Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends

Ramos v. Imbang (Canon 6) DISPOSITIVE: Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of

FACTS: Diana Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Jose R.
Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses
Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but
the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.
violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18,
Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of
law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys.

Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707,
told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several March 24, 2006
hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
rescheduled. This happened six times and for each appearance
Facts: In 1995, while respondent Gutierrez was still connected
in court, respondent charged her P350.
with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID),
Petitioner Huyssen and her three sons, who are all American
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
citizens, applied for Philippine Visas. Respondent told
suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her
complainant that in order that their visa applications will be
cases. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed
favorably acted upon by the BID they needed to deposit a
any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact
certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be
employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
withdrawn after one year. Believing that the deposit was
indeed required by law, complainant deposited with
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) submitted its report
respondent on six different occasions the total amount of
and recommendation found respondent guilty of violating the
US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs
prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private
that he received the amounts deposited by the complainant but
cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries. It
refused to give her copies of official receipts despite her
concluded that Imbang is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Rule
demands. After one year, complainant demanded from
16.01 and Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional
respondent the return of US$20,000 who assured her that said
Responsibility. Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension
amount would be returned. When respondent failed to return
from the practice of law for three years and to return to the
the sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which
complainant P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.
complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to
respondent for the immediate return of the money. Thereafter
ISSUE: WON Imbangs acts violates Canon 6
Respondent enclosed two blank checks postdated and
authorized complainant to fill in the amounts. When
HELD: Yes. Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves
complainant deposited the postdated checks on their due dates,
with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in
the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped
government service as they are subject to public scrutiny.
payment on the same. Thus, a complaint for disbarment was
filed by complainant in the Commission on Bar Discipline of
Government employees are expected to devote themselves
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
completely to public service. For this reason, the private
practice of profession is prohibited.
Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint claiming
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney- that having never physically received the money mentioned in
client relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted the complaint, he could not have appropriated or pocketed the
money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the same. He said the amount was used as payment for services
presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the Philippines.
the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he
accepted the complainant's case while he was still a Issues: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule
government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in
prohibition on private practice of profession. allegedly committing fraud by taking advantage of his public
position.
PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal
assistance to indigent litigants. As a PAO lawyer, respondent
should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant
as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent
violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than
his salary.

Page 1 of 6
Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends
Held: Yes. Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties. It is undisputed that respondent admitted having
received the US$20,000 from complainant as shown by his
signatures in the petty cash vouchers and receipts he prepared,
on the false representation that that it was needed in
complainants application for visa with the BID.
The said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting
their private interest. Promotion of private interest includes
soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may
be affected by the functions of his office. Respondents conduct
in office betrays the integrity and good moral character
required from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a
high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not
only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government;
he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a
keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in
private practice.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates
that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for
any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross
misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude ; (6) violation
of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority to do so.
The practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special
privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all
times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A
violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects
the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes
suspension and disbarment. Thus, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is
DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return
the amount he received from the complainant with legal
interest from his receipt of the money until payment.
Ruthie Lim-Santiago vs. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio - Canon 6
Facts: 21 employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint
entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-Santiago."
Taggat employees alleged that complainant, who took over the
management and control of Taggat after the death of her
Page 2 of 6
father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without
valid cause.
Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned
to conduct the preliminary investigation. He resolved the
criminal complaint by recommending the filing of 651
Informations for violation of Article 288 in relation to Article
116 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in
the private practice of law while working as a government
prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that
respondent received P10,000 as retainers fee.
Respondent does not dispute his receipt, after his appointment
as government prosecutor, of retainer fees from complainant
but claims that it was only on a case-to-case basis and it
ceased in 1996. Respondent contends that the fees were paid
for his consultancy services and not for representation.
Respondent submits that consultation is not the same as
representation and that rendering consultancy services is not
prohibited.
The IBP Board of Governors found respondent guilty of
conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former clients
interest, and violating the prohibition against the private
practice of law while being a government prosecutor. They
recommended the imposition of a penalty of three years
suspension from the practice of law.
Issue: WON Respondent violated the prohibition of
Government prosecutors to engage in the private practice of
law.
Held: Yes. The propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or
"consultancy fees" from herein Complainant while being an
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, and for rendering legal
consultancy work while being an Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor, are matters that had long been settled.
