ETHICS

Title Violation Incidents Finding Penalt J/ Complaina

1. Agbay v Conduct 2 separate complaints.
molato unbecoming of a Judge and his wife allgedly
judge convinced complainants to
invest in a corp. Judge's
wife is president. Corp
defaulted, did not return
complainants' investment
Judge is corp's alternative
bank signatory
y A nt
1. Not liable for conduct Repri J Investors
unbecoming. Absent any mand
showing that Judge Molato
defrauded complainants of their
money or committed acts that
detract from the dignity of his
position, the mere fact that the
corporation of which his wife
was the president had
difficulties meeting its
obligations does not per se
make him lacking in moral
integrity and of questionable
character as would make him
liable for conduct unbecoming a
judge.
2. Still, Judge Molato is to be
reprimanded for agreeing to
serve as one of Lucky
Corporation’s alternate bank
signatories even if he may not
have performed such service for
the corporation. He has no
business agreeing to the
performance of such service.
His offense constitutes a
violation of Administrative
Circular 5 which in essence
prohibits public officials from
performing or agreeing to
perform functions or services

1
ETHICS

outside of their official

functions for the reason that the
entire time of the officials and
employees of the judiciary shall
be devoted to their official work
to ensure the efficient and
speedy administration of justice
2. Aninon v (1) violating the Sabitsana drafter a deed of Conflict of interest One A Former
Sabitsana lawyer’s duty to sale for the complainant. year client
preserve He then filed a case against suspen
confidential the complainant for the sion
information nullity of the sale, in behalf
received from of another party.
his client;1 and
(2) violating the
prohibition on
representing
conflicting
interests

.
3. Bangalan v undue delay in Judge Turgano rendered a Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules Repri J Lawyer for
Turgano rendering a decision 15 months after of Court, undue delay in rendering a mand the
decision or submission. Resolved decision or an order, or in transmitting complainan
order, notice of appeal and exec the records of a case, is considered as a t in the
dishonesty, gross pending appeal a year after less serious charge punishable by either delayed
ignorance of the filing. He claimed that he suspension from office without salary case
law and got sick and some and other benefits for not less than one
partiality. members of his family died (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a
fine of more than P10,000, but not
exceeding P20,000.
4. Basilio v Failed to file the Atty Castro was lawyer for 1. In People v. Cawili, we held 2 A Clients in
Castro appeal the complainant in two that the failure of counsel to month civil cases

