1. Payod vs Atty.

Metila

Facts:

Atty. Metila failed to submit important documents to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the serious
consequences brought by such act became prejudicial to the case of Lea Payod. Payod said they made
sufficient follow ups with Atty. Metila but the latter failed to show up in appointed meetings at
the Court. Pagod thereafter charged Atty. Romeo P. Metila for willful neglect and gross misconduct in
the discharge of her duties.

Atty. Metila denied the charges and insisted that the case was referred to him six days before the period
to perfect an appeal to the SC expired, without supplying him with any document bearing on the case
other than the Court of Appeals resolution denying Lea’s motion for reconsideration. He concludes there
was no attorney-client relationship between him and Lea, there being no Special Power of Attorney
authorizing her mother to hire him as a lawyer in her behalf.

After investigation, IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, to which the complaint was referred, found
respondent guilty of simple negligence and recommended that he be seriously admonished and
required to undergo three units of MCLE in Remedial law for his failure to update himself with the
developments in the legal profession and for the cavalier manner by which he denied the existence of
an attorney-client relationship when one in fact existed.

Issue: WON the failure of Atty. Metila to submit documents to the CA constitute constitutes gross
negligence

Held: Yes, In failing to comply with the requirements in initiating complainant’s appeal before this SC
even after his attention to it was called by this Court, respondent fell short of the standards required in
the Canon of Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to "keep abreast of legal developments"6and
"serve his client with competence and diligence. That Lea’s mother did not have a Special Power of
Attorney to hire respondent on Lea’s behalf is immaterial, given that he actually initiated the appeal,
albeit unsuccessfully.

It need not be underlined that a lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill,
and competence, and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable

However, The circumstances attendant to respondent’s initial handle of Lea’s case do not warrant a
finding of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort on his part to defend her cause.

Here, Respondent accepted Lea’s case upon her mother’s insistence, with only six days for him to file a
petition for review before this Court, and without her furnishing him with complete records, not to
mention money, for the reproduction of the needed documents. Despite these constraints, respondent
exerted efforts, albeit lacking in care, to defend his client’s cause by filing two motions for extension of
time to file petition. And he in fact filed the petition within the time he requested, thus complying with
the guideline of this Court that lawyers should at least file their pleadings within the extended period
requested should their motions for extension of time to file a pleading be unacted upon.
Neither do the circumstances warrant a finding that respondent was motivated by ill-will. In the absence
of proof to the contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith in his favour.

2. Collantes vs Renomeron AC No 3056

Facts:

In 1987, V & G had requested the respondent Register of Deeds to register some 163 deeds of sale with
assignment of lots of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers. There was no action from the
respondent. Although V & G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the
registration of the documents pending compliance by V & G with a certain “special arrangement”
between them. Fed up with the respondent’s extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter
challenging him to act on all pending applications for registration of V & G within twenty-four (24) hours.
Respondent then formally denied registration of the transfer of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on
the uniform ground that the deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to parties and
subject matter. Respondent elevated the matter en consulta to the Administrator, LRA. Exasperated by
respondent’s conduct, the complainant filed with the NLTDRA on June 4, 1987 administrative charges
against respondent Register of Deeds. LRA Administrator Teodoro recommended to Secretary of Justice
that the respondent be reprimanded and be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely. After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez found respondent guilty
of grave misconduct, recommended to the President that Renomeron be dismissed. Thereafter, Atty.
Collantes also filed in this Court a disbarment complaint against said respondent.

Issue: WON the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for his
malfeasances as a public official.

Held:

Yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his lawyer’s oath. An oath
imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer’s oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks (Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
requires public officials and employees to process documents and papers expeditiously and prohibits
them from directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the
course of any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office, the Code of
Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct, or delay any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest"
 3. Pimentel vs Llorente AC No. 3056

Facts:

Complainant was then a candidate during the May 8, 1995 elections. He filed this complaint against
respondent Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, in their capacity as members of the Pasig
City Board of Canvassers, for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer’s
oath. Complainant alleges that respondents tampered with the votes received by him, with the result
that, as shown in the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC), other senatorial
candidates were credited with votes which were above the number of votes they actually received
while, on the other hand, petitioner’s votes were reduced. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming
that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or
fatigue.

Issue: WON respondents are guilty of misconduct.

Held:

Yes, a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of
Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government
service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood.
It may be added that, as lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater
obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust.

4. Berenguer vs Florin AC No. 5119

Facts: Sometime in April 1998, a notice of coverage was issued by the DAR regarding the
acquisition of their landholding pursuant to CARP. The Berenguers protested and applied for the
exclusion of their land with the DAR and for a notice to lift coverage. The DAR Secretary, without
acting on the application for exclusion, cancelled the Berenguers’ certificates of title on the land
and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award3 (CLOAs) in favor of the members of the
Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG). The Berenguers
filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of DAR. While the case was pending appeal, BARIBAG
filed a petition for the implementation of the Order before the Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (RARAD). This was granted by Florin, as RARAD and directed the issuance and
implementation of the Writ of Possession. Thereafter, the Berenguers appealed to the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB). Florin issued a Resolution, which granted BARIBAG’s Motion for
the Appointment of a Special Sheriff and ordered the issuance of the writ of possession prayed
for.
 Thereafter, the complainants filed the instant Complaint for the disbarment of respondents
Florin, Jornales, in his capacity as Assistant Regional Director for DAR, and Vega, in his capacity
as DAR Legal Officer V for knowingly rendering unjust judgement, orders, and resolutions
adverse and prejudicial to the interest of petitioners.

