercialtrip/business, rather than a noble job/line of
work. It would, truly be (unexpected yet interesting, because
something happened that is the opposite of what you'd
expect) if the advice whom theyhad
hired to help would appropriate for himself 50% or even 60% of the tot
al amount collectible bythese

workers. 20% is a fair settlement. Written request is DENIED


CBD Case No. 176, 240 SCRA 310, January 20, 1995
SALLY D. BONGALONTA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ALFONSO M. MARTIJA, respondents.
Facts:
Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, me
mbers of the PhilippineBar,
with unfair and (lying, illegal behavior), in other
words: representing disagreeing interests andhelping a big
plan/layout/dishonest plan to frustrate
the execution or happiness (from meeting a need or reaching a
goal) of a judgment whichcomplainant might get.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the (related to a
large
area) Trial Court ofPasig, for estafa, against the Sps. Luisa and Solomer
Abuel. She also filed, a separate civil action,where she was able to get
an (official written order) of early (and subject to
change) attachmentand by good thing/excellence/advantage of that/of
it, a piece of real property located in Pasig,Rizal and registered in the n

ame of the Sps. Abuel. Atty. Pablito Castillo was the advice
of the Sps.Abuel in the
(earlier-said) criminal and lawsuits.
During the (time period where everyone is waiting for the next step in
a
process) of these cases,one Gregorio Lantin filed a lawsuit for collectio
n of a sum of money based on a (written promise to
pay), also with the Pasig (related to a large
area) Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the saidcase Gregorio Lanti
n was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel
weredeclared in default for their failure to file the necessary (able to
reply or react/quick to respond)pleading and (event(s) or object(s) that
prove something) exparte was received against themfollowed by a judgment by default ma
de/gave/given in favor of Gregorio Lantin. An (official written
order) of execution was, in due time, issued and the same property (be
fore that/before now) attached by complainant was charged and
collected upon.
It is further accused (of a
crime) that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) previouslymentioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed t
he same address, thesame PTR and the same IBP receipt number.
So, complainant decided
that the lawsuit filed by Gregorio Lantin was only a part of the big
plan/layout/dishonest plan of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the happiness
(from meeting a need or reaching a
goal) of the money judgment which complainant might get in the lawsu
it he filed.
After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the f
ollowing findings and
recommendations:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castill
o be SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for a period of six (6) months
for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-person who
responded Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.The complaint against Atty. Martija is
herebyDISMISSED for lack of (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something).
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
The Court agreed with the previous findings and recommendations. Th
e practice of law is not aright but a privilege given
by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue topos

sess, the qualifications needed/demanded by law for the conferment of


such privilege. One ofthese needed things is the (participation in a
custom/following
rules) of honesty and honesty.Courts are entitled to expect only comple
te honesty and honesty from the lawyers appearing andpleading befor
e them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the basic duty to make happy
(by meeting a need or reaching a
goal) that expectation, for this reason, he must swear to do nolie/disho
nesty, nor give permission for/agree to the doing of any in court.
WHEREFORE, finding person who
responded Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing alie/dishonesty in
violation of his lawyer's promise and of the Code of Professional Respon
sibility,the Court Promised
to SUSPEND him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
witha warning that commission of the same or almost the
same offense in
the future will result in the (something forced on people/an
inconvenient situation) of a worsepenalty.

CANON 1
A.C. No. 6116
August 1, 2012
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.
Facts:
Gilbert Tumbokon filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Mariano. Acc
ording to him, hereferred the case of Amable and Rosalinda in a case fo
r dividing
wall/section of the estate of thelate Benjamin Yap. They agreed that Gil
bert Tumbokon would
get ten percent of the lawyer's feesthat Atty. Mariano Pefianco would
get from the case, which agreement they reduced into writing.However
, even after Atty. Mariano Pefianco received about P40 Million as lawyer
's fees, the last thing just
mentioned refused to pay, stating in a letter that the (husband or
wife)s will be the oneto shoulder his commission after his lawyers fees
was reduced from 20% to 17%. (even though there is the existence
of) demand, Mariano refused to pay, because of
this Gilbert Tumbokonfiled the disbarment case against Mariano, furthe
r accusing that the last thing just mentionedwas also guilty of socially
wrong behavior for leaving alone (and

forgetting) his legal wifeMilagros, and her four children, and living
together with Mae Flor. He also charged him (with a crime) of working
at money-lending operation without the needed/demanded authority fr
om theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
In his defense, he promised that he accepted the case of the (husband
or wife)s on a (related to one thing depending on another thing that
might or might not
happen) basis, and advances allthe expenses. The letter according to h
im was a (fake item/making fake items), and it was the(husband or
wife)s who promised to assume the payment of Gilbert Tumbokon's co
mmission.
The IBP recommended that Atty. Mariano Pefianco be suspended for on
e year from the practiceof law.
Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Mariano Pefianco violated the Lawyer's Pro
mise, Rule 1.01, Canon 1;Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
The practice of law is carefully thought about/believed a privilege given
by the State on thosewho show that they possess and continue to poss
ess the legal qualifications for the job/line of
work. So, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard
of legal skill, sense of right and wrong, honesty, good
quality/completeness and fair dealing, and must (do/complete)their fou
r-fold duty to (community of people/all good people in the
world), the legal job/line of
work, the courts and their clients, obeying the values and normal
behaviors included in the Code.Lawyers may, this
way, be controlled/punished for any behavior that is wanting of the abo
vestandards whether in their professional or in their private ability (to
hold or do something).
In the present case, person who responded's defense that (fake
item/making fake items) hadattended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was shown as false by his July 16,
1997 letteradmitting to have
begun/tried the payment of complainant's commission but passing on t
heresponsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, person who
responded has violated Rule 9.02,[12] Canon 9 ofthe Code which prohi
bits a lawyer from dividing or saying to divide a fee for legal services wi
thpeople not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do
not get in the case at bar.
What's more, person who responded did not deny the statement (that
someone has done something
bad) that he forgotten his legal family to live
with with his mistress with whom hecreated four children not

prevented by/not part of the


issue that his moral character as well ashis moral fitness to be kept/hel
d in the Roll of Lawyers has been attacked. The settled rule is thatbetra
yal of the marriage-related promise of loyalty or sexual relations outsid
e marriage iscarefully thought about/believed disgraceful and socially
wrong as it shows deliberate ignoring (people's feelings) of the holiness
of marriage and the marriage-related promises protected bythe Constit
ution and promised/stated as true by our
laws. As a
result, the SC finds no reason to disturb the IBP's finding that person
who
respondedviolated the Lawyer's Promise and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code which forbids a lawyer fromworking at "illegal, dishonest,

socially wrong or dishonest behavior."


However, the SC finds the charge of working
at illegal money lending not to have been (good or well
enough) established. A "business"
needs/demands some form of investment and a (good)
enough number of customers to whomits output can be sold at (money
made/good thing received) on a regular
basis. The lending ofmoney to a single person without showing that suc
h service is made available to other people ona regular
basis cannot be interpreted as indicia that person who responded is
involved in thebusiness of lending."
After due (serious thought/something to think about/respect), SC put
into
use the findings andrecommendation of the IBP Board of Governors an
d SUSPENDED person who
responded fromthe active practice of law for one year.
A.C. No. 8382
April 21, 2010
ALFREDO B. ROA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, Respondent.
Facts:
In
1988, Moreno sold to Roa a parcel of land in Cupang, Antipolo for P70,0
00. Moreno did notissue a deed of sale, but a (lasting for a short
time) receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy.
Complainant learned that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not
be registered in theRegister of Deeds and that the real owner of the lot

was a certain Rubio. Moreno also admittedthat there was a pending leg
al arguments over the lot. Complainant demanded the return of thepai
d amount and filed a criminal case against person who
responded. MTC convicted Moreno ofthe crime of other forms of swindli
ng under Article 316, paragraph 1 of RPC, and sentenced himof penalty
of (state of being locked in a
prison) for one month and ordered the return of theamount.
RTC set aside the MTC decision and (decided that someone didn't
commit a crime) Moreno. Roafiled with the IBP an StatementComplaint against Moreno.
Moreno explained that he only sold a right over the use of the lot to Ro
a. He also claimed that itwas a certain Benjamin Hermida who received
the purchase price, and that it was one Edwin Tanwho paid the purchas
e price, and not Roa.
IBP suspended Moreno from practice of law for 3 months and ordered h
im to return the amountof P70,000 to Roa within 30 days from
receiving (see/hear/become aware
of). IBP Board ofGovernors forwarded present case to the Court.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code ofProfes
sional Responsibility.
Ruling:
YES. The Court gave belief to Roa's version of the facts. Moreno's belie
vability is (possibly not true, good, or
honest). The Certificate of Land Occupancy he issued has all the badge
s of intent tostealing/criminal. It claims
to be issued by the "Office of the General Supervisor" and containschec
king (for
truth) by the "Lead, Record Deparment" that the lot plan "conforms wit
h the recordon file." It can easily pass off as a document evidencing titl
e.
He acted in his private ability (to hold or do something) and lied
about that he owned the lot hesold. He also refused to return the amou
nt paid and denied having any transaction with Roa.Moreno's behavior i
s ugly of a member of the bar and officer of the court. He did
not live up tothe strict standard of (doing a very good job in an adult
way) needed/demanded by the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.
Lawyers must behavior themselves beyond criticism at all times, not ju
st in their dealings withtheir clients but

also in their dealings with the public at large.

The Court did not sustain IBP's recommendation for the return of mone
y because the only (topic that is important now) is person who
responded's (related to managing and running a company or
organization) (something you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage).Suspension of three months is not enough.
The Court finds Moreno GUILTY of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Pro
fessional Responsibilityand SUSPENDS him from the practice for two ye
ars.
A.C. No. 6655 Promulgated: October 11, 2011
PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, Respondent.
Facts:
Pacita Verzonilla filed a complaint looking (for) the disbarment of Atty.
Victoriano Pascua forfalsifying a public document and escaping the pay
ment of correct taxes through the use offalsified documents. It was pos
sible that person who responded prepared and notarized twoDeeds of E
xtra-(law-related) Settlement of the Estate of Dead Run Caalim with Sal
e. The first deedwas for an important thing to think about of P1,000,00
0 and appears to have been legallyused/obeyed and signed by Run's s
urviving (husband or wife), Caridad Tabarrejos, and herchildren (compla
inant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia Caalim) in favor of (husband
or wife)sMadki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed was for an impor
tant thing to think about ofP250,000 and appears to have been legally
used/obeyed by and for the benefit of the sameparties as the first deed
. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers an
dbook numbers in the notarial portion. Complainant promises that both
deeds are false becauseall the heirs' signatures were falsified.
In his comment, person who responded admits having prepared and no
tarized the two arguedagainst Deeds of Extra-(law-related) Settlement
of the Estate with Sale, but denies any suspiciousthing/mistake in their
execution. He narrates that the vendors, Caridad, Virginia, Pacita(compl
ainant) and Marivinia as well as the vendee, Shirley Mpanga were there
as well as the twopromising witnesses when he notarized the said docu
ments. The first document was a sale ofsubject property for an importa
nt thing to think about of P1,000,000. Person who respondedadds that t
hey had disagreement as to who will shoulder the payment of taxes ov
er the property.Later, the parties visited person who responded at his h
ouse and pleaded with him to preparethe second deed with the reduce
d selling price. Moved by his kind and kind personality/desire,person w
ho responded gave in to the parties' plea. In the presence of all the hei
rs, the vendeesand the instrumental witnesses, person who responded
prepared and notarized the seconddeed providing for the lower (seriou
s thought/something to think about/respect) of onlyP250,000.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pascua did/done/performed acts of dishonesty this
way violating his dutiesas a lawyer and a (person approved to serve as
a witness for the signing of importantdocuments) Public.
Ruling:
Yes. By person who responded's own account of the facts or conditions
(that surround someone)surrounding the execution and notarization of
the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis forcontrolling/punishing
him as a member of the bar and as (person approved to serve as a wit
nessfor the signing of important documents). Person who responded di
d not deny preparing andnotarizing the subject deeds. He promises tha
t the true (serious thought/something to thinkabout/respect) for the tra
nsaction is P1,000,000 as (claimed to be) agreed upon by the partiesw
hen they appeared before him for the preparation of the first document
as well as thenotarization of that/of it. He then claimed to have been "
moved by his kind and kindpersonality/desire" when he agreed to the p
arties' plea that he prepare and notarize the seconddeed with a lower (
serious thought/something to think about/respect) of P250,000 in order
toreduce the almost the
same tax money owed. With his (act of letting someone enter/speaking
the truth about something bad) that he drafted and notarized another (
device that makes music)that did not state the true (serious thought/so
mething to think about/respect) of the
sale to reduce the (when things become more valuable) and other taxe
s due on the transaction,person who responded cannot escape (respon
sibility for/blame for) making a dishoneststatement in a public docume
nt for an illegal purpose. Person who responded violated Canon 1and R
ule 1.02 of Canon 1 Code of Professional responsibility.
In this case, person who responded went ahead to notarize the second
deed (even though thereis the existence of) knowledge of its illegal pur
pose. His claimed want to change something (tohelp someone)/take ca
re of someone the request of his client will not forgive person whorespo
nded who, as a member of the legal job/line of work, should have stood
his ground and notcooperated with/produced/gave up to the beggings
of his clients. Person who responded shouldhave been more smart and
remained unstoppable in his serious promise not to commitlie/dishones
ty nor permit to the doing of any.
Atty. Victoriano Pascua is suspended from the practice of law for a perio
d of two (2) years. Also,his present notarial commission, if any, is hereb
y took back/taken back, and he is disqualifiedfrom reappointment as a

(person approved to serve as a witness for the signing of importantdoc


uments) for a period of two (2) years. He is further warned that any al
most the same act orrule violation in the future will be dealt with worse
ly.
A.C. No. 6057
June 27, 2006
PETER T. DONTON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, Respondent.
Facts:
On May 20,
2003, Peter T. Donton (complainant) filed a criminal complaint for estaf
a thrufalsification of public document against Duane O. Stier, Emelyn A.
Maggay, and person who
responded Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco, as the (person authorized to
serve as a witness for the signing of important
documents) who notarized the Occupancy Agreement.
(after that), person who responded Tansingco filed a countercharge for lying againstcomplainant. The statement-complaint stated t
hat:
The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11,
1995 was prepared and notarized under thefollowing facts or
conditions (that surround someone):
A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real prop
erty located at No.
33Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City.
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier - a U.S. person (who lawfully
lives in a country, state, etc.) and in that
way disqualified to own real property in his name - agreed that the pro
perty bemoved (from one place to
another) in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to prepare a
few documents thatwould (promise that something will definitely
happen or that something will definitely work as
described) recognition of him being the actual owner of the property (e
ven though there is the existence of) the move (from one place to
another) of title in the name of Mr. Donton.
D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY AGREE
MENT, recognizing Mr.Stier's free and undisturbed use of the property f
or his residence and business operations. TheOCCUPANCY AGREEMENT
was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to Mr. Donton.
After that, complainant prayed that person who
responded be disbarred in violation of the Codefor the act of preparing
the Occupancy Agreement, (even though there is the existence

of) theknowledge that Stier was disqualified to own a real property for
being a foreign national.
On Oct 1, 2003 the Court referred the matter to the IBP for (act of
asking questions and trying to find the truth about
something) and on Feb 26, 2004, Commissioner San Juan found person
who responded responsible for taking part in a big
plan/layout/dishonest plan to avoid the (agreeing with, or related to,
the
Constitution) prohibition against foreign ownership of land in thePhilipp
ines and recommended person who
responded's suspension from the practice of law for2 years and cancell
ation of his commission as (person authorized to serve as a witness for
the signing of important documents) Public.
On April 16,
2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with change andr
ecommended person who
responded's suspension from the practice of law for 6 months. Thenon J
uly 28, 2004, person who
responded filed a movement for reconsideration before the IBPstating t
hat his practice of law is his only means of supporting his family and 6
minor children.
Issue:
WON person who
responded is guilty of violation of Canon I and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
A lawyer should not make/give any service or give guidance to any clie
nt which will involverefusal to obey
the laws which he is bound to support/judge as correct. Person who
responded'sknowledge that Stier, a US person (who lawfully lives in a
country, state,
etc.), was disqualifiedfrom owning real property and his preparation of
Occupancy Agreement that would (promise that something will
definitely happen or that something will definitely work as
described) Stier'srecognition as the actual owner of the property, helpe
d in avoiding the (agreeing with, or related to, the
Constitution) prohibition against foreign ownership of lands. So, he viol
ated his promiseand the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occ
upancy Agreement. Person who
responded used his knowledge of the law to (accomplish or gain with
effort) an illegal end. Suchan act amounts to (serious medical mistakes
that cause injury or

death) in his office, for which hemay be suspended.


The SC finds person who
responded Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco GUILTY of violation Canon 1an
d Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and in the same
way/in that waySUSPEND person who
responded from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS.
A.C. No. 5073
December 10, 2007
EDESIO ADAO, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. EDWIN B. DOCENA and RODOLFO JOJI A. ACOL, JR., respondents.
Facts:
On May 13,
1997, Edesio Adao was announced the duly elected captain of Baranga
y Mabuhay,Taft, Eastern Samar in the May 12,
1997 barangay elections. Meanwhile, Nerio Naputo, the losingcandidat
e, filed with the MTC an election protest.
On June 13, 1997, Adao filed a formal request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) to dismiss theelection protest on the ground that the MTC has not
gotten/purchased control/area of controlover his person.
Naputo, through his
advices, Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr., filed with th
eRTC, Branch 1, Borongan, Samar a written request for legal
order with prayer for the issuance ofa TRO to prevent complainant from
participating in the June 14,
1997 election for president of theAssociation of Barangay Captains (AB
C) in Taft, Eastern Samar. The RTC issued a TRO, this way,Adao did
not participate in the ABC election.
On June 23, 1997, Adao filed his answer to the written request for legal
order. Atty. Docena filed a written statement to dismiss the written
request for legal
order for being meaningless andmoved for an extension of time to file
comment on complainant's formal request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) to dismiss, which was after that granted by the MTC.
On January 8, 1999, Adao filed the present (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) complaint for disbarment against person who
responded lawyers, accusing thattheir act of filing (without a good
reason) and (without having a good reason) cases against himmakes
up/is equal to political (teasing and threatening over and over again in
a mean way) and aviolation of Rules 1.02,
1.03 and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant further accused that people who
responded' filing of a false certification on non-forum shopping attache
d to their written request for legal order makes up

a violation of the ruleon forum shopping.

Issue:
Whether or not accusations of complainant make up/be equal
to political (teasing and threatening over and over again in a mean
way), a violation of Rules 1.02,
1.03 and 12.02 of theCode of Professional Responsibility and a ground f
or disbarment.
Ruling:
The basic issue for our (strong state of mind to do
something) is whether the filing by people who
responded with the MTC of an election protest and with the RTC a writt
en request for legal orderagainst complainant makes up/is equal
to forum shopping.
It is obvious that forum shopping does not exist in the instant case. The
accusations in theelection protest and the written request for legal
order show that, although there is an identity ofparties, there is no iden
tity of rights defended/expressed and reliefs prayed for. In the election
protest filed with the MTC, the issue is who between the parties won. P
eople who
respondedprayed that Naputo be declared the rightful winner.
As the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the election protest
and written request forlegal
order are completely different, there can be no forum shopping.
Here, complainant chose to file a (related to managing and running a
company or organization)case for disbarment against people who
responded. Unfortunately, he did not prove hisaccusation that people
who responded submitted to the RTC a false certification on nonforumshopping for actually they did not work at forum shopping.
(related to managing and running a company or
organization) Complaint for disbarment isDISMISSED.
CANON 2
G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent.
Facts:
(person who approaches a court for
help) Ledesma was assigned as advice de parte for a(charged with a

crime) in a case pending in the sala of the person who


responded judge. OnOctober 13,
1964, Ledesma was selected Election Registrar for the City of Cadiz, Ne
grosOccidental. He begun (properly doing or
completing) his duties, and filed a movement towithdraw from his posit
ion as advice de parte. The person who
responded Judge denied him andalso hired him as advice de oficio for t
he two people (who are being sued or who were
sued). OnNovember 6, Ledesma filed a movement to be allowed to wit
hdraw as advice de oficio, becausethe Comelec needs/demands full tim
e service which could prevent him from handling well
enough the defense. Judge denied the formal request (to a judge, at a
meeting, etc.). So Ledesmaput into place this certiorari going ahead.
Issue:
Whether or not a member of the bar may withdraw as advice de oficio
due to appointment asElection Registrar.
Ruling:
No.
1. The ends of justice would be served by needing/ordering Ledesma to
continue as advice deoficio because: thecase has been delayed at least
8 times at the defense's instance; there was no(can't work
together) betweenduty of (person who approaches a court for
help) to defend the person (who might be a
criminal), and his job as an election registrar.
2. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of loyalty to
the dutyneeded/demanded of the legalprofession.

He should have known that membership in the bar is weighed


down with conditions. Thelegalprofession is dedicated to the ideal of se
rvice, and is not a
little trade. A lawyer may beneeded/demanded to act ascounsel de ofic
io to aid in the performance of the management ofjustice. The fact that
such services arerendered without pay should not reduce the lawyer'se
nergy.
3. The Constitution provides that the person (who might be a
criminal) will enjoy the right to beheard by himself and advice.
"Anyperson under (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth
about
something) for the commission of an offense will have the right to rem
ain silent andtocounsel..."
clear/understandable/show the important role of a member of the Bar i
n thedefense of a (charged with a

crime). Theright to be helped by advice is so important that it is noteno


ugh for the Court to inform the person (who might be a
criminal) of his right to an atty, but isvery
important that the court assign on de oficio for him if he desires/ is poo
r.
So, Ledesma should (use/put into action) himself (good or well
enough), if not with energy, if onlyto erase doubts as to his fitness tore
main a member of the job/line of work in good standing.
Written request for certiorari dismissed.
A.C. No. 528
October 11, 1967
ANGEL ALBANO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. PERPETUA COLOMA, respondent.
Facts:
Redentor Albano filed a complaint against Judge Gapusan looking
(for) (related to control or punishment) action involving latter's (serious
medical mistakes that cause injury or
death) in hisnotarization of a separation agreement between Valentina
Andres and Guillermo Maligta and theextrajudicial selling of their marri
age-related partnership. Also, a complaint was filed accusingthat said J
udge influenced Judge Crispin of CFI-Ilocos in deciding two criminal cas
es. In theabovementioned separation agreement, it was said that the (
husband or wife) guilty ofdishonesty or (people living together and
having sex together that are not
married) will be barredto file an action against the other. Person who
responded judge denied that he drafted the saidagreement and explain
ed that the (husband or
wife)s had been separated for a long time whenthey signed it and the
wife had created children with her lover. He further added that there w
as acondition in the said agreement that the (husband or
wife) would live together in case of making up (from an argument).
Issue: WON Judge Gapusan should be criticized because of notarizing t
he nothingnessagreement between the (husband or wife)s.
Ruling:
A (person authorized to serve as a witness for the signing of important
documents) should nothelp the disintegration of a marriage and the fa
mily by encouraging the separation of the(husband or
wife)s and extrajudically ending/stopping the marriage-related partners
hip.
There is no question that the condition contained in the said separation
agreement is opposite tolaw, morals and good customs. The family is a

basic social institution which public policy lovesand protects. To preserv


e the institution of marriage, the law thinks
about/believes void anycontract for personal separation between husb
and and wife and every extra-(law-related)agreement for the breaking
up of the partnership. SC held the action of person who
respondedjudge Gapusan as opposite to law.

A.C. No. 6368


June 13, 2012
FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO, Complainants,
vs. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO, Respondent.
Facts:
Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and working
illegally with a certain AndresMagat stubbornly/(on
purpose) and illegally did/done/performed fake/illegal act with intent to
cheat (in this/within
this) complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using fal
sereasons, dishonest words to the effect that he would hurry the titling
of the land belonging to theMiranda family of Tagaytay City who are th
e friend of complainants (in this/within this) and theyconvinced (in
this/within
this) complainant[s] that if they will finance and deliver to him theamo
unt of [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would hurry the titling of th
e subject land andfurther by means of other almost the
same lying like lying
about himself as lawyer of WilliamGatchalian, the possible/likely buyer
of the subject land and the one handling Gatchalian'sbusiness transacti
ons. He also lied
about having contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO andREGISTER OF DE
EDS which representation but he well knew were false, fake/illegal and
were onlymade to cause the complainant[s] to give and deliver the sai
d amount and once in possession ofsaid amount.
Person who
responded denied the accusations against him to which the IBP ordere
d the person who responded to submit a (checked for truth/proved
true) comment and the last thing just
mentioned requested for an extension of time to obey due to his medic
al jail. After that, theperson who
responded filed a second movement for extension praying for another
20 daysaccusing that he was still recovering from his illness. The case
was set for required (meeting to discuss things/meeting

together) but the person who responded did not appear; this
way, the IBPthought about/believed the person who
responded in default for his failure to appear and for notfiling an answe
r (even though there is the existence
of) extensions granted. The case was thensubmitted for report and rec
ommendation that ATTY. PABLO A. BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for aperi
od of TWO YEARS from the practice of his job/line of
work as a lawyer and as a member ofthe Bar. The IBP Board of Governo
rs issued a Resolution Adopting and Approving the report andrecomme
ndation of the (asking lots of questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner with Change.
On May 16, 2007, the person who
responded quickly filed a Movement for Reconsideration of the(earliersaid) Resolution of the The Court adopts and agrees with the findings a
nd ends/end results of the IBP.