2
ETHICS
memorandum civil cases – one for FE
where comp was defendant
and one for quieting of title
filed by comp.
Atty castro failed to file the
appeal memorandum in the
FE case, as such the RTC
dismissed the appeal
5. Bengco v deceit, 1. Misrepresented to
Bernardo malpractice, the complainants
conduct that he can expedite SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of sion
unbecoming a the processing of
member of the the titling of parcels therefor. – A member of the bar may be
Bar and violation of land, asked for
of his duties and 495,000. Lawyer
submit the brief within the suspen
reglementary period is an sion
offense that entails disciplinary
action. People v. Villar, Jr.
characterized a lawyer’s failure
to file a brief for his client as
inexcusable neglect. In Blaza v.
Court of Appeals, we held that
the filing of a brief within the
period set by law is a duty not
only to the client, but also to the
court. Perla Compania de
Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon
reiterated Ford v. Daitol and In
re: Santiago F. Marcos in
holding that an attorney’s
failure to file a brief for his
client constitutes inexcusable
negligence.
2. All told, we rule and so hold
that on account of respondent’s
failure to protect the interest of
complainant, respondent indeed
violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Rule 138, Section 27 provides that: 1 year A Clients of
suspen lawyer
attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
disbarred or suspended from his office
as attorney by the Supreme Court for
3
ETHICS
oath as a lawyer. did not perform his
duties.
2. Lawyer convicted
for estafa
6. Brennisen deceit and gross Brennisen, a resident of the
v contawi misconduct in USA, left his real property
violation of his to the administration of
lawyer's oath. Atty. Contawi.
Atty Contawi falsified an
SPA and mortgaged, and
eventually sold the land.
Atty contawi admitted this,
but said he merely
accommodated his office
staff who was in need of
money.
7. Campos v serious Judge campos filed a
Campos misconduct, petition for nullity of
immorality and marriage under article 36,
dishonesty he claimed that he is
homosexual
Wife claims that Judge
wants to marry his
mistress. He also executed
any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a
wilful disobedience appearing as
attorney for a party without authority to
do so.
In this case, respondent's established Disbar A Client
acts exhibited his unfitness and plain red
inability to discharge the bounden
duties of a member of the legal
profession. He failed to prove himself
worthy of the privilege to practice law
and to live up to the exacting standards
demanded of the members of the bar. It
bears to stress that "[t]he practice of
law is a privilege given to lawyers who
meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation
of these standards exposes the lawyer
to administrative liability."
1. Simple misconduct. In this case, Fine J Judge’s
respondent knew at that time of worth wife
the registration of the property 3
that he had a pending case and month
that he could possibly lose the s
case. In order to manipulate the
situation and taking advantage
of his knowledge of the law,
respondent caused the
4
ETHICS
an affidavit of loss of the
TCT of a lot in the name of
their son. She claims that
he did this in order to
regain the property in case
the petition for nullity is
granted
8. Catalan v This is a 1. Silvosa appeared as
Silvosa complaint filed Public Prosecutor
by Atty. in a criminal case.
Policarpio I. After separation
Catalan, Jr. from service, he
(Atty. Catalan) appeared as lawyer
against Atty. for the accused in
Joselito M. the same case.
Silvosa (Atty. 2. He attempted to
Silvosa). Atty. bribe Pros. In order
Catalan has three to reinstate her
causes of action findings that
against Atty. catalan’s relative
Silvosa; (1) Atty. should be charged
Silvosa appeared with a higher
as counsel for offense.
the accused in 3. Convicted for direct
the same case for bribery – asked
which he money as a
previously condition for the
appeared as release of a
prosecutor; (2) detention prisoner.
registration of the property in
Alistair’s name with the
intention of defrauding a
possible judgment-obligee.
Clearly, it was an improper
behavior which warrants a
disciplinary sanction by this
Court.1
2. Homosexuality does not make
him immoral. Immorality not
proven
1. We agree with Comm. Funa’s Disbar A Opposing
finding that Atty. Silvosa ment counsel in
violated Rule 6.03. When he the first
entered his appearance on the case
Motion to Post Bail Bond (lawyer for
Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa the private
conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 complainan
which provides that "A lawyer t)
shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written
consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of facts."
2. Contrary to Comm. Funa’s
ruling, however, the records
show that Atty. Silvosa made an
attempt to bribe Pros. Toribio
and failed. Pros. Toribio
executed her affidavit on 14
June 1999, a day after the failed
bribery attempt, and had it
notarized by Atty. Nemesio
Beltran, then President of the
5
ETHICS

Atty. Silvosa IBP-Bukidnon Chapter. There

bribed his then was no reason for Pros. Toribio
colleague to make false testimonies
Prosecutor against Atty. Silvosa. Atty.
Phoebe Toribio Silvosa, on the other hand,
(Pros.Toribio) merely denied the accusation
for P30,000; and and dismissed it as persecution.
(3) the When the integrity of a member
Sandiganbayan of the bar is challenged, it is not
convicted Atty. enough that he denies the
Silvosa in charges against him. He must
Criminal Case meet the issue and overcome
No. 27776 for the evidence against him. He
direct bribery must show proof that he still
maintains that degree of
morality and integrity which at
all times is expected of him.6
Atty. Silvosa failed in this
respect
3. Second, conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude is a
ground for disbarment. Moral
turpitude is defined as an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity
in the private duties which a
man owes to his fellow men, or
to society in general, contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.9 Section 27, Rule
138 provides:
9.Chua v Gross Ignorance 1. UD case against the 1. As the OCA recommends, we Fine – J Defendants
Hon Capellan of the Law, complainants. find no merit in the 20,000 in the UD
Partiality and 2. Judge scheduled the complainants’ allegations that case

6
ETHICS

Grave Abuse of preliminary the respondent committed gross

Decision. conference beyond ignorance of the law, partiality
the 30 day period and grave abuse of discretion in
under the Rules of not issuing a notice for the
Summary holding of the November 25,
procedure 2008 preliminary conference,
3. Judge declared and in entertaining the spouses
complainants in Angangco’s oral motion to
default declare the defendants in
default
2. The respondent set the case for
preliminary conference only on
June 24, 2008, i.e., at a time
way beyond the required thirty
(30)-day period. In numerous
occasions, we admonished
judges to be prompt in the
performance of their solemn
duty as dispensers of justice
because undue delay in the
administration of justice erodes
the people’s faith in the judicial
system.36 Delay not only
reinforces the belief of the
people that the wheels of justice
in this country grind slowly; it
also invites suspicion, however
unfair, of ulterior motives on
the part of the judge. Judges
should always be mindful of
their duty to render justice
within the periods prescribed by
law.

