Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 43

LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

1
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2018 – 2019

CHAIRPERSON Catriona Janelle Gayatin


VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS Jerekko Cadorna
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMIC OPERATIONS Rodel Cadorniga Jr.
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR HOTEL OPERATIONS Emmanuel Josef Jovellanos
EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR HOTEL OPERATIONS Christian Boy Benedict Tiangco
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR FINANCE Katreena Frances Monje
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR SECRETARIAT Odette Marie Jumao-as
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR COMMUNICATIONS Maryll Ann Ragpala
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR RECRUITMENT AND MEMBERSHIP Giulia Ingrid Calub
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING John Eli Zuriel Bitong

San Beda College Alabang School of Law Administration

Dr. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III


Dean and Adviser

ATTY. Anna Marie Melanie B. Trinidad


Vice Dean

ATTY. Carlo D. Busmente


Prefect of Student Affairs

2
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

LEGAL ETHICS TEAM

Subject Head Andrei Maghirang

Members Darla Enriquez


Kath Azarias
Christian Magsino
Edward Mendoza
Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
Rhena Saranza

3
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

CASE DOCTRINES AND DIGESTS


A judge’s high and exalted position in the Judiciary requires her to observe exacting
standards of decency and competence. The acts of Judge Bandong of watching TV programs
instead of hearing cases, referring cases which is not meditable to mediation, and delegating
duties to court personnel outside the scope of their assigned job description is unbecoming of a
Judge. This is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, gross misconduct, and
violation of the Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars. (Re: Anonymous Complaints
against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507, October 9, 2017)

It is settled that a judge presiding over a branch of court is, in legal contemplation, the
head thereof having effective control and authority to discipline all employees within the
branch. Consequently, the Judge shares accountability for the administrative lapses of his staff.
(Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the Regional Trial Court, A.M. No. 16-05-
142-RTC, September 5, 2017)

Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system,
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards and tenets of
the legal profession that] the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system can be
ensured. 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. (Cesar O. Sta.
Ana, et al. Vs. Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, A.C. No. 6980; August 30, 2017)

A judge should not use his authority to make a mockery of marriage. As ajudicial officer,
he is expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. A judge is not only bound by
oath to apply the law; he or she must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so. Certainly,
judges, by the very delicatenature of their office, should be more circumspect in the
performance of their duties. A judge should know, or ought to know, his or her role as a
solemnizing officer (Ms. Florida Palma and Ms. Filipina Mercado Vs. Judge George E. Omelio, et
al., A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223, August 30, 2017).

While the same Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of a lawyer to
have a lien over the funds and property of his client as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees. A lawyer should be meticulous in handling money entrusted to him in his professional
capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client, showing that he spent the money for
the purpose intended (Wilson Chua Vs. Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez, G.R. No. 9880, November 28,
2016).

It bears to stress at this point that "every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and
concerns of his [client]. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by
the [client]. His duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his engagement as
such, and lasts until his effective release by the client. In that time, he is expected to take every

4
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his client's interests may require. (Patrick R. Fabie
Vs. Atty. Leonardo M. Real, A.C. No. 10574, September 20, 2016)

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives


rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. A lawyer also owes it to
the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair. (William G. Campos, Jr. Vs. Atty.
Alexander C. Estebal; A.C. No. 10443; August 8, 2016)

The CPR demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the
moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. A lawyer must always
account for the funds given to him and return to the client any excess received. He must also
assist in the speedy disposition of justice and avoid unnecessary delays.(Datu Ismael Malangas
Vs. Atty. Paul C. Zaide, A.C. No. 10675, May 31, 2016)

It is imperative that a judge be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of
well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion
for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the rule of law. When the law is
sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be
gross ignorance of the law. (Armando M. Balanay v. Judge Juliana Adalim White RTC, Branch 5,
Eastern Samar, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443: January 11, 2016)

A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure andshall not misuse them to defeat the ends
of justice. In addition, a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede theexecution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes. (Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr., A.C. No. 8084 (Resolution), August
24, 2015)