Issue:
Whether person who responded is guilty of committing (serious
medical mistakes that cause injury or death) and (bad
behavior) a member of the Bar and violation of his duties and promisea
s a lawyer.
Ruling:
The court adopted and agreed with the findings and ends/end
results of the IBP.
The court ruled that the person who
responded's defense of prescription is ridiculous. The Courthas held tha
t (related to managing and running a company or
organization) cases against lawyersdo not prescribe. The lapse of (a)
long
time from the commission of the offending act to theinstitution of the (r
elated to managing and running a company or
organization) complaint will noterase the (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) fault of a lawyer.Otherwise, members of the bar would on
ly be bold to ignore the very promise they took aslawyers, taking
back from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immed
iatelycome forward, they stand a chance of being completely cleared
from guilt from whatever (related to managing and running a company
or organization) (something you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage) they should answer for.
Further, agreeing with/matching up with/working regularly
with his failure to file his answer afterhe himself pleaded for a
few extensions of time to file the same, the person who responded did

not appear during the required (meeting to discuss things/meeting


together), as ordered by theIBP. As a lawyer, the person who
responded is carefully thought
about/believed as an officer ofthe court who is called upon to exactly
follow (orders) and respect court processes. Such acts ofthe person
who
responded are a deliberate and hateful insult on the court's authority w
hich

cannot be allowed.
Lawyers may be controlled/punished - whether in their professional or i
n their private ability (to hold or do
something) - for any behavior that is lacking sense of right and
wrong, honesty,honesty and good personality. It is included
in Rule 2.03 that A lawyer will not do or permit to bedone any act desig
ned mostly to ask
for/encourage legal business and Rule 3.01 that A lawyerwill not use or
permit the use of any false, fake/illegal, sneaky and
false, dishonest, undignified,self-wonderful or unfair statement or claim
(related to/looking at/thinking about) hisqualifications or legal services.
It is also settled that a disbarment going
ahead is separate and clear/separate from a criminalaction filed agains
t a lawyer (even though there is the existence
of) having involved the same setof facts. Laws has it "that a finding of
guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in afinding of (some
thing you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage) in the (related to managing and running a company
or organization) case. (in the opposite way), the person who
responded's (finding not
guilty) does not necessarily forgive him (related to managers).
As the records show/tell
about, the RTC eventually convicted the person who
responded for thecrime of Estafa for which he was meted the penalty o
f sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one(1) day of Prision Mayor as m
inimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Time-related
as highest value. Such criminal (judgment of guilt in
court) clearly interferes with theperson who
responded's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section
27.
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professio
nal Responsibility and in the same way/in that
way is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective
upon(see/hear/become aware
of) hereof. Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) toRET

URN the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco


within TEN (10) DAYSfrom receipt of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his
proof of obedience of that/of
it to the Court,through the Office of the Bar Friend within TEN (10) DAY
S therefrom; with a STERN WARNINGthat not doing
so will deserve him the added/more penalty of suspension from the pra
ctice oflaw for one (1) year.
CANON 3
A.M. No. P-03-1690
April 4, 2003
JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, petitioner,
vs.
EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ, respondent.
x-----------------------------x
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1363
April 4, 2003
EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ, petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, respondent.
x-----------------------------x
A.M. No. 01-12-02-SC
April 4, 2003
IN RE: USE BY ATTY. RENERIO G. PAAS AS AN OFFICE IN
HIS PRIVATE PRACTICE OF HIS PROFESSION THE OFFICE OF HIS WIFE,
PASAY CITY METC JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS.
Facts:
Pasay City City-based Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas (related to mana
gers) charged Almarvez, aCourt Aide/Utility Worker, with rudeness to hi
s fellow workers, neglect in performing duties (bynot maintaining the (t
he state of being clean) around the court reasons and often being (nott
here; not present) from work), and asking for/encouraging of money (fr
om

prisoners before serving them their Release Orders, and from (people i
n a lawsuit) by offering totell about private information in advance of it
s unauthorized release).
The Court found that the (before that/before now)-talked
about/said charges were not supportedby (event(s) or object(s) that pr
ove something) since those who filed statements as (event(s) orobject(
s) that prove something) against Almarvez were not presented at the h
earings. The onlyoffense which Almarvez was found to commit was ine

fficiency in the (doing/completing) of hisduties. This way he was suspe


nded for 3 months.
Almarvez had filed a counterclaim (charging with a
crime) that Judge Paas ordered him to gothrough a drug test after the l
ast thing just talked
about/said had already filed a (related tomanaging and running a comp
any or organization) complaint against him.
(related to/lookingat/thinking about) this, the court held that this brings
out the bad feeling the Judge is just fishingfor more (event(s) or object(
s) that prove something) to support the (related to managing andrunni
ng a company or organization) case she had already filed against Alma
rvez. This was held tomake up/be equal to (bad behavior) of a member
of the (judge and court system), for whichJudge Paas should be duly cri
ticized.
In a separate case for (fear/stopping of behavior) of Judge Paas in a cri
minal case, it was foundthat Judge Paas' husband, Atty. Paas, who is a p
rivate professional, was using his wife's officeaddress in his law practic
e, especially in a criminal case he was handling which was docketed at
an RTC also in Pasay. In support of this charge, documents weres ubmit
ted such as 1) a Writtenstatement/attention of Appeal signed by Atty. P
aas, and 2)
(written statements) from Pasay CityRTC, and from the Supreme Court
This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done onl
y to secure/make sure ofand help the delivery of those (written statem
ents).
Issue:
Wether or not Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be punished for allowin
g the last thing justtalked
about/said to use the office of the former as his return address in his pr
ivate practice.
Ruling:
YES. Using the Judge's address is a hard to notice/skillful was of sendin
g a message that Atty.Paas is the husband of a judge in the same buildi
ng and should be given special treatment byother judges or court pers
onnel. In SC (related to managing and running a company ororganizatio
n) Circular No. 0199, it was stated that court (people in charge) and workers must"never
use their offices...for any other purpose that for court or (law-related) f
unctions."
Code of (law-related) Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impro
per behavior in allactivities and will not allow the use of the (lawrelated) office to advance the private interests ofothers. SC Circular No.
3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for (where there are lots ofhom
es) or commercial purposes. It is (not mature, polite, and honest) and s

hameful to (usesomething the wrong way) a public office to improve a l


awyer's fame/respect. It violates canons3, 10,
13, and 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
On his part, Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fake/illegal, sneaky and fals
e, and dishonest addressthat had no purpose other than to try to impre
ss either the court in which his cases are lodged,or his client, that he h
as close ties to a member of the (judge and court system), in violation
ofthe following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Canon 3A lawyer in making known his legal services will use only true, honest, f
air, gave/givenrespect to and calm information or statement of facts.
Rule
3.01. A lawyer will not use or permit the use of any false, fake/illegal, s
neaky and false,dishonest, undignified, self-wonderful or unfair stateme
nt or claim (related to/looking at/thinkingabout) his qualifications or leg
al services.
Canon 10A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule
10.01 A lawyer will not do any lie/dishonesty, nor permit to the doing of
any in Court; norwill he be dishonest to/lie to, or allow the Court to be
was dishonest to/lied to by any (dishonest actions).
Canon 13a LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
FROM ANYIMPROPERITY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE A
PPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THECOURT.
Canon 15A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HI
S

DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT


Rule
15.06. A lawyer will not state or suggest that he can influence any publ
ic official, court orlaw-based body.
The need for depending on the good qualities of a lawyer's case, instea
d of banking on hisrelationship with a member of the bench which tend
s to influence or gives the appearance ofinfluencing the court, cannot b
e put way too much focus on. It is (not mature, polite, and honest)and
shameful, to say the least, to (use something the wrong way) a public o
ffice to improve alawyer's fame/respect. Public confidence in law and la
wyers may be worn away by such shamefuland improper behavior.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
(1) In A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-956P, person who responded Edgar E. Almarvez GUILTY of inefficiencyand i

s hereby SUSPENDED for One (1) Month without pay;


(2) In A.M. No. MTJ-01-1363, person who responded Judge Estrellita M. P
aas GUILTY of (badbehavior) of a member of the (judge and court syste
m) and is hereby REPRIMANDED, withwarning that repetition of the sa
me or almost the same acts will be dealt with worsely;
(3) In A.M. No. 01-12-02-SC,
(a) Judge Paas GUILTY of violating SC (related to managing and running
a company ororganization) Circular No. 01-99, SC Circular No. 392 and Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code of (law-related) Conduct and is
hereby ordered to pay a FINE of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.0
0),with warning that repetition of the same or almost the same acts will
be dealt with worsely; and
(b) Atty. Renerio Paas GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is hereby SU
SPENDED from thepractice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, wi
th warning that repetition of the same oralmost the same act will be de
alt with worsely.
A.C. No. 6672
September 4, 2009
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
Facts:
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsang
an, Linsangan &Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
for asking
for/encouraging of clients &invasion of professional services. Linsangan
accuse (of a crime)/say or
reports that Tolentino withthe help of paralegal Labiano convinced his c
lients to move (from one place to another) legal
helpby promising (money-related) help and fast collection of their claim
s. To cause them, Tolentino(claimed to
be) texted and called them constantly. To support his accusation, Linsa
nganpresented the sworn statement of James Gregorio promising that
Labiano tried to win over himto cut his client-atty relationship with Lins
angan. Also, he attached "person who responded'scalling card" :
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

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 pr
inting and circulating ofsaid 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 theCode of Professional Responsibility.
Relating to/connected to Canon 3, the practice of law is a job/line of
work and not a business. So,lawyers should not advertise their talents
as (people who sell things) advertise their items for
sale. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a (making
something available for lots of people to
buy) of the practice of law (insulting/getting worse the job/line of
work in the public'sguess).
Relating to/connected to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from asking
for/encouraging cases forpurpose of gain, either personally or through
an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03, which forbids "emergency
vehicle chasing" (involving asking
for/encouraging personally or through anagent/broker) as a measure to
protect community from barratry and champertry.
As a final note (related to/looking at/thinking
about) the calling card presented as (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something) by Linsangan, a lawyer's best advertisement is a welldeserved.reputation for professional ability (to hold or do
something) and loyalty to trust based on his
personality and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to a

nnounce their services by(book, magazine,


etc.) in respectable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyer's name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.
Labiano's calling card contained the phrase "with (money-related) help.
" The phrase was clearlyused to attract clients (who already had repres
entation) to change counsels with a promise ofloans to finance their leg
al actions. Money was hung to
attract clients away from their originallawyers, by that/in that
way taking advantage of their (money-related) worry and emotionalwe
akness. This rude business insulted the good
quality/completeness of the bar and deserves noplace in the legal job/li
ne of work.

CANON 5
A.C. No. 6353
February 27, 2006
SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
Facts:
(husband or wife)s Williams are the people (who are being sued or who
were sued) in a Civil Casewhere the person (who sued or is suing
someone)'s advice is (in this/within this) person who
responded. According to Marissa Williams bought the lot subject of the
arguing. in the Move (from one place to
another) Certificate of Title, it was stated that she is a Filipino married t
o DavidWilliams. Person who
responded Enriquez then filed a criminal case for falsification of publicd
ocument. According to Enriquez, referring
to a stale law, Marisa automatically lost her Filipino(living in a country
you were born in, or having the same rights in a country as someone
who was born there) when she married an American, and
so is prohibited to own a land in the Philippines,by that/in that
way making her guilty of falsification. he quoted a more outdated law
when hesaid that the "act of marrying" her husband is equal to rejectin
g her (living in a country you were born in, or having the same rights in
a country as someone who was born there).
So, (in this/within

this) complainants filed for disbarment of Atty. Enriquez


Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Enriquez is guilty of "illegal, dishonest, socially
wrong and dishonest acts inviolation of the Code of Professional Respo
nsibility and the Canons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to
doing the right thing), and with (bad behavior) a lawyer.".
Ruling:
Canon
5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility needs/demands that a lawy
er be updated inthe latest laws and laws.10 In
fact, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as ifone do
es not know it makes up gross knowing nothing
about the law.11 As a retired judge,person who
responded should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well(based on knowledge and
learning) of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal probl
ems facinga client.12 In this case, the law he (based on what's seen or
what seems
obvious) misinterpretedis no less than the Constitution,13 the most bas
ic law of the land.14 Understood in a lawyer'sorder to protect a client's
interest to the best of his/her ability and with extreme care is the dutyt
o keep
informed of the law and legal developments, and participate in continui
ng legaleducation programs.15 So, in supporting the interest of clients
and defending cases, a lawyermust not only be guided by the strict sta
ndards forced by the lawyer's promise, but should alsosupport legally s
ound arguments for clients, (because of fear that the following will
happen:) the last thing just
mentioned's cause be dismissed on a technical ground.16 (having no
knowledge)includes both (enough to be meaningful) and (related to the
usual step-by-step way of doing things) laws.
For gross knowing nothing
about the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISEDto c
arefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY W
ARNED that arepetition of an almost the
same act will be dealt with worsely.
G.R. No. 116049 March 20, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (people who approach a court for help),
vs.
HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Ruling Judge, RTC, Branch 47, Puerto
Princesa City, ARNESTROM and GRACE REYES, people who responded.
Facts:

On February 2, 1994, a complaint for violation of the AntiDummy Law (C.A. No. 108) was filed byAsst. City
Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) Perfecto E. Pe against people who
responded Stromand Reyes. The person (who might be a
criminal) filed a Movement to Quash/Dismiss the criminalcase arguing t
hat since the power to (start a trial in court against someone/perform
an action) isvested only in the AntiDummy Board under Republic Act No. 1130, the City Lawyer (who tries
to prove someone
guilty) of Puerto Princesa has no power or authority to file the same. Th
eprosecution filed a (fighting force/bad
feelings) pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board hasalready been stop
ped by Letter of Putting into use No. 2, Series of 1972. (even though
there is the existence of) such (fighting force/bad
feelings), however, person who
responded judgegranted the movement supporting the position that th
e Letter Of Putting into use relied upon bythe City Moneyrelated is not the "law" thought
about in Article 7 of the New Civil Code which canundo another law suc
h as R.A. 1130. So, person who
responded judge in the attacked order ofMarch 18,
1994 held that the City Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) has no power orauthority to file and (start a trial in court against
someone/perform an
action) the case andordered that the case be stopped.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded judge in granting the Movement to Stop seriously(treated or
used in a very mean, unfair way) his (ability to make smart
decisions) as to warrantthe issuance of a (written order) of certiorari
Ruling:
Yes. The error committed by person who
responded judge in dismissing the case is quite obviousin the light of P.
D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275 previouslymentioned. The intent to end theAnti-Dummy Board could not have be
en expressed more clearly than in the aforequoted LOI.Even assuming t
hat the City Money-related of Puerto Princesa did not refer to P.D. No.
1 in hisfighting against/bad feelings about the Movement to Stop, a
little reading of the text of LOI No.
2would have immediately informed the person who
responded judge of the fact that LOI No. 2was issued in (putting into)

use of P.D. No. 1. Paragraph 1 of LOI No. 2.


General, Presidential Statements, such as P.D No.
1, issued by the former President Marcosunder his martial law powers h
ave the same force and effect as the laws put into law
byCongress. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aquino vs. Co
melec, (62 SCRA 275 [1975]),all legal
announcements, orders, statements, instructions and acts taught, issu
ed, or done by theformer President are part of the law of the land, and
will remain valid, legal, binding, andeffective, unless changed, took
back/taken back or replaced by later legal
announcements,orders, statements, instructions, or other acts of the Pr
esident. LOI No.
2 is one such legal orderissued by former President Marcos in the exerc
ise of his martial law powers to put into use P.D.No.
1. (since/considering that) neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No.
2 has been (clearly/for a single purpose) (in a suggested or hinted
way) changed, took back/taken
back, or undid/undone, bothcontinue to have the force and effect of law
.
In fact, Section 3, Article XVII of the Constitution clearly makes/orders:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, statements, executive orders, legal
announcements, letters ofinstructions, and other executive issuances n
ot not agreeing with/not matching
with thisConstitution will remain operative until changed, undid/undone
, or took back/taken back.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513
January 19, 2000
ALFREDO B. ENOJAS, JR., complainant,
vs.
JUDGE EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, Jr., RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan, respondent.
Facts:
Judge Gacott is being (related to
managers) charged in this case with serious bad
behavior,inefficiency and gross knowing nothing
about the law. This complaint rose up when person who
responded Judge dismissed an election case on the ground of nonpayment of docket fees,although the case was had been (before
that/before now) admitted and was thought
of properlyfiled by the original Judge (stopped himself due to relationsh
ip to one's of the parties) whomJudge Gacott replaced. Jugde G issued t
he dismissal order depending
on a case (Manchester vs.CA) which states that - a case is

thought
of begun only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. To his opini
on, theneeded/demanded fees in this case was not yet paid by the prot
estant. Because of
this, thiscomplaint charging him mostly with gross knowing nothing
about the law.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gacott Jr. is guilty of gross knowing nothing
about the law.
Held:
Based on the facts and facts or conditions (that surround
someone) attendant to the case, theelection protest was properly filed.
In fact, the original Judge already made an order that fromthe deposit g
iven by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ba
llots, anamount will be set apart and given
out for the payment of the needed/demanded fees. Moreimportantly, t
he Court held that the Manchester ruling relied upon by person who
respondedJudge does not apply to election cases. In a latter case ( Pahi
lan), the evil tried
to be avoided inthe Manchester case does not exist in election cases. T
ruth is, the paperwork
charge in anelection case is fixed and the claim for damages, to which
the docket fees will be made to apply,is only helping
thing to main cause of action and is not even (serving to decide or
settle something) of the court's control/area of control.
While it is true that not every error or mistake of a judge makes/gives h
im (related to
managers)responsible, in this case, it is clear that the person who
responded judge was in completeignoring (people's
feelings) of established rules amounting to gross knowing nothing
about thelaw. The Pahilan case was decided long before the person
who responded made a ruling on theelection case. So, the person who
responded judge was duty bound to stick
to, and apply therecent ruling, and he cannot fake (having no
knowledge) of that/of it, because the Code of (law-related) (rules and
beliefs related to doing the right
thing) needs/demands him to be a form of,among other things, (lawrelated) ability. One of the principal duties of a judge is to be knowing
about law and laws since the management of justice needs/demands c
ontinuous study of the lawand laws. A reading of the challenge order s
hows/tells about that person who responded judgedid
not live up to what is expected of him as a dispenser of justice.
Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. is found GUILTY of gross knowing nothing

about the law and ishereby ordered to pay a fine of Fifteen Thousand (P
15,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that arepetition of the same or almos
t the same act will be punished worsely.

CANON 6
A.C. No. 6707
March 24, 2006
GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against person who
responded Gutierrez whichcame from/was caused by a visa (online or
paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.), for which complainant along with her three sons, applied for. In
the same way/in that way,person who
responded told complainant that in order that their visa (online or
paper forms that ask for a job, money, admission,
etc.) will be positively/well acted by the Bureau of (entering a
country) and (removal from a
country) (BID), complainant needed to deposit a certain sum ofmoney f
or a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believ
ing that thedeposit was in
fact needed/demanded by law, complainant deposited with person who
responded the amount totaling $20,000. Person who
responded prepared vouchers/ receipts forcomplainant as proof that he
received the amount but refused to give her complainant officialreceipt
s (even though there is the existence
of) demands. After one year, complainant demandedfrom the person
who responded the return of $20,000 who promised
to/certain her that saidamount would be returned. However, person
who responded did
not return the money.Demands were made by the complainant and the
World Mission for Jesus, but demands remain disobeyed. Person who
responded issued a
fewpost dated checks to cover the deposited amount, but the same we
re dishonored. So,complainant file a complaint before the Commission
on Bar Control/field of study of the (Having different things working
together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines trial for the disbarmentresulted.

Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded's behavior violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility a
nd good qualities the penalty of disbarment.
Ruling:
Person who responded disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered person
who
responded Atty.Gutierrez DISBARRED from the practice of law and orde
red the return of the amount he receivedfrom the complainant with leg
al interest from his receipt until payment. The same case is alsoreferre
d to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal prosecution and DOJ fro
m appropriate(related to managing and running a company or
organization) action.
In its decision, the Supreme Court gave focus
on the violation of the person who
responded ofRule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the CPR. The court further referre
d to Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR,which prohibit members of the bar
from engaging or participating in any illegal, dishonest, anddishonest a
cts. Acts of person who
responded in asking for money from the complainant in(serious
thought/something to think about/respect) of the complainants (online
or paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) for visas in violation of Rule 1.01. The issuance ofunpaid checks w
as also thought about/believed by the SC.
A.C. No. 4984
April 1, 2003
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS,
DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ,
CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE RABALO, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.
Facts:
FACTS:
1. Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They
accuse (of a crime)/say or
report Angero did/done/performed acts that are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule138 of the Rules of Court
2. During her time in power as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, tried
to steal from Betty C. Mangohon,Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, a
nd Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as (serious thought/something to
think about/respect) for her good action on their pending (online or
paper forms that ask for a job, money, admission,

etc.) or requests before her office


3. Complainants also promise that person who
responded violated her promise as lawyer-at-lawby filing eleven (11) (w
ithout having a good reason), silly, and (without a good
reason) suits beforethe Office of the City Lawyer (who tries to prove
someone guilty) of Quezon City, which were(after that) dismissed.
4. Complainants charge person who responded of disobeying bad
qualityagraph b (22), Section36 of Presidential Statement No.
807, for her stubborn/(done on purpose) failure to pay just(money
owed) because of "Borela Tire Supply" and "Nova's Lining Brake & Tight
hand-hold" asproven true
by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and the ord
er (to make something known for a trial) issued to person who
responded.
5. Complainants also accuse (of a crime)/say or report that person who
responded started
(trouble) the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R.
Coronacion and RodrigoCoronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and orde
red her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of theBureau of Jail Management
and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on
the evening of May 14,
1997. As a result of this event, a complaint for very bad/very
seriousthreats against the person who responded

and her son, was lodged


6. Complainants accuse (of a crime)/say or report that person who
responded wrote and sent tothen President Joseph Estrada an untrue a
nd unfair report, which disliked the good names andreputation of no les
s than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to permit her ill reason
(for doing something) of preventing their reappointment and with the end view of securing anappointment for hers
elf.
7. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline decided that person who
responded illegally used herpublic office in order to secure (moneyrelated) spoils to the harm of the self-respect/worth andreputation of th
e CHED. It was recommended that person who
responded be suspended fromthe practice of law for the maximum peri
od (OK to say or
do) of three (3) years with a furtherwarning that almost the
same action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of person
who responded.
8. The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting and approvi
ng the Report andRecommendation of the (asking lots of questions
about/trying to find the truth about)Commissioner and Person who

responded was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)years.
Issue:
Whether or not person who responded lawyer-atlaw, may be controlled/punished by this Courtfor her wrongdoing disob
edient of CPR 6.02
Ruling:
YES.
1. Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may no
t be controlled/punishedas a member of the Bar for bad
behavior in the (doing/completing) of his duties as a governmentofficial
. However, if
said bad behavior as a government official also makes up
a violation of his promise as a lawyer,then he may be controlled/punish
ed by this Court as a member of the Bar.
2. The Lawyer's Promise is the source of the responsibilities and duties
of every lawyer and anyviolation of that/of
it is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other (related to control or
punishment) action. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Co
de of ProfessionalResponsibility.
3. Person who responded's bad
behavior as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as toaffect her
qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she should have
known that itwas clearly bad and illegal for her to demand sums of mo
ney as (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for the approval of (online or paper forms that ask for a
job, money, admission, etc.) and requests waiting
for action by her office.
4. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his pr
ofessionalresponsibilities. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibilit
y, was not meant to govern thebehavior of private professionals alone,
but of all lawyers including those in government service.This is clear fro
m Canon 6 of said Code.
5. Person who responded's tries
to steal money from people with (online or paper forms that ask for a
job, money, admission,
etc.) or requests pending before her office are disobedient of Rule1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of t
he Bar fromengaging or participating in any illegal, dishonest, or disho
nest acts. More than that, said actsmake up/be equal to a failure (or
break)
of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers ingovernment service from
(helping increase/showing in a good
way) their private interests.Promotion of private interests includes aski

ng for/encouraging gifts or anything of moneybasedvalue in any transaction needing/ordering the approval of his offi
ce or which may be affected bythe functions of his office. Person who
responded's behavior in office falls short of the good
quality/completeness and good moral character needed/demanded fro
m all lawyers, speciallyfrom one occupying a high public office. For a la
wyer in public office is expected not only to stopany act or (something
left
out) which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the peoplei
n government, she must also support/judge as correct the selfrespect/worth of the legal job/line of
work at all times and watch/notice a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing.
6. Person who responded was found responsible for gross bad
behavior and dishonesty inviolation of the Lawyer's Promise as well as t
he Code of Professional Responsibility, and wasordered DISBARRED.
A.C. No. 7332
June 18, 2013
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, Complainant,
vs.
RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant received/got a good judgment from the Court of Appeals i
nvolving a Labor Case.Complainant then filed a Movement for Issuance
of a (written order) of Execution before the(related to a large area) Hea
ring Branch which the person who responded was the Labor Judge.After
the lapse of five (5) months, complainant's movement remained unact
ed, causing/bringingabout/reminding him to file a Second Movement fo
r Execution. However, still, there was noaction until the complainant ag
reed to give person who responded a part of/amount of themoneybased award of that/of it after the last thing just talked
about/said asked from the formerhow much would be his share. After th
at, person who responded issued a (written order) ofexecution but the
employer of the complainant moved to stop the said (written order).Ev
entually, issued a new (written order) of execution (in which/during whi
ch/in what way/in what)complainant's money-based awards were reduc
ed to the effect that it changes the DECISION ofthe CA. Complainant no
w filed the instant disbarment complaint before the (Having differentthi
ngs working together as one unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP), promisin
g that person whoresponded violated the Code of Professional Responsi
bility for (a) asking for/encouraging moneyfrom complainant in exchan
ge for a good resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to givebenefi
t and advantage to PT&T, complainant's employer.

