Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 54

CANON 7

ALITAGTAG v. GARCIA
(A.C. No. 4738, June 10, 2003)

FACTS:
The certain complaint arises when the respondent was assigned as an
attorney-in-fact of the Donee, who is his brother-in-law about a property,
who authorized respondent to administer the property and to sell the
property by a second special power of attorney. The PNP questioned the
signature in the Deed of Donation and the standard signatures of the late
Cesar B. Flores which were not written by the same person. The RTC
rendered the decision of null and void to the Deed of Donation.

This refers to the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of this


Court finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession and ordering
his disbarment from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.

Respondent reiterates his innocence by denying authorship and


participation in the falsification of the subject deed of donation. However,
he admits his negligence and expresses remorse for his failure to diligently
perform his duties as notary public with respect to the notarization of the
said deed of donation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that xxx 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. xxx In the case at bar,
respondent is found guilty of harassing the occupants of the property subject
of the donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its services to the property
and by posting security guards to intimidate the said occupants. These acts
do not speak well of his standing as a member of the bar. By engaging in acts
that undermine recognition of and respect for legal processes, respondent
has clearly committed conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession.
CANON 7

VENTURA v. SAMSON
(A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012)

FACTS:
A Complaint was filed by Maria Victoria B. Ventura for Disbarment or
Suspension before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission
on Bar Discipline against respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for "grossly
immoral conduct." Complainant alleged that the respondent raped her. The
respondent admitted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant. The
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution that dismissed the
charge of rape and issued information for qualified seduction. Complainant
filed a Motion for reconsideration which was denied and the Resolution was
elevated to the Department of Justice.

The Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar


Discipline recommended that respondent be suspended for one year from
the practice of law for immorality with the warning that repetition of the
same or similar act will merit a more severe penalty. In the issued
Resolution, the respondent was suspended for five years from the practice
of law. Complainant argued that the penalty imposed was not
commensurate to the gravity and depravity of the offense. While the
respondent filed for a Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP Resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent is guilty of violating Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides xxx 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. xxx

The respondents act of engaging in sex with the young daughter of


his former employee warrants sanction for showing a gross immoral
conduct. Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright
and respectable members of the community.

Respondent showed no remorse when he had asserted that he did


nothing wrong for she allegedly agreed and he also gave her money after the
said sexual intercourse. Having sexual intercourse other than his wife
showed that he disrespected the law on the sanctity of marriage and even
his own marital vow of fidelity. His act of enticing a young woman with
money showed moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human
person and the ethics of his profession.

In cases having illicit sexual relations were punished with disbarment,


indefinite or definite suspension. In this case, the sexual exploitation of a
minor and defiance of established norms showed respondents gross
misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor which affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.

Thus, the Court held that the respondent is disbarred for gross
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Rule 7.03,
Canon 7 and of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 7

SANTOS, JR. v. LLAMAS


(A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000)

FACTS:
Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a member of the bar, sent a letter-complaint
dated February 8, 1997 to this Court. He alleged that Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas for a number of years had not indicated the proper Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Official Receipt
Numbers and data (date and place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he
only indicated "IBP Rizal 259060," but he had been using this for at least three
years already. This matter was being brought in the context of Rule 138,
Section 1 which qualifies a that only a duly admitted member of the bar "who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law." In his comment,
Atty. Llamas claimed that since 1992, he publicly made it clear in his Income
Tax Return that he had only a limited practice of law and his principal
occupation is farming. And being a senior citizen since 1992, he is legally
exempt under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7432 in the payment of taxes.
Thus, he honestly believed in view of his detachment from a total practice of
law, but only a limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with
the Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption. Nonetheless, despite such
honest belief, he was ready to tender such fulfilment on payment.

The Court ruled that respondent can engage in the practice of law only
by paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While
it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4, grants senior citizens "exemption from the
payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the
exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings he filed in court indeed merited the most severe penalty.
However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to
pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court
believed that the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or
until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, was appropriate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Llamas committed a violation of Canon 7 of Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues
to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7
A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. CANON 10 A LAWYER
OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule
10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 7

SPOUSES TEJADA v. PALAA


(A.C. No. 7434, August 23, 2007)

FACTS:
Petitioners-spouses Rosita and Amador Tejada filed a Complaint
Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate
disbarment proceedings against respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa for his
continued refusal to settle his long overdue loan obligation to the
complainants, in violation of his sworn duty as a lawyer to do justice to every
man and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Sometime on January, 2001, respondent lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana


taking advantage of his special knowledge as a lawyer represented to the
petitioners that he has an alleged parcel of land and that he needs an amount
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could reconstitute
the torrens title on the same. Respondent then induced by sweet promises
and assurances petitioners spouses to finance such undertaking with a
solemn commitment on his part that after he has already reconstituted such
torrens title, he will deliver the same to the petitioners spouses as security
for the amount they had financed and which was evidenced in writing by
the parties. However, after respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana had
gotten the P100,000.00 amount from the petitioner spouses, respondent from
that time on up to the present had intentionally evaded the performance of
his due, just, legal and demandable obligations to petitioner spouses.