7
ETHICS

10. Ciocon- ADMINISTRAT AGAINST JUDGE AGAINST JUDGE – No liability. KARA J/ Parties in
Reer v Judge IVE 1. Allowed opposing Remedy is judicial AN- A the UD
Lubao COMPLAINT partiest to submit a fine of case
AGAINST required pleading AGAINST KARAAN 10,000
JUDGE even after the lapse He would require the parties to execute
ANTONIO C. of the period a special power of attorney in his favor
LUBAO (Judge AGAINST KARAAN to allow him to join them as one of the
Lubao) of the 1. Unauthorized plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact.
Regional Trial practice Then, he would file the necessary
Court of General complaint and other pleadings "acting
Santos City, for and in his own behalf and as
Branch 22, for attorney-in-fact, agent or
gross ignorance representative" of the parties. The fact
of the law, rules that Karaan did not indicate in the
or procedures; pleadings that he was a member of the
gross Bar, or any PTR, Attorney’s Roll, or
incompetence MCLE Compliance Number does not
and inefficiency; detract from the fact that, by his
violation of actions, he was actually engaged in the
Section 3(e) of practice of law.
Republic Act
No. 3019;
violations of
Articles 171 and
172 of the
Revised Penal
Code; violations
of pertinent
provisions of the
Code of Judicial
Conduct, The
New Code of
Judicial Conduct

8
ETHICS

per A.M. No. 03-

05-01-SC, and
Canons of
Judicial Ethics;
and dishonesty
and grave
misconduct.

AGAINST
KARAAN-
Unauthorized
practice of law
11. Comilang manifest Comilang is a state prosec
v Judge partiality and who appears before Judge
Belen bias, evident bad Belen’s sala. He requested
faith, that his hearings on
inexcusable Thursdays be moved
abuse of because he has inquest
authority, and duties. Judge refused,
gross ignorance declared him guilty of
of the law. indirect contempt.
Comilang obtained an
injunctive writ with the CA
but Judge belen still held
him in contempt, ordering
him to pay a fine of 30k
and to suffer imprisonment
for 2 days.
1. Judge Belen's actuations, Dismis J State
therefore, cannot be considered sal prosec
as mere errors of judgment that from declared in
can be easily brushed aside. service contempt
Obstinate disregard of basic and
established rule of law or
procedure amounts to
inexcusable abuse of authority
and gross ignorance of the law.
Likewise, citing State
Prosecutor Comilang for
indirect contempt
notwithstanding the effectivity
of the CA-issued writ of
injunction demonstrated his
vexatious attitude and bad faith
towards the former, for which
he must be held accountable
and subjected to disciplinary
action.
2. Multiple violations in the past

9
ETHICS

12. Dhaliwal violation of 1. Dhaliwal obtained Respondent's proffered excuse 6 A Client

v. Canon 16 of the Atty Dumaguing’s of having to await the HLURB month
Dumaguing Code of services for the action on his alleged motion-- suspen
Professional purchase of a lot the filing of which he miserably sion
Responsibility a from Fil-Estate. A failed to prove-- as a condition
legal issue arose, to the return of the sum of P
and Dhaliwal, upon 311 ,891.94 to complainant
Atty Dumaguing’s compounds his liability and
advice, consigned a even bolstered his attitude to
certain sum of use dishonest means if only to
money to the evade his obligation. It
HLURB. underlines his failure to meet
2. When the case the high moral standards
ended, Atty. required of members of the
Dumaguing legal profession.
withdrew the
money but did not
return it to
Dhaliwal. He
claims that he is
awaiting the
resolution of a
motion filed with
the HLURB. No
such proof was
presented regarding
the motion.
13. Gacad v for Grave 1. Gacad was a private 1. We also find Judge Clapis Dismis J Private
Clapis Misconduct and complainant in a liable for gross ignorance of sal complainan
Corrupt criminal case the law for conducting bail from t in the
Practices, Grave pending before hearings without a petition service crim case
Abuse of Clapis’ sala. for bail being filed by the
Discretion, 2. She claims that accused and without