Issue:
Whether or not person who responded is guilty of gross socially wrong
behavior for his violationof Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.0
2, Canon 6 of the Code.
Ruling:
YES. The above-referred to rules, which are contained under Chapter 1
of the Code,describe/separate the lawyer's responsibility to (communit
y of people/all good people in theworld): Rule 1.01 writes the most imp
ortant prohibition against lawyers from working at anyillegal, dishonest
, socially wrong and dishonest behavior; Rule 1.03 forbids lawyers from
encouraging any suit or going ahead or delaying any man's cause for a
ny dishonest reason (fordoing something) or interest; meanwhile, Rule
6.02 is especially directed to lawyers ingovernment service, prohibiting
them from using one's public position to: (1)
(help increase/showin a good way) private interests;
(2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests tointerfere
with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a governm
ent office may becontrolled/punished as a member of the Bar only whe
n his bad behavior also makes up aviolation of his promise as a lawyer.
The rule violations of the person who responded make up/be equal to g
ross bad behavior. Lawslights up/educates that socially wrong behavior
involves acts that are stubborn/(done onpurpose), bad, or bold, and tha
t show a moral (not caring about) the opinion of the upright andrespect
able members of the community. It treads the line of (disgusting nature
) when it is sodishonest as to make up/be equal to a criminal act, or so
law-breaking as to be shameful to ahigh degree, or when committed un
der such disgraceful or disgusting/(angrily fighting authority)facts or co
nditions (that surround someone) as to shock the community's sense of
decency. Onthe other hand, gross bad behavior makes up/is equal to "i
mproper or wrong behavior, thecrime/disobeying of some established a
nd definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a refusal ofwork, stubborn/
(done on purpose) in character, and hints a wrongful intent and not me
re errorof judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that w
hen a lawyer is foundguilty of gross socially wrong behavior or gross ba
d behavior, he may be suspended ordisbarred.However, the Court take
s (law-related) written statement/attention of the fact that hehad alrea
dy been disbarred in a previous (related to managing and running a co
mpany ororganization) case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Neigh
borhoods, Jr., which thereforeprevents the Court from dishonestly sayin
g the same. In view of the previous, the Court thinks ofit proper to, inst
ead, force (on people) a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to pu
nishperson who responded's crime/disobeyings as discussed (in this/wit
hin this) and to equallydiscourage the commission of the same or
almost the same acts in the future.

April 30, 1957


In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality,
vs.
HILARION M. PERALTA, respondent.
Facts:
Complainant wishes to disqualify person who
responded, a 1954 successful bar candidate frombeing admitted to the
bar for gross socially wrong
behavior. According to the complainant,person who
responded in order to have sexual intercourse
with her stealing/criminalentlyprepared documents for their marriage.
And because complainant insisted on a religiousapproval of their marri
age, a marriage (formal, special event or series of
actions) was performedby a priest in the Aparri.
However, after sometime of living as husband and wives, complainant
discovered that theperson who
responded is still married to someone else, (in which/during which/in
what way/in
what) she "led a criminal action for violation of Art 350 of the Changed
Prison/punishment Code.(in this/within this) person who
responded was found guilty by lower court, promised/stated as
true by the CA and upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was dismissed
for lack of honor.
Issue:
Whether or not person who responded is guilty of gross socially wrong
behavior.
Ruling:
Upon (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) of the records of the criminal case andthe complaint, th
e person who responded is socially wrong. #e made making fun
of marriagewhich is a holy and
untouchable institution demanding respect and self-respect/worth. His(j
udgment of guilt in court) in the criminal case involves gross and
disgusting behavior. The act ofperson who responded in cathing
the second marriage (even his act in making love to anotherwoman wh
ile his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing) is
opposite tohonesty, justice, decency, and sense of right and
wrong. This
way missing the good moralcharacter needed/demanded by the Rules
of Court, the person who
responded is herebydeclared disqualified from being admitted to the b
ar.

A.C. No. 4738


June 10, 2003
VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA, Respondent.
Facts:
This is a written request for disbarment against person who
responded Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia forthe falsification of a deed of donati
on and notarizing the same.
It appears that Atty. Garcia notarized the Deed of Donation covering a
parcel of land. When saiddocument was examined by the PNP Laborato
ry upon complaint of Violeta Flores Alitagtag, itcertified that the questi
oned signature in the Deed of Donation and the standard signatures oft
he dead donor, Caesar B. Flores,
"WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON".Because of
this, the Deed of Donation was declared falsified and
so, null and void by the lowercourt.
As a result of such findings, the IBP recommended the suspension of At
ty. Garcia from thepractice of law for two (2) years.
Issue:Whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that Atty. G
arcia be disbarred.
Ruling: YES. Article 2103, Sec.1(4) provides that a (person authorized
to serve as a witness for the signing of important
documents) " will certify that the person admitting/recognizing/respond
ing to the (tool or object used to do work or measure
something) or document is known to him andthat he is the same perso
n who legally used/obeyed it, and
admitted that the Deed of Donation is real." He helped his father-inlaw, the donor, in executingthe same. By notarizing the document, he a
lso admitted that the signature (in there/within
that)is the donor's true signature.
Where the (person authorized to serve as a witness for the signing of
important
documents) is alawyer, a worse responsibility is placed upon his should
er by reason of his serious promise toexactly follow
the laws and to do no lie/dishonesty or permit to the doing of any.
A (person authorized to serve as a witness for the signing of important
documents) whoadmitted/recognized/responded
to a document that was a (fake item/making fake
items)destroys the good quality/completeness and selfrespect/worth of the legal job/line of
work. Hedoes not deserve to continue as member of the bar.

CANON 7
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
Facts:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the (Having
different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committe on Bar Control/field of
study (CBD)against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a Noli Eala for "ext
remely socially
wrong behavior andtotal violation of the lawyer's promise."
In his complaint, Mr. Guevarra accused that his wife Irene Moje have be
en maintaining an illegalaffair with Atty. Eala during their marriage, and
presented certain facts proving such accusation.These includes a social
card, the preparation of which was admitted by the person who
responded and their (Atty. Eala and Ms. Moje) living together in a house
which was a few blocksaways from the church where Ms. Moje had exc
hange marriage-related promises with thecomplainant. Also accused a
nd proven was the fact that the person who
responded was thefather of the complainant's daughter. The complaina
nt further went on saying that Atty. Eala andhis wife have been openly
showing off their cheating relationship.
For Mr. Guevarra, person who responded's extremely socially
wrong behavior runs on the wrong side
of the Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to sup
port/judge as correct.In chasing after (when you can't stop thinking
about something or
someone)ly his illegal love forthe complainant's wife, Atty. Eala was cha
rged to have made fun
of the institution of marriage,betrayed his own family, broke up the co
mplainant's marriage, does/performs dishonesty withhis wife, and insul
ts the legal job/line of work.
The (Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines - Committee onBar Control/field of
study found the charge against (good or well
enough) proven andrecommended that Atty. Eala be disbarred for viola
ting Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. The
IBP Board of Governors, however, canceled and set aside theRecomme
ndation of the (asking lots of questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner and in the same way/in that
way dismissed the case for lack of

honor. Thecomplainant then went to the Supreme Court.


Issue:
Where or not Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala be disbarred for "extremely s
ocially wrong behaviorand total violation of the lawyer's promise"?
Ruling:
That the marriage between complainant and Irene was (after
that) declared void ab initio isunimportant. The acts complained of hap
pened before the marriage was declared null and void.As a lawyer, per
son who responded should
be aware that a man and a woman sending
away themselves as husband and wife are assumed,unless proven othe
rwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on
anextra-marriage-related affair with Irene
before the (law-related) (official, public statement/document with such
a
statement) that hermarriage with complainant was null and void, and (
even though there is the existence of) person who
responded himself being married, he showed disrespect for an instituti
on held holy and
untouchable by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for extremely socially
wrong behavior, violation of hispromise of office, and violation of Canon
1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code ofProfessional Respons
ibility.
CANON 8
A.C. No. 6273
March 15, 2010
ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO, Respondent.
Facts:
Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General M
ariano Alvarez ServiceCooperative, Inc.
(GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board of Directors (the
Board)and after that, person who
responded, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCOoffice
and its reasons, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Com
plainant this wayfiled a complaint for cancellation of the (series of
events) of her removal as well as othermembers of the Board and a co
mplaint against person who
responded for disbarment accusingthat person who

responded had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, especia


lly,among others, Canon 10 - A lawyer owes honesty-related, fairness a
nd good faith to the court,when having ordered to submit position pape
rs and (even though there is the existence
of) grant,on his movement, of extension of time, did not file any positio
n paper and further ignored theCourt's later show cause order. More
than that, person who responded caused the filing of(without having a
good reason) criminal complaints against complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not person who responded's acts make up/be equal
to a violation of the (legal rules/food and
supplies) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, especially, Canon 1
0.
Ruling:
Yes, lawyers are called upon to exactly follow
(orders) court orders and processes and person who
responded's respect is highlighted by the fact that stubborn/(done on
purpose) ignoring (people's feelings) of that/of
it will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for hatred but to(relat
ed to control or
punishment) sanctions also. In fact, worse responsibility is (forced (on
people)/caused an inconvenient
situation) upon a lawyer than any other to support/judge as
correct the good
quality/completeness of the courts and to show respect to their process
es. TheCourt further noted that person who responded had (before
that/before
now) been suspendedfrom the practice of law for violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility; however, thatperson who
responded has not reformed his ways. Hence, a worse penalty is this
way called for,person who
responded was subjected to suspension for two years.
A.C. No. 7199
July 22, 2009
[Formerly CBD 04-1386]
FOODSPHERE, INC., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., Respondent.
Facts:
Alberto Cordero supposedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City fo
od in cans including acan of CDO
Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the C
DO Liver spread, theyfound the spread

to be sour and soon discovered a (group of people or other living


things) of worms inside thecan. This was complained before the BFAD.
After calming meetings between Cordero and the(person who
approaches a court for
help), the Corderos eventually created a KASUNDUANlooking
(for) the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD this
way dismissed thecomplaint. Person who
responded, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who attached his signature to theKASUND
UAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid
that he preparedthe document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against person who
responded and a few
others for Liesand Threatening to Publish Lies under Articles 353 and 3
56 of the Changed Prison/punishmentCode before the Office of the City
Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) of Quezon City andValenzuela City. The complaints were pendin
g at the time of the filing of the present (related to managing and
running a company or organization) complaint. (even though there is
the existence of) the (time period where everyone is waiting for the
next step in a
process) of thelawsuit against him and the issuance of (the way things
are
now) order limiting/enjoining furtherpublishing, televising and broadcas
ting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, person who
responded continued with his attacks against complainant and its prod
ucts.
Issue:
Whether or not the person who
responded violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
YES. Person who
responded suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
The above making (someone or something) do somethings of person
who
responded are also inviolation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Profession
al Responsibility which reads:
"A lawyer will notmake public statements in the Internet (related
to/looking at/thinking
about) a pending casetending to awaken public opinion for or against a
party."
The language employed by person who
responded definitely casts insults on the good

quality/completeness of the Office of the City Lawyer (who tries to


prove someone guilty) and allthe Lawyers (who try to prove people
guilty) connected with said Office. Person who
respondedclearly attacked the fairness and fairness of the said Office in
handling cases filed before it anddid not even design to submit any (ev
ent(s) or object(s) that prove
something) to prove said wildaccusations. The use by person who
responded of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is
obviously disobedient of Canon 11 and the basic Canon 1 also of the C
ode of ProfessionalResponsibility, which orders lawyers to "support/jud
ge as correct the Constitution, exactly follow
the laws of the land and (help increase/show in a good
way) respect for law and legal processes."Person who
responded fought against said (the way things are now) order, (even
though there is the existence of) his (person who
responded's) promise as a member of the legal job/line of
workto "exactly follow
(orders) the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly made up/was
equal topeople in charge."
Further, person who
responded violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of ProfessionalR
esponsibility which order, and by failing to live up to his promise and to
obey the very accuratestandards of the legal job/line of work, person
who
responded also violated Canon 7 of the Codeof Professional Responsibil
ity, which directs a lawyer to "at all times support/judge as
correct thegood quality/completeness and the selfrespect/worth of the legal job/line of work."
A.C. No. 6396 October 25, 2005
ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO, Respondent.
ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY. CASTRO
Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was
a private professionaland VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Person who
responded went to complainant's office to ask whetherthe records of Ci
vil Case No. 784 had already been sent back to the MCTC. Person who
responded was not the advice of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since
a certified true copy ofthe CA decision should first be presented. To this
person who responded answered back,
"Youmean to say, I would have to go to Manila to get a

copy?" Complainant replied that person who


responded may show instead the copy sent to theparty he represents.
Person who
responded then replied that complainant should've told him.Complaina
nt explained that it is not her duty to tell the person who
responded of such duty.Angered, person who
responded yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging the door s
oloud. He then returned to the office and shouted,
"Ukinnam nga babai!" ("Vulva of your mother,you woman!")
Later, complainant filed a sign that she won't appear in the hearing of t
he case in view of theperson who
responded's public apology, and that the last thing just
mentioned was forgivenalready.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility?
Ruling:
Person who responded is fined the amount of 10,000 with a warning.
Person who responded was not the advice of record of Civil Case No.
784. His explanation thathe will enter his appearance in the case when
its records were already transmitted to the MCTCis unacceptable. Not b
eing the advice of record person who responded had no right to force
his
will on the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an ac
t of invasion. It matters notthat he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and speaking low-class and offensive verbal
abuses to the clerk ofcourt was not only (bad or poorly)mannered but also ugly (thinking about/when one thinks
about) that he did these in front of the complainant's assistants. For th
ese, he violated Rules 7.03and 8.01 and Canon 8. The penalty was red
uced because person who
responded apologized tothe complainant and the latter accepted it. Thi
s is not to say, however, that person who responded should be
forgiven from his making (someone or something) do
somethings. Peopleare responsible for the results of the things they say
and do even if they feel bad later/after that.
CANON 9
A.C. No. 9604
March 20, 2013
RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, Respondents.
Facts:
Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both workers of the Sugar Legal/law
-based Managementreceived an Order from the Office of the Ombudsm
an-Visayas needing/ordering them to file acounter-statement to a comp
laint for abuse of authority, falsification of public document, anddishon
esty and dishonest
actions filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a coemployee.The Complaint was (claimed to
be) signed for Divinagracia by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. When Atty.Banc
olo and Rustia (without any advance planning) accidentally
met each other, the last thing just
mentioned informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them. Atty.
Bancolo denied thathe represented Divinagracia since he had yet to m
eet Divinagracia and declared that thesignature in the Complaint was n
ot his. So, Atty. Bancolo signed a statement denying the saidsignature.
This statement was used by Tapay and Rustia in filing a counterstatement (charging with a
crime) Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of Atty. Bancolo. Divinagr
acia, denying thesame, presented as (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something) a statement by Richard A.Cordero, the legal helper of Atty.
Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office acceptedDivinagracia's cas
e and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was si
gned bythe office secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions. The case w
as then dismissed.
Tapay and Rustia then later filed with the (Having different things
working together as one
unit)Bar of the Philippines a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder, Atty. Bancolo's lawpartner. The complainants accused that not o
nly were people who responded
working at (not mature, polite, and
honest) and bad practices, they were also involved infalsification of doc
uments used to (tease and threaten over and over again in a mean
way) andabuse innocent people. In their Answer, people who
responded admitted that due to someminor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permi
tted that the pleadings be signed in his name by the secretaryof the la
w office. After (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth
about something), Atty.Lolita A. Quisumbing, the (asking lots of
questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Control/field of
study of the IBP, submitted her Report.Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty
. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code ofProfessional Resp

onsibility while Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same C
ode, andrecommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years f
rom the practice of law and Atty.Jarder be criticized for his failure to exe
rcise certain responsibilities in their law firm.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code
of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former clie
nt before the Office ofthe Ombudsman was signed in his name by a sec
retary of his law office. He also absolutelystated that because of some
minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapayan
d Rustia were signed by his secretary, although with his tolerance. Clea
rly, he violated Rule9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Respon
sibility (CPR), which provides:
CANON
9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UN
AUTHORIZEDPRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer will not (transfer power to/give an assignment
to) to any unqualified personthe performance of any job which by law
may only be (did/done/completed) by a member of theBar in good stan
ding.
Atty. Bancolo's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to hi
m. Although he may(transfer power to/give an assignment
to) the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not(transfer
power to/give an assignment to) it to a nonlawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, acounsel's signature serves a
s a certification that (1) he has read the pleading;
(2) to the best of hisknowledge, information and belief there is good gr
ound to support it; and (3) it is not inserted fordelay. So, by attaching o
ne's signature to a pleading, it is advice alone who has the responsibilit
yto certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. For
violating rule 9.01 of theCPR, Atty. Bacolo was meted with the penalty t
he suspension from the practice of law for oneyear.
A.C. No. 6290
July 14, 2004
ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, respondent.
Facts:
Complainant is the former employee of the person who
responded in her law office. The formercharged the last thing just

mentioned for (serious medical mistakes that cause injury or


death) orother gross bad
behavior in the office for cooperating in the illegal practice of law by he
rhusband. The complainant submitted the following (event(s) or
object(s) that prove something)s: 1) the letterhead of CristalTenorio Law Office where the name of Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., husbandof
the person who
responded, is listed as a senior partner; and 2.) a Sagip Communication
Radio's Group identification card signed by the person who
responded where her husband isidentified as "Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr
.". She added that person who
responded's husband evenappeared in court hearings. During
the (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth about
something) of the IBP, complainantfiled a Movement to Withdraw Comp
laint. Person who
responded now moved for the dismissalof the case for failure of the co
mplainant to appear in the said case.

Issues:
1. Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of helping in the unauthorized practice of law.
2. Whether or not a Movement to Withdraw Complaint in a disbarment
going ahead, the casemay succeed.
Ruling:
1. YES. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to lie
about himself as a lawyer and topractice law is guilty of violating Cano
n 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Public polic
y needs/demands that the practice of law be limited to those people fo
und dulyqualified in education and character. The purpose is to protect
the public, the court, the client,and the bar from the (can't do
something) or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law andnot su
bject to the (related to control or
punishment) control of the Court. It breaks
down upon alawyer to see that this purpose is reached, otherwise, the l
aw makes it a misbehavior on his partsubject to (related to control or
punishment) action, to aid a person in the unauthorized practiceof law.
2. YES. A case of suspension or disbarment may go ahead (without any
concern about/having nothing to do
with) interest or lack of interest of the complainant. (related to control
or punishment) (series of
events) involve no private interest and afford no (fixing something
wrong)for private complaint. They are begun/tried and (started a trial
in court against someone/performed an

action) only for the public welfare.


CANON 10
A.C. No. 6323
April 13, 2007
PABLO R. OLIVARES and/or OLIVARES REALTY CORPORATION,
Complainants,
vs. ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR., Respondent.
Facts:
- In his complaint, Olivares accused that person who
responded's client, Sarah Divina Moods Al-Rasheed, over and over
again sued him for violations of the lease contract which they executed
over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Paraaque.
- In 1993, Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibition with
prayer forearly/incomplete required legal order in the (related to a
large
area) Trial Court of Manila. Thecase was dismissed for improper locatio
n.
- Six years later, Al-Rasheed filed an action for breaking a
contract with damages in the RTC Paraaque, Branch 274. The case
was dismissed for failure to (start a trial in court against
someone/perform an action). AlRasheed, through advice Atty. Villalon, searched for/tried to
geta review of the order dismissing the said case, but the CA did not gi
ve due course to her (taking a court case to a higher court for
review). The later written
request for review on certiorari filed inthe Supreme Court was also deni
ed.
- On January 29, 2004, Al-Rasheed refiled the 1999 suit in the RTC of Paraaque, Branch 274. Itwas dismiss
ed on the grounds of res judicata("a thing judge") and prescription.
- Person who
responded defends/expresses that he was only (doing/completing) his l
egal(responsibility/duty) as a lawyer to protect and (start a trial in court
against someone/perform an
action) the interests of his client. He denied that he was forum shoppin
g as his client, in hercertificate of non-forum shopping, told (to
people) the two previous cases involving the samecause of action whic
h had been filed and dismissed. Person who
responded further claims hecould not refuse his client's request to file
a new case because Al-Rasheed was the "mistreatedparty" in the trans
action.
- This Court referred the complaint, together with person who
responded's comment, to the(Having different things working together

as one unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for (act of asking questions and
trying to find the truth about something), report and recommendation.
Issue: WoN the person who
responded Atty. violates Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of CPR and the rule onfo
rum shopping.

Ruling: YES, the Court adopts the findings of the IBP.