Legal demands had already been made to respondent lawyer to fulfill


all his moral and legal responsibilities to petitioner spouses but all of said
demands simply went unheeded. Despite due notice, respondent failed to
file his answer to the complaint as required by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise failed to appear on the scheduled
date of the mandatory conference despite due notice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent has violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility due to continued refusal to settle his obligation to the
complainants and for his failure to participate in the proceedings before the
Commission of Bar Discipline.

HELD:
YES. Respondent, like all other members of the bar, is expected to
always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz: Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
Rule 1.02 and
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

In the instant case, respondents unjustified withholding of petitioners


money years after it became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of
integrity and fairness, and this is further highlighted by his lack of regard
for the charges brought against him. Instead of meeting the charges head on,
respondent did not bother to file an answer nor did he participate in the
proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his conduct.

The Court has emphatically stated that when the integrity of a member
of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that s/he denies the charges against
him; s/he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him/her.
S/he must show proof that s/he still maintains that degree of morality and
integrity which at all times is expected of him/her.

Finally, respondents acts, which violated the Lawyer's Oath to delay


no man for money or malice as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him.

CANON 7

MENDOZA VS. DECIEMBRE


(A.C. No.5338, February 23, 2009)

FACTS:
The respondent, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the decision of the IBP Board of Governors suspending
him from the practice of law for one year. The case started when Eugenia
Mendoza filed a petition seeking the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre for his
acts of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without her authority
and using the same for filing unfounded criminal suits against her. The
petitioner a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, applied for a loan
through the respondent and she secured 12 blank checks. Although she was
unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made
remittances. According to the respondent, the amounts remitted were not
enough to cover the penalties, interest and other charges, he warned the
complainant that he would deposit the check. The petitioner was afraid that
the respondent will sue her, she made subsequent payment to the
respondent. Later on the respondent filled up two checks, Php50,000 for each
check , the check bounced for the reason of closed account. The petitioner
insisted that she never borrowed such amount of money and she mentioned
that the respondent already victimized other employees of the Postal office
with the same scheme. On the other hand, the respondent averred that his
dealings with the petitioner were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
against the petitioner, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen.
The action of respondent is a clear violation of Canon 7 Ruler 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre should be
disbarred.
HELD:
Yes, the petitioner should be disbarred. From the evidence provided,
it is clear that he has failed to live up to the standards required of members
of the legal profession. Although, he acted on his private capacity, the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that even on his private life, he
should not engage in any conducts that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law. Instead of suspension, the Court decided to disbar the
respondent from the practice of law.

CANON 7

SAMALA VS. PALAA


(A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005)

FACTS:
Joseph Samala filed complaint against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K.
Palaa for alleged fraudulent activities that violate Canon 7 Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The rule provides that 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. The petitioner invested his dollar
savings to a company where the respondent was working as a legal officer.
When the petitioner decided to pull out his investment, the check issued to
him bounced several times, the respondent calimed that the checks were
signed by Paul Desiderio, President of the investment company. When the
check bounced again, the petitioner filed a case against Desiderio, when the
Police went to the address, it does not exist and paul Desiderio does not also
exist. It is clearly a fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional
Ethics. During the hearing, the respondent never appeared.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent violated the code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Canon 7 Rule 7.03. the respondent was instrumental in the
issucance of the check signed by the alleged President of the investment
company, whose whereabouts could not be located and whose identity was
unknown. The court suspended the petitioner from the practice of law for
three years with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.

CANON 7

JOSELANO GUEVARRA VS. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA


(A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007)

FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment against before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline
against Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala for grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath.

According to the complainant, on January 2000 he was introduced to


Atty. Eala by his then-fiancee Irene Moje. Atty. Eala was at that time married
to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children. After Gueverra
married Irene on October 7,2000 he noticed that from January to March 2001,
Irene had been receiving text messages from respondent stating "I love you",
"I miss you", or "Meet you at Megamall". Irene also started to habitually go
home late at night. In February or March 2001, Guevarra saw Irene with
Atty. Eala together on two occasions, on the second time he confronted them
leading to Irene abandoning their conjugal house.

Complainant also found a card bearing the words "I Love You" which
contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding
to Irene. The letter was from a certain "Noli", who expressed his deep love
for Irene. On January 18, 2002 Guevarra saw a pregnant Irene together with
Atty. Eala during a concert. Attached on the Complaint was a copy of a
Certificate of Live Birth bearing Irene's signature and naming respondent as
the father of her daughter who was born on February 14, 2002.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala violated Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Eala violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and was disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
The Supreme Court held that the adulterous relationship between
respondent and Irene which was sufficiently proven by more than clearly
preponderant evidence and that the relationship is between a married
lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife are considered as "grossly
immoral conduct". According to Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that "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", Atty. Eala's illicit affair is indeed a
scandalous and unbecoming of a lawyer.
CANON 7

ATTY. BONIFACIO BARANDON, JR VS ATTY. EDWIN FERRER, SR


(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010)

