Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
LE 107
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics December 15, 2017
(5) Adriano E. Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie and Juan G. Collas Jr., Luis Ma. Guerrero,
Vicente A. Torres, Rafael E. Evangelista, Jr., Romeo L. Salonga, Jose R. Sandejas, Lucas
M. Nunag, J. Claro Tesoro, Natividad B. Kwan and Jose A. Curammeng, Jr.
Adm. Case No. 2131, May 10, 1985
Facts:
Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified
complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law
under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.
In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the
letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked
Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E.
Gabriel, a client.
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of
Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is
Baker & McKenzie" and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another
law office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.
Issue:
Whether or not the use of foreign law firm constitutes misrepresentation.
Ruling:
Yes. The use of foreign law firm as their firm name is a misrepresentation because
as a foreign law firm, Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law in the Philippines.
Cravajal, Keir Joey T. LE 107
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics December 15, 2017
(3) SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court,
Marawi City
A.M. SDC-97-2-P. February 24, 1997
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of
Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent
executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City, They were
classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments
by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also
granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co.
advising of the termination of his contract with the company. He claimed that his consent
was vitiated because Alawi had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud,
dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He also wrote similar letters to the Vice President of
Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.
On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him.
One of her grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular
members of the Philippine Bar may properly use.
Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion that it is “lexically
synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law.” a title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful
claim, adding that he prefers the title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is often mistaken
for “councilor,” “konsehal” or the Maranao term “consial,” connoting a local legislator
beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Alauya, a member of Shari’a Bar can use the title attorney.
Ruling:
No. Persons who passed the Shari’a Bar may only practice before Shari’a courts.
Their use of the title “attorney” is not allowed because they are not members of the
Philippine Bar. The title of “attorney” is reserved to those who have successfully passed
the Bar Examinations and have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and remain members thereof in good standing.
Cravajal, Keir Joey T. LE 107
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics December 15, 2017
(5) REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING AND ROYAL BECHTEL BUILDERS, INC., v. HON.
DOLORES S. ESPAOL, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 90, Imus, Cavite
G.R. No. 133090. January 19, 2001
Facts:
During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present together with
one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the proceedings of the case
while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring was making manifestation to the effect that he
was ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt
of court) the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion.
The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did not cause
the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures, however, he admitted that they came
from a function, and that was the reason why the said cameraman was in tow with him
and the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the
cameraman after the Court took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are
open to the public and that it being a court of record, and since its permission was not
sought, such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court. When the respondent,
Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that he needed the services of counsel
and right then and there appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to represent him, the case was
allowed to be called again. On the second call, Atty. Bugaring started to insist that he be
allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that Atty.
Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written pleading for his client,
considering that the Motion has so many ramifications and the issues are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his
documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already perorating
despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished with his manifestation. As Atty.
Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure, the Court directed him to listen and
wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly proceeding.
While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt like doing
so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty. Bugaring flared up
and uttered words insulting the Court; such as: that he knows better than the latter as
he has won all his cases of certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the
Rules of Court; that he was going to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for
allegedly being antagonistic to his client, and other invectives were hurled to the discredit
of the Court. Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt and
order the Courts sheriff to arrest and place him under detention.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bugaring violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes. Rudely interrupting opposing counsel while the latter is presenting evidence
is a violation of Canon 8 of the Code. Rule 8.01 of the latter provides that “a lawyer shall
not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. Therefore, Atty. Bugaring was cited for contempt of court and incarcerated for
three days and ordered to pay a fine.
Cravajal, Keir Joey T. LE 107
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics December 15, 2017
(2) Erlinda I. Bildner and Maximo K. Ilusorio v. Erlinda K. Ilusorio, Ramon K. Ilusorio,
Marietta K. Ilusorio, Shereen K. Ilusorio, Cecilia A. Bisua, and Atty. Manuel R. Singson
G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009
Facts:
Petitioners filed a disbarment charge against Atty. Manuel Singson on the grounds
of attempted bribery and serious misconduct. The documentary evidence submitted
provide (1) the transcript of the stenographic notes of the May 31, 2000 hearing in the
sala of Judge Reyes in Civil Case 4537-R when the judge made it of record about the
attempt to bribe; (2) the affidavit of Judge Reyes dated December 23, 2004 narrating in
some detail how and thru whom the attempt to bribe adverted to was made; and (3) the
affidavit of Atty. Sevilla who admitted having been approached by Atty. Singson to
intercede for his case pending with Judge Reyes. Significantly, Atty. Singson admitted
having made phone calls to Judge Reyes, either in his residence or office in Baguio City
during the period material. However, he said that he was merely following up the status
of a temporary restraining order applied for and sometimes asking for the resetting of
hearings.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Singson should be disbarred.
Ruling:
No. Matters touching on case status could and should be done through the court
staff, and resetting is usually accomplished thru proper written motion or in open court.
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge evincing a willingness to
discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge’s sala cannot be over-
emphasized. The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes,
initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, is determinative that Atty. Singson was
indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his clients favor. Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to refrain from any impropriety which tends
to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court. The possibility of an
attempted bribery is not far from reality considering Atty. Singson’s persistent phone calls.
However, heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment where a lesser sanction
would suffice to accomplish the desired end, a suspension for one year from the practice
of law was found to be appropriate.
Cravajal, Keir Joey T. LE 107
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics December 15, 2017