10
ETHICS

Gross Ignorance Clapis promised to affording the prosecution an

of the Law, and rule in her favour in opportunity to prove that the
violations of exchange for a guilt of the accused is strong
Canon 1 (Rule certain amount of 2. Judge Clapis’ wrongful
1.01, 1.02), money. He met intention and lack of
Canon 2 (Rule privately with judicial reasoning are made
2.01), and Canon Gacad for this overt by the circumstances
3 (Rule 3.05) of purpose. He also on record. First, the Notices
the Code of borrowed 50k from of Hearings were mailed to
Judicial Conduct her which she failed Gacad only after the
to deliver. hearing. Second, Judge
3. Clapis then began Clapis started conducting
to rule against the bail hearings without an
Gacad. He did not application for bail and
send notices to her granted bail without
and ruled on the affording the prosecution
accused Petition for the opportunity to prove that
Bail without a the guilt of the accused is
proper petition strong. Third, Judge Clapis
being filed. set a preliminary conference
seven months from the date
it was set, patently contrary
to his declaration of speedy
trial for the case. Judge
Clapis cannot escape
liability by shifting the
blame to his court
personnel. He ought to
know that judges are
ultimately responsible for
order and efficiency in their
courts, and the subordinates
are not the guardians of the

11
ETHICS

judge’s responsibility.15
3. Thus, the acts of Judge
Clapis in meeting Gacad, a
litigant in a case pending
before his sala, and telling
her, "Sige, kay ako na
bahala gamuson nato ni
sila" (Okay, leave it all to
me, we shall crush them.),
both favoring Gacad,
constitute gross misconduct.
13. deceit, 1. Hernandez was the 1. When the RTC ruled against 6 A Client
Hernandez v unfaithfulness respondent in a UD complainant and her husband, month
Padilla amounting to case. Spouses they filed a Notice of Appeal. s
malpractice of approached Atty. Consequently, what should suspen
law Padilla to assist apply is the rule on ordinary sion
them in their appeal appealed cases or Rule 44 of the
to the CA. Atty Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule
Padilla filed a 44 requires that the appellant’s
Memorandum of brief be filed after the records
Appeal instead of of the case have been elevated
an Appellant’s to the CA. Respondent, as a
Brief. Because of litigator, was expected to know
this, the case was this procedure.
dismissed. 2. Rule 18.02 of the Code
2. Atty Padilla also provides that a lawyer shall not
failed to notify the handle any legal matter without
Spouses of the adequate preparation. While it
Court Orders is true that respondent was not
3. Atty Padilla claims complainant’s lawyer from the
that his services trial to the appellate court stage,
was engaged only this fact did not excuse him
for the filing of the from his duty to diligently study

12
ETHICS

memorandum a case he had agreed to handle.

which he thought If he felt he did not have
was the proper enough time to study the
remedy. pertinent matters involved, as
he was approached by
complainant’s husband only
two days before the expiration
of the period for filing the
Appellant’s Brief, respondent
should have filed a motion for
extension of time to file the
proper pleading instead of
whatever pleading he could
come up with, just to "beat the
deadline set by the Court of
Appeals
14.In Re Conduct 1. Atty Pena was the 1. Respondent Peña is Disbar A SC motu
Supreme unbecoming lawyer of administratively liable for red proprio
Court UrbanBank in a making gratuitous imputations
Resolution case pending before of bribery and wrongdoing
the SC. against a member of the Court,
2. He filed a motion as seen in the text of the subject
for the inhibition of Motion to Inhibit, his
Justice Carpio, the statements during the 03 March
ponente. He alleged 2003 Executive Session, and his
that Carpio granted unrelenting obstinacy in hurling
the opposing effectively the same
party’s Motion for imputations in his subsequent
Clarification even if pleadings. In moving for the
the First Division inhibition of a Member of the
merely agreed to Court in the manner he adopted,
note it. He alleged respondent Peña, as a lawyer,
that Carpio was contravened the ethical

13
ETHICS

bribed. standards of the legal

3. Atty Pena presented profession.
internal court 2. Respondent Peña submitted a
documents to prove falsified internal court
his claim. The document, Annex "B," had
documents turned illegal access to confidential
out to be falsified. court documents, and made
Atty Pena claimed improper use of them in the
that he received the proceedings before this Court.
documents from the 3. Aside from attributing bribery
mail but he did not to the ponente, respondent
know where the Pena’s allegations of collusion
mail came from. between previous members of
4. He imputed the Court and the counsel for
collusion among the De Leon Group are
the justices – unfounded and contravene the
i.e.Sereno and ethical duties of respondent to
Carpio the Court and his fellow
lawyers.
4. He asked the inhibition of 11
judges before, in separate
motions, for the same case.
15.Lahm v gross misconduct Mayor is a labor arbiter 1. The Code of Professional 6 A Parties in
mayor and violation of and a lawyer. He issued a Responsibility does not cease to month the ID case
lawyer’s oath. writ of preliminary apply to a lawyer simply suspen
injunction in an ID case because he has joined the sion
even if the NLRC rules no government service. In fact, by
longer grant this authority the express provision of Canon
to Las. He also delayed the 6 thereof, the rules governing
resolution of the case. the conduct of lawyers "shall
apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their
official tasks." Thus, where a