FACTS:
Atty. Barandon filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the
disbarment,suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of
appropriate disciplinary actions against Atty. Ferrer. One of the grounds for
the prayer for disbarment orother disciplinary actions against Ferrer was his
conduct and the words he uttered at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court
Daet before the start of hearing.Such conduct of Atty. Ferrer was confirmed
by disinterested persons who witnessed the incident. In the said incident,
Atty. Ferrer was drunk when he utteredthe words: Laban kung laban,
patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang
magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogadona rito ay mga taga-
Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ferrer violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Ferrer violated Canon 7, particularly rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Ferrer uttered the invectives against Barandon
withintent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit the former. A
lawyers language should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the
dignity of thelegal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought
to have realized thatsuch kind of public behavior can only bring down the
legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. The
Supreme Court affirmed thesuspension of Atty. Ferrer for one year as
ordered by the IBP-CBD.

CANON 7

SPOUSES GARCIA V. BALA


(AC no. 5039, November 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed a Letter-Complaint against
Atty. Rolando S. Bala for failing to render a legal service contracted which
was to appeal to the Court of Appeals the adverse Decision of the
Department of Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB) but
instead, he erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB and
because of this error, the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed;
refusing to return the P9,200 legal fees they had paid him for the purpose;
and for allegedly hurling invectives at them when they asked him for a copy
of the petition that he claimed to have filed. In a Report dated September 23,
2004, Investigating IBP Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa found respondent
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Report also
concluded that respondent should be sanctioned for his unjustified refusal
and failure to return the money paid by his clients which totaled to P9,200
that respondent should be sanctioned further for uttering unsavory words
against complainants when they had called on him to ask for a copy of the
supposed appeal. Hence, she recommended that, aside from a fine of P5,000
and the return to complainants of the amount of P9,200, suspension from the
practice of law for a period of six months should be imposed upon him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent must be sanctioned for using unsavory
words against the complainants and for non-participation of respondent in
the proceedings.

HELD:
Yes, the court ruled that lawyers may be disciplined -- whether in their
professional or in their private capacity -- for any conduct that is wanting in
morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession at all times.
The Court also noted and the nonparticipation of respondent even in
the present proceedings. He ignored the directive for him to file his
comment, just as he had disregarded the IBP hearing commissioners orders
for the conduct of hearings, submission of documentary evidence and
position paper. He did not acknowledge or offer any excuse for his
noncompliance. His conduct manifested his disrespect of judicial
authorities. Despite the fact that his profession and honor are at stake, he did
not even bother to speak a word in his defense. Apparently, he has no wish
to preserve the dignity and honor expected of lawyers and the legal
profession.
CANON 7

MACARUBBO V. MACARUBBO
(AC no. 6148, February 24, 2004)

FACTS:
Complainant Florence Teves filed a verified complaint for the
disbarment of Atty. Edmundo Macarubbo with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines alleging that the respondent deceived her into marrying him
despite his subsisting marriage with Helen Esperza and complainant further
averred that respondent entered into a third marriage with Josephine
Constantino, leaving her and their children and not providing them support.
Respondent denied deceiving complainant and insisting that she was aware
of the subsisting marriage with Helen but that she dragged him against his
will to a sham wedding to protect her and her familys reputation since she
was then three-months pregnant. The respondent also submitted evidence
that his marriage was void ab initio because his consent to the marriage was
acquired through fraud, deceit, force and intimidation, and further
exacerbated by the existence of a legal impediment and want of a valid
marriage license. Respondent claimed that he left complainant and their two
children with her consent after explaining to her that the pain and shame of
living in sin and ridicule was unbearable and submitted evidences such as
postdated checks which were the allowances of their children. After hearing
during which both complainant and respondent took the witness stand, the
Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation where
the respondent was recommended to suspension of 3 months for gross
misconduct reflecting unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and
should be disbarred

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is indeed guilty of gross misconduct in his private
affairs which warrant disciplinary action by this Court as the guardian of the
purity and integrity of the legal profession.
The facts show that while respondent had a subsisting marriage with Helen
Esparza with whom he had two children, he entered into a second marriage
with complainant. While the marriage between complainant and respondent
has been annulled by final judgment, this does not cleanse his conduct of
every tinge of impropriety. He and complainant started living as husband
and wife in December 1991 when his first marriage was still subsisting, as it
was only on August 21, 1998 that such first marriage was annulled,
rendering him liable for concubinage. Such conduct is inconsistent with the
good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law
as a member of the Philippine bar. It imports moral turpitude and is a public
assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

Respondent has breached the following precepts of the Code of


Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral


or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

As a consequence, respondent was disbarred because of the gravity of


his conduct.

CANON 8
YU v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 106818, May 27, 1994)

FACTS:
The petitioner owned a drugstore called Didings Pharmacy in
Manalili Street, Cebu City. In furtherance of the business, Yu obtained from
the Traders Royal Bank (TRB) several loans secured by promissory notes, a
chattel mortgage, letters of credit and trust receipts.