- The facts of this case show/tell
about that Atty. Villalon purposely filed the second complaint.Person
who
responded appealed the 1999 case to the Court of Appeals and (after
that) to thisCourt. Both actions were dismissed for lack of
honor, not on mere small detail.
- The certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the 2004 complaint
told (to people) that Al-Rasheed (before that/before
now) sued Olivares for violating their lease contract. As if such(telling
to people) was a (good)
enough reason, Atty. Villalon boldly reproduced his 1999arguments and
statements in the 2004 complaint. Person who
responded obviously knew thelaw and tried to go around it. This Court t
herefore ends/decides that person who respondedstubbornly/(on
purpose) violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12.
"A lawyer will not file many actions arising from the same cause"
- Lawyers have the duty to help in the quick and (producing a lot with
very little waste)management of justice. Filing many actions makes
up/is equal to a (very mean, unfair
treatment)of the Court's processes. It makes
up improper behavior that tends to stop, (block) andinsult/worsen justic
e.
- What's
more, he violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Res
ponsibility:
"A lawyer will watch/notice the rules of procedure and will not (use
something the wrong way)them to defeat the ends of justice."
PENALTY: Six-months suspension from the practice of law. However, in
view of person who responded's death on September 27,
2006 the penalty can no longer be forced on him.
A.M. Nos. RTJ-89-331, 361, 362, 438, 439 September 28, 1990
PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES vs. JUDGE AFAEL HIDALGO
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Boring
personncio Penticostes has filed a series of (related to managing and

running a company or
organization) charges against Judge Rafael B. Hidalgoof (related to a
large
area) Trial Court Branch 68 of Tarlac, Tarlac. In the resolution dated Jun
e 20, 1989 dismissing105J-89299, the Court criticized the complainant "to exercise more care and go
od behavior infiling (without a good
reason) and weak/imaginary charges against officers of the court in ord
erto maintain and support/judge as correct the selfrespect/worth of the same of which he is apart. Complainant did not ob
ey the warning and instead continued to file charges against person
who
responded. The OCA noted that they found the actions of complainant,
his toughness infiling charges against person who
responded shows/indicates a desire to (without a good
reason)bring the last thing just
mentioned to public dislike. OCA recommends complainant's suspensio
nfrom practice of law for three (3) months.
ISSUE: Whether or not complainant be suspended due to his (constant/
not going away) filing ofcharges person who responded.
HELD: (thinking about/when one thinks
about) the nature, frequency and careless filing of sillycharges and (ev
en though there is the existence
of) the warning of the Court which thecomplainant wilfully ignored and
disobeyed by showing/presenting the intent to file more of thesame, th
e complainant (forced (on people)/caused an inconvenient
situation) upon the time,useful things/valuable
supplies and delay of the Court and (changed to focus on, or point at, a
different direction) the energies of person who
responded judge who has been called upon tocomment and defend his
every action. As a member of the bar, the complainant hasresponsibilit
y to the (judge and court
system). The Code of Professional Responsibility and therules thereund
er force responsibilities on the lawyer in relation to the Court: Canon 10
statesthat a lawyer owes honesty-related, fairness and good faith to th
e Court. Canon 11 provides thatalways will watch/notice and maintain t
he respect due to the Court and to (law-related) officers,while Canon 1
2 orders that a lawyer will watch/notice and (use/put into
action) every effort andthink
about/believe it his duty to help in the quick and (producing a lot with
very little
waste)management of justice. Through his unwise filing of (related to
managing and running a company or
organization) cases against person who
responded, complaint has disobeyed the(legal
rules) of the code of Professional Responsibility and terribly did

not watch/notice behaviorexpected of a


member the bar under the Code and inn accordance of his promise. Wh
y, the Court, in view ofthe previous, orders: the dismissal of the compla
ints:105J-89-331,361,938,395 and 439 except asto charges for which a
mount had been needed/demanded; the (something forced on
people/an inconvenient
situation) of fine in the amount of P1,000.00 against the complainant a
nd failure topay the fine will be equal to 10-day (state of being locked
in a
prison); and the suspension ofcomplainant from practice of law for a pe
riod of 1-year for his wilful ignoring (people's
feelings)to the Court's warning and for violating Canons 10, 11,
12, of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.
A.C. No. 6198
September 15, 2006
RENATO M. MALIGAYA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR., respondent.
Facts:
Atty. Doronilla stood as advice for a
few military officers. During a hearing, he said "...we had anagreement
that if we withdraw the case against him (Maligaya) he will also withdra
w all the cases.Do with that understanding, he even retired and he is n
ow receiving (money paid regularly after
retirement)." Atty. Doronilla was then charge of being dishonest
to the court through lie aboutfacts resulting in (blocking
thing) of justice.
Issue:
WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a lie/dishonesty in violati
on of canon 10 of thecode of professional responsibility.
Ruling:
By stating dishonestly in open court, Att. Doronilla failed/broke
into take overory principles ofgood
behavior. Not only violated the lawyer's promise to "do no lie/dishonest
y, nor permit
to thedoing of an in court," but also his acts violated on every lawyer's
duty to " never try to be dishonest to/lie to the judge or any (lawrelated) officer by anartifice or false statement of fact orlaw. He was su
spended from practice of law for two months
CANON 11
A.C. No. 8920

September 28, 2011

JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant,


vs.
ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, Respondent.
Facts:
On July 24,
2008, during a hearing on the movement for reconsideration of a case,
person who
responded Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting w
hile arguing his motion.(person who approaches a court for
help), Judge Rene Baculi, had (gave opinions about what could or
should be done about a situation) person who
responded to tone down his voice but theperson who
responded regularly kept shouting, even when he was warned that he
would be referred to/be given a
ticket for direct hatred. After eventually being referred to/given a traffic
ticket for direct hatred and was forced on people a fine
of P100.00, the person who
responded left. However, while other cases were being heard,person
who responded reentered the court and shouted "Judge, I will file gross (having no
knowledge) against you! I am not afraid of you!" He was escorted out o
f the courtroom and wasagain referred to/given a traffic ticket
for direct hatred for the second time. Person who
responded also spoke the same lines when he saw (person who
approaches a court for help) atthe hall of the courthouse later/after
that and even challenged the last thing just
mentioned to afight. He was then escorted out of the building.

Based on the tape of the event and the (list of school grades/written
version of spoken words) ofstenographic notes, (Combined different
things together so they worked as one
unit) Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la R
ama, Jr. found that the person who
responded was the one who shouted first at the complainant, (even
though there is the existence of) the last thing just
mentioned's claim that he was caused/started by the (person who
approaches a court for
help). The Commissioner further stated that the person who
respondeddid
not watch/notice Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Resp
onsibility whichprovides that a lawyer will avoid disgraceful, offensive o
r threatening language or behaviourbefore the courts. The IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving theReport and

Recommendation of the (asking lots of questions about/trying to find


the truth about)Commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03
, Canon 11 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility for insulting a judg
e in his courtroom
Ruling:
Written request GRANTED.
The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the person
who
responded did violateRule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. By shouting at the (person who approaches a court for
help), Atty. Battung clearly disrespected the former in the presence of(
people in a lawsuit) and their advices and court personnel. What's
more, the person who
responded even threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross k
nowing nothing about thelaw against the last thing just
mentioned. The person who
responded's actions are found notonly against the person, the position
and the height of (person who approaches a court for
help)but also against the court whose (series of
events) were disrupted.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to support/judg
e as correct the selfrespect/worth and authority of the courts. A lawyer who insulted a judg
e inside a courtroomcompletely disregard's the last thing just
mentioned's role, height and position in our justicesystem. Respects for
the courts (promise that something will definitely happen or that
something will definitely work as described) the (firm and steady
nature/lasting nature/strength) of the (lawrelated) institution and without such, the courts would be resting on ve
ry shaky foundations andwill this
way, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to a file a cas
e against thejudge, Atty. Battung seems to wear
away public confidence in the (person who approaches a court for
help)'s ability. However, (can't do
something) is a matter that, even if true, should behandled with sensiti
vity in the manner that is
given under the Rules of Court, and not how theperson who
responded handled the situation. The person who
responded's actions, beingdisgraceful and offensive to the good
quality/completeness of the (law-related) system, clearlyshowed a viola
tion of the Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibil
ity.

A.M. No. 00-1529-RTJ. April 9, 2002]


ATTY. FRED HENRY V. MARALLAG and NORMA F. FERI
Vs JUDGE LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN, RTC, Branch 3,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, respondent.
Facts:
-Complainants filed a case against person who responded for gross (ca
n't do something), grossknowing nothing about the law, mistreatment
and grave (very mean, unfair treatment) of (abilityto make smart decisi
ons), relative to Criminal Case No. 7316.
-December 3,
1996, an information for murder was filed against Segismundo Duarte
charginghim with the murder of Ferdinand T. Feri.
(after that), Duarte filed a written request for bail.
- The prosecution informed the court that during the early/incomplete
(act of asking questionsand trying to find the truth about something) b
efore the City-based Trial Court of Tuguegarao,Cagayan, Duarte admitt
ed to the killing of Ferdinand Feri but claimed that he did it in selfdefense. After that, the prosecution orally moved that the reverse orde
r of trial be managed anddid/done (i.e., that the defense will
be the first to present its (event(s) or object(s) that prove something)),
in view of Duartes (act ofletting someone enter/speaking the truth abo
ut something bad) of the killing.
-On January 29,
1997, after both parties were heard, person who responded Judge gran
ted themovement to conduct the trial in reverse order. The defense mo
ved to reconsider the trial courtsruling.
(after that), the trial court needed/demanded the parties to submit thei
r (relating to eachperson or thing) position papers on the issue of whet
her the trial should be in the reverse order.
-On August 14,
1997, the trial court issued an Order granting bail to Duarte. Person wh
oresponded Judge decided that the (event(s) or object(s) that prove so
mething) against Duarte wasnot strong and the last thing just talked
about/said was this way entitled to post bail due to theprosecutions fail

ure to present its witnesses during the scheduled hearings for the writt
enrequest for bail (even though there is the existence of) the issuance
of orders (to makesomething known for a trial) to said witnesses.
-Complainants after that filed the instant (related to managing and run
ning a company ororganization) case against person who responded Ju
dge, claiming that her issuance of the August14,
1997 Order reflects gross knowing nothing about the law,
(can't do something) and grave(very mean, unfair treatment) of (ability
to make smart decisions) on her part, since said Ordergranting bail did
not contain a summary of (event(s) or object(s) that prove something)
presentedby the prosecution which
summary is necessary to decide/figure out whether a judge has (good)
enough basis for grantingbail.
Issue: Whether or not person who responded is guilty violating Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility
Ruling:
The criminal case before person who responded Judge involved a (char
ged with a crime) who wascharged with murder, a capital offense.[12]
So, the behavior of a hearing on the person (whomight be a criminal)
(online or paper form that asks for a job, money, (act of letting
someone enter/speaking the truth about something
bad), etc.) for bail was necessary before the
trial court could grant bail. The records of the case however show/tell a
bout that although thetrial court set a few dates for the hearing on the
(online or paper form that asks for a job, money,(act of letting
someone enter/speaking the truth about something
bad), etc.) for bail, the partieswere not able to bring up (event(s) or obj
ect(s) that prove something) which would enable thetrial court to decid
e/figure out whether the (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) of
theperson (who might be a criminal) guilt was strong, for purposes of r
esolving the issue of whetherthe last thing just talked
about/said is entitled to bail. A judge is in fact needed/demanded toincl
ude in his or her order granting or refusing bail a summary of
the
(event(s) or object(s) that prove something) presented by the prosecuti
on; otherwise, suchorder would be uncontrolled and may be thought of
unpredictable or playful.[15]
.RespondentJudges act of granting bail to the person (who might be a c
riminal) without hearing
the parties on the matter or asking searching and clarificatory question
s is different from the ruleneeding/ordering the conduct of a hearing on
a written request for bail in cases where a(charged with a crime) is cha
rged with a capital offense.
However, the Court notes that the prosecutions failure to present (even

t(s) or object(s) that provesomething) in relation to the written request


for bail was not completely due to the fault ofperson who responded Ju
dge. The prosecution is also partly to blame for such failure. On thedat
es set by the trial court for hearing of the written request for bail, the p
rosecution raisedother issues-first, the possible (unexpected difference,
missing thing, or mistake) between theperson (who might be a criminal
) plea of Not Guilty during the court appearance and his (act ofletting s
omeone enter/speaking the truth about something bad) during the earl
y/incomplete
(actof asking questions and trying to find the truth about something)
that he killed Ferdinand Feri in self-defense; and second, the need of co
nducting the trial in thereverse order-which
sidetracked the hearing on the written request for bail. More than that,
it was the prosecutionwhich refused to exactly follow
(orders) person who responded Judges order that it go aheadwith the p
resentation of its (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) relative t
o the writtenrequest
for bail during the hearing of August 12,
1997. Because of this, the Court finds that a (somethingforced on peopl
e/an inconvenient situation) on person who responded Judge of a fine w
ould notbe reasonable under the facts or conditions that surround this
case.
WHEREFORE, person who responded Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan
of the (related to a largearea) Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Bran
ch 3, is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that arepetition of the sam
e or almost the same acts in the future will be dealt with worsely. Let a
copyof this decision be attached to the personal record of person who r
esponded Judge. The chargesmade by person who responded Judge ag
ainst complainant Atty. Fred Henry V. Marallag arehereby REFERRED to
the (Having different things working together as one unit) Bar of the
Philippines for (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth abou
t something), report andrecommendation.
G.R. No. 152072
July 12, 2007
ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N. PASTOR, Petitioners,
vs. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI,
PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. GONZALES, JOSEFINA R. DAZA, ELIAS
REYES, NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA REYES, JOSE REYES and ANTONIO
REYES, Respondents.
Facts:
In 1977, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed stealing (series of
events) against theZuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to them l
ocated in Antipolo, Rizal with a total landarea of 1, 790, 570.36.

The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas


and Santiago N. Pastor.They executed a Letter-Agreement dated April 2
2, 1983 which pointed
to/showed that thecontingent fees that the lawyers will
get at P11 or more per square meter is thirty percent of thejust payme
nt. The appropriate (series of events) after
that resulted and on October 29,
1984, aPartial Decision was made fixing the just payment to be paid to
the Zuzuarreguis at P30 persquare meter. The NHA filed a Movement fo
r Reconsideration for the lowering of the amount ofjust payment obeyin
g related laws.
Pending the (formal statement about
something) of the MFR filed by the NHA, a joint specialpower of lawyer
was executed by the Zuzuarreguis in favor of Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
On December 10, 1985, a LetterAgreement was executed by and between the Zuzuarreguis andAttys. R
oxas and Pastor which fixed the just payment due the Zuzuarreguis at
P17, and anythingmore
than that will be the contingent fees of Attys. Roxas and Pastor for their
legal services
Resolution No. 1174 dated December 16,
1985, issued by the NHA, stated that the propertywould be
gotten at a cost of P19.50 per square meter and that it will be paid in N
HA (Written promises to pay money back from a
loan) which the yield would be based on the Central Bankrate at the ti
me of the payment
As a result of the NHA Resolution, a Agreement Agreement was execut
ed and it was approved bythe Court in a Decision dated December 20,
1985.
Figured
out/calculated at P19.50 per square meter, the property of the Zuzuarr
eguis was stolenat a total price of P34, 916,
122. The total amount released by the NHA was P54, 500,
00. Thedifference of P19, 583,
878 is, definitely, the yield of the (written promises to pay money back
from a
loan). The amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amou
nted to P30, 520, 000 in NHA (forces that join things together/promises
to pay money back).
On August 25,
1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis' new advice to Attys. Roxas
and Pastordemanding that the last thing just
mentioned deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield going along
with/matching up to (written promises to pay money back from a
loan) paid by the NHA within aperiod of 10 days from receipt, under pai

n of (related to managing and running a company or


organization), civil and/or criminal action.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go
seems huge from thesurface but it just actually passed their hands.
On September 29,
1987, a letter was again sent to Attys. Roxas and Pastor formally endin
g theirservices. The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action for Sum of Mo
ney and Damages, theydemanded that the yield on the NHA (written
promises to pay money back from a loan) beturned over to them.
The RTC dismissed the complaint. The Zuzuarreguis filed a Written
statement/attention ofAppeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Attys. Rox
as and Pastor to return to the people (who sued or are suing
someone) the amount of P12, 596,
425, already deducting the reasonable lawyer'sfees in the amount of P
4,4 76,426.275
- Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a MFR
- The Zuzuarreguis also filed a MFR
- The NHA and Pedrosa also filed a MFR
- All MFRs were denied for lack of honor
Attys. Roxas and Pastor then filed a written request for certiorari.
Issues:
1. WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as l
aw between them
2. WON the contingent fees were reasonable
Ruling:
1.Yes. A contract is a meeting of the minds between two people within
which/by
which one bindshimself, with respect to the other, to give something or
to make/give some service. TheZuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter
-Agreement, fully gave their
permission thereto. In fact, itwas them who sent the said letter to Attys
. Roxas
and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming all matters which they had ag
reed upon (before that/before now). There is totally no (event(s) or
object(s) that prove
something) to show thatanybody was forced into entering into the Lett
er-Agreement. It is basic that a contract is the lawbetween the parties.
2. No. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to re
ceive contingent fees fortheir professional services.
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to
doing the right
thing) states:a contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, sh

ould be reasonable under all the facts or conditions that


surround the case including the risk and questions about
the payment, butshould always be subject t o the supervision of a cour
t, as to its (quality of making good sense)
Canon
20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the gui
delines by which alawyer should decide/figure
out his fees (see original)
- Absolutely mixed
up with the lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power o
f thisCourt to reduce the amount of lawyer's fees if the same is too
much/too
many and shocking(Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Lawyer's fee
s are shocking if they insult one's sense ofjustice, decency or (quality
of making good sense). Therefore, the power to decide/figure
out the(quality of making good
sense) of lawyer's fees said by the parties is a matter falling within thel
egal/law-based right/privilege of the courts.
- In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which
is equal to 44% of thejust payment paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarregui
s. (thinking about/when one thinks
about) thatthere was no full blown hearing in the stealing case, ending
as it did in a Agreement Agreement,the 44% is definitely too much/too
many. In the opinion of the Court,
87.17% of the yields of thebond should go to the Zuzuarreguis figuring
out/calculating from the amounts said in the Letter-Agreement. The re
maining amount is what is due to Attys. Roxas and Pastor. The SCpromi
ses/states as
true the decision of CA with change in the computation of the lawyers'c
ontingent fees.
Facts:
In 1977, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed stealing (series of
events) against theZuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to them l
ocated in Antipolo, Rizal with a total landarea of 1, 790, 570.36.
The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas
and Santiago N. Pastor.They executed a Letter-Agreement dated April 2
2, 1983 which pointed
to/showed that thecontingent fees that the lawyers will
get at P11 or more per square meter is thirty percent of thejust payme
nt. The appropriate (series of events) after
that resulted and on October 29,
1984, aPartial Decision was made fixing the just payment to be paid to
the Zuzuarreguis at P30 persquare meter. The NHA filed a Movement fo

r Reconsideration for the lowering of the amount ofjust payment obeyin


g related laws.
Pending the (formal statement about
something) of the MFR filed by the NHA, a joint specialpower of lawyer
was executed by the Zuzuarreguis in favor of Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
On December 10, 1985, a LetterAgreement was executed by and between the Zuzuarreguis andAttys. R
oxas and Pastor which fixed the just payment due the Zuzuarreguis at
P17, and anythingmore
than that will be the contingent fees of Attys. Roxas and Pastor for their
legal services
Resolution No. 1174 dated December 16,
1985, issued by the NHA, stated that the propertywould be
gotten at a cost of P19.50 per square meter and that it will be paid in N
HA (Written promises to pay money back from a
loan) which the yield would be based on the Central Bankrate at the ti
me of the payment
As a result of the NHA Resolution, a Agreement Agreement was execut
ed and it was approved bythe Court in a Decision dated December 20,
1985.
Figured
out/calculated at P19.50 per square meter, the property of the Zuzuarr
eguis was stolenat a total price of P34, 916,
122. The total amount released by the NHA was P54, 500,
00. Thedifference of P19, 583,
878 is, definitely, the yield of the (written promises to pay money back
from a
loan). The amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amou
nted to P30, 520, 000 in NHA (forces that join things together/promises
to pay money back).
On August 25,
1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis' new advice to Attys. Roxas
and Pastordemanding that the last thing just
mentioned deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield going along
with/matching up to (written promises to pay money back from a
loan) paid by the NHA within aperiod of 10 days from receipt, under pai
n of (related to managing and running a company or
organization), civil and/or criminal action.
Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go
seems huge from thesurface but it just actually passed their hands.
On September 29,
1987, a letter was again sent to Attys. Roxas and Pastor formally endin
g theirservices. The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action for Sum of Mo
ney and Damages, theydemanded that the yield on the NHA (written
promises to pay money back from a loan) beturned over to them.
The RTC dismissed the complaint. The Zuzuarreguis filed a Written

statement/attention ofAppeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Attys. Rox


as and Pastor to return to the people (who sued or are suing
someone) the amount of P12, 596,
425, already deducting the reasonable lawyer'sfees in the amount of P
4,4 76,426.275
- Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a MFR
- The Zuzuarreguis also filed a MFR
- The NHA and Pedrosa also filed a MFR
- All MFRs were denied for lack of honor
Attys. Roxas and Pastor then filed a written request for certiorari.
Issues:
1. WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as l
aw between them
2. WON the contingent fees were reasonable
Ruling:
1.Yes. A contract is a meeting of the minds between two people within
which/by
which one bindshimself, with respect to the other, to give something or
to make/give some service. TheZuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter
-Agreement, fully gave their
permission thereto. In fact, itwas them who sent the said letter to Attys
. Roxas
and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming all matters which they had ag
reed upon (before that/before now). There is totally no (event(s) or
object(s) that prove
something) to show thatanybody was forced into entering into the Lett
er-Agreement. It is basic that a contract is the lawbetween the parties.
2. No. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to re
ceive contingent fees fortheir professional services.
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to
doing the right
thing) states:a contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, sh
ould be reasonable under all the facts or conditions that
surround the case including the risk and questions about
the payment, butshould always be subject t o the supervision of a cour
t, as to its (quality of making good sense)
Canon
20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the gui
delines by which alawyer should decide/figure
out his fees (see original)
- Absolutely mixed
up with the lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power o

f thisCourt to reduce the amount of lawyer's fees if the same is too


much/too
many and shocking(Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Lawyer's fee
s are shocking if they insult one's sense ofjustice, decency or (quality
of making good sense). Therefore, the power to decide/figure
out the(quality of making good
sense) of lawyer's fees said by the parties is a matter falling within thel
egal/law-based right/privilege of the courts.
- In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which
is equal to 44% of thejust payment paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarregui
s. (thinking about/when one thinks
about) thatthere was no full blown hearing in the stealing case, ending
as it did in a Agreement Agreement,the 44% is definitely too much/too
many. In the opinion of the Court,
87.17% of the yields of thebond should go to the Zuzuarreguis figuring
out/calculating from the amounts said in the Letter-Agreement. The re
maining amount is what is due to Attys. Roxas and Pastor. The SCpromi
ses/states as
true the decision of CA with change in the computation of the lawyers'c
ontingent fees.
CANON 12
Antonio Conlu vs. Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr.
A.C. No. 4955 September 12, 2011
FACTS:
This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for damages against Atty. Ir
eneo Aredonia, Jr. ongrounds of bad
behavior filed by Antonio Conlu, his client in a case for Quieting of Title.
Thecomplainant secured the services of Atty. Aredonia to represent him
. The Court made a Decisionagainst the complainant. The Decision was
appealed to the Court of Appeals, however the samewas dismissed for
failure of Atty. Aredonia to file the appeallant's brief. The dismissal of th
e(taking a court case to a higher court for
review) learned only after the wife of the complainant(checked for
truth/proved true) the status of the appeal. Atty. Aredonia look
(for) reconsiderationon the (agreement that ends an
argument) accusing that he did not received copy of the(agreement
that ends an
argument), but the same was denied because of the late filing of them
ovement. The private complainant personally filed another movement f
or reconsideration butthe same was denied for the reason that the late
filing of Atty. Aredonia's first movement forreconsideration binds Antoni
o. Antonio then, appealed to the Supreme Court but said (taking a
court case to a higher court for
review) was denied by the Court.Thereafter, Antonio filed thedisbarmen

t case before the Office of the Bar Friend who made/gave/given aRepor
t/Recommendation to the Court. The Court in its resolution forced on
people among othersthe filing of a (related to managing and running a
company or organization) case against Atty.Aredonia before the IBPCommission on Bar Control/field of study.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is bad
behavior on the part of Atty.Aredonia.
2. Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.
3. Whether or not complainant is entitled for damages.
RULING:
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a brief resulting
to the dismissal of a(taking a court case to a higher court for
review) makes up/is equal
to inexcusableirresponsibility. This default and his failure to inform his c
lient of the status of the case translatesto a violation of Canon 18 of th
e Code of Professional Responsibility, which states,
"Canon 18 - A Lawyer Will Serve His Client With Ability And Care.
Rule
18.03 - A lawyer will not neglect a matter trusted to him, and his irresp
onsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 - A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case a
nd will respondwithin a reasonable time to the client's request for infor
mation."
On the second issue, the Court held that the way of thinking/basic
truth/rule of res ipsa loquiturapplies in this case as Atty. Aredonia had d
efinitely been tired in the performace of his duty asAntonio's advice. H
e neglect without reason to file the applellant's brief before the CA. He
failed,in short to (use/put into
action) his extreme ability and to give his full loyalty to/promise
tomaintain and defend Antonio's right. Antonio, by choosing Atty. Irene
o to represent him, reliedupon and rested his trust and confidence on t
he last thing just mentioned, as his advice, to do at
all was legally necessary to protect Antonio's interest, if not to secure a
good judgment. Oncethey agree to take up the cause of a client, lawye
rs, (without any concern about/having nothing to do
with) the importance of the subject matter sued or (money-related) arr
angements agreedupon, owe loyalty to such cause and should always
be aware of/careful of the trust andconfidence rested on them.
On the third issue, the Court ruled that the complainant is not entitle to
damages for failure toacceptably prove his claim for damages.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. is declared GUILTY of inexcusableirr
esponsibility, trying to be dishonest to/lie to the (court that hears court

cases again), (wrong and bad use of) Court processes, and stubborn/
(done on purpose) (not obeying
rules) to lawfulorders of the Court. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the p
ractice of law for a period of one (1)year effective upon his receipt of th
is Resolution, with WARNING that a repetition of the same oralmost the
same acts will be dealt with worsely.
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA vs. ATTY. REVILLA, JR.
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009)
FACTS:
A Written
request for Disbarment was filed by Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. G
arcia before the(Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty.Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for
committing a stubborn/(done on purpose) and (on
purpose)lie/dishonesty before the court; (using something the wrong
way) court procedure and processesto delay the execution of a judgme
nt; and cooperating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice oflaw.On No
vember 15, 1999, a decision was made by the (related to a local
area) Judge ofCavite(PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc.
and against the (people or businesses who occupy a house, office,
etc.)/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients ofperso
n who
responded Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that person
who responded's clients were mere (people or businesses who occupy
a house, office,
etc.) and notrightful owners/owners of the subject land. The case was h
igh/higher all the way up to theSupreme Court, with this Court sustaini
ng complainant's rights over the land. Continuing tochase
after his clients' lost cause, person who
responded was found to have did/done/performed(on
purpose) lie/dishonesty; and (used in a wrong or bad
way) court processes with theplan/purpose to delay the execution of th
e decision through the filing of a fewmovements,petitions for (lasting
for a short
time) limiting orders, and the last, an action to quiettitle (even though
there is the existence of) the (the definite end of
something) of the decision.What's more, he allowed nonlawyers to work
at the unauthorized practice of law - holdingthemselves out as his part
ners/associates in the law firm.Respondent denied all accusations andb
elieves that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal e
xplanation designed toprotect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de G
uzman,et. al. The lawyer-client relationship withthe former lawyer was
ended/fired because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their formera
dvice did not explain/argue their position very well,refused to listen to t

hem and, in fact, evenpunished them. As the new advice, person who
responded depended on what the (people or businesses who occupy a
house, office,
etc.)/farmers told him in the course of his interview. Hepromises that h
e only exhausted all possible fixes and defenses to which his clients we
re entitledunder the law. He submitted that if he was in
fact guilty of violating the rules in the courses ofaction he took in behal
f of his clients, he apologizes and prays the Court for kind (serious
thought/something to think about/respect), pardon and (state of mind
where you no longer are angry at or want to punish someone).
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who
responded guilty of violating the lawyer's promise, Canon 9 and Rule9.
01of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gro
ss bad
behavior.Takingthe clubs from the former lawyer in this case is rather g
reat, but person who
responded shouldnot forget his first responsibility as an officer of the c
ourt. In support of the cause of their clients,lawyers have the duty to pr
esent every fix or defense within the authority of the law. This(responsi
bility/duty), however, is not to be (did/done/completed) at the expense
of truth andjustice. This is the judging
requirement that must be carried in mind in every

hard
work a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional Respon
sibility, a lawyer hasthe duty to help in the quick and (producing a lot
with very little
waste) management of justice,and is prohibited from unnecessarily del
aying a case by stopping execution of a judgment or by(using
something the wrong way) court processes. After a (lots of serious
thought) of (in this/within this) person who
responded's movement for reconsideration and humble response ofhis
misfeasance, the Court was convinced to extend a degree of kindness t
owards the person who
responded by reducing his suspension period from two years to six mo
nths.
[WSDIS ERROR:MUST HAVE DIGIT 1 THRU 9 AFTER > FOR WORD %c
ourses-NS BEFORE NEXT WORD BEGINS]