14
ETHICS

lawyer’s misconduct as a
government official is of such
nature as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or to
show moral delinquency, then
he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such
grounds
2. Here, the respondent, being part
of the quasi-judicial system of
our government, performs
official functions that are akin
to those of judges. Accordingly,
the present controversy may be
approximated to administrative
cases of judges whose
decisions, including the manner
of rendering the same, were
made subject of administrative
cases.
3.
4. As a matter of public policy, not
every error or mistake of a
judge in the performance of his
official duties renders him
liable. In the absence of fraud,
dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of a judge in his official
capacity do not always
constitute misconduct although
the same acts may be erroneous.
True, a judge may not be
disciplined for error of

15
ETHICS

judgment absent proof that such

error was made with a
conscious and deliberate intent
to cause an injustice.17
5.
6. While a judge may not always
be held liable for ignorance of
the law for every erroneous
order that he renders, it is also
axiomatic that when the legal
principle involved is
sufficiently basic, lack of
conversance with it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law.
Indeed, even though a judge
may not always be subjected to
disciplinary action for every
erroneous order or decision he
renders, that relative immunity
is not a license to be negligent
or abusive and arbitrary in
performing his adjudicatory
prerogatives.18
16. In re Indefinitely Misquoted and misused 1. Professional misconduct
lifting of suspended for constitutional provisions to involving the misuse of
Atty grave impute wrongdoings on constitutional provisions for the
Lozano’s professional some members of the SC. purpose of insulting Members
supension misconduct Atty Lozano repeatedly of this Court is a serious breach
asked for the lifting of the of the rigid standards that a
suspension member of good standing of the
legal profession must faithfully
comply with. Thus, the penalty
of indefinite suspension was

16
ETHICS
17. Molina v Unethical Atty Magat was lawyer for
Magat conduct the accused in a criminal
case where Molina was a
party. He filed a motion to
quash on the ground of
double jeopardy even if no
other action had been filed.
He also appeared for the
accused even while he was
under suspension.
imposed. However, in the past
two years during which Atty.
Lozano has been suspended, he
has repeatedly expressed his
willingness to admit his error,
to observe the rules and
standards in the practice of law,
and to serve the ends of justice
if he should be reinstated
2. While this Court will not
hesitate to discipline its erring
officers, it will not prolong a
penalty after it has been shown
that the purpose for imposing it
had already been served. From
Atty. Lozano’s letters-petitions,
we discern that his suspension
had already impressed upon
him the need for care and
caution in his representations as
an officer of this Court
1. In this case, the Court agrees 6 A Private
with the observation of the IBP month complainan
that there was a deliberate intent suspen t in the
on the part of Atty. Magat to sion criminal
mislead the court when he filed case where
the motion to dismiss the Magat
criminal charges on the basis of appeared
double jeopardy. Atty. Magat for the
should not make any false and accused
untruthful statements in his
pleadings. If it were true that
there was a similar case for
17
ETHICS

slight physical injuries that was

really filed in court, all he had
to do was to secure a
certification from that court
that, indeed, a case was filed.
2. Furthermore, Atty. Magat
expressly admitted appearing in
court on two occasions despite
having been suspended from the
practice of law by the Court.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, a member of
the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from office as an
attorney for a willful
disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court and/or
for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney
without authority to do so
3. The practice of law is a
privilege bestowed on those
who show that they possess and
continue to possess the legal
qualifications for it. Indeed,
lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency
and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They
must perform their four-fold
duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their