Government prosecutors are prohibited to engage in the
private practice of law. The act of being a legal consultant is
a practice of law. To engage in the practice of law is to do any
of those acts that are characteristic of the legal profession. It
covers any activity, in or out of court, which required the
application of law, legal principles, practice or procedures and
calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.
Respondent clearly violated this prohibition. Accordingly,
Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest,
failure to safeguard a former clients interest, and violating the
prohibition against the private practice of law while being a
government prosecutor.
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against
unlawful conduct. Respondent committed unlawful conduct
when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and
Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or
Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713").
Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official duties." A
government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to]
represent conflicting interests."
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B.
Sagucio from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective
upon finality of this Decision.
Collantes vs. Renomeron
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is related to the
administrative case which complainant Attorney Fernando T.
Collantes, house counsel for V & G Better Homes
Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for short), filed against Attorney
Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City,
for the latter's irregular actuations with regard to the
application of V & G for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds
of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision
V&G requested the respondent Register of Deeds to register
some 163 deeds of sale with assignment (in favor of the GSIS)
of lots of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers.
There was no action from the respondent. Thereafter, another
request was made, still no action except to require V & G to
submit proof of real estate tax payment and to clarify certain
details about the transactions.
V&G complied the said requirements, respondent Renomeron
suspended the registration of the documents pending
compliance by V & G with a certain "special arrangement"
between them, which was that V & G should provide him with
a weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,
000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of
respondent's Quezon City house and lot by V & G or GSIS
representatives. Respondent confided to the complainant that
he would act favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V
& G if the latter would execute clarificatory affidavits and
send money for a round trip plane ticket for him.
Thereafter, The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the
pocket money of P2,000) was sent to respondent through his
niece. However, V & G's failed to give him pocket money in
addition to plane fare, thus, respondent imposed additional
registration requirements. Fed up with the respondent's
extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter on May
20, 1987 challenging him to act on all pending applications for
registration of V & G within twenty-four (24) hours.
Sad to say, respondent formally denied registration of the
transfer of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on the uniform
ground that the deeds of absolute sale with assignment were
ambiguous as to parties and subject matter.
Page 3 of 6
Issue: Whether the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer,
may also be disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a
public official.
Held: Yes The Court ruled that Atty. Renomeron may be
disciplined by the court as public official for his misconduct
constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
Under lawyers oath states that lawyers duty is to delay no
man for money or malice. Furthermore, The Code of
Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). Just
as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials requires public officials and employees to process
documents and papers expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and
[d] and prohibits them from directly or indirectly having a
financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting
gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their
office (See. 7, subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code of Professional
Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's cause "for
any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility.)
In the case at bar, the acts of dishonesty and oppression which
Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble
calling of the law. Thus, Atty Renomeron should therefore be
dismissed.
People v Pineda (Not Assigned, citation was given late,
please see full text)
SUAREZ vs. PLATON, G.R. No. 46371
Facts: Atty. Fortunato Suarez was riding a train on his way to
the Municipality of Calauag, Tayabas. He was uttering words
against the government in abusing their authorities in
persecuting Sakdalistas. In that instance, Lieutenant Vivencio
Orais effected the arrest upon Atty. Suarez in violation of Art.
142 of the RPC (Sedition). A complaint was filed against Atty.
Suarez, however, Orais moved for the temporary dismissal of
the case upon the order of the latters superior. In turn, Atty.
Suarez filed a complaint against Orais for arbitrary detention
for arresting him without warrant of arrest and legal grounds
and detained him in the Municipal Jail for eight hours. He also
Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends
alleged that such arrest was incited with ill-feeling, grudge and
resentment.
After the reinvestigation, Fiscal Ramon Valdez filed a motion
for the dismissal of the present case. However, the then
presiding judge of CFI of Tayabas, Hon. Ed. Gutierrez David
ruled that there was prima facie case against the accused.
Fiscal Jacinto Yamson, was assigned by the DOJ to handle the
prosecution but likewise entered a nolle prosequi (we shall no
longer prosecute) and moved for the dismissal of the case. In
his recommendation, he stated that the words pronounced by
Suarez, that if in his concept they are not seditious and
subversive, at least they were abusive to the authorities of the
government. Thus the legal aspect of the question, and
applying law as the arbitrary detention, that for this crime to
exist, the detention had to have been for no legal reason.