Yus loans became due and demandable, but despite TRBs repeated
demands, Yu failed to effect payment. During the pendency of the case, TRB
sought possession of the mortgaged chattels for the purpose of effecting an
extrajudicial closure. TRB instituted a criminal complaint against Yu and his
wife for 2 counts of violation of Trust Receipts Law. The inquest fiscal was
unmoved by Yus defense that the trust receipts were null and void for being
fictitious and simulated.

Two days after the filing of the criminal case, TRB instituted before the
same court against Yu for the recovery of sums of money. Its complaint
specifically mentioned the trust receipts in question. Yu moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of litis pendentia. Yu called attention to the fact
that the two cases involved the same promissory notes and letters of credit.
It is clear that a cases will not necessarily foreclose the other on the mere
basis of res judicata.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Both parties have poorly regarded each other their respective
pleadings. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions,
certainly less than civil, has contributed to the prolixity of argument in an
otherwise simple case. However, the acts of both counsel are not considered
grave enough to subject them to the Courts power of contempt and
discipline. They are reminded by the Court of the Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues and
shall avoid harassing against opposing counsel. xxx
CANON 8

YARED v. ILARDE
(G.R. No. 114732, August 1, 2000)

FACTS:
On October 17, 1990, petitioner Estrella Tiongco Yared filed an
amended complaint before the Regional Trial Court against private
respondents Jose B. Tiongco and Antonio Doronila, the action was one for
"annulment of affidavit of adjudication, sales, transfer certificates of title,
reconveyance and damages. It was alleged that Tiongco, on the basis of an
affidavit of adjudication alleged that he is the sole surviving heir of the
previous owner, Maria Luis de Tiongco, succeeded in having the subject
properties registered in his name, to the prejudice of the other surviving heir
of the previous owner, petitioner among them. Petitioner and respondent
Tiongco's father were siblings, and both were among several heirs of Maria
Luis de Tiongco. Petitioner prayed that the properties be reconveyed to the
original registered owners, subject to partition among the lawful heirs, and
that respondent Tiongco be ordered to pay damages and costs. After
respondent Jose B. Tiongco filed his answer, trial ensued during which, on
three separate occasions, he filed motions seeking the cancellation of the
notices of lis pendens which was denied. The respondent judge issued a
Decision dismissing petitioner's complaint and private The trial court found
that petitioner's cause of action had already prescribed. Petitioner filed a
notice of appeal which was denied. On April 5, 1994, the Register of Deeds
cancelled the annotation of notices of lis pendens. Feeling that a motion for
reconsideration would be fruitless, petitioner filed the instant special civil
action for certiorari

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Tiongco violated Canon 8 Rule 8.01 and
Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
In Romero v. Valle, we stated that a lawyer's actuations, "although
allowed some latitude of remarks or comment in the furtherance of the cause
he upholds, his arguments, both written or oral, should be gracious to both
court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another." Otherwise, his use of intemperate
language invites the disciplinary authority of the court.We are aghast at the
facility with which respondent Atty. Jose B. Tiongco concocts accusations
against the opposing party and her counsel, although it is of public record
that in Tiongco v. Deguma, et a1., we dismissed as totally unfounded his
charge of fraudulent conspiracy and public scandal against petitioner, Major
Tiongco, Atty. Deguma and even the latter's superior at the Public Attorney's
Office, Atty. Napoleon G. Pagtanac. His lexicon of insults, though
entertaining, do not find a ready audience and should be warned
accordingly.

CANON 8

LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment led by Pedro Linsangan of the
Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
services. Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection
on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages. To support his allegations, complainant
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant
and utilize respondent's services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent commited a violation of Cano 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibilty.

HELD:
Yes. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 8.02
provides: A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

With regard to respondent's violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled


is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer's client nor induce
the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced
fees for his services. 20 Again the Court notes that respondent never denied
having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving bene2ts from Labiano's
"referrals". Furthermore, he never denied Labiano's connection to his of2ce.
21 Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another's
legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
CANON 8

ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. PAGUINTO


(A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010)

FACTS :
Complainant, Aty. Iluminada M. Vafor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson
of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was
removed as a member of the Board of Directors (the Board)and thereafter,
respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office
and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations.
Complainant thus filed a complaint or annulment of the proceedings of her
removal as well as other members of the Board and a complaint against
respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had violated the Code
of ProfessionalResponsibility particularly the following: Canons 1, 8, 10, 19
and Rules 12.03 of Canon 12. Despite the Courts grant, on respondents
motion, of extension of time to file Comment, respondent never filed any
comment. The Court thus required him to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with, but just the same he failed to comply.

In her present complainant against respondent for disbarment,


complainant alleged that respondent:
X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND ENGAGED
IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness,
and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.

The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the
Board of Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the
provisions of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines and the GEMASCO
By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyers Oath, which provides that a lawyer
shall support the Constitution and obey the laws.

When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints


against complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer shall "not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid or consent to the same."

Sebastian v. Bajar teaches:


x x x Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts
Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondents
obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts orders "not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the
Courts lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.

Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
respondents deference is underscored by the fact that wilful disregard
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to
disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon
a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show
respect to their processes.

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from
the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he having been found to have received an acceptance fee and
misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her when he had
not. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more
severe penalty this time is thus called for.