18
ETHICS
18. OCA v Grave and Judge has hundreds of
Judge Go serious pending and unresolved
misconduct matters and cases in his
sala. SC ordered him to
resolve them and submit a
report on their outcome but
Judge repeatedly failed to
comply with the SC
resolutions.
clients, in accordance with the
values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional
Responsibility.8
1. Judges should respect the orders Dismis J SC motu
and decisions of higher sal proprio
tribunals much more so this
Court from which all other
courts should take their
bearings. A resolution of the
Supreme Court should not be
construed as a mere request and
should not be complied with
partially, inadequately or
selectively.
2. In Guerrero v. Judge Deray,22
the Court held that a judge
"who deliberately and
continuously fails and refuses to
comply with the resolution of
[the Supreme] Court is guilty of
gross misconduct and
insubordination." This ruling
was reiterated in Dela Cruz v.
Vallarta23 and Visbal v.
Tormis.24 Also in Guerrero,
this Court held that
"indifference or defiance to the
Court’s orders or resolutions
may be punished with
dismissal, suspension or fine as
warranted by the
19
ETHICS

circumstances."25
3.
19. Perfecto violation of the 1. Judge failed to act 1. Anent the allegations of Fine J Party who
v Esidera Code of Judicial on a Petition for ignorance of the law and of filed
Conduct and Contempt filed by usurpation of authority against 10,000 petition for
ignorance of the Perfecto. respondent Judge Esidera, for with contempt
law. 2. Judge ordered the issuing a directive to the warnin
publication of an petitioner in a special g
order with a proceedings case to cause the
newspaper of publication of her order in a
general circulation newspaper of general
instead of the publication, this Office finds the
CWT. same devoid of merit.
2. T]hat Catarman Weekly
Tribune is the only accredited
newspaper of general
publication in Catarman does
not bar the publication of
judicial orders and notices in a
newspaper of national
circulation. A judicial
notice/order may be published
in a newspaper of national
circulation and said newspaper
does not even have to be
accredited.
3. Indeed, the respondent deserves
to be sanctioned for gross
ignorance of the law.1âwphi1
With her inaction on the
petition for contempt, she
betrayed her unbecoming lack
of familiarity with basic

20
ETHICS

procedural rules such as what

was involved in the contempt
proceedings before her court.
She should have known that
while the petitioners have the
responsibility to move ex parte
to have the case scheduled for
preliminary conference, the
court (through the branch clerk
of court) has the duty to
schedule the case for pre-trial in
the event that the petitioners fail
to file the motion.
4. In closing, it bears stressing that
"[w]hen the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to
act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of
the law
20. In re 1. Code of 1. Pena claims that J 1. The Court’s action on the other Dismis Jus Lawyer for
letter of Pena judicial carpio issued a matters in the item, including sed tic one of the
conduct resolution on a the motion for clarification, was es parties in
motion for uniformly "N." Under the code the case
clarification filed in use, this meant that the Court involved
by the opposing was taking note of such other
counsel even when matters. The two actions,
the motion was not approving the submitted draft of
granted by his a resolution and noting the other
division but merely matters are compatible. The
noted. Court noted the motion for
2. J carpio gave the clarification and granted it as
opposing party an stated in the draft resolution.
advanced copy of 2. Peña charges Justice Sereno of

21
ETHICS

the resolution. unfairly refusing to inhibit

3. J carpio ruled on it herself from taking part in the
without allowing deliberation in the main cases
Pena to comment. notwithstanding that Justice
4. J sereno should Carpio’s former law office
inhibit from the supposedly worked for her
case since CVC appointment in the Supreme
helped her get Court. But the Court had
appointed. already found in its April 17,
2012 per curiam decision in
A.C. No. 6332 that this charge
has no "extrinsic factual
evidence to support it." The
charge is purely conjectural.
21.In re Justices failed to 1. Onjoco claims that 1. The insistence of Ongjoco is Compl C Party to the
Onjoco v CA cite facts and law the CA justices unfounded. The essential aint A case before
justices in their denial of rendered a purpose of the constitutional dismis jus the CA
a motion resolution without provision is to require that a sed, tic
citing the facts and judicial decision be clear on Onjoc es
the law. He alleged why a party has prevailed under o
that this is an the law as applied to the facts as ordere
indication of proved; the provision nowhere d to
corruption. demands that a point-by-point show
consideration and resolution of cause
the issues raised by the parties
are necessary
2. Indeed, the definitive
pronouncement of the CA’s
Sixth Division that "the Deputy
Ombudsman found no
substantial evidence to prove
that there was interference in
the internal affairs of FH-