CANON 13
Amparo Bueno vs Atty. Ramon A. Raneses
Adm. Case No. 8383
FACTS:
Amparo Bueno related that she hired Atty. Raeses to represent her i
n Civil Case. In (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for his services, Bueno paid Atty. Raeses a prepayment fee of P3,000.00. She also agreed to pay him P300.00 for ever
y hearing he attended. Noreceipt was issued for the pre-payment fee p
aid. Atty. Raeses prepared and filed an answer inher behalf. On a
few occasions, Atty. Raeses would either be (not there; not
present) or late.Bueno accused that on November 14,
1988, Atty. Raeses asked for P10,000.00. This amountwould (claime
d to
be) be divided between him and Judge Nidea, the judge hearing on his
CivilCase, so that they would not lose the case. Atty. Raeses told Bu
eno not to tell anyone aboutthe matter. Atty. Raeses asked for anoth
er P5,000.00 sometime in December 1988, becausethe amount she ha
d (before that/before now) given was not
enough. Atty. Raeses hid thedevelopment of the case. In fact, she w
as shocked when a court sheriff arrived sometime in May1991 to execu
te the decision against them. Bueno went to Atty. Raeses' office to a
sk him aboutwhat happened to the case. Atty. Raeses told her that h
e had not received any decision. Buenolater discovered from court reco
rds that Atty. Raeses actually received a copy of the decisionon Dec
ember 3, 1990. When she argued
with Atty. Raeses about her discovery and showedhim a court-issued
certification, Atty. Raeses simply denied any knowledge of the decisi
on. Atsome point, the case was reassigned to Commissioner De los Rey
es who scheduled anotherhearing on March 14,
2003. During the hearing, only Bueno and her advice were present.
ISSUE: Whether or not the person who
responded should be disbar from practice of law forviolating the Canon
18 of the Code Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Court approves the IBP's findings but promises
to disbar Atty. Raeses from thepractice of law obeying Commissione
r Limpingco's recommendation and based on our own(instances of
watching, noticing, or making statements) and findings in the case.
The charge of Irresponsibility
According to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawye
rs should serve theirclients with ability and care. Specifically, Rule 18.0
2 provides that "[a] lawyer will not handle anylegal matter without (goo

d) enough
preparation." Rule 18.03, on the other hand, states that "[a] lawyer will
not neglect a legal mattertrusted to him, and his irresponsibility in con
nection [therewith] will make/give him responsible."
"Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe loyalty t
o the cause and mustalways be aware of/careful
of the trust and confidence rested in them."20 A client is entitled tothe
benefit of all fixes and defenses approved by law, and is expected to d
epend on his lawyer touse/advantage of these fixes or defenses.21
The Charge of Asking for/encouraging Money
By its very nature, the act [of] asking for/encouraging money for (the
crime of paying money to get
favors) purposes would necessarily happen in secrecy with only person
who responded Atty.Raeses and complainant Bueno in-the-know
about it. Complainant Amparo Bueno has ran/runsworn statements and
had easily promised/stated as true her accusations this
way in hearingsheld before the IBP (asking lots of questions
about/trying to find the truth about) (government workers in
charge). Person who
responded Atty. Raeses, for his part, has not even seen it fit tofile an
y answer to the complaint against him, much less appear in any hearin
gs scheduled in this(act of asking questions and trying to find the truth
about something).
Further, the false claim made by Atty. Raeses to the (asking lots of
questions about/trying to find the truth about) (government workers in
charge) shows his natural tendency for lying. Itconfirms, a little
bit, the kind of lawyer that Bueno's statements show him to be.
Rather than only suspend Atty. Raeses as had been done in Bildner,
the Court believes thatAtty. Raeses good
qualities the final/best (related to managing and running a company or
organization) penalty of disbarment because of the multi-layered hit/eff
ect andeffects/results/suggestions of what he did; by his acts he proved
himself to be what a lawyershould not be, in a lawyer's relations to the
client, to the court and to the (Having different things working together
as one unit) Bar.
First, he (pulled out or taken from something
else) money from his client for a purpose that isboth false and fake/ille
gal.1wphi1 It is false because no (the crime of paying money to get
favors) (based on what's seen or what seems
obvious) happened as Atty. Raeses in fact lostthe case. It is fake/ille
gal because the said/taught purpose of the exaction was the crime of (t
he crime of paying money to get
favors). Beyond these, he disliked the judge and the (judge and court
system) by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the

good qualities, butthrough dishonest means - a


bigly black mark against the (judge and court
system). Last but notthe least, Atty. Raeses extremely disrespected
the IBP by his uncaring (point of view/way of
behaving) towards its (related to control or punishment) (series of
events).
WHEREFORE, reasons thought about/believed, person who
responded Atty. Ramon A. Raesesis hereby DISBARRED from the pra
ctice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. TheOffice of the
Bar Friend is DIRECTED to delete his name from the Roll of Lawyers. Co
sts againstthe person who responded.
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER STATE
PROSECUTOR
A.C. No. 7006 October 9, 2007
Facts: In the Criminal Case No.
5144, which is declared by Judge Buyser as a crime of murder andnot o
f murder, the advice for the defense filed a Movement to Fix the Amoun
t of Bail Bond.Person who
responded Atty. Bagabuyo objected thereto on the ground that the origi
nal chargeof murder is not subject to bail. Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan posi
tively/well resolved the Movementfor bail and denied the person who
responded's formal request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) forreconsideration for lack of honor. Instead of taking/using (lawrelated) fixes, person who responded caused the (book, magazine,
etc.) of an
article (related to/looking at/thinking about) the order, in which lawyer
(who tries to prove someone
guilty) attacks and criticizes judge Tan for allowing the murder suspect
out on bail. Thearticle also contains lie
about the strength of the (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something)against the person (who might be a
criminal) in the criminal case. Person who
responded admitsto have held a press (meeting to discuss
things/meeting
together) but refused to answer whetherhe made the statements in the
newspaper article. For refusing to answer, the trial court declaredhim (
bad court behavior). After this, person who
responded still entertained media interview in aradio station, and in sai
d interview, again attacked the good
quality/completeness of Judge Tan,calling him a judge who does not kn
ow the law, a liar, and a mean
ruler who does not agree/givedue process to the people. He was ordere
d by the trial cause to show cause why he should notbe held (bad court
behavior) and not be suspended from the practice of law for violating C

anon11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However,on s


cheduled hearing person who
responded did not appear or informed the court of his (not being there;
not being present).
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded should be suspended for violating the Code.
Ruling:
The Office of the Bar Friend found that the acts of the person who
responded make up/be equal to very bad/very
serious violation of promise of office, and with said findings the Suprem
e Courtagreed. Person who
responded violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he caused the holdin
g of apress (meeting to discuss things/meeting
together) where he made statements against the Orderallowing the
person (who might be a
criminal) to post bail. He also violated the same Canon forhis disrespec
t of the court when he stated that Judge Tan was (having no
knowledge) of the law,that he was studying mahjong instead of studyin
g the law and that he was a liar. The SC held thatit is not against lawye
rs raising complaints against imperfect judges but the rules provide the
proper location and procedure because respect for the institution must
always be maintained.Because of
this, Atty. Bagabuyo was suspended from the practice of law for one ye
ar.

ERLINDA I. BILDNER and MAXIMO K. ILUSORIO vs. ERLINDA K.


ILUSORIO, RAMON K. ILUSORIO, MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO, SHEREEN K.
ILUSORIO, CECILIA A. BISUA, and ATTY. MANUEL R. SINGSON
G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment or (related to control or
punishment) action against person who responded was filed by (people
who approach a court for help) for accused gross bad
behavior,among other offenses. Said disbarment case rises from a case
ruled by Judge Antonio Reyeswhere person who responded tried
to influence the result of the case as can be guessed from hisacts prov
en true by the following documents, in other words: (1) the (list of
school grades/written version of spoken
words) of the stenographic notes of the May 31,
2000 hearing in the sala ofJudge Reyes when the judge made it of recor
d that person who
responded offered Atty.OscarSevilla P500,000 to be given to Judge Rey
es for a good decision;

(2) the statement of Judge Reyesaccused that person who


responded, as soon as the case started, visited him about three timesin
his office, and made more than twelve calls to his Manila and Baguio re
sidences, some ofwhich were even made late evenings; and (3) the sta
tement of Atty.
Sevilla confirmed that he was approached by the person who
responded to convince the judge,his close family friend, to rule in Atty.
Singson's favor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who responded should be (related to
managers) controlled/punished ordisbarred from the practice of law for
the possible bad behavior in trying to (payment of money to get a
favor) Judge Antonio Reyes.
RULING:
The highly socially
wrong hint/result/effect of a lawyer approaching a judge--or a judge sh
owing adesire--to discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pendin
g in that judge's sala cannot beover-focused
on. The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge R
eyes, at firstthrough a friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to decide
that Atty. Singson was in
fact trying to influencethe judge to rule in his client's favor. This behavi
or is not acceptable in the legal job/line of
work.Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits it: C
anon 13. A lawyer will rely uponthe good qualities
of his cause and stop any improper
behavior which tends to influence or givesthe appearance of influencin
g the court.
While the possible attempted (the crime of paying money to get
favors) may maybe not besupported by (event(s) or object(s) that
prove
something) other than Judge Reyes' statements,there is anyway enoug
h proof to hold Atty. Singson responsible for bad behavior of trying
toinfluence a judge, itself a crime/disobeying of (large/relatively
large) gravity.CANON 14
Veronica Santiago vs. Atty. Amado Fojas
A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995
FACTS:
An (forcing something out or away under
pressure) case was faced by the complainants arguingthat they have ill
egally removed from the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino Salvad
or. Thelower court resolved in favor of Salvador and ordered the compl
ainants to pay, (both together, and
separately), Mr. Salvador. The case was then made

higher to the Court of Appeals. Thecomplainants lost in their written


request at the Court of Appeals due to (being left alone, with no
help), failure to act in the same way/in that
way, or serious neglect of their
advice, Atty. Fojas toanswer the civil complaint on a (forcing something
out or away under pressure) case. Atty. Fojaspromised
to/certain them that everything was in order and he had already answe
red thecomplaint. However, the appellants soon discovered that he nev
er answered it after all because,according to him, he was a very busy
man. Atty. Fojas admitted his "mistake" in failing to file ananswer for th
e (forcing something out or away under pressure) case, but he accuse
(of a crime)/say or
reports that it was cured by his filing of a movement for reconsideratio
n. However,such formal request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojasdefended his irresponsi
bility with the reason that the case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Foj
asalso defends/expresses that he was about to (taking a court case to
a higher court for
review) thesaid decision to this Court, but his services as advice for the
complainants and for the union wereillegally and (in a one-sided
way) ended/fired by complainant. Complainants then
filed for a disbarment case.
ISSUE:
Whether the person who responded committed at
fault irresponsibility, as would warrant(related to control or
punishment) action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court supported/judged as
correct Canon 14 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. Once he agr
ees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes loyalty to suchcau
se and must always be aware of/careful
of the trust and confidence rested in him. This meansthat his client is e
ntitled to the benefit of any and every fix and defense that is approved
by thelaw of the land and he may expect his lawyer to defend/express
every such fix or defense. In hismovement for reconsideration of the de
fault order, the person who responded explained hisnonfiling of the needed/demanded answer by (in a suggested or hinted
way) calling
for/usingforgetfulness caused by a large volume and pressure of legal
work, while in his Comment in thiscase he attributes it to honest mistak
e and excusable neglect due to his over energy to questionthe denial o
rder of the trial court. Whether it be the first or the second ground, the
fact remainsthat the person who
responded did not obey his duty to file an answer.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the pers
on who responded'sinability to exercise careful
review in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case ala
wyer accepts deserves his full attention, care, skill, and ability, (without
any concern about/having nothing to do
with) its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.Wha
t's more, a failure (or break)
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility whichneeds/dem
ands him to serve his clients, the complainants (in this/within
this), with care and,more specifically, Rule 18.03 of that/of
it which provides:
"A lawyer will not neglect a legal mattertrusted to him, and his irrespon
sibility in connection therewith will make/give him responsible."
Atty. Fojas's irresponsibility is not excused by his claim that Civil Case N
o. 3526-V91 was in fact a"losing cause". The Supreme Court held that he should
have seasonably informed thecomplainants of that/of
it. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility(clear
ly/for a single
purpose) provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, will give a hones
t andhonest opinion on the good
qualities and probable results of the client's case, neither overstatingno
r understanding the hopes of/future
of the case. REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED
Patricio Gone vs. Atty. Macario Ga
A.C. No. 7771 April 6, 2011
FACTS: The case came from/was caused by the complaint for (related
to control or
punishment)action dated 23 October 1989 filed by Patricio Gone agains
t Atty. Macario Ga before theCommission on Bar Control/field of
study of the (Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint was due to Atty. Ga's fa
ilure to build up again orturn over the records of the
case in his possession. Complainant Gone reported that Atty. Ga is his
advice in NLRC Caseentitled "Patricio Gone v. Solid Mills, Inc." The case
was dismissed by the Labor Judge and washigh/higher to the National L
abor Relations Commission (NLRC).Complainant Gone furtherreported t
hat as early as 8 March 1984, Atty. Ga had
gotten a certification from the NLRC that therecords were burned. (eve
n though there is the existence
of) knowledge of the destruction of therecords, Atty. Ga (claimed to
be) did not do anything to build up
again the records of theappealed case.
On 9 September 1989, complainant (claimed to

be) sent a letter to Atty. Ga asking


him to returnthe records of the case in his possession. On 16 February
1999, Commissioner Gonzales-delosReyes, IBP Commission on Bar Con
trol/field of study, issued an Order directing person who
responded Ga to file his answer on the complaint. In his Movement to D
ismiss dated 8 December2000,respondent Ga accused that he had a h
eart to heart talk with complainant about his laborcase and the last
thing just
mentioned may have already understood that it was not person who
responded's fault that the case was shelved by the NLRC. He promised
that complainant mayhave already been discouraged from chasing
after the case, this way his (not being there; not being
present) in the hearing held on 10 November 2000. Anyway, if there is
still hope for thecase, he commits to help complainant by whatever me
ans he can.
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who responded is responsible
for the violating Canon 18 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility orders lawyers to serve the
ir clients with ability andcare. Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 state:
Rule
18.03. A lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to him, and his ir
responsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04. A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case a
nd will respond withina reasonable time to the client's request for infor
mation.
Person who responded Atty. Ga failed/broke
into these duties when he did not build up
again orturn over the records of the case to his client, (in this/within
this) complainant Gone. Hisirresponsibility shows/documents lack of abi
lity and care needed/demanded of every lawyer. Hisfailure to obey the
request of his client was a gross betrayal of his (trust-related) duty and
afailure (or break) of the trust rested upon him by his client. Person
who
responded's feelingsagainst complainant Gone is not a valid reason for
him to go back
on on his (responsibility/duty)as a lawyer. The moment he agreed to ha
ndle the case, he was bound to give it his extremeattention, skill and a
bility. Public interest needs/demands that he (uses/puts into
action) his bestefforts and all his learning and ability in defense of his c
lient's cause. Those who (do/complete)that duty with care and honesty
not only safeguard the interests of the client, but also serve theends of
justice.16 They do honor to the bar and help maintain the community's
respect for thelegal job/line of work.

Why, person who


responded Macario Ga is hereby fined in the amount of Five Thousand
Pesos(P5,000.00) for his
failure to obey the order in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94 dated 19 Sept
ember 2007 of the Boardof Governors of the (Having different things
working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines.Atty. Ga is given a final warning that a more
extreme punishment will be forced upon him shouldhe do
not obey the order for him to build up
again and turn over the records of the case tocomplainant.
Felicitas S. Quiambao vs. Atty. Nestor A. Bamba
A.C. No. 6708 August 25, 2005
FACTS:
Complainant promised that she got/obtained the legal services of perso
n who responded notonly for the (related to big
business) affairs of AIB (Together/partnered (act of asking questions
and trying to find the truth about
something) Bureau Inc.) but also for her personal case. Thatperson who
responded acted as her
advice of record in an ejectment case which she paidlawyer's fees in th
at case. Six months after her (quitting a job/accepting something bad
that's happening or about to happen) as AIB President, person who
responded filed for AIB a complaintfor replevin and damages against h
er without withdrawing as advice in the ejectment case whichwas then
still not yet known. What's more, person who
responded proposedto organize a newsecurity (service
business/government
unit/power/functioning) under complainant's name(QRMSI) where he w
as a silent partner represented by his former law partner. Further state
dthat, person who
responded convinced her brother to organize another security (service
business/government unit/power/functioning) (SESSI) and (change the
normal flow or route
of)the money of AIB to SESSI.On the other hand, person who
responded admitted that he was theadvice of the previouslymentioned ejectment case and later represented AIB in the replevin ca
seagainst her. However, say/argue that ejectment case and there plevi
n case are unrelated casesinvolving different issues and parties. Person
who
responded also denies that he agreed to be asilent partner of QRMSI in
stead hints that his former law partner assume his place. More than
that, he denies (changing to flow or route
differently) money from AIB to SESSI and organizinganother security (s

ervice business/government
unit/power/functioning) under her brothermanagement. It was to compl
ement the business of AIB which was then in ruin, that SESSI wasestabl
ished.IBP Commissioner suspend person who
responded for one year but IBP Board ofGovernors reduced it to criticiz
e.
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who responded guilty of serious bad
behavior for representingdisagreeing interests?
RULING: Yes, Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of CPR provides: a lawye
r will not representdisagreeing interests except by written permission o
f all concerned given after a (being completely honest and telling
people everything) of the facts. This prohibition is founded on ways of
thinking/basic
truths/rules of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyerclientrelationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the cli
ent's case, including the weakand strong points of the case. The nature
of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust andconfidence of the high
est degree. It benefits lawyers not only to keep untouched the client'sc
onfidence, but also to avoid the appearance of bad
behavior and double-dealing for only thencan (people in a
lawsuit) be encouraged to trust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
of most important importance in the management of justice.

DOLORES PARINAS vs ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO


A.C. No. 6297, July 13, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant hired the services of the person who
responded to cancel her marriage to DaniloSoriano. Complainant gave
the person who
responded a diskette containing a narration of whathappened between
her and her husband (who's disliked and
ignored). Complainant also gaveperson who
responded money as part of the acceptance fee and the paperwork
charge for thecase. Asking on the status of her case, person who
responded told the complainant that theirfirst hearing was delayed to a
later date. Unconvinced complainant went to RTC Branch 64 to askon t
he status of her case. Much to her surprise, there was no such case file
d in court. Person who
responded promised to return what the complainant gave. However, th
e amount was only givenafter complainant filed for a disbarment case
with the IBP.
ISSUE:

Whether or not person who


responded is guilty of Canon 16 and 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResp
onsibilty?
RULING:
Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("the Code") provides t
hat a lawyer willaccount for all money or property collected for or from
the client. Acceptance of money from aclient establishes a lawyerclient relationship and gives rise to the duty of loyalty to the client'scau
se. Money trusted to a lawyer for a particular purpose, such as for pape
rwork
charge, but notused for failure to file the case must immediately be ret
urned to the client on demand. Paguintoreturned the money only after
Parinas filed this (related to managing and running a company or
organization) case for disbarment.
A lawyer should give (good)
enough attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees tohandle
a case, he should begin/try the job with dedication and care. If he fails i
n this duty, he isnot true to his promise as a lawyer. Because of
this, a lawyer must accept only as much cases ashe can effeciently han
dle, otherwise his clients' interests will suffer. It is not enough that a la
wyerpossesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must als
o give (good)
enough attentionto his legal work. The lawyer owes it to his client to ex
ercise his extreme learning and ability inhandling his cases. A license t
o practice law is a (promise that something will definitely happen or
that something will definitely work as
described) by the courts to the public that the licenseepossesses (good
) enough skill, knowledge and care to manage their cases.
The legal job/line of
work demands from a lawyer the watchfulness and attention expected
of agood father of a family. Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer wil
l not begin/try a legal servicethat he is not qualified to make/give. Rule
18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer will nothandle any legal matte
r without (good)
enough preparation. He has the duty to prepare for trialwith care and c
arefully
planned speed. Rule 18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer will
notneglect a legal matter trusted to him and his irresponsibility will ma
ke/give him responsible.
CANON 15
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation vs Atty. Richard Funk
A.C. No. 9094 August 15, 2012
Facts:
Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against person

who responded. It accusedthat person who


responded used to work as (related to big
business) secretary, advice, chiefexecutive officer, and trustee of the fo
undation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its advice ina
few criminal and lawsuit. Complainant accused that person who
responded filed an action forquieting of title and damages against Hoco
rma for Mabalacat Institute using information he gotwhile with the foun
dation.
As a defense, Atty. Funk said/argued that he was hired by Mabalacat In
stitute by Don TeodoroSantos in 1982 to serve as director and legal adv
ice. He repeated that in all these, the lawyerclient relationship was always between Santos and him. He was more o
f Santos' personal lawyerthan the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation. Santo
s Left for America to get medical treatment. Theformer and Atty. Funk a
greed that the last thing just
mentioned would be paid for his legalservices out of the properties that
Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funkalso clai
med that he was approved to advise Hocorma and follow up with it San
tos' sale ordonation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat Insti
tute. Atty. Funk was to collect allexpenses for the property move
from/change
from Hocorma Foundation out of money thatSantos gave/given. It was
Santos' plan/purpose since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat Institute
free of rent and expenses.
According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his includ
ing in
something in thatboard, a suggestion that the foundation followed. Afte
r Santos died, person who
responded waselected President of Mabalacat Institute. The foundation
later refused to pay Atty. Funk's fees,this
way he served his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit ag
ainst Hocorma. Thetrial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the person
who responded. After hearing, theCommittee on Bar Control/field of
study (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule15.03 of t
he (CPR) with the (irritating/making worse) situation of a pattern of bad
behaviorconsisting of four court appearances against his former client,
the Hocorma Foundation. TheCBD recommended Atty. Funks' suspensio
n from the practice of law for one year. Person who
responded moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a
former client in violationof the CPR when he filed a
few actions against such client for a new one.
HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot r
epresent disagreeinginterest except by written permission of all concer
ned given after a (being completely honest and telling people
everything) of the facts. Here, it's obvious

that Atty. Funk as earlier the legal advice


of Hocorma Foundation. Years after ending his relationship with the
foundation, he filed a complaint against it for another client without the
foundation's writtenpermission.
An lawyer owes his client undivided loyalty. Because of the highly (trust
-related) nature of theirrelationship, sound public policy commands/rul
es/(has someone write down what is
said), thathe be prohibited from representing disagreeing interests or (
properly doing or completing) (not agreeing/not happening in the same
way) duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer gets/gainsknowledge if
his former client's actions, whether recorded/supported or not, that he
wouldordinarilly not have
gotten were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on
himin the ligt of their relationship.
Person who
responded collected lawyer's fees from the foundation. So, he had a(re
sponsibility/duty) not to use any knowledge he got/gained during that r
elationship, includingthe fact that he property under lawsuits existed at
all, when he sued the foundation.
WHEREFORE, the Cout AFFIRMS the (agreement that ends an
argument) of the Board of the IBPSUSPEND Atty. Richard Funk from the
practice of law for one year effective immediately.
CARMELINA RANGWANI vs ATTY. RAMON DINO
A.C. No. 5454, November 23, 2004
FACTS:
Atty Dino became friends with (in this/within
this) complainant, and because of such friendshipcomplainant parted a
parcel of land in behalf of Atty Dino. After few months complainantdem
anded the return of her Title but with no
result. Months passed by and person who
responded cannot be found, and only to find out that person who
responded already changedhis residence to Makati City. When found pe
rson who responded was found, he did
not deliverthe Title and instead offered to buy the land. The complaina
nt agreed and person who responded issued a
few checks as payment but when it was deposited, the checks bounced
.
IBP in its resolution stated that person who
responded's issuance of checks in violation of the(legal rules/food and
supplies) of B.P. 22 makes up/is equal to serious bad
behavior and inaddition person who
responded did/done/performed gross bad behavior when he did
not obeyhis promise to complainant to settle the case, Atty. Ramon S.
Dio is hereby SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for six (6) months