CANON 8

TORRES VS. JAVIER


(A.C. No. 5910, September 21, 2005)

FACTS:
Atty. Irene L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celesting filed a complaint
against Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier for violating Canon 8 Rule 8.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides that a lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. The charge was based on the remarks made by the respondent in
the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of
the East Faculty Association (UEFA) and from the pleadings filed by the
respondent in other labor cases. The complainants agreed that the statement
of the respondent is absolutely false, unsubstantiated, and with malicious
imputation of crimes of robbery, theft of UEFAs fund. The complainant
further averred that the respondents statement demeaned the integrity of
the legal profession. On the other hand, the respondent candidly professes
that he was angry while he was preparing his Motion, for it has come to his
attention that the UEFA office has been burglarized and complainant, Atty.
Torres, has been spreading reports and humors implicating his clients
including his wife to burglary.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 Rule 8.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent violated Canon 8 Rule 8.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The canon instructs that arguments in lawyers
pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be
of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
The Court finds that the respondent is guilty for employing offensive and
improper language in his pleadings, thus he is suspended from practicing
law for one month.
CANON 8

BARANDON VS. FERRER


(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010)

FACTS:
Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Edwin
Z. Ferrer, Sr. for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The code provides that a lawyer, shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. The petitioner
is seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition
of appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent. From the
complaint filed by the petitioner, he alleged that: 1. the respondent, as a
counsel, filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained
abusive, offensive, and improper language, 2. The respondent fabricated
charge against him in a Civil Case for alleged falsification of public
document when in fact the document was a notarized document, 3. In one
of the hearing, the respondent was evidently drunk and threatened him, 4.
The respondent made his accusation of falsification of public document
without bothering to check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court,
and 5. The respondent repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory language
when he declined to falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with
the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems. The respondent answer
with motion to dismiss and claimed that it was improbable that the court did
not take steps to stop or cite him in direct contempt for his behavior.
Furthermore, he averred that there is no evidence that he is indeed drunk,
the case of libel filed by the petitioner were still pending, and mere filing did
not make him guilty of the accusation. The IBP recommended that the
respondent be suspended from practicing law for one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, the respondent violated the code of Professional Responsibility.
From the actions showed by the respondent, it is clear that he do not measure
up to the Code. The respondent could have aired his charge of falsification
in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against
a fellow lawyer. The court orders the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer,
Sr. from the practice of law for one year.

CANON 8

ATTY. ANTONIO ALCANTARA VS. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO


(A.C. No. 5398, December 3, 2002)

FACTS:
Atty. Antonio Alcantara was the incumbent District Public Attorney
in San Jose, Antique when at the Hall of Justice on May 18, 2000 while Atty.
Salvani II was conferring with his client in the Public Attorney's Office a
woman approached them. The woman started to tear up, Atty. Alcantara
then went to the group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her
amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. Respondent, Atty.
Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty.
Salvani and his client saying, "Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo
nga kliyente para mahibal-an na anang sala." ("Why do you settle that case?
Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.")

Surprised at Atty. Pefianco's outburst, Atty. Alcantara asked


respondent to take it easy and leave Atty. Salvani to settle the matter.
Complainant said that he went out to attend a hearing but when he came
back he heard Atty. Pefianco saying: "Nagsiling si Atty. Alcantara nga
pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO, buyon nga klase ka tawo." ("Atty.
Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO, what an idiot.") He
then confronted responded and told him to observe civility of leave the office
if he had no business. Respondent even tried to attack complainant and even
shouted at him, "Gago ka!" ("You're stupid!")

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon
8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that A lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The
Supreme Court held that the respondent's meddling in a matter in which he
had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. His verbal rampage and
public behaviour can only bring down the legal profession and erode public
respect for it.
CANON 8

ATTY. RAMON P. REYES V. ATTY. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG, JR.


(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Atty. Ramon Reyes sought the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano
Chiong, Jr. for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Chiong filed a collection suit for damages against one Pan and
Xu, impleading Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The original case was
for the "collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an
unregistered business venture." it had originally been filed against Spouses
Xu, but was later modified to include complaint and Prosecutor Salanga. The
lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business
transaction subject of the collection suit shows that there was no reason for
their inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as
a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience
suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
The court held that the inclusion of the prosecutor and Atty. Reyes in
the civil case had no justification since they had never participated in the
business transactions between Pan and Xu. The suit was filed to obtain
leverage against an estafa case filed against respondent's client. The Court
held that lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers
with courtesy, dignity and civility.

Thus, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby suspended


for two years from the practice of law, effective immediately.

CANON 8

QUE V. ATTY. REVILLA


(AC no. 7054, December 4, 2009)

FACTS:
Conrado Que filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Anastacio
Revilla Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on Bar Discipline for
the following violations: (1) abuse of court remedies and processes; (2)
commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to
impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his
personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to
execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case; (3) lack
of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to
falsehood and deception to misguide, obstruct and impede the due
administration of justice. (4) willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly
maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty.
Alfredo Catolico, the previous counsel of the respondents clients; (5)
deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in Court; (6) willful
and fraudulent appearance as counsel without being authorized to do so.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Revilla violated the Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for defaming Atty. Catolicos name.