22
ETHICS

GYMN nor was there a

violation of the law by the
respondents"15 met the
constitutional demand for a
clear and distinct statement of
the facts and the law on which
the decision was based
3. We seize this occasion,
therefore, to stress once again
that disciplinary proceedings
and criminal actions brought
against any judge in relation to
the performance of his official
functions are neither
complementary to nor
suppletory of appropriate
judicial remedies, nor a
substitute for such remedies.21
Any party who may feel
aggrieved should resort to these
remedies, and exhaust them,
instead of resorting to
disciplinary proceedings and
criminal actions
4. In this regard, we reiterate that a
judge’s failure to correctly
interpret the law or to properly
appreciate the evidence
presented does not necessarily
incur administrative liability,23
for to hold him administratively
accountable for every erroneous
ruling or decision he renders,

23
ETHICS

assuming he has erred, will be

nothing short of harassment and
will make his position doubly
unbearable. His judicial office
will then be rendered untenable,
because no one called upon to
try the facts or to interpret the
law in the process of
administering justice can be
infallible in his judgment.24
Administrative sanction and
criminal liability should be
visited on him only when the
error is so gross, deliberate and
malicious, or is committed with
evident bad faith,25 or only in
clear cases of violations by him
of the standards and norms of
propriety and good behavior
prescribed by law and the rules
of procedure, or fixed and
defined by pertinent
jurisprudence.26
22. In re Falsification of 1. Atty pactolin, 1. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of Disbar A SC
pactolin document member of the the Rules of Court, a lawyer ment
Sangguniang may be removed or suspended
Panlalawigan was on the following grounds: (1)
convicted by the SB deceit; (2) malpractice; (3)
for falsification of gross misconduct in office; (4)
document. grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (6) violation of
the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful

24
ETHICS

disobedience of any lawful

order of a superior court; and
(8) corruptly or willfully
appearing as a lawyer for a
party to a case without authority
so to do.
2. This Court has ruled that the
crime of falsification of public
document is contrary to justice,
honesty, and good morals and,
therefore, involves moral
turpitude.8 Moral turpitude
includes everything which is
done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good
morals. It involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity
in the private duties which a
man owes his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule
of right and duty between man
and woman, or conduct contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.9
3. As a rule, this Court exercises
the power to disbar with great
caution.1âwphi1 Being the most
severe form of disciplinary
sanction, it is imposed only for
the most imperative reasons and
in clear cases of misconduct
affecting the standing and moral

25
ETHICS

character of the lawyer as an

officer of the court and a
member of the bar.10 Yet this
Court has also consistently
pronounced that disbarment is
the appropriate penalty for
conviction by final judgment
for a crime involving moral
turpitude.11

23. Santos v Conflict of 1. Funk was legal Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR 1 year A Client
Funk interest counsel for provides that a lawyer cannot represent suspen
Horcoma conflicting interests except by written sion
Foundation. consent of all concerned given after a
2. After he resigned, full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is
he filed an action undeniable that Atty. Funk was
against Horcoma formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma
representing a Foundation. Years after terminating his
different client. relationship with the foundation, he
filed a complaint against it on behalf of
another client, the Mabalacat Institute,
without the foundation's written
consent.
2. An attorney owes his client
undivided allegiance. Because of the
highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship, sound public policy
dictates that he be prohibited from
representing conflicting interests or
discharging inconsistent
duties.1âwphi1 An attorney may not,
without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person

26
ETHICS

whose interest conflicts with that of his

present or former client. This rule is so
absolute that good faith and honest
intention on the erring lawyer's part
does not make it inoperative.15

24. Medina v Gross Ignorance 1. Issued an injunction 1. Well-settled is the rule that an GUIL J Lawyers of
Judge Canoy of the Law and to transfer property injunction cannot be issued to TY of the parties
Procedure, from one person to transfer possession or control of GROS in the case
Undue another on the basis a property to another when the S
Interference and of an unclear title legal title is in dispute between IGNO
Gross 2. Delay in rendering the parties and the legal title has RANC
Inefficiency decisions not been clearly established.2 In E OF
this case, respondent judge THE
evidently disregarded this LAW
established doctrine applied in and
numerous cases when it granted UND
the preliminary injunction in UE
favor of Pagels whose legal title DELA
is disputed. When the law Y in
involved is simple and renderi
elementary, lack of conversance ng a
with it constitutes gross decisio
ignorance of the law.3 Gross n and
ignorance of the law is the accord
disregard of basic rules and ingly
settled jurisprudence.4 fine
2. A judge may also be him
administratively liable if shown Thirty
to have been motivated by bad Thous
faith, fraud, dishonesty or and
corruption in ignoring, Pesos
contradicting or failing to apply (P30,0

27
ETHICS

settled law and jurisprudence.8 00).