.
ISSUE: Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility?
RULING: The court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP. Person
who
responded's act ofhaving borrowed the title to the land of complainant,
his assumed use of the said title for hispersonal gain, his failure to retu
rn the same (even though there is the existence
of) repeateddemands and worse, his issuance of three checks in excha
nge for the said land title whichbounced, make up/be equal
to gross bad
behavior for which he must be controlled/punished. Inthis connection R
ule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is definite. It states:
Rule
16.04 - A lawyer will not borrow money from his client unless the client'
s interests are fullyprotected by the nature of the case or by independe
nt guidance. Neither will a lawyer lendmoney to a client except, when i
n the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses ina leg
al matter he is handling for the client
This Court, in a few cases, has time and again ruled that the (trustrelated) duty of a lawyer andfighter (for
something) is what places the law job/line of work in a (like nothing
else) position oftrust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any oth
er calling. Once this trust and confidenceis betrayed, the faith of the pe
ople not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal job/line of
work as a whole is worn-away. To this end, all members of the bar are s
trictlyneeded/demanded to at all times maintain the highest degree of
public confidence in the loyalty,honesty and good
quality/completeness of their job/line of work.
Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility orders that a lawyer shoul
d watch/noticehonesty-related, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings a
nd transactions with his client.[
A lawyer may be controlled/punished for any behavior, in his profession
al or private ability (to hold or do
something), that makes him unfit to continue to be an officer of the cou
rt. Everylawyer should act and behave himself in such a
way that would (help increase/show in a good
way) public confidence in the good
quality/completeness of the legal job/line of work.
Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers at all
times tosupport/judge as correct the self-respect/worth and good
quality/completeness of the legaljob/line of work

Atty. Ramon S. Dio is found guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT and is SU


SPENDED from thepractice of law for one (1) year.
CANON 16
A.C. No. 7902
Torben B. Overgaard vs. Atty. Goodwin R. Valdez
Facts: Complainant looks
(for) the disbarment of Atty. Godwin R. Valdez from the practice of lawf
or gross (serious medical mistakes that cause injury or death), socially
wrong character,dishonesty and dishonest behavior. The complainant a
ccuse (of a crime)/say or reports that(even though there is the
existence of) receipt of legal fees in obedience of a PrepaymentAgreement, the person who
responded refused to perform any of his responsibilities under theircon
tract for legal services, ignored the complainant's requests for a report
of the status of thecases trusted to his care, and rejected demands for
return of the money paid to him.
The cases filed by the complainant included a complaint for Estafa, Ver
y bad/very
seriousThreats, Force, Unfair Frustration and Oral Lying 3 pending befor
e the Office of the City Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) of Antipolo and a lawsuit for Mandamus, Legal
order withprayer for (lasting for a short
time) Limiting Order and Damages4 which is on trial at Branch 71,
(related to a large
area) Trial Court of Antipolo City. On the other hand, the cases filed aga
inst thecomplainant included a criminal case for Other Light Threats at
Branch 2 of the City-based TrialCourt of Antipolo,5and violation of Secti
on 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, the AntiViolenceAgainst Women and Their Children Act of
20046 before the Family Court of Antipolo City. A complaint for Illegal P
ossession of Firearms wasalso filed against Torben Overgaard which wa
s dismissed by the City Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) of Antipolo City. This was appealed to the Department of Justice
by way ofWritten
request for Review. The complainant had no knowledge of the develop
ments of thecases that the person who
responded was handling for him. Upon his own question (or
investigation), he was upset to find out that the person who
responded did not file his entry ofappearance in the cases for Other Lig
ht Threats and Violation of Section 5(a) of the Anti-ViolenceAgainst Wo
men and Children Act.11 Due to the above lapses of the person who
responded, onNovember 27, 2006, the complainant wrote the person
who
responded and demanded thereturn of the documents which were turn
ed over to him, as well as the PhP900,000.00 that waspaid in (serious

thought/something to think
about/respect) of the cases he was supposed tohandle for the complain
ant.16 However, complainant was unable to get any word from thepers
on who responded (even though there is the existence
of) repeated and continuous effortsto get in touch with him.
Issue: WON person who
responded violated Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility st
ates that "a lawyer will notwork at illegal, dishonest, socially
wrong or dishonest behavior." Dishonest behavior involvesgross and
disgusting
behavior and includes anything done opposite to justice, shyness or go
odmorals.25 It is an act of baseness, evil or craziness in the private an
d social duties which a manowes to his fellowmen or to (community of
people/all good people in the
world) in general,opposite to justice, honesty, shyness, or good morals.
The relationship of a lawyer to his client is highly (trust-related). Canon
15 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer will
watch/notice honesty-related, fairnessand loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client." Need and public interest prohibitlawyers t
o be honest and truthful when dealing with his client. A lawyer owes lo
yalty to the causeof his client and will be aware of/careful
of the trust and confidence rested in him.29 Rule 16.01,Canon 16 of th
e Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that "a lawyer will accou
nt for allmoney and property collected or received for and from the clie
nt." The complainant paid$16,854.00 to the person who
responded via telegraphic bank move (from one place to
another).This was carefully thought
about/believed as complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 that wassa
id as the (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for the legal services to bemade/gave/given. However, s
ince the person who
responded did not carry out any of theservices he was engaged to perf
orm, nor did he appear in court or make any payment inconnection wit
h lawsuits, or give any explanation as to how such a large sum of mone
y wasspent and gave
out, he must immediately return the money he received from the client
upondemand. However, he refused to return the money he received fro
m the complainant (even though there is the existence
of) written demands, and was not even able to give a single report(rela
ted to/looking at/thinking about) the status of the cases.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, person who
responded Atty. Godwin R. Valdez is hereby DISBARRED and hisname is
ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Lawyers. He is ORDERED to immedi
ately return toTorben B. Overgaard the amount of $16,854.00 or its equ
al in Philippine Currency at the time ofactual payment, with legal intere

st of six percent (6%) per year from November 27,


2006, the dateof extra-(law-related) demand. A twelve percent (12%) i
nterest per year, instead of six percent(6%), will be forced
on such amount from the date of teaching of this decision until the pay
mentof that/of
it. He is further ORDERED to immediately return all papers and docume
nts receivedfrom the complainant.
A.C. NO. 8253
ERLINDA TAROG VS. ATTY ROMULO L. RICAFORT
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment for accused very bad/very
serious bad
behavior broughtagainst Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort for his failure to accou
nt for and to returnthe sums of moneyreceived from his clients for purp
oses of the civil action to recover their property from a (forcing people
out of a house because they didn't
pay) banking institution he washandling for them. Thesrcinal complaina
nt was Arnulfo A. Tarog, but his wife, Erlinda R. Tarog, substituted him u
pon his(in-between/helping) death. In 1992, the Tarogs searched
for/tried to get the guidance of Atty.Jaime L. Miralles (related to/looking
at/thinking about) their bank-empty (because the previous owners
were forced out) property located in the Bicol Area. Atty. Miralles (gave
opinions about what could or should be done about a
situation) them to engage a Bicol-based lawyer for thatpurpose. So, the
y went to see Atty. Ricafort with Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a br
other ofAtty. Miralles. They (in the
end) engaged Atty. Ricafort as their lawyer on account of his beingwellknown in the community, and being also the Dean of the College of La
w of AquinasUniversity where their son was then studying.
Having willingly accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort needed/dema
nded the Tarogs to payP7,000.00 as paperwork
charge, which they gave to him. He explained the importance ofdeposit
ing P65,000.00 in court to fight
against the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, thebuyer of the empt
y (because the previous owners were forced
out) property. After they informedhim that they had only P60,000.00, h
e needed/demanded them to add some more amount(dagdagan niyo n
g konti). To raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, therefore, Vidal asked
for/encouraged a loan from one Sia with the (promise that something
will definitely happen or that something will definitely work as
described) of his brother Atty. Miralles. Sia issued a checkin that amoun
t in the name of Arnulfo.
On November7,
1992, the Tarogs and Vidal went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver
the -P65,000.00. When Arnulfo said that he had first to encash the chec
k at the bank, Atty. Ricafortconvinced him to trust the check to him inst

ead so that he (Atty. Ricafort) would be the one toencash it and then de
posit the amount in court. On that representation, Arnulfo handed thec
heck to Atty. Ricafort.
After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to (check for
truth/prove
true) the status of thegiveation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he ha
d not deposited the amount in court, but in hisown account. He promis
ed to return the money, plus interest.
The Tarogs further claimed that the (related to a large
area) Trial Court, Branch 52, in Sorsogon(RTC), where their complaint fo
r cancellation of sale was being heard, had needed/demanded theparti
es to file their note. In the same way/in that
way, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafortfor that purpose, but he
did not file the note.
When it became seen/obvious to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would no
t make good his promiseof returning the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arn
ulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3,
2002, that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P
15,000.00 paid for the filingof the note. Yet, they did not receive any re
ply from Atty. Ricafort.
In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was meant to
be deposited in court,insisting that the amount was payment for his leg
al services under a "package deal," that is, theamount included his acc
eptance
fee, lawyer's fee, and appearance fees from the filing of the complaint f
or cancellation of saleuntil judgment, but leaving out/keeping
out appeal.Hie claimed that the fees were agreed uponafter (thinkin
g about/when one thinks
about) the value of the property, his skill and experienceas a lawyer, th
e labor, time, and trouble involved, and his professional character and
socialstanding; that at the time he delivered the check, Arnulfo read, u
nderstood, and agreed to thecontents of the complaint, which did not
talk
about anything about any giveation and thatArnulfo, being a retired sc
hool principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallenfo
r any big plan/layout/dishonest
plan like the one they showed against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Ricafort make up/be equal to a very
bad/very serious violation ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Following the (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth about
something), of an IBPCommissioner - Commission on Bar Control/field
of
study made/gave/given his Report andRecommendation dated October

7, 2004, in which he decided


that: It is respectfullyrecommended that person who
responded, Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort be DISBARRED and beordered to re
turn the amount of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 which he got from his cl
ient. TheCommissioner decided
that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules16.01,
16.02, and 16.03 ofCanon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by taking advantage of the weakness of hisclients and by being dishon
est in his dealings with them by refusing to return the amount ofP65,00
0.00 to them. Through Resolution No. XVII-2006-569,[13] therefore, the
IBP Board ofGovernors adopted and approved the Report and Recomm
endation of Commissioner Reyes andrecommended the disbarment of
Atty. Ricafort and the order for him to return the amounts ofP65,000.00
and P15,000.00 to Erlinda. Atty. Ricafort moved for reconsideration. Act
ing on Atty.Ricafort'ss movement for reconsideration, the IBP Board of
Governors downgraded the penaltyfrom disbarment to long
suspension.
However, the Court found and declared Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort guilty o
f a violation of Canon 16,Rule 16.01 and Canon 17 of the Code of Profes
sional Responsibility and, in the same way/in that
way, disbar him. The Bar Friend was directed to strike out his name fro
m the Roll of Lawyers.Atty. Ricafort was ordered to return to Erlinda R. T
arog the sums ofP65,000.00 and P15,000.00,plus interest of six percen
t per year counted from the demand made on December 3,
2002,within twenty days from (see/hear/become aware of).
Sevilla vs. Salubre A.M. MTJ-00-1336, Dec. 19, 2000, 348 SCRA 592
FACTS: in the (checked for truth/proved
true) complaint, complainant accuse (of a crime)/say or
reports that person who
responded, before his appointment as a Judge, was her legal advice inC
ivil Case No. 9101 entitled Sps. Petra Sevilla and Sancho Sevilla vs. Sps. Shem J. Alfare
ro, et al.,for Repurchase and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of E
arly/incomplete Legal order. OnDecember 26,
1990, upon the guidance of person who
responded, complainant turned-over tothe former the amount of P45,0
00.00 to be given with the trial court as repurchase money. More than
that, instead of giving said amount, the person who
responded deposited the money in hisname with the Family Savings Ba
nk, Panabo, Davao Area of control/area of land. Person who
responded judge stole his client's money when he was still a lawyer an
d did not repay he same(even though there is the existence
of) many demands. When he became a judge, he issued twochecks as
payment but both bounced. The client filed an estafa case but later on
executed anStatement of Stopance.

Person who
responded denied all the accusations of complainant (related
to/looking at/thinking
about) how he handled the repurchase money. He promised that the ac
cusations of thecomplainant in her complaint were only the result of a
minor (mistake in
understanding) and thathe and complainant had already resolved the
matter. In fact, he said, the complainant hadexecuted an Statement of
Stopance[18] dated August 9, 1999, (in which/during which/in what
way/in
what) complainant accused, among others, that the filing of the case w
as a result of a(mistake in
understanding) and could not be blamed for any criminal focused
on the part of theperson who responded. What's
more, in view of the settlement of the civil aspect of the case, sheis no
longer willing to chase after her complaint against the person who
responded.
ISSUE: The issue is whether the Statement of Stopance removed the S
C of its control/area of control to force (on people)
administrative sanctions upon person who responded.
HELD: No. While the complaint for estafa had been dismissed, the dism
issal was on account ofcomplainant's (something you choose to do, but
is not required) stopance and not upon a findingof innocence. The first
(or most important) object of (related to managing and running a
company or
organization) cases against lawyers is not only to punish and control
(over behavior)the (making
mistakes) individual lawyers but also to safeguard the management of j
ustice byprotecting the courts and the public from the bad
behavior of lawyers, and to remove from thelegal job/line of
work people whose total ignoring (people's
feelings) of their lawyer's promisehave proven them unfit to continue di
scharging the trust rested in them as members of the bar.(related to
managing and running a company or
organization) cases against lawyers can still go ahead (even though
there is the existence
of) the dismissal of civil and/or criminal complaintsagainst them.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly (trust-related);
it needs/demands a highdegree of loyalty and good faith. It is designed
to remove all such (something that makes you want to do
something/the feeling of wanting to do
something) and to prevent everything of thatkind from being done for t
he protection of the client.
So, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer will hold in trust allmoneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. What's

more, Rule 16.01of the Code also states that a lawyer will account for a
ll money or property collected or receivedfor or from the client. The Ca
nons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to doing the right
thing) is even more clear:
The lawyer should stop any action within which/by
which for his personal benefit or gain he(treats or uses in a very mean,
unfair
way) or takes advantage of the confidence rested in him byhis client.
Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property comi
ng into the possession ofthe lawyer should be reported and accounted
for quickly and should not under any
situations bemixed with his own or be used by him.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Judge Ismael L. Salubre is hereby found guilty of violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to ret
urn and immediatelydeliver the money of his former client, Petra M. Se
villa upon demand, and Canon 2 of the Canonsof (law-related) (rules
and beliefs related to doing the right
thing) for his failure to avoid theappearance of improper
behavior. The person who
responded is hereby ordered to pay a fine inthe amount of P20,000.00
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same and almost the
same acts will be dealt with worsely.
CANON 17
AC No. 5841
Emily Sencio VS. Atty. Robert Calvadores
Facts: Complainant Sencio accused that sometime in 1997 her oldest s
on, Herbert Sencio, died ina (motor vehicle-related) (sudden unplanned
bad event/crash). She was referred by her mother-in-law to person who
responded Calvadores to (start a trial in court against
someone/perform an action) the civil aspect of the
case. On 19 May 1998 she at first gave the person who
responded the amount of P1,500 andpromised to pay the lawyer's fees
later.
On 20 August 1998, after having piled
up enough money, the complainant paid the person who
responded the amount of P12,000 as lawyer's fees and for other expen
ses relating to the case.The payment was duly admitted/recognized/res
ponded to by the person who responded. 2
From that time on, complainant Sencio regularly contacted the person
who responded to updateherself of the status of the case. The person
who responded kept on promising to her thateverything would be get
on/on fire. Finally, however, complainant discovered that the person
who responded did not file any case, a fact which the person who
responded admitted. The last thing just

mentioned promised to return to the complainant the money he had re


ceived fromher.
The complainant returned a few times to person who
responded's house and even patientlywaited for him outside his house
to get back her money. The person who
responded, however,did not return to her the money. He still did not file
the case in court either.
When the case was called for hearing on 16 July 2001, the person who
responded did not appear(even though there is the existence
of) due written
statement/attention. Luckily for him, theadvice for the complainant wa
s not available for the presentation of (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something). D espite due written statement/attention, the person who
responded did notappear for the hearing on 14 December 2001. Comm
issioner Wilfredo E.J. E. Reyes, who tookcharge of the (act of asking
questions and trying to find the truth about
something), received the(event(s) or object(s) that prove
something) for the complainant. In his Report andRecommendation, he
found the person who responded guilty of the violation of Canons 16,
17and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended
that the person who
responded be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (
3) months and beordered to return to the complainant the amount of P
12,000.
Issue: Whether or not person who
responded violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: the person who
responded, under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,o
wed loyalty to the cause of his client. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a
case, he should begin/trythe job with dedication and care; less than tha
t, he is not true to his promise as a lawyer.
8 Infailing to file the case he began/tried to handle, the person who
responded violated Canon 18 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 18.03 of that/of
it, which provides that "alawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted t
o him, and his irresponsibility in connectiontherewith will make/give hi
m responsible."
Also, in not returning the money to the complainant after a demand the
refor was made followinghis failure to file the case, the person who
responded violated Canon 16 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility,
especially Rule 16.03 of that/of
it, which needs/demands that "alawyer will, deliver the money and pro
perty of his client upon demand." It is settled that the(there was no
good reason
for) withholding of money belonging to his client warrants the(somethi
ng forced on people/an inconvenient situation) of (related to control or

punishment)action. 9
WHEREFORE, person who
responded ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES is hereby SUSPENDED fromthe
practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately, and
ordered to return toEmily Sencio, within thirty (30) days from written
statement/attention of this Resolution, theamount of Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000) with interest at 12% per
year from the date of theteaching of this Resolution until its return. The
person who
responded is further warned that acommission of the same or almost
the same act in the future will be dealt with worsely.

A.C. N0. 7907


Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda Vs. Atty Emmanuel F. Elayda
FACTS:
In 2006, Atty. Emmanuel Elayda was hired by (husband or
wife)s Virgilio and Angelina Aranda tobe their
advice in a lawsuit. However, to their surprise in July 2006, a bad judg
ment was issuedagainst them, this
way they lost possession of their car. (based on what's seen or what
seems obvious), their
advice never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda did
not inform the (husband or
wife)s of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment. No forma
l request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) for reconsideration or appeal was inserted by the lawyer also.
*That (even though there is the existence
of) their plea for a reasonable period to take a healingaccess to
help of the situation (the Sheriff at
first gave them fifteen (15) days), Sheriff Madaragforcibly took possessi
on (and rights to care for
someone) of their Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. 529;
*That they were starved of their right to present their (event(s) or
object(s) that prove
something)in the said case and of their right to appeal because of the
bad behavior of person who responded.[3]
In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the (husband or
wife)s who never went to court; thatthe (husband or
wife)s neglected to check on their case in court; that one time when th
eir casewas scheduled, he even told the court (person who can quickly
write what other people say) totell him if the (husband or
wife)s are in court so that he could be there for them as he was inanoth
er court branch for another case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be controlled/punished.