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent had failed demonstrate
how he came upon his accusation against Atty. Catolico. Respondent
admitted that he only participated in the cases previously assigned to Atty.
Catolico after the latter died. At the same time, the respondents petition for
annulment of judgment also represented that no second motion for
reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest the MeTC and RTC decisions
in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the respondent believed the
said decisions were null and void ab initio. The Court ruled that under these
circumstances, the respondent has been less than fair in his professional
relationship with Atty. Catolico and found him liable for violating Canon 8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional
colleagues. He was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico
without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty.
Catolico, who is now dead and unable to defend himself.
CANON 8

RE: JUDGE ADORACION ANGELES


(AM 06-9-545-RTC)

FACTS:
Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco of the Department of
Justice wrote a letter to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban inquiring
whether it is possible for this Court to order the immediate suspension of
Judge Angeles after being convicted of child abuse. SSP Velasco opined that
Judge Angeles current moral qualification as a judge is under a dark cloud
and that litigants are entitled to hearings by judges whose moral
qualifications are not placed in serious doubt. He also opined that Judge
Velasco, has an immeasurable influence in the judicial system and can cause
pressure to bear on the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, and the Office of
the Solicitor General who prosecutes her appeal. Judge Angeles now files a
Motion to Declare SSP Velasco in contempt of Court for his cheap and low
perception of the integrity and independence of this Court, of the CA and of
the OSG. It also shows his utter lack of respect for the judicial system.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the grounds for SSP Velascos indirect contempt of
Court is sufficient

HELD:
No, SSP Velascos statement was made to support his argument for
Judge Angeles suspension. The court ruled that although irresponsible, the
statement does not degrade the administration of justice. However, the
Court reminded him of its admonition to all lawyers to observe the following
Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:

Canon 8. Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

And reminded him that a lawyer is an officer of the Court. That it is in


the lawyer's sworn and moral duty to help build and not unnecessarily
destroy the peoples high esteem and regard for the courts so essential to the
proper administration of justice. A lawyer's language may be forceful but
should always be dignified; emphatic but respectful, as befitting an
advocate. Arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious to both
court and opposing counsel, and should use such language as may be
properly addressed by one person to another.


CANON 9

ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC


(B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993)

FACTS:
The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim was to
move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The
Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements. It is also alleged that The
Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star
Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic
is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter
how complicated it is. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal
Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up
by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys. As for its advertisement,
Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US
which now allows it, John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, ad that the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The
Legal Clinic offers.

ISSUE:
Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and
is in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and is in
violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly
Rule 9.01 which states that xxx A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing. xxx

The services being offered by Legal Clinic constitute practice of law


and only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good
and regular standing is entitled to practice law. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. However, under Philippine jurisdiction the services
being offered by Legal Clinic cannot be performed by paralegals. The
services are beyond the domain of the paralegals. Thus, the Legal Clinic
violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 9

AGUIRRE v. RANA
(B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003)

FACTS:
Respondent was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
One day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees
as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant filed against respondent a
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation
of law, and grave misrepresentation. The court allowed the respondent to
take an oath however the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll
of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. Complainant
alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer appeared as counsel for a
candidate in the May 2001 elections before the MBEC of Mandaon, Masbate.
In this pleading, respondent represented himself as counsel for and in behalf
of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and signed the pleading as
counsel for George Bunan. On the charge of grave misconduct and
misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for
vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging
respondents services.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional conduct

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled to deny the admission of the respondent
to the Philippine Bar. Respondent called himself counsel knowing fully well
that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as counsel
knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown
moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar. He violated Canon 9
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer
shall not, directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Xxx
The Court further deduces that the right to practice law is not a natural
or constitutional right but is a privilege. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A
bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing
the bar examinations. In the case at bar, evidence shows that Bunan indeed
authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and
similar bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent
nonetheless had no authority to practice law.

CANON 9

TAPAY v. BANCOLO
(A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013)

FACTS:
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order dated
14 October 2004 from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them
to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of authority,
falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against
them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia), a co-employee in the
Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint dated 31 August 2004 was
allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo
of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the
latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them before the Office
of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia
since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When Rustia showed him
the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above
his name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced
Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. On 9 December 2004,
Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed signature appearing
on the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and submitted six
specimen signatures for comparison. Using Atty. Bancolo's affidavit and
other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit
accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Atty.
Bancolo.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation|||


Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating Commissioner of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,,in her Report and
Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner opined:
. . . . In his answer[,] respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo admitted that
his signature appearing in the complaint filed against complainants'
Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia with the Ombudsman were
signed by the secretary. He did not refute the findings that his
signatures appearing in the various documents released from his office
were found not to be his. Such pattern of malpratice by respondent
clearly breached his obligation under Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, for a
lawyer who allows a non-member to represent him is guilty of
violating the aforementioned Canon. The fact that respondent was
busy cannot serve as an excuse for him from signing personally. After
all respondent is a member of a law firm composed of not just one (1)
lawyer. The Supreme Court has ruled that this practice constitute
negligence and undersigned finds the act a sign of indolence and
ineptitude. Moreover, respondents ignored the notices sent by
undersigned. That showed patent lack of respect to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippine[s'] Commission on Bar Discipline and its
proceedings. It betrays lack of courtesy and irresponsibility as lawyers.
On the other hand, Atty. Janus T. Jarder, a senior partner of the law
firm Jarder Bancolo and Associates Law Office, failed to exercise
certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm.
As a senior partner[,] he failed to abide to the principle of "command
responsibility". . . . .