In the present case, the He is
following compounded STER
circumstances manifest bad NLY
faith on the part of respondent WAR
judge: (1) in his Comment with NED
Counter-Charge, respondent
judge states that he decided
after the parties submitted their
position papers, but his Order
dated 11 August 2009 indicates
that respondent spouses did not
file their position paper and the
hearing of the Affirmative
Defense was still set on 18
August 2009; (2) respondent
judge’s Order patently shows
facts not entitling Pagels to the
preliminary injunction but
respondent judge still issued it;
and (3) respondent judge did
not require petitioner Pagels to
put up a bond without sufficient
justification or showing of
exemption
3. Indeed, when the inefficiency
springs from a failure to
consider so basic and elemental
a rule, a law or a principle in the
discharge of his functions, a
judge is either too incompetent
and undeserving of the position
and title he holds or he is too

28
ETHICS
25. grave 1. Atty entered into a 1. The practice of law is
Tombocon v dishonesty, gross contract to pay
pefianco misconduct Engr a commission
constituting for referring to him
deceit and a client in one of
grossly immoral his cases. Atty
conduct. allegedly reneged
in his obligation
2. Atty left his wife to
live with his
mistress, they now
have four children.
2. Clearly, respondent has violated
vicious that the oversight or
omission was deliberately done
in bad faith and in grave abuse
of judicial authority.11
One A Party to the
considered a privilege bestowed year illegal
by the State on those who show suspen contract for
that they possess and continue sion commissio
to possess the legal n with the
qualifications for the lawyer
profession. As such, lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times
a high standard of legal
proficiency, morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing, and
must perform their four-fold
duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their
clients, in accordance with the
values and norms embodied in
the Code.11 Lawyers may, thus,
be disciplined for any conduct
that is wanting of the above
standards whether in their
professional or in their private
capacity
Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the
Code which prohibits a lawyer
from dividing or stipulating to
divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to
practice law, except in certain
29
ETHICS

cases which do not obtain in the

case at bar.
3. Furthermore, respondent did not
deny the accusation that he
abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with
whom he begot four children
notwithstanding that his moral
character as well as his moral
fitness to be retained in the Roll
of Attorneys has been assailed.
The settled rule is that betrayal
of the marital vow of fidelity or
sexual relations outside
marriage is considered
disgraceful and immoral as it
manifests deliberate disregard
of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by
the Constitution and affirmed
by our laws.13 Consequently,
We find no reason to disturb the
IBP's finding that respondent
violated the Lawyer's Oath14
and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in "unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
26. Villatuya unlawful 1. Established 1. Reprimand for the first case. Disbar A Party to the
v solicitation of consultancy firms 2. Dismissal for the 2nd case red alleged
Tabalingcos cases, violation to solicit business 3. . First, admission to the practice illegal
of the ('ode or 2. Entered into a of law is a component of the contract

30
ETHICS

Professional contract with administration of justice and is

Responsibility Villatuya whereby a matter of public interest
for nonpayment he will give because it involves service to
of fees to Villatuya a certain the public. The admission
complainant, and sum of money for qualifications are also
gross immorality every stay order qualifications for the continued
for marrying two obtained enjoyment of the privilege to
other women 3. Married 2 women practice law. Second, lack of
while while his first qualifications or the violation of
respondent’s first marriage was the standards for the practice of
marriage was subsisting. law, like criminal cases, is a
subsisting.1 Villatuya presented matter of public concern that
marriage the State may inquire into
certificates. through this Court.
4. We have in a number of cases
disciplined members of the Bar
whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated
a lack of that good moral
character required of them not
only as a condition precedent
for their admission to the Bar
but, likewise, for their
continued membership therein.
No distinction has been made as
to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his
private life. This is because a
lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere
citizen at another. He is

31
ETHICS

expected to be competent,
honorable and reliable at all
times since he who cannot
apply and abide by the laws in
his private affairs, can hardly be
expected to do so in his
professional dealings nor lead
others in doing so. Professional
honesty and honor are not to be
expected as the accompaniment
of dishonesty and dishonor in
other relations. The
administration of justice, in
which the lawyer plays an
important role being an officer
of the court, demands a high
degree of intellectual and moral
competency on his part so that
the courts and clients may
rightly repose confidence in
him.
5.

32