HELD:
Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was careless and irresponsible i
n handling the Arandacase. Although it is true that the client and their
advice must equally share the responsibility ofcommunication, it is the
first (or most
important) duty of the advice to inform the client of thestatus of their c
ase in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He ca
nnotsimply wait for his clients to make a question (or
investigation) about the developments in theircase. Close coordination
between advice and client is necessary for them to do enough
toprepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of
the case. Also, his excusethat he did not appear in court because the (
husband or wife)s did
not appear in court is notreasonable. His attendance at the hearing sho
uld not be made to depend on the whether the(husband or
wife)s Aranda will come or not.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended a 6 month suspension. This
was adopted by thecourt.
The Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON
17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SH
ALL BE MINDFULOF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON
18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGE
NCE.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer will not handle any legal matter without (good)
enough preparation.
Rule
18.03 A lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to him, and his irr
esponsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case an
d will respond withina reasonable time to the clients request for inform
ation.
CANON
19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE B
OUNDS OF THELAW.
From the previous, it is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to support/
judge as
correct andsafeguard the interests of his clients. He should be careful,
skillful and careful in handling hisclients cases. Atty. Elayda should give
(good)
enough attention, care, and time to all the cases heis handling. As the (
husband or wife)s Arandas advice, Atty. Elayda is expected to
watch theprogress of said (husband or

wife)s case and is obligated to (use/put into


action) all efforts topresent every fix or defense approved by law to pro
tect the cause supported by the (husband or wife)s Aranda.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving an
d adopting the Decisionof the (asking lots of questions about/trying to
find the truth about) Commissioner is herebyAFFIRMED. In the same
way/in that way, person who
responded ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA ishereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, with aserious/severe wa
rning that a repetition of the same or an almost the
same act will be dealt withworsely.
CANON 18
A.C. No. 9612
Johnny Pesto Vs Marcelito M. Millo
Facts:
In this (related to managing and running a company or
organization) case, Johnny Pesto (Johnny),a Canadian national, charged
Atty. Marcelito M. Millo with (bad behavior) an officer of the Court,being
dishonest to his client, messing up the move (from one place to
another) of title, and (can't do
something) and irresponsibility in the performance of his duty as a law
yer.
-In May 1990, his wife Abella Pesto (Abella) kept/held the services of At
ty. Millo to handle themove (from one place to
another) of a title over a parcel of land to her name, and the adoption o
fher niece Arvi Jane Dizon;1 that Johnny and Abella gave to Atty. Millo t
he amounts of P14,000.00for the move (from one place to
another) of title2 and P10,000.00 for the adoption case; that Atty.Millo
after that over and over
again gave them false information and many excuses to explain hisina
bility to complete the move (from one place to
another) of title; that Atty. Millo also madethem believe that the (when
things become more
valuable) tax for the property had been paidway back in 1991, but they
found out upon their return to the country in February 1995 that hehad
not yet paid the tax; that when they argued
with him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had alreadypaid the same, but he
could not produce any receipt for the talkedabout payment; that Atty.Millo slowly returned to Abella the amount of
P14,000.00 only after he stormed out of Atty.Millo's office in irritation o
ver his stalling strategies; and that Atty. Millo then further promised in
writing to assume the (responsibility for/blame for) the savedup penalties.4
In Resolution No. XX-2011-235 adopted on November 19,
2011,16 the IBP Board of Governorspromised/stated as

true the findings of (asking lots of questions about/trying to find the


truth
about) Commissioner Fernandez, but lowered the suspension to two m
onths; and ordered Atty.Millo to return the amount of P16,000.00. On Ju
ne 9, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors deniedAtty. Millo's formal
request (to a judge, at a meeting,
etc.) for reconsideration which was filed onMarch 27, 2012.
Issue: Whether or not person who
responded violated Canon 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility
Held:
Yes. A serious (related to managing and running a company or
organization) complaint like thisone should not be (not
appreciated) or lightly by any person who
responded lawyer. Yet, Atty.Millo did not take the complaint of Johnny s
eriously enough, and even ignored it for a long periodof time. (even
though there is the existence of) being given a
few opportunities to do so, Atty.Millo did not file any written answer. He
by that/in that way lost (as punishment) his right andchance to (well
enough/good enough/in a smart way) explain the facts or conditions
(that surround
someone) behind the charges against him. The IBP Board of Governors
recommendedsuspension from the practice of law for two months as th
e penalty to be forced. Therecommended penalty is not well taken. The
Court notes that Atty. Millo already returned theP14,000.00 received for
the move (from one place to
another) of title. Although he ought also torefund the amount of P15,64
3.75 representing the penalty for the late payment of the (when things
become more
valuable) tax, the Court cannot order him to refund that amount becau
se itis not a collection (service business/government
unit/power/functioning).26 The Court may onlydirect the repayment of l
awyers fees received on the basis that a person who
responded lawyerdid not make/give (producing a lot with very little
waste) service to the client. As a
result, Atty.Millo should refund the P10,000.00 given in connection with
the adoption case, plus interest of6% per year, counted from the (the
definite end of
something) of this decision. WHEREFORE, theCourt FINDS and HOLDS A
tty. MARCELITO M. MILLO guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 ofthe
Code of Professional Responsibility eand the Lawyer's Promise; SUSPEN
DS him from thepractice of law for a period of six months effective fro
m (see/hear/become aware
of), with theSTERN WARNING that any almost the same rule
violation in the future will be dealt with worsely;ORDERS him to return t
o the heirs of Johnny and Abella Pesto within ten days from(see/hear/be
come aware of) the sum of P10,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per

year countedfrom the (the definite end of


something) of this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him toquic
kly submit to this Court written proof of his obedience
ofin thirty days from written statement/attention of this decision.
A.C. NO. 5530
Sps Arcing and Cresing Bautista, Eday Regadio and Francing Galgalan
Vs. Atty. Arturo Cefra
The complainants were the people (who are being sued or who were
sued) in Civil Case No. U-6504 an action for quieting of title, recovery o
f possession and damages filed in the (related to a large
area) Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.2 The co
mplainants engagedthe services of Atty. Cefra to represent them in the
(series of
events). According to thecomplainants, they lost in Civil Case No. U6504 because of Atty. Cefras irresponsibility in(doing/completing) his d
uties as their
advice. First, Atty. Cefra only presented testimonial(event(s) or
object(s) that prove
something) and ignored two (2) orders of the RTC directing himto subm
it a formal offer of fact-filled story or
movie shows. Second, Atty. Cefra (in a late
way)submitted the formal offer of fact-filled story or
movie shows after the complainants had beendeclared to have given
up/have
canceled their right to make a submission. Third, Atty. Cefra didnot file
a movement or (taking a court case to a higher court for
review) and neither did he fileany other healing pleading to fight
the RTCs decision made against them.
The Court ordered Atty. Cefra to comment on the complaint. (even
though there is the existence
of) the extensions of time given by the Court, Atty. Cefra did not file an
y comment. He did notalso obey the Courts Minute Resolutions,3 dated
December 14, 2005 and March 22,
2006,directing him to pay a P2,000.00 fine and to submit the needed/d
emanded comment.
On July 16, 2008, we held Atty. Cefra (bad court
behavior) of court, ordering his detention for five(5) days. We also repe
ated the order for Atty. Cefra to pay a P2,000.00 fine and to submit aco
mment on the complaint.4rl1
On August 4,
2008, Atty. Cefra filed his Comment,5 denying the accusations in the co
mplaint.
Issue: WON person who
responded violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: The Code of Professional Responsibility orders that "a lawyer wil

l serve his client withability and care."10rl1


It further states that "a lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to
him, and hisirresponsibility in connection therewith will make/give him r
esponsible."11 Also, a lawyer has the
similar duty to "keep the client informed of the status of his case."12
Atty. Cefra did
not live up to these standards. Interestingly, he did not deny the compl
ainantsaccusations and (in a suggested or hinted
way) admitted his actions in the (series of events) inCivil Case No. U6504.
Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal s
kill and sense of right and wrong, including honesty, good
quality/completeness and fair dealing. They must (do/complete)their fo
ur times duty to (community of people/all good people in the
world), the legal job/line of
work, the courts and their clients, obeying the values and normal
behaviors of the legal job/line of work as included
in the Code of Professional Responsibility.15rl1
Under the facts or conditions (that surround
someone), the IBP Board of Governorsrecommended penalty of simple
criticism is not equal to the seriousness of Atty. Cefras rule
violations. As the complainants got/caused money-related damage by r
eason of Atty. Cefrasirresponsibility, a suspension of one (1) year from t
he practice of law is in order.16rl1
WHEREFORE, reasons thought
about/believed, we find Atty. Arturo Cefra guilty of irresponsibility,in vio
lation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit
y. He is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year an
d STERNLY WARNED that a repetition ofthe same or almost the
same offense will be dealt with worsely.

A.C. No. 7749 July 8, 2013


Josefina Caranza VDA de Saldivar Vs . Atty Ramon SG Cabanes
Facts: Complainant was the person (who is being sued or who was
sued) in an illegal detainercase, docketed as Civil Case No.
1972,2 filed by the heirs of one Benjamin Don (heirs) before theCitybased Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur (MTC), (in which/during which/in
what way/in what)she was represented by person who
responded. While person who
responded duly filed ananswer to the illegal detainer complaint, he, ho
wever, did not submit a pretrial brief as well as toattend the scheduled early/incomplete (meeting

to discuss things/meeting together). As a result,the opposite (or


fighting
against) advice moved that the case be submitted for decision whichm
ovement was granted in an Order3 dated November 27,
2003. When complainant argued withperson who
responded about the previous, the last thing just
mentioned just apologized and toldher not to worry, promising
to her that she will not lose the case since she had the title to thesubje
ct property.
Person who responded filed a Sign with Obedience 10 dated May 19,
2008, admitting to haveagreed to represent complainant who claimed t
o be the (person or business who occupies a house, office,
etc.) and rightful occupant of the subject property owned by the late Pe
lagiaLascano (Pelagia). He accused that upon careful examination of th
e heirs' illegal detainercomplaint, he (saw/heard/became aware
of) a mistake between the descriptions of the subjectproperty as pointe
d to/showed in the said pleading instead
of that which complainant suppliedto him. On the belief that the parties
may be (arguing
against) two (2) sets of properties whichare clear/separate and separat
e from one another, person who
responded, at theearly/incomplete (meeting to discuss things/meeting
together) managed and did/done onOctober 28,
2003, moved for the suspension of further (series of events) and said
that a(government worker in charge) be hired to manage and do a resurvey in order to decide/figure
out the true identity of the property (the subject of an
argument). The MTC allowed the counselsfor both parties to decide on t
he manner of the proposed re-survey, leading to the assignment ofa D
epartment of Land-related Reform Survey Engineer (DAR Engineer) for
this purpose. Inrelation, the heirs' advice agreed to turn-over to person
who responded in his office11 certaindocuments which pointed
to/showed the subject property's description. So, pending the conducta
nd results of the re-survey, the early/incomplete (meeting to discuss
things/meeting
together)was possibly/uncertainly reset to November 27, 2003.12
Issue: WON person who responded violated CPR
Ruling: The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one filled wit
h extreme trust andconfidence. In this light, clients are led to expect th
at lawyers would be ever-aware/careful oftheir cause and in the same
way/in that
way exercise the needed/demanded degree of care inhandling their aff
airs. Truly, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard
of legalskill, and to give/reserve his full attention, skill, and ability to th
e case, (without any concern about/having nothing to do
with) its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.27C

anon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code clearly
show/include theseperfect/extremely important orders and so, (match
up each pair of items in order) state:
CANON
17 - A lawyer owes loyalty to the cause of his client and he will be awar
e of/careful of thetrust and confidence rested in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer will serve his client with ability and care.
Rule
18.03 - A lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to him, and his i
rresponsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 - A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case a
nd will respondwithin a reasonable time to the client's request for infor
mation.
Records show that he did not permit his (not being there; not being
present) during thescheduled early/incomplete (meeting to discuss
things/meeting together) hearing in Civil CaseNo.
1972 which led the same to be immediately submitted for decision. As
correctlywatched/followed by the (asking lots of questions about/trying
to find the truth about)Commissioner, person who
responded could have exercised ordinary care by asking from thecourt
as to whether the said hearing would push through, especially so since
it was onlypossibly/uncertainly set and (thinking about/when one thinks
about) further that he was still togive/discuss with the opposite (or
fighting against) advice. The fact that person who
respondedhad an important commitment during that day hardly forgive
s him from his (something left
out)since the smart course of action would have been for him to send a
substitute advice to appearfor
him. In fact, he should have been more careful to make sure
that the (earlier-said) hearingwould not have been left unattended in vi
ew of its bad results, (in other words), that the person (who is being
sued or who was
sued)'s failure to appear at the early/incomplete (meeting to discuss
things/meeting together) already entitles the person (who sued or is
suing someone) to ajudgment.31 In fact, secondguessing the conduct of the (series of
events), much less without anycontingent measure, shows person who
responded's inexcusable lack of care and care inmanaging his client's c
ause.1wphi1
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. is found guilty of bad
behaviorin violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon
18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED f
rom the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,effective upon his
receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of t

hesame or almost the same acts will be dealt with worsely.


CANON 19
A.C. No. 5736 June 18, 2010
BCI v FLORIDOA.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010CARPIO,J.:
FACTS: (away from
cities) Bank of Calape, Inc. Filed a complaint for disbarment against per
son who responded.
RBCI accused that person who
responded violated his promise and the Code of ProfessionalResponsibil
ity. According to RBCI, person who
responded and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagosgroup, through force a
nd threatening/making
scared, forcibly took over the management andthe reasons of RBCI. Th
ey also forcibly thrown
out Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyedthe bank's (room with
strong walls and a strong door for storing money, jewelry,
etc.), andinstalled their own staff to run the bank. Person who
responded added that the criminalcomplaint for evil mischief filed agai
nst him by RBCI was already dismissed; while the complaintfor grave fo
rce was ordered suspended because of the existence of a (related to
having wrong, pre-decided ideas) question. Person who
responded said that the disbarment complaint wasfiled against him in (
revenge for something bad that was done) for the (related to managing
and running a company or
organization) cases he filed against RBCI's advice and the trial court ju
dgesof Wildl. More than that, person who
responded claimed that RBCI did not present any (event(s) or object(s)
that prove something) to prove their accusations. Person who
responded added thatthe statements attached to the complaint were n
ever identified, promised/stated as true, orproven true by the (people
who tell true things in court) and that none of the fact-filled story or
movie shows were originals or certified true copies.
ISSUE: Whether or not person who
responded violated his promise and the CPR Canon 19.
HELD: The Court held that person who
responded was guilty as charged and suspended forayear. The first dut
y of a lawyer is to maintain loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines,su
pport/judge as correct the Constitution and exactly follow
the laws of the land. It is the lawyer'sduty to (help increase/show in a
good way) respect for the law and legal processes and to
stopfrom activities aimed at refusal to obey
the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.Canon 19 of the Co

de provides that a lawyer will represent his client with energy within th
ebounds of the law. It is his duty to advise his clients to use peaceful an
d lawful methods inlooking (for) justice and stop doing an (on
purpose) wrong to their enemies. A lawyer's duty is notto his client but
to the management of justice. To that end, his client's success is compl
etelysubordinate. His conduct should and must always be carefully (not
ices many little things/carefully follows a religion) of the law and (rules
and beliefs related to doing the right
thing). Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is chose
to/chosen
to by the lawyer,even in the pursuit of his loyalty to his client's cause, i
s criticizeable and bad.
ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES v. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ
A.C. No. 6691, 27 April 2007, THIRD DIVISION (Austria-Martinez, J.)
FACTS: Atty. Briones is the Special Manager of the Estate of Luz J. Hens
on while Atty. Jacinto D.Jimenez is the advice for the Heirs of Henson. Af
ter the probate (series of
events), the RTC issuedan order directing Jimenez to deliver the residue
of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to theirshares. Atty Briones refu
sed to deliver the estate. As a
result, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed acriminal complaint and execut
ed a statement against Atty Briones for resisting and seriouslydisobeyi
ng the RTC Order. Atty. Briones filed a (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum shopping and vi
olation of Canons 19 and12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Person who
responded claims that he acted in good faithand in fact, did not violate
Rule 19.01 because he helped the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint
against (in this/within this) complainant after the last thing just
mentioned ignored the demandletters sent to him; and that a lawyer o
wes his client the exercise of extreme caution and ability.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Jimenez violated Canons 19 and 12 of the C
ode of ProfessionalResponsibility
HELD: A lawyer must represent his client with energy, however, the per
formance of his dutiestowards his clients must be within the bounds of
law.
The Court agrees with the OBC that person who
responded is not guilty of forum shopping.Records show that person
who
responded, as advice for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, fileda speci
al civil action docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
70349 dangerous the Order of March 12, 2002(assigning to a
position) the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as person (who
carefully checks business

records); and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.


71488 dangerous theOrder of April 3,
2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to complainant.
It isobvious that there is identity of parties but different causes of actio
n and reliefs searched for/tried to get. Because of this, person who
responded is not guilty of forum shopping. There is(good)
enough ground in support of complainant's claim that person who
responded violatedRule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
. (thinking about/when one thinks
about)that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, person
who responded chose
to file saidcriminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to exactl
y follow the lawful order of thecourt.
Canon
19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer to repre
sent his client withenergy. However, the same Canon provides that a la
wyer's performance of his duties towards hisclient must be within the b
ounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon needs/demands,amon
g others, that a lawyer will employ only fair and honest means to reach
the lawful goals ofhis client. Canon 15, Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers
to impress upon their clients obedience ofthe laws and the way of
thinking/basic
truth/rule of fairness. To permit lawyers to resort todishonest practices f
or the protection of the talkedabout rights of their clients is to defeat one ofthe purposes of the state
- the management of justice. While lawyers owe their whole loyalty tot
he interest of their clients and energy in the defense of their client's rig
ht, they should not forgetthat they are, first, officers of the court, boun
d to (use/put into
action) every effort to help in thequick and (producing a lot with very
little waste) management of justice.
A.C. No. 4380
Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B Plantanosas
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan
Facts: A (related to managing and running a company or
organization) case filed by NicanorGonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas a
gainst Atty.Miguel Sabacajan. The complainants accuse (of a crime)/say
or reports the following:
1. That the Register of Deeds gave the copy copy of Move (from one
place to another) Certifcateof Tiles of Complainant to person who
responded's secretary and who in turn gave such copiesto the person
who responded.
2. That (even though there is the existence
of) demand from the (person who approaches a court for help), person

who
responded refused without just cause to deliver the copy TCT and even
challenged them to file a case in any court.
3. That such challenged is a sign of boldness, taking due advantage of
his professional ability (to hold or do something).
4. That (even though there is the existence
of) the repeated demands to deliver the TCT, person who
responded still did not deliver to the (unfair, pre-decided bad
opinions) of the complainants.
Issue: Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
(based on what's seen or what seems obvious), person who
responded has ignored CanonCanon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Prof
essional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer willimpress upon hi
s client the need for obedience of the laws and ways of thinking/basic
truths/rules of fairness. Instead, he unfairly refused to give to complain
ants their certifcates oftitles (probably) to enforce payment of their pos
sible (money-related) responsibilities to his clientand probably to impre
ss the last thing just mentioned of his power to do so.
Canon
19, Rule 19.01 makes/orders that a lawyer will employ only fair and ho
nest means toreach the lawful goals of his client and will not present, p
articipate in presenting, or threaten topresent (without a good
reason) charges to get an improper advantage in any case or going
ahead. Person who
responded has closely skirted this forbidding, if he has not in fact disob
eyedthe same. WHEREFORE, Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPEN
DED from the practice of lawuntil he can duly show to this Court that th
e fightd certifcates of title have been returned to andthe receipt of
that/of it duly admitted/recognized/responded
to by complainants, or can presenta (law-related) order or appropriate l
egal authority permitting the possession by him or his clientof said cert
ifcates.
CANON 20
A.C. 5798 January 20, 2005
Alex B. Cueto Vs Atty Jose B. Jimenez, Jr
Engr. Alex Cueto accused that sometime in October 1999 he engaged t
he services of person who responded as (person authorized to serve as
a witness for the signing of important documents),the last thing just
mentioned being the father of the owner of the building subject of theC
onstruction Agreement[2] to be notarized. He was then with a certain V
al Rivera, the buildingmanager of people who
responded son Jose Jimenez III.
After notarizing the agreement, person who

responded demanded P50,000 as notarial fee. (even though there is


the existence
of) his surprise as to the cost of the notarial service, complainantinform
ed person who responded that he only had P30,000 in cash. Person
who
respondedconvinced complainant to pay the P30,000 and to issue a ch
eck for the remaining P20,000. Beingunfamiliar with the cost of notarial
services, complainant paid all his cash[3] and issued a Far EastBank ch
eck dated December 28, 1999 for the balance.
Before the maturity date of the check, complainant requested person
who responded not todeposit the same for lack of (good)
enough money. He also (based on knowledge and learning)person who
responded that the last thing just
mentioneds son Jose Jimenez III had not yet paidhis services as general
contractor. Still, person who
responded deposited the check which was as a
result dishonored for not
enough money. Meanwhile, the P2,500,000 check issued by people
who responded son to complainant as initial payment according
to the Construction Agreementwas itself dishonored for having been dr
awn against a closed account.
(after
that), Atty. Jimenez lodged a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cu
eto before the CityLawyers (who try to prove people
guilty) Office in Angeles City. The criminal case was tried in theCitybased Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch I.
Issue: WON person who responded violated CPR
Ruling: Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility o
rders that [a] lawyer willavoid bad
events with clients concerning his payment and will resort to (lawrelated) action onlyto prevent (something forced on people/an
inconvenient
situation), mistreatment orstealing/criminal. Also, in Canon 14 of the C
anons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to doing the right
thing) it states that,
[c]ontroversies with clients concerning payment are to beavoided by th
e lawyer so far as will be compatible with his self-respect and with his ri
ght toreceive reasonable payment for his service; and lawsuits with the
clients should be chose to/chosen
to only to prevent mistreatment, (something forced on people/an
inconvenient situation) or stealing/criminal.
There was clearly no (something forced on people/an inconvenient
situation), mistreatment orstealing/criminal getting in this case to perm
it the legal action taken by person who
responded.As carried out by the records, complainant Cueto had alread
y paid more than half of people who

responded fee. To resort to a suit to recover the balance shows/tells


about a certain kind ofshameful behavior and rude behavior that clearl
y interferes with the principle included
in Canon15 that [A] lawyer should watch/notice honesty-related, fairne
ss and loyalty in all his dealings andtransactions with his client. And wh
at can we say about the failure of people who
responded sonJose III to pay his own (responsibility/duty) to complainan
t Cueto? It in all chance explains whyCueto ran short of money. Person
who
responded therefore should have been more tolerant ofthe delay got/ca
used by complainant Cueto.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED f
or violating Canon 20,Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibili
ty.
GR No. 117438
Raul Sesbreno Vs CA
FACTS:
Fifty-two workers sued the Area of control/area of
land of Cebu and Governor Rene Espina forrestoring and backwages be
gging
for Atty. Pacquiao as advice who was later replaced by Atty.Sesbreno. T
he workers and Atty. Sesbreno agreed that he is to be paid 30% as lawy
er's fees and20% as expenses taken from their back (moneys paid for
working). Trial court decided in favor ofthe workers and ordered the Are
a of control/area of
land of Cebu to restore them and pay themback (moneys paid for
working). The same was promised/stated as
true in toto by the Court ofAppeals and (in the
end) the Supreme Court. An agreement-related agreement was entere
d intoby the parties in April 1979. The former workers gave
up/canceled their right to restoring amongothers. The Area of
control/area of land of Cebu released P2,300,000.00 to the (giving out
written
requests/asking) workers through Atty. Sesbreno as "Partial Happiness
of Judgment." Theamount represented back (moneys paid for
working), terminal leave pay and tip pay due to theworkers. Ten worker
s filed signs before the trial court defending/expressing that they agree
d topay Atty. Sesbreno 40% to be taken only from their back (moneys
paid for working). The lowercourt issued two orders, with which (person
who approaches a court for
help) obeyed,needing/ordering him to release P10,000.00 to each of th
e ten private people who
respondedand to keep/hold 40% of the back (moneys paid for

working) having to do with the last thing just


mentioned out of the P2,300,000.00 released to him. On March 28,
1980, the trial court fixed thelawyer's fees a total of 60% of all monies
paid to the workers. However, trial court changed theaward after notin
g that (person who approaches a court for help)'s lawyer's legal
hold wasaccidentally placed as 60% when it should have been only 50
%. Atty. Sesbreno appealed to theCourt of Appeals claiming added/mor
e fees for legal services but was even further reduced to20%.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals had the authority to reduce the amount
of lawyer's fees awardedto ask/to beger
Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo, not prevented by/not part of the
issue the contract for professionalservices signed by private people
who responded
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court noted that the contract of professional service
s entered into by theparties 6 approved (person who approaches a
court for help) to take a total of 50% from theworkers' back (moneys
paid for
working) only. The trial court, however, fixed the lawyer's fee onthe bas
is of all monies to be awarded to private people who
responded. Fifty per cent of allmonies which private people who
responded may receive from the (related to a local
area)government, according to the Court of Appeals, is too much/too
many and shocking, not to say,opposite to the contract of professional
services. What a lawyer may charge and receive aslawyer's fees is alw
ays subject to (law-related) control. A condition on a lawyer's payment
in awritten contract for professional services normally controls the amo
unt of fees that thecontracting lawyer may be allowed, unless the court
finds such said amount unreasonableshocking. A contingent fee arrang
ement is valid in this control/area of
control and is generallyrecognized as valid and binding but must be lai
d down in an express contract. if the lawyer's feesare found to be too
much/too many, what is reasonable under the facts or conditions (that
surround
someone). (atomic) meruit, meaning "as much as he deserves," is used
as the basis fordeciding/figuring
out the lawyer's professional fees without a contract. The Supreme Cou
rtpromised that in balancing the portion of the money-based award,
50% of all monies to thelawyer and the other 50% to be set apart and
given out among all his 52 clients, is too lopsidedin favor of the lawyer. The ratio makes the practice of law a comm
ercial trip/business, ratherthan a noble job/line of
work. It would, truly be interesting if the advice whom they had hired t
ohelp would appropriate for himself 50% or even 60% of the total amo

unt collectible by theseworkers. 20% is a fair settlement.


Written request is DENIED.
G.R. No. 124074
Research Services Realty Vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
- On 3 November 1969, the (person who approaches a court for
help) entered into a JointTrip/business Agreement with Jose, Fidel, and
Antonia Carreon. Under the said agreement, the(person who
approaches a court for help) began/tried to develop, subdivide, (control
or manage/give medicine or something else), and (help increase/show
in a good
way) the sale of theparcels of land owned by the Carreons. The
money/the
profit of the sale of the lots were to bepaid to the Philippine National Ba
nk (PNB) for the landowner's mortgage (responsibility/duty),and the net
(money made/good things
received) to be shared by the contracting parties on a 50-50 basis.
-On 4 April 1983, the Carreons and a certain Patricio C. Sarile put into
place before the RTC ofMakati City an action against the (person who
approaches a court for
help) for rescission of theJoint Trip/business Agreement. This case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 612 at Branch 64 of thesaid court.
- In its answer, which was prepared and signed by Atty. Apolonio G. Rey
es, the (person who approaches a court for help) searched for/tried to
get the denial of the (written order) ofearly/incomplete legal
order, the dismissal of the complaint, and payment in its favor of (a) P1
0million by way of actual damages;
(b) P5 million by way of return to the (person who approaches a court
for
help) of the amount advanced to the Carreons, payments to the PNB, a
nd cost of thework on the subdivision;
(c) P100,000.00 by way of excellent damages;
(d) any and all damages upto the amount of P4,638,420.00 which the (
person who approaches a court for
help) may sufferunder the terms of its Performance Bond in favor of the
National Housing Authority;
(e)P50,000.00 as lawyer's fees; and (f) costs of suit.
On 9 April 1985, the (person who approaches a court for
help) engaged the services of privateperson who
responded Atty. Manuel S. Fonacier, Jr.,
[4] who then entered his appearance in CivilCase No. 612.
Issue: WON Person who
responded violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: This Court had earlier declared the following as facts or
conditions (that surround someone) to be thought

about/believed in deciding/figuring out the (quality of making good


sense) of a claim for lawyer's fees:
(1) the amount and character of the service made/gave/given;
(2) labor, time, and trouble involved;
(3) the nature and importance of the lawsuits or business inwhich the s
ervices were made/gave/given; (4) the responsibility (forced (on
people)/caused an inconvenient situation);
(5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the
arguing or involved in the employment;
(6) the skill and experience called for in the performanceof the services
; (7) the professional character and social standing of the lawyer;
(8) the resultssecured; and (9) whether the fee is total or contingent, it
being recognized that a lawyer mayproperly charge a much larger fee
when it is contingent than when it is not. [25]
Rule
20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the follo
wing factors whichshould guide a lawyer in deciding/figuring
out his fees:
(a) The time spent and the extent of the work already
done or needed/demanded;
(b) The newness and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The chance of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of
the gave/given case;
(f) The usual/usually done charges for almost the
same services and the schedule of fees of theIBP Chapter to which he b
elongs;
(g) The amount involved in the
arguing and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) The (related to one thing depending on another thing that might or
might not happen) or sure feeling of payment;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established
; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
The interest for both the (person who approaches a court for
help) and the private person who
responded demands that the trial court should manage and
do further (series of events) in CivilCase No.
612 relative to the private person who
responded's movement for the payment oflawyer's fees and, after
that, fix it because
of Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; Rule 20.1,Canon 20 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility; and the (in a way related to
practicing law)established guiding ways of thinking/basic
truths/rules in deciding/figuring

out lawyer's fees on(atomic) meruit basis.