Public servants are not intended to deny public service to the same people who come
to court to transact business, even if they arrive a few minutes after the prescribed working
hours, when there are still court personnel present who could serve them. Neither should they be
construed as to prohibit dedicated court personnel to render genuine public service beyond the
regular office hours. "Truly, public servants at times should share a part of their extra time and
skills in order to facilitate swift delivery of service to the public." No position demands greater
moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Abarintos, A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015)

Clerks of courts are custodians of the court's funds and revenues. Any delay in its
remittance, or any shortages in the amounts, shall make the clerk of court administratively liable.
(Office of the Court Administrator v. Guan, A.M. No. P-07-2293 (Resolution), July 15, 2015)

A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to
do so. (Caoile v. Macaraeg, A.C. No. 720 (Resolution), June 17, 2015)

5
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

A lawyer’s failure to appear in pre-trial and failure to file a petition for review after
receiving payment for docket fees and being granted an extension of time constitutes
misconduct. A lawyer must serve his client diligently in ways such as appearing in pre-trial
despite intention of withdrawal from case to avoid dismissal with prejudice. He must also aid in
the speedy administration of justice and should not misstate the date in his motion. (Davao
Import Distributors, Inc. v. Landero, A.C. No. 5116 (Resolution), April 13, 2015)

Well-settled is the rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, respondent judge
may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or
incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, particularly in the
adjudication of cases. (Andres v. Nambi, A.C. No. 7158 (Resolution), March 9, 2015)

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. (Daria O. Daging v. Atty.
Riz Tingalon L. Davis, A.C. No. 9395 (Resolution), November 12, 2014)

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel andclient imposes on a lawyer
the duty to account for the money or propertycollected or received for or from the client. The
fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on the money in his handscollected for his
client does not relieve him from the obligation to make a promptaccounting. (Viray v. Sanicas,
A.C. No. 7337 (Resolution), September 29, 2014, 744 PHIL 247-256)

In issuing the assailed Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of
Possession because PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject
property as a matter of right, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The act of Judge Venadas in
taking cognizance of the motion which is fatally defective for failing to comply with the 3-day
notice rule is a blatant disregard of their right to due process which constitutes gross ignorance
of the law. (Spouses Sombilon v. Garay, G.R. Nos. 179914, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, [June 16, 2014],
736 PHIL 355-373)

Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are
expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the
court. (Felipe v. Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549 (Resolution), [December 2, 2013], 722 PHIL 439-447)

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance makes the
lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to
his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. (Cabauatan v. Venida, A.C. No.
10043, November 20, 2013, 721 PHIL 733-739)

The act of deliberately failing to file a formal offer of exhibits because of one’s belief that
the exhibits were fabricated in order that the court would refuse the same is improper since this
would violate Canon 18. The proper action was to withdraw from the case. (Spouses Warriner v.
Dublin, A.C. No. 5239 (Resolution), [November 18, 2013], 721 PHIL 277-289)

6
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly
administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of reason and common sense.
(Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. 8954 (Resolution), [November 13, 2013], 721 PHIL 53-59)

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act
as notary public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and
the administrative offices in general. (Mariano Agadan et al v. Atty Richard Baltaar Kilaan, A.C.
No. 9385, November 11, 2013, 720 Phil 625-635)

A lawyer has the duty to protect the client, at all hazards and costs even to
himself. Even if the lawyer has ceased to act as their lawyer, he still owed them his loyalty. The
end of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest in
conflict with that of the former client. (Spouses Sabitsana, Jr. v. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359,
[August 5, 2013], 716 PHIL 1-19)

Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also "conducts
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness;
or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public
welfare." Passage of time does not legitimize illicit relationship; neither does other people's
perceived tolerance or acquiescence or indifference toward such relationship. An officer of the
court, and any employee thereof for that matter, should be above reproach. (Gabriel v. Ramos,
A.M. No. P-06-2256 (Resolution), [April 10, 2013], 708 PHIL 343-353)