However, we believe that there was some legal motive for the
arrest of the Suarez and his companion and such arrest was
justified for having themselves caused it. Also, there is no
evidence to manifest that Orais was induced for reasons of
revenge or resentment In the absence of proof of these facts, in
our humble opinion, there is in favor of Lieutenant Orais the
presumption of having fulfilled his duty by arresting Atty.
Suarez taking into account the extraordinary circumstances
prevailing in Calauag as a result of the disturbances and public
disorders that took place. It should also be taken into account
that after the arrest Lieutenant Orais presented an immediate
complaint for breach of Article 142 of the Revised Criminal
Code.
Thereafter, the case was appointed to Judge Platon and after
consideration of all the facts and proofs submitted in the case,
he dismissed the case, holding that the evidence was
insufficient to convict the accused of the crime charged.
Issue: WON, the Judge Platon erred in dismissing the case
based on the recommendation of the Provincial Fiscal.
Held: NO. We [Court] cannot overemphasize the necessity of
close scrutiny and investigation of prosecuting officers of all
cases handled by them, but whilst this Court is averse to any
form of vacillation by such officers in the prosecution of
public offenses, it is unquestionable that they may, in
appropriate cases, in order to do justice and avoid injustice,
reinvestigate cases in which they have already filed the
corresponding information. In the language of Mr. Justice
Sutherland of the Supreme Court of the United States, the
prosecuting officer "is the representative not of an ordinary
party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to
govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall
be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense
the servant of the law, the two fold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with
earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do so. But, while
he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul
ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
Page 4 of 6
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use
every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
The petition is hereby dismissed. So ordered.
Penticostes v Ibanez (not assigned, please see short cases)
Misamin v San Juan - Aug. 31, 1976 - Canon 6.02
Facts: Atty. Miguel San Juan, a captain of the Metro Manila
Police Force, and a member of the bar, herein respondent to be
charged of malpractice.
Respondent was the counsel of the employer of Jose Misamin,
herein complainant, who filed against his employer Cesar's
Bakery before the NLRC.
Petitioner's Claims
1. Respondent appeared as counsel for the New Cesar's
Bakery while holding an office as captain in the Police Force
which may constitute as malpractice.
2. Respondent conspired with the complainant's counsel in the
NLRC proceeding in order to trick him into signing an
admission that he had been paid his separation pay.
3. Respondent is giving illegal protection to members of the
Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila.
Respondent's Reply
1. Respondent contends that the law did not prohibit him from
such isolated exercise of his profession, and his appearance as
counsel while holding a government position is not among the
grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or
removal of attorneys.
2 and 3. Respondent denies such allegations.
The Solicitor General has scheduled the case for
investigations, but the counsel of the Complainant was absent
three (3) times. Complainant himself told the court that his
lawyer was busy preparing an affidavit in the CFI of Manila
and wished to withdraw his complaint. Providing it was just
part of his utburst of anger due to the unjust dismissal of his
complaint with the NLRC.
Issue: WON the admin case against Atty. San Juan will
prosper.
Held: No, the court dismissed the administrative complaint for
not having been duly proved.
Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends
As far back as in re Tionko (1922), the authoritative doctrine
was set forth by Justice Malcolm in this wise: "The serious
consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only
where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the
respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of
the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer
of the court in accordance with his oath."
Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, still it
would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar
to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that
the suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to
the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make
use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed,
but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the
office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory
scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the
beck and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a
matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his
future actuations as a member of the bar. should refrain from
laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his
fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for
membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an
honorable profession who does not even take care that his
honor remains unsullied.
**add** Not part of the case: please be noted that the case
was ruled before the CPR, where in Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in
the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
At the present time, suspension and disbarment may be
possible.
Cuenca v CA (not assigned, pls see short cases)
ALI V. BUBONG - March 8, 2005
FACTS: This is a petition for disbarment filed against Atty.