WHEREFORE, the instant written
request is GRANTED. The challenged Decision of 31 March 1995of the C
ourt of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
44839 and the Order of 11 October 1993 of the (related to a large
area) Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64, in Civil Case No.
612 are hereby SET ASIDE. Thetrial court is further DIRECTED to set for
further hearing the private person who
responded'sImportant Movement to Direct Payment of Lawyer's Fees a
nd/or Register Lawyer's ChargingLegal hold and after
that to fix the private person who
responded's lawyer's fees in Civil Case No.
612 as of 31 March 1993 when his contract with the (person who
approaches a court for
help)was effectively ended/fired, taking into account Section 24, Rule 1
38 of the Rules of Court; Rule20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professiona
l Responsibility; and the (in a way related to practicing
law) established guiding ways of thinking/basic
truths/rules in deciding/figuring
out lawyer's feeson (atomic) meruit basis.
CANON 21
A.C. No. 5108 May 26, 2005
Rosa F. Mercado Vs. Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo
Facts: Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) complaint against Atty. Julito D. Angero, looking
(for) his disbarment from thepractice of law. The complainant accused t
hat person who responded cruelly started
a criminalcase for falsification of public document against her, a former
client, based on privateinformation gained from their lawyer-client relat
ionship.
Complainants husband filed Civil Case No.
40537 entitled Ruben G. Mercado v. Rosa C. Francisco,for cancellation o
f their marriage with the (related to a large
area) Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.This cancellation case had been dis
missed by the trial court, and the dismissal became final andexecutory
on July 15, 1992.[2]
In August 1992, Atty. Anastacio P. de Leon, advice
of complainant, died. On February 7, 1994,person who
responded entered his appearance before the trial court as cooperating
advice forcomplainant.[3
It also appears that on April 13, 1999, person who
responded filed a criminal action againstcomplainant before the Office
of the City Lawyer (who tries to prove someone

guilty), Pasig City,entitled Atty. Julito Angero, et al. v. Rose Dela Cruz F.
Mercado, and docketed as I.S. No. PSG 99-9823, for violation of Articles
171 and 172
(falsification of public document) of the ChangedPrison/punishment Co
de.[5]Respondent accused that complainant made false entries in theC
ertificates of Live Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. Mor
e specifically,complainant (claimed to be) pointed
to/showed in said Certificates of Live Birth that she ismarried to a certa
in Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was remembered on A
pril 11,
1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and th
eir marriage happened onApril 11, 1978.
Complainant denied the statements (that someone has done
something bad) of person who
responded against her. She denied using any other name than Rosa F.
Mercado. She also insistedthat she has gotten married only once, on Ap
ril 11, 1978, to Ruben G. Mercado.
Issue: WON person who responded violated CPR
Ruling: In engaging the services of a lawyer, the client rests on him spe
cial powers of trust andconfidence. Their relationship is strictly persona
l and highly private and (trust-related). Therelation is of such delicate, t
aking
and private nature that is needed/demanded by need andpublic interes
t.[15] Only by such (keeping private information
private) and protection will aperson be encouraged to rest his confiden
ce in a lawyer. The guess is that (not doing something)from looking
(for) legal guidance in a good cause is an evil which is deadly to the ma
nagement ofjustice.[16] So, the preservation and protection of that rela
tion will encourage a client to trust hislegal problems to a lawyer, whic
h is of most important importance to the management of justice.
[17] One rule started obeying to serve this purpose is the lawyerclient privilege: a lawyer is tokeep untouched his clients secrets or con
fidence and not to (treat or use in a very mean, unfair way) them.
[18] So, the duty of a lawyer to keep
his clients secrets and confidence outlasts theend/ending/firing of the l
awyer-client relationship,[19] and continues even after the clients deat
h.[20] It is the glory of the legal job/line of
work that its loyalty to its client can be depended on, andthat a man m
ay safely go to a lawyer and talk
with him upon his rights or supposed rights in anylawsuits with total pr
omise that the lawyers tongue is tied from ever telling it.[21] With (bei
ng completely honest and telling people
everything) of the facts of the case by the client to hislawyer, (good)
enough legal
help will result in the learnment and enforcement of rights or theprosec
ution or defense of the clients cause.

The (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) on record does


not prove complainantsaccusations. We note that complainant did not
even specify the possible communication inconfidence told (to
people) by person who responded. All her claims were surrounded
by generalterms and didn't have level of detail. She argues that person
who responded violated the rule on(enjoying a lot of special treatment,
money, and other advantages in life) communication whenhe started
a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents becau
se the criminalcomplaint told (to
people) facts relating to the lawsuit for cancellation then handled by pe
rson who
responded. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will decid
e/figure out the value of/the advantage
of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as t
o theexistence of facts which the complainant must prove.
In fact, complainant did
not attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any statements (in
court)from the complainant as to the specific private information (claim
ed to be) told about by person who responded without her
permission, it is hard, if not impossible to decide/figure
out if therewas any violation of the rule on (enjoying a lot of special
treatment, money, and other advantages in
life) communication. Such private information is an important link in be
ginning and building on a failure (or break) of the rule on (enjoying a
lot of special treatment, money, and other advantages in
life) communication between lawyer and client. It is not enough to only
defend/express the lawyer-client privilege.[37] The responsibility of pro
ving that the privilegeapplies is placed upon the party defending/expre
ssing the privilege.[38]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complaint against person who
responded Atty. Julito D. Angero is herebyDISMISSED for lack of honor.
AC No 5859
ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. MERCADO,
SEVERINO P. MERCADO AND SPOUSES JESUS AND ROSARIO MERCADO
V ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA
Facts: The person who
responded is a member of the Bar and was the former advice
of RosarioP. Mercado in a lawsuit filed in 1984 with the (related to a
large area) Trial Court of DavaoCity anda (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) case filed before the Securitiesand Exchange Commission
, Davao City Extension Office.[3]
According to a good decision, a (written
order) of execution pending (taking a court case to a higher court for

review) was issued in favor of Rosario P. Mercado. (in this/within


this) person who
responded, as her legal advice, garnished the bank deposits of the pers
on (who is being sued or who was sued), but did not turn over the
money/the profit to Rosario. Rosario demandedthat the person who
responded turn over the money/the profit of the garnishment, but the
last thing just
mentioned refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the j
udge while thebalance was his, as lawyer's fees. Such refusal caused/b
rought about/reminded Rosario to file a(related to managing and
running a company or
organization) case for disbarment against theperson who
responded. In his defense the person who
responded basically offers a denial of thecharges against him. He denie
s he has committed barratry by starting
(trouble) or stirring upGeorge Mercado to file lawsuits against the comp
lainants. He insists that the lawsuits that he andGeorge filed against th
e complainants were not (teasing and threatening over and over again
in a mean
way) suits but were in fact filed in good faith and were based on strong
facts. [8]Also, theperson who responded denies that he has working
at forum shopping. He argues that he wasonly exhausting the fixes allo
wed by law and that he was only held back to look (for) relief in other
places by reason of the denial of the trial court to reopen the lawsuit so
he could permit hislawyers fees. Further, he denies that he had
mistreated the problems of his clients family. Heargues that the case th
at he and George Mercado filed against the complainants rose
up fromtheir perception of illegal crime/disobeyings committed by the
last thing just
mentioned forwhich they must be held responsible for the public intere
st.
Issue: Whether or not person who responded is guilty of violating CPR
Ruling: The person who responded committed professional (serious
medical mistakes that cause injury or death) and gross bad
behavior especially in his acts against his former clients after theissuan
ce of the IBP Resolution suspending him from the practice of law for on
e year. Insummary, the person who
responded filed against his former client, her family members, thefamil
y corporation of his former client, the Chairman and members of the Bo
ard of Governors ofthe IBP who issued the said Resolution, the (related
to a large
area) Trial Court Judge in the casewhere his former client received a go
od judgment, and the present advice
of his former client, atotal of twelve (12) different cases in different for
a which included the Securities and ExchangeCommission; the (related
to a local area) Lawyers (who try to prove people

guilty) Office ofTagum, Davao; the Davao City Lawyers (who try to
prove people guilty) Office; the IBP-Commission on Bar Control/field of
study; the Department of Land-related Reform; and theSupreme Court.
Further, the person who
responded not only filed silly/disrespectful and (without a good
reason)lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court in help
ing in the proper management ofjustice, but he did so against a former
client to whom he owes loyalty and loyalty. Canon 21 andRule 21.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility[19]provides:
CANON
21 - A lawyer will preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even
after the lawyer-client relation is ended/fired.
Rule
21.02 A lawyer will not, to the disadvantage of his client, use informati
on got in the course ofemployment, nor will he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless theclient with full knowledg
e of the facts or conditions (that surround
someone) permission thereto.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from theprac
tice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.
A.C. No. 5128
Elesio C. Pormento Sr.
Vs Atty Alias A. Pontevedra
FACTS:
Complainant claims that person who
responded, who was his lawyer in in Civil Case No. 1648, (in a carefullyplanned way) did
not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim (even though there
is the existence
of) receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of whic
h,complainant was
starved of his right to appeal said order. Complainant defends/expresse
s thathe only came to know of the existence of the trial courts order wh
en the bad party in the saidcase extrajudicially (forced people out of a
house because they didn't
pay) the mortgage killedover the parcel of land which is the subject ma
tter of the suit. In order to recover his ownershipover the said parcel of
land, complainant was held back to hire a new lawyer as Atty.
Pontevedra refused to start
an action for the recovery of the subject property.[
Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and i
nterests over the saidparcel of land, he was forced to start a criminal c
ase for qualified theft against the relatives of thepossible new owner of
the said land. Person who responded is the advice of the person (who

might be a criminal) in said case.


In a separate event, complainant claims that in 1967, he bought a parc
el of land located atEscalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed of (official,
public statement/document with such a
statement) of Heirship and Sale of said land was prepared and notarize
d by person who
responded. Since there was another person who claims ownership of th
e property, complainantaccuse (of a crime)/say or
reports that he obeyed people who
responded guidance to build asmall house on the property and to allow
his (complainants) nephew and his family to occupy thehouse in order f
or complainant to establish his possession of the said property. (after
that),complainants nephew refused to leave the property causing/bring
ing about/reminding theformer to file an ejectment case with the Citybased Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental,docketed as Civil Cas
e No. 528. Person who responded acted as the advice
of complainantsnephew argues that person who
responded is guilty of (serious medical mistakes that cause injury or
death) and bad
behavior by representing clients with disagreeing interests and shouldb
e disbarred by reason of that/of it.[7]
In his Comment,[8] person who
responded argues that he was never a direct receiver of anymoneybased support coming from the complainant. Person who
responded deniescomplainants accusation that he (person who
responded) did not inform complainant of the trialcourts order dismissi
ng the last thing just mentioneds counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648.
Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer will not represent disagreeing interests except by written per
mission of all concernedgiven after a (being completely honest and
telling people everything) of the facts.
Result/resulting/statement to this, Canon 21 of the same Code prohibits
a lawyer to preserve theconfidences and secrets of his clients even afte
r the lawyer-client relation is ended/fired. Rule21.02, Canon 21 specific
ally needs/demands that:
A lawyer will not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information got
in the course ofemployment, nor will he use the same to his own advan
tage or that of a third person, unless theclient with full knowledge of th
e facts or conditions (that surround someone) permission thereto.
Issue: WON person who
responded violated the Code of Professional Reponsibility
Ruling: Communications between lawyer and client are, in a great num
ber of lawsuits, acomplicated affair, consisting of tangled
up (connected/related) and not
related, secret and wellknown facts. In the complex

difficulty of what is said in


the course of dealings between a lawyer and client, question (or
investigation) of the naturesuggested would lead to the sudden
understanding, in advance of the trial, of other matters thatmight only
further (unfair, pre-decided bad opinions) the complainants cause.[36]
So, person who responded should have (lowered in number/got
worse/gotten worse)employment in Criminal Case No.
3159 to avoid bad
feeling that he used in the criminal actionany information he may have
gotten in Civil Case No. 1648.
As to the third ground, we find that complainant did not present (a lot
of information that proves something) to prove that person who
responded did not inform him of the dismissal of hiscounterclaim in Civi
l Case No. 1648. (opposite from what's expected), we find (enough
information or physical objects that clearly prove
something) to prove that complainant has beenproperly told of the trial
courts order of dismissal. The only proof presented by complainant tos
upport his claim is the statement of his daughter confirming complaina
nts argument thatperson who responded in fact did
not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim.[40]However, in the
same statement, complainants daughter admits that it was on Decemb
er 4, 1989that person who
responded received the order of the trial court dismissing complainants
counterclaim. Person who
responded, presented a certification dated December 11,
1989, or oneweek after his receipt of the trial courts order, where comp
lainants daughteradmitted/recognized/responded
to receipt of the whole records of Civil Case No. 1648 fromcomplainant.
[41] The same certification relieved person who
responded of his(responsibility/duty) as advice
of complainant. From the previous, it can be guessed that person who
responded duly told complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim. O
therwise,complainant could not have ordered his daughter to withdraw
the records of his case fromperson who
responded at the same time relieving the last thing just
mentioned of responsibilityarising from his (responsibility/duty) as com
plainants advice in that particular case.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found GUILTY of representingdisa
greeing interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (
P10,000.00) Pesos. Heis WARNED that a repetition of the same or almo
st the same acts will be dealt with worsely.
The Board of Governors of the (Having different things working
together as one
unit) Bar of thePhilippines is DIRECTED to be obedient of the needed

things gave/given for in Section 12(a), Rule139-B of the Rules of Court


as discussed in the text of (in this/within this) decision.
CANON 22
AC NO. 3773
September 24, 1997
ANGELITA C. ORCINO Vs. ATTY ALIAS A. PONTEVEDRA
FACTS:
Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to (start a trial in court
against someone/perform an
action) a criminal case she meant to file against a
few suspects in the killing of her husband.Orcino bound herself to pay
person who
responded legal fees ofP20,000.00 -- P10,000.00 to bepaid upon signin
g of the contract and the balance to be paid on or before the end
of/final opinion
of the case. She was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of person
who respondedbefore the court and moneyrelated. This agreement was included
in a contract executed onFebruary 22,
1991. Orcino obeyed the contract and Atty. Gaspar entered into his duti
es. Atty.Gaspar, however did
not attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at this hearing
thatthe court, over complainant's objections, granted bail to all the
person (who might be a criminal).Orcino immediately went to person
who responded's residence and argued with him with his(not being
there; not being
present). Gaspar explained that he did not receive formal written
statement/attention of the hearing. She asked for the records of the ca
se saying that she couldrefer them to another lawyer. Gaspar then gav
e her the records. Orcino never returned therecords nor did she see Ga
spar. On September 18,
1991, Atty. Gaspar filed before the trial courta Movement to Withdraw a
s Advice without the permission of Orcino. The court issued an orderdir
ecting Gaspar to secure complainant's permit
to the movement and his appearance as privatelawyer (who tries to
prove someone
guilty) will continue until he has got/gotten this permission.Oricno refus
ed to sign her similarity. Atty. Gaspar did not appear at the hearings nor
did hecontact Orcino, this
way she was forced to engage the services of another lawyer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gaspar had the right to end the lawyer-client relati
on
HELD:

The client has the total right to end the lawyer-client relation at any tim
e with or without cause.The right of a lawyer to withdraw or end the rel
ation other than for (good)
enough cause is,however, much restricted. A lawyer who begins/tries t
o conduct an action (in a suggested or hinted
way) says to carry it to its end/end result. He cannot (leave behind and
alone) it withoutreasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from a
case before its final judging rises only fromthe client's written permissi
on or from a good cause. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Changed Ruleso
f Court provides: "Sec.
26. Change of lawyers -- A lawyer may retire at any time from any actio
nor special going
ahead, by the written permission of his client filed in court. He may als
o retire atany time from an action or special going
ahead, without the permission of his client, should thecourt, (on a list
of people that are being warned about something bad that will
happen) to theclient and lawyer, and on hearing, decide/figure
out that he should be allowed to retire. In case ofsubstitution, the nam
e of the lawyer newly employed will be entered on the docket of the co
urtin place of the former one, and written written
statement/attention of the change will be given tothe bad party." In the
present case, Orcina did not give her written permit
to Gaspar'swithdrawal. He did not even file an (online or paper form
that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) with the court for it to decide/figure
out whether he should be allowed to withdraw.
But granting that person who
responded's movement without complainant's permission was an(onlin
e or paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) for withdrawal with the court,the Supreme Court found this reason
not
enough to permit the withdrawal. Atty. Gaspar'swithdrawal was made o
n the ground that "there no longer exists the xxx confidence" betweent
hem and that there had been "serious differences between them relati
ng to the manner ofprivate prosecution. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"CANON 22 -- A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GO
OD CAUSE AND UPONNOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. R
ule 22.01- A lawyer may withdraw his servicesin any of the following ca
ses: a) When the client chases after an illegal or socially
wrong course ofbehavior in connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyerchase
after behavior disobedient of these canons and rules; c) When his inabi
lity to work with co-advice will not (help increase/show in a good
way) the best interest of the client; d) When themental or physical con
dition of the lawyer makes/gives it hard

for him to carry out theemployment effectively; e) When the client (in a
carefully-planned way) does not pay the fees forthe services or does
not obey the pre-payment agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or
selected to public office; and g) Other almost the
same cases." The instant case does not fallunder any of the grounds tal
ked about/said. Neither can this be thought about/believed almost the
same or the same as any. Orcina was upset by Atty. Gaspar's (not being
there; not being
present) at the hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers
of her husband and it wasthis
way natural for her to react by argument. Her words were
spoken in a burst of passion andcannot be interpreted to have meant t
o end Atty. Gaspar's services. She made this clear whenshe refused to
sign his "Movement to Withdraw as Advice." Even if Atty. Gaspar was
(done for good
reason) in ending his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leav
e complainant in thecold unprotected. The lawyer has no right to assu
me that his written
request for withdrawal willbe granted by the court. Until his withdrawal
will have been approved, the lawyer remains advice of record.
Return the amount owed to Orcina. Criticized to exercise caution.
A.C. No. 4215
May 21, 2001
FELICISIMO M. MONTANO
V INTGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA
FACTS:
The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his
advice in cooperation
with Atty.Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of App
eals docketed (in which/during which/in what way/in
what) the complainant was the person (who sued or is suing someone)person.
The parties agreed upon lawyer's fees in the amount of P15,000.00 fift
y percent (50%) of whichwas payable upon acceptance of the case and
the remaining balance upon the end/ending/firingof the case. In the
same way/in that way, complainant paid person who
responded the amount ofP7,500.00 representing 50% of the lawyer's fe
e.
After that, even before person who
responded advice had prepared the appellant's brief andopposite to th
eir agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the end/end
ing/firing ofthe case, Atty. Dealca demanded an
added payment from complainant obliged by paying theamount of P4,0
00.00.
Before the filing of the appellant's brief, person who

responded advice again demanded paymentof the remaining balance o


f P3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, person who
responded lawyer withdrw his appearance as complainant's advice wit
hout his prior knowledgeand/or similarity.
This way this complaint charging person who responded with bad
behavior and praying that hebe "seriously dealt with (related to
managers)."
ISSUE: W/N person who responded did/done/performed bad
behavior and violated (legal rules/food and supplies) of the CPR?
HELD:
Yes. The Court finds person who responded's (bad
behavior) of a member of the legal job/line of
work. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawy
er will withdraw hisservices only for good cause and upon (see/hear/be
come aware of) appropriate in the facts or conditions (that surround
someone). Although he may withdraw his services when the client (in a
carefully-planned way) does
not pay the fees for the services, under the facts or conditions that
surround the present case, Atty. Dealca's withdrawal was (there was no
good reason for) ascomplainant did not (in a carefully-planned way) do
not pay him the lawyer's fees. In fact,complainant (used/put into
action) honest efforts to satisfy his (responsibility/duty). Person who
responded's hateful conduct does not speak well of a member of the b
ar (thinking about/when one thinks about) that the amount because
of him was only P3,500.00. rule 20.4 of Canon 20,orders that a lawyer
will avoid bad
events with clients concerning his payment and will resort to(lawrelated) action only to prevent (something forced on people/an
inconvenient
situation),mistreatment or stealing/criminal. Sadly, for not so large a su
m owed to him by complainant,person who responded lawyer did
not act obeying the demands of the Code.
The Court, however, does not agree with complainant's argument that
the maximum penalty ofdisbarment should be forced on person who
responded lawyer. In the present case, criticism isthought of (good)
enough.
Person who responded was REPRIMANDED.

A.C. No. 5303


June 15, 2016
Humberto C. Lim, Jr. in behalf of Penta Resorts Corporation
V Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa

Humberto C. Lim Jr.[1] filed a (checked for truth/proved


true) complaint for disbarment againstperson who
responded Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa on July 7, 2000.[2] On February 19,
2002, person who responded moved for the combining
of the said complaint with the following (in a big
way)connected cases earlier filed with the First Division of this Court:
1. (related to managing and running a company or
organization) Case No.
5463: Sandra F. Vaflorv. Atty. Adoniram P. Pamplona and Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa;
2. (related to managing and running a company or
organization) Case No.
5502: Daniel A.Jalandoni v. Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa.
Repondent, without due written
statement/attention before a scheduled hearing, surprisinglyfiled a Mov
ement to withdraw as advice, one day before its scheduled hearing. Th
e groundsaccused by person who
responded for his withdrawal as advice
of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. wasthat he is a kept/held advice
of Dennis G. Jalbuena. This is an estafa case filed by therepresentatives
of PRC itself against (husband or
wife)s Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena. It is worthyto note that from the b
eginning, person who
responded already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena isthe son-in-law of Lu
mot A. Jalandoni being married to her oldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbue
na.(people who approach a court for
help) accused that as an offshoot of representing disagreeinginterests,
failure (or break) of lawyer-client (keeping private information
private) was committedby person who responded.
Issues: Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represe
nted and handled byperson who responded; and whether person who
responded properly withdrew his services asadvice
of record of Jalandoni.
Ruling: There is a representation of conflict of interests if the acceptanc
e of the new pre-paymentwill require the lawyer to do anything which
will harmfully affect his first client in any matter inwhich he represents
him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to usea
gainst his first client any knowledge got/gained through their connectio
n.
The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which private c
ommunications havebeen
trusted but also those in which no confidence has been
given or will be used.
In the same way/in that
way, it has been held that the right of a lawyer to withdraw or end ther

elation other than for (good)


enough cause is much restricted. Canon 22 of the CPR reads:
Canon
22 - A lawyer will withdraw his services only for good cause and upon (
see/hear/become aware of) appropriate in the facts or conditions (that
surround someone).
An lawyer may only retire from a case either by written permission of hi
s client or by permissionof the court after due written
statement/attention and hearing, in which event the lawyer shouldsee t
o it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case.
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for
person who
respondedbut to act as added/more advice. Mrs. Jalandoni's similarity t
o having an added lawyer did notmean similarity to person who
responded's want to withdraw as advice. Person who
responded'sguesses on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza a
nd Mrs. Jalandoni find no support inthe records of this case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the giving up/forgetting about, person who
responded Atty. Nicanor V.Villaroza is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon re
ceiptof this decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the sa
me or almost the same actswill be dealt with worsely.