An inhibition must be for just and valid reason. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is
not enough ground to inhibit, especially when the charge is without basis. In this case,
complainant's imputation that her Complaint was decided by the magistrates of this Court with
extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and clearly unfounded. (Rodica v. Lazaro, A.C. No. 9259
(Resolution), March 13, 2013, 706 PHIL 279-285)

Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the client. A
recognized exception to the rule is when the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to
maintain their client’s cause and such amounted to a deprivation of their client’s property
without due process of law. In which case, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client
who suffered thereby.(Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013)

The court will out rightly dismiss a complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly
wanting in merit. It is within the Court’s discretion whether or not it is necessary fro the
complainant to file a reply and the parties need not be informed that the case is already
submitted for resolution before the Court may resolve the case. (Rodica v. Lazaro, A.C. No.
9259, August 23, 2012)

7
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member
of the bar. (Anacta v. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012)

The duty of a process server is vital to the administration of justice. A process server's
primary precisely requires utmost care on his part by ensuring that all notices assigned to him are
duly served on the parties. All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility,
competence and efficiency. (Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz,A.M. No. P-06-2241
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge. (Benancillo v. Amila, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149. March 9, 2011)

The court and its premises shall be used exclusively for court or judicial functions and not
for any other purpose. As temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must be preserved at all
times. (Ryan S. Plaza Vs. Atty. Marcelina R. Amamio, Genoveva R. Vasquez And Floramay
Patalinghug, A.M. No. P-08-2559, March 19, 2010)

Courts exist to administer justice fairly and without delay. Our overriding concern is to
eradicate the impression formed in the minds of the litigants that the wheels of justice grind ever
so slowly. We have always reminded the judges to dispose of the cases within the prescribed
period of time because we do not want the truism - justice delayed is justice denied - to lose its
meaning or relevance. (Delos Reyes v. Cruz, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2152. January 18, 2010)

A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and
integrity, and is accountable to all those he or she serves. (Hallasgo v. Commission on Audit,
G.R. No. 171340, September 11, 2009)

8
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS AGAINST HON. DINAH EVANGELINE B. BANDONG,


FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, LUCENA CITY, QUEZON
PROVINCE;
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507; October 9, 2017,

TOPIC
Competence and Diligence of Judges (Canon 6)

DOCTRINE
A judge’s high and exalted position in the Judiciary requires her to observe exacting
standards of decency and competence. The acts of Judge Bandong of watching TV programs
instead of hearing cases, referring cases which is not meditable to mediation, and delegating
duties to court personnel outside the scope of their assigned job description is unbecoming of a
Judge. This is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, gross misconduct, and
violation of the Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars.

FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received two anonymous complaints
againstPresiding Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong (Judge Bandong) of Regional Trial Court,
Lucena City, Branch 59 which was endorsed to Executive Judge EJ De Leon-Diaz for
investigation. During the investigation, the application for the optional retirement of the judge
was approved. The Executive Judge recommended that administrative charges for gross
ignorance of the law, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming of a member of the bench be
filed against Judge Bandong. The OCA found that only the allegations of watching TV programs
during trial, predilection to delegate mediation of cases to court personnel, and designation of
process server to perform duties of a clerk were supported by substantial evidence. The OCA
then recommended that since Judge Bandong can no longer be dismissed from service, in view
of her optional retirement then whatever benefits still due her from the government should be
forfeited.

ISSUE
Whether or not Judge Bandong’ was guilty for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, gross misconduct, and violation of the Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars.

HELD
Yes, the Court found Judge Bandong liable for violation of Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 6
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct due to her habit of watching television programs during
office hours. Which was prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It was also found that
Judge Bandong violated A.M No. 01-10-05-SC PHILJA when she referred the frustrated homicide
case, which is not a mediatable case, for mediation. The act of entrusting the settlement of the
case to a Court Stenographer was also not allowed under A.M No. 01-10-05-SC PHILJA. The court
held that such acts were tantamount to grave misconduct due to the flagrant disregard of the
rules. The Court also found that Judge Bandong liable for delegating the duties of the Clerk III, to

9
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

the process server whose functions are completely different from each other. This was
considered to be violative of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars.
RE: REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE SPOT AUDIT IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 170, MALABON CITY
A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC. September 5, 2017

TOPIC
Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

DOCTRINE
It is settled that a judge presiding over a branch of court is, in legal contemplation, the
head thereof having effective control and authority to discipline all employees within the
branch. Consequently, the Judge shares accountability for the administrative lapses of his staff.