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 9 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
After a careful review of the records of the case, we agree with the
findings and recommendation of the IBP Board and find reasonable grounds
to hold respondent Atty. Bancolo administratively liable.
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before
the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his
law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
|||
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Janus
T. Jarder for lack of merit.

We find respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively liable


for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective
upon finality of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
CANON 9

PLUS BUILDERS, INC. v. REVILLA, JR.


(A.C. No. 7056, September 13, 2006)

FACTS:
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial
Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus
Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs
of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs
of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra,
who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The
PARAD found that respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful
possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up
to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining complainants rights over
the land. Continuing to pursue his clients lost cause, respondent was found
to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with
the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of
several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an
action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he
allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, holding
themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm. The Court then
imposed a two-year suspension against respondent lawyer.

Respondent sought consideration and compassion for the issuance of


the clearance considering present economic financial difficulties and
reiterating the fact that he was the sole breadwinner in the family.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of violating the Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The court agrees with the finding of IBP Commissioner Espina
that the silence or failure of respondent to challenge the allegation that he
allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law may be
deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. We note that
complainants successfully substantiated their claim that respondent, who
held himself out as a law partner of the "KDC Legal Services, Law Offices
and Associates," was rendering legal services together with persons not
licensed to practice law. His silence on this accusation is deemed an
admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it.
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide
thus:
"Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in
the unauthorized practice of law.
'Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which by
law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in
good standing.'"

The significance of this professional norm was emphasized


in Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, which we quote:
"The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards
of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that
this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession
enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be
used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by,
any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a
misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman
in the unauthorized practice of law."

Respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him


as a vanguard of law and justice. In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable
for gross misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross


misconduct and is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law.
CANON 9

GUBALLA VS. CAGUIOA


(G.R. No. L-46537, July 29, 1977)

FACTS:
Petitioner is an operator of a public utility vehicle which was involved,
on October 1, 1971, in an accident resulting to injuries sustained by private
respondent Domingo Forteza, Jr. As a consequence thereof, a complaint for
damages was filed by Forteza against petitioner with the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan (Branch VIII), docketed as Civil Case No. 680-V. An
Answer thereto was filed on behalf of petitioner by Irineo W. Vida, Jr., of the
law firm of Vida, Enriquez, Mercado Associates. Petitioner and counsel
failed to appear at the pre-trial conference on April 6, 1972.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning alleged errors,


one of which is That the Hon. Court erred in denying defendant Jose
Guballa his day in Court by declaring him in default, it being contrary to
applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter. The decision appealed
from was affirmed by the court of appeals. A Motion for Reconsideration
was filed by petitioner, through a different counsel, Atty. Isabelo V.L. Santos
II.

On July 6, 1977, petitioner, through Atty. Isabelo V.L. Santos II, filed a
Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging his discovery that Irineo W. Vida
Jr., who prepared his Answer to the Complaint, is not a member of the
Philippine Bar.

ISSUE:
Did the law firm of Vida, Enriquez, Mercado Associates violated the
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, particularly Canon 9 Rule
9.01?

HELD:
Yes, the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, particularly
Canon 9 Rule 9.01 states that A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by
a member of the Bar in good standing.

The participation of Ireneo W. Bida in the legal proceedings of this case


when in fact, he is not member of the Philippine Bar, clearly violates the
aforementioned Canon.
CANON 9

TAN TEK BENG VS. ATTY. TIMOTEO DAVID


(A.C. no. 1261, December 29, 1983)

FACTS:
In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into an
agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and in
exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorneys
fees collected as the latters commission. Atty. David also agreed not to deal
with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng directly without the latters consent.
The agreement went sour due to allegations of double-cross from both sides.
Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did not
seek the enforcement of their agreement.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Timoteo David is guilty of violating Canon 9 Rule
9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 9 Rule
9.02 states that A Lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law except: a) Where
there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his
estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or b) Where a lawyer
undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or c)
Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement
plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
arrangement. Clearly Atty. David violated the said canon, when he agreed
with Tan Tek Beng, being a non-lawyer and not having the exceptions stated
with rule 9.02 of canon 9

CANON 9

CAMBALIZA V. CRISTAL-TENORIO
(A.C. No. 6290)

FACTS:
On May 30, 2000, Ana Cambaliza filed a complaint for disbarment with
the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
against her former employer Atty. Ana Cristal-Tenorio on the following
grounds: that the latter misrepresented herself as the wife of one Felicisimo
Tenorio Jr, that she caused the dissemination of a libelous affidavit
derogatory to Makati City Councilor Jacome, that she cooperated in the
illegal practice of law by her husband who is not a lawyer, that she
defrauded her clients, and that she threatened the complainant and her
family to stop them from revealing her illegal activities and transactions.