Issue: WON Atty. Florin violated Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes, Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.
However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.

This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the
utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of
their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public.

For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which
might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty
and fair dealing.1âwphi1 Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.

Here, Florin, being part of the quasi-judicial system of our government, performs official
functions of a RARAD that are akin to those of judges. Accordingly, the present controversy may
be likened that of a judge whose decision, including the manner of rendition, is made subject of
an administrative complaint. Further, the Orderof DAR Regional Director Dalugdug denying the
Berenguers’ application for exclusion from CARP is yet to become final and executory as it was
seasonably appealed to the DAR Secretary. There is also nothing in the records that will show
whether BARIBAG posted a bond pursuant to the Rules. Florin’s issuance of the writ of
execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional Director Dalugdug’s Order
clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a rule, a writ of execution is issued only after the
subject judgment or order has already become final and executory. As aptly stated by IBP
Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such writs despite the pendency of the
appeal with the DARAB. Consequently, the Court finds merit in the recommendation of
suspension.

5. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, AC No. 6788

Facts: This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. Jose Imbang for multiple violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In 1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty.Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the
spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a
receipt for P5,000 only. Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the
Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait
outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been
cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent
charged her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any case against the
Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

Held: Yes, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as
they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who
owe utmost fidelity to public service. Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases
for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices.

Here, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he
was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt
confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover,
the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer.
Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession. As a PAO lawyer,
respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with
the office's mission.

6. Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation officer, received

US$20,000 from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in
complainant’s application for visa and failing to return the same, respondent denied
misappropriating the said amount, claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted complainant and children in their application for visa. He failed however to substantiate
suchdenial.

Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could not immediately be returned to the
complainant, and promised her several times that he would repay her out of his personal funds.
He even issued personal post-dated checks on this, but which later bounced.

Issue: WON respondent’s conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and merits
the penalty of disbarment.

Held: Yes, lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more
restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. It is undisputed that respondent
admitted having received the US$20,000 from complainant as shown by his signatures in the
petty cash vouchers and receipts he prepared, on the false representation that that it was
needed in complainants application for visa with the BID. Respondent denied he
 misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a certain
Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa in the BID.
Such defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. While he
claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not present the death certificate of said Atty.
Mendoza. Worse, the action of respondent in shifting the blame to someone who has been
naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright ignominious.

Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in
government service from promoting their private interest. Promotion of private interest
includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval
of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondents conduct in
office betrays the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, especially from
one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from
any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a
high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a
keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than his brethren in private practice.

7. Cuenca vs CA, GR No. 109870

Facts:

After his petition for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction for violation of
the "Trust Receipts Law" was denied by the Court,petitioner filed on July 6, 1994 a pleading entitled
"SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITH MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Issue: WON petitioner be granted motion for new trial.

Held: Yes, Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors who
represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the
accused but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary
action.

8. Misamin v. San Juan, AC No. 1418

Facts:

Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the proceeding
before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends
that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his
appearance as counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds provided by the
Rules of Court for the suspension

Issue: WON the administrative case against the defendant should prosper
Held: No, The court ruled that the matter is to be decided in an administrative proceeding as noted in
the recommendation of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless, the court held that while the charges have to
be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all
appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from
living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of
whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in
the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated
but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should
not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar should refrain from
laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by
him but also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession
who does not even take care that hishonor remains unsullied.

9. Lahm v. Mayor, AC No. 7430

Facts: On 5 September 2006, a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission against the members of the
Board of Trustees of the International School, Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the
respondent, Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion
for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which the
complainants, Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter, the respondent issued an
Order directing the parties in the said case to maintain the status quo ante, which consequently
reinstated Toze to his former position as superintendent of the International School Manila. Despite the
complainants’ motion for an early resolution of their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent
maintained his Order. Thus, the complaint praying for the respondent’s disbarment for alleged gross
misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.

Issue: WON respondent violated canon 6 of the CODE of professional responsibility

Held: Yes, by the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall
apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyers
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.

This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost
fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their
professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.

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. 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. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to
simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. Here, we find the
respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Under the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the
labor arbiters no longer has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining orders. The role of the labor arbiters, with regard to the issuance of writs of preliminary
injunctions and/or writ of preliminary injunction, at present, is limited to reception of evidence as may
be delegated by the NLRC. The foregoing rule is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. However,
the respondent, in violation of the said rule, vehemently insist that he has the authority to issue writs of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

In stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order contrary to the clear import of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC,
the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Is the respondent guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath?

10. Ali vs Atty. Bubong, AC No. 4018