FACTS
Due to reports pertaining to the alleged irregular issuance of search warrants, OCA
conducted a spot audit search warrant applications raffled to Branch 170 of Malabon RTC. In its
final report, OCA found out that Malabon RTC was not observing the guidelines in the raffle of
search warrant applications. From the records, Judge Docena failed to properly monitor the
submission of returns as required under Sec. 12(b) and (c) of Rule 126, considering that: Judge
failed to summon the applicants to explain why no return was made; there were returns filed
beyond the 10-day period to do so; and there are returns that have yet to be acted upon. It
also appears that other court personnel are found to have failed to diligently perform their
duties. There was lack of documentation of the special raffles for search warrant applications;
there are discrepancies between dates stamped on the application that were received by
Branch 170 and those entered in the OCC logbook; there are an applications acted upon by
branch 170 which did not bear any docket number, date of receipt by the OCC, date of raffle,
and date received by Branch 170.

ISSUE
Whether or not Judge Docena and other court personnel in Branch 170 are guilty of
neglect of duty for failure to diligently perform their respective administrative duties

HELD
YES. Judge Docena is liable for gross neglect of duty for the serious mismanagement of
search warrant applications in Branch 170. Judge Docena have failed to comply with their
respective administrative responsibilities under Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which provide: RULE 3.08 — A judge should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel. RULE 3.09 — A
judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service
and fidelity. It is settled that a judge presiding over a branch of court is, in legal contemplation,
the head thereof having effective control and authority to discipline all employees within the

10
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

branch. Consequently, Judge Docena shares accountability for the administrative lapses of his
staff that contributed to the clearly disorganized and inefficient dispatch of business in Branch
170.

11
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

CESAR O. STA. ANA et al. v. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES


A.C No. 6980, August 30, 2017

TOPIC
Disciplinary Action

DOCTRINE
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system,
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. It is only in living up to the very high standards and tenets of
the legal profession that] the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system can be
ensured. 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.

FACTS
A disbarment case was filed by complainants against Atty. Cortes (respondent) against
whom they imputed deceit and falsification of public documents in the sale of two parcels of
property. In a sworn letter dated August 4, 2005, complainants alleged that respondent was left
the care and maintenance of several properties either owned or under the administration of
Atty. Casal since the latter's death; that respondent abused his authority, as such administrator,
and engineered the sale or transfer of the said properties, specifically the two parcels of land
which were owned originally by their (complainants') ancestors; that on May 19, 2004,
respondent, in connivance with Cesar Inis (Inis) and Atty. Casal's alleged adopted daughter,
Gloria, and her husband, Hugh sold the above-mentioned parcels of land to the Property
Company of Friends, Inc. (PCFI). That the respondent caused the preparation of Atty. Casal
SPA, which appears to be spurious because the signature of Atty. Casal thereon was only
superimposed and that the respondent knowingly used the spurious Casal SPA and executed a
Deed of Sale in favor of PCFI involving other properties. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner for suspension of the respondent
from the practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts and conduct of the respondent warrant an administrative
disciplinary action

RULING
Yes, the Court found that the signatures on the Deeds of Donation were mere photocopies
attached to the said Deeds. By using the falsified SPA and by knowingly notarizing documents
outside of his notarial commission's jurisdiction, respondent was evidently bereft of basic integrity
which is an indispensable sine qua non of his ongoing membership, in good standing, in the
legal profession, and as a duly-commissioned notary public. In actively participating in the offer
and sale of property to PCFI, respondent was guilty of deceit and dishonesty by leveraging on
the use of a spurious Special Power of Attorney. What is more, his act of bringing the Deeds of
Donation that were executed in Carmona, Cavite, to his law office in Quezon City, and
notarizing