Mosib Bubong (respondent, for brevity) for having been found
guilty of grave misconduct while holding the position of
Register of Deeds of Marawi. This case started when Omar Ali
(complainant) charged the respondent with illegal exaction,
indiscriminate issuance of TCT and manipulating a criminal
complaint filed against a certain individuals (who was a
relative of the respondent) who allegedly violated the Anti-
Squatting Law. The allegations, however, by the complainant
was dismissed by the Land Registration Authority given that
the complainant failed to substantiate his arguments. This
administrative case was then elevated to the DOJ (by the
persona of Sec. Drilon), who, absolved the respondent with
regards to the illegal exaction. However, the DOJ found him
Page 5 of 6
guilty of grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of the
TCT and for manipulating the criminal case for violation of
the Anti-Squatting Law. Because of this, the DOJ
recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service.
The recommendation of the DOJ was adopted by Pres. Ramos;
he, then, issued A.O No. 41 which ordered the respondent to
vacate his position. With denial of the allegations in the
administrative case filed against him, herein respondent
questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the President to
remove him from his office. This was dismissed by the Court.
From the outcome of the administrative case (which
terminated the employment of Bubong), complainant further
seeks for the disbarment of the respondent stating that, due to
the results of the findings in the administrative case,
respondent is now unfit to be a lawyer. This matter was
referred to the IBP. Upon request, the investigation was
transferred to the authority of the IBP Cotabato Chapter who,
thereafter, sent notices of hearing to both parties; however,
respondent ignored such notices. Thus, on report of the IBP
Cotabato, it recommended that the respondent be suspended
for 5 years. Respondent, then, asked for the transmittal of the
records of the case to Marawi City, however it was dismissed.
He further argued that there were no notices of hearing that
was sent to him. However, with evidences, it was rebutted by
the IBP. Hence, the recommendation of the IBP Cotabato
Chapter was modified by the IBP Board of Governors making
it only a 2 years suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bubong may be disbarred for
grave misconduct committed while he was in the employ of
the government.
HELD: Yes, the Court ruled that Atty. Bubong be disbarred.
According to the Court, Code of Professional Responsibility
does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
joined the government service. Hence, if a lawyer, although a
government employee, showed moral delinquency and
violated his oath, he is still subjected to the rules and
regulations of the bar. According to Canon 6. 02 A lawyer in
the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
to interfere with his public duties In the case at bar, it was
shown that Canon 6 was violated by the respondent when he
took advantage of his position as the Register of Deeds by
employing his knowledge of the rules governing land
registration for the benefit of his relatives. This act of the
respondent does not only affect his reputation as a government
employee but also questioned his image as a lawyer. Because
of the grave misconduct that was committed by the
respondent, he also putted his good moral character into
question which allowed the Court to impose disciplinary
sanction against him; and that is disbarment.
Olazo vs. Justice Tinga, *AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 07,
2010
Legal Ethics Case Digest - Canon 6 - Lucky 9 and prends
Facts: The complainant Olazo filed a sales application
covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan
in the Municipality of Taguig. The land (subject land) was
previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated
and declared open for disposition pursuant to Proclamation
No. 172. Respondent was one of the Committee members
whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a
recommendation on the applications to purchase the lands
declared open for disposition. The complainant claimed that
the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a
member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly
interfered with the complainants sales application because of
his personal interest over the subject land. It alleged that the
respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over the
complainants father, for the latter to contest the complainants
sales application and claim the subject land for himself. As a
result of the respondents abuse of his official functions, the
complainants sales application was denied.
Issues: Whether or not respondent used his position to
interfere in the sales application and thereby violated Rule 6 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: No. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that a lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties. Such provision prohibits a lawyer from using his
or her public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2)
advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest to
Page 6 of 6
interfere with his or her public duties. We previously held that
the restriction extends to all government lawyers who use
their public offices to promote their private interests.
In the case at bar, the Court find the absence of any concrete
proof that the respondent abused his position as a
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in
the manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. First, the records do not clearly
show if the complainants sales application was ever brought
before the Committee on Awards. By the complaints own
account, the sales application was pending before the Office of
the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR due to the
conflicting claims. Since the sales application was not brought
before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was
still a member, no sufficient basis exists to conclude that he
used his position to obtain personal benefits. Second, the
complainants allegation that the respondent orchestrated the
efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the
orchestration was undertaken. Third, the other documents that
the complainant presented to support his claim that the
respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over his
father do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure or
force exerted by the respondent. As the records show, no
evidence exist showing that the respondent previously
interfered with the sales application and the complaint failed
to sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the
practice of law. Thus, the administrative case is dismissed.