Respondent denied the allegations; she argued that she was legally
married to her husband, that it was Councilor Jacome himself who executed
the libelous document, that her firm Cristal-Tenorio Law office was
registered as a single proprietorship and that she never allowed her husband
to appear in court on her behalf, that the estafa case against her has already
been dropped, and that she never threatened the complainant nor her
family.

On November 2002, with the reason that the complaint arose out of a
misunderstanding, complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint.
However, IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Milagros San Juan denied the
Motion. This was because a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Canon 9 states that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in
the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 9.01 states that A lawyer shall not
delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by
law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Respondent was found to be in violation of both. Felicisimo Tenorio Jr.
misrepresented himself as a lawyer as proven in his identification card
stating that he is Atty. Tenorio Jr. Respondent aided him in the unauthorized
practice of the legal profession when she admitted that with the knowledge
that her husband was not a lawyer but a paralegal, he was still listed as a
senior partner in her law office.
Atty. Ana Cristal-Tenorio was suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six months with the warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
CANON 9

LIJAUCO V. ATTY. TERRADO


(A.C. No. 6317, August 31, 2006)

FACTS:
In January 2001, Luzviminda C. Lijauco engaged the services of Atty.
Rogelio P. Terrado for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with
Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of
P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in
Calamba, Laguna.

Lijauco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Terrado for


gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of
payment representing attorneys fee.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial


court in the hearing and did not protect her interests in the Compromise
Agreement which she subsequently entered into.

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He claimed that the


attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of complainants savings deposit.
He openly admitted that he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as
commission/referral fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate
that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the
agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business
of a deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
profit-sharing arrangement.

Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery
of complainants savings deposit from Planters Development Bank cannot
be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement. Respondent admitted that he
explained the contents of the agreement to the complainant before the latter
affixed her signature.

Respondents admission that he divided the legal fees with two other
people as a referral fee does not release him from liability. A lawyer shall not
divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed
to practice law, except in certain cases.

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months in
view of the foregoing.

CANON 9

LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY V. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT


CORPORATION
(GR no. 149576)

FACTS:
Kenrick Development Corporation and Air Transportation Office
claims parcels of land behind the Civil Aviation Training Center of the Air
Transportation Office. Through a report, the Office of the Solicitor General
filed a complaint for revocation, annulment and cancellation of certificates
of title in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines against Kenrick
Development Corporation and Alfonso Concepcion. Respondent filed an
answer which was signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr. as counsel for
respondent. During the pendency of the case, the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee and Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted a
hearing in aid of legislation on the matter of land registration and titling.
One of those summoned was Atty. Garlitos who testified that he prepared
respondents answer and transmitted an unsigned draft to respondents
president, Mr. Victor Ong. The signature appearing above his name was not
his. He authorized no one to sign in his behalf either. And he did not know
who finally signed it. On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision and found Atty. Garlitos statements in the legislative hearing to be
unreliable since they were not subjected to cross-examination. The appellate
court also scrutinized Atty. Garlitos acts after the filing of the answer and
concluded that he assented to the signing of the answer by somebody in his
stead. With this, the respondent was declared default for failure to file a valid
answer. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari and the appellate court
reversed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of
the trial court which declared the respondent default?

HELD:
Yes, Section 3, Rule 7 requires that a pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him. For the pleading to be considered as
signed, it must be the party or the counsel who represents him who signed
it. The counsel cannot delegate it to any person. The Supreme Court ruled
that the signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by the counsel that he
has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief, there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for
delay. Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature,
who can certify to these matters. The preparation and signing of a pleading
constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively
for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing
of a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar
in good standing.

Therefore, the pleading remains invalid and any act made by the
counsel is void.
CANON 9

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL


A. MEDADO
(B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013)

FACTS:
Michael Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines
with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 19791 and passed the same years bar
examinations. He took the Attorneys Oath and was scheduled to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but he failed to do so because he had
misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, while
rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign
the Roll of Attorneys. By the time he found the notice, he was already
working. Thus, he operated under the mistaken belief since he had already
taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as
crucial to his status as a lawyer; and the matter of signing in the Roll of
Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently
forgotten. In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in
order for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the
Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number. About seven
years later, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended
that the instant petition be denied for petitioners gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner should be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys.

HELD:
Yes, Medado demonstrated good moral character when he filed a
Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, has not been the subject of a
disbarment complaint, and have been a competent legal practitioner.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that mistake of fact cannot excuse
Medado and applied Inorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
The moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance
record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he was not a
full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys and chose to continue practicing law without taking
the necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar,
he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. He violated Canon
9 of the Code of Responsibility which provides:

CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the


unauthorized practice of law.

Since Medado is not a full-pledged lawyer, he cannot be suspended


from practice of law. He is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys after one
year from receipt of resolution and was ordered to pay the fine of Php
32,000.00 for violating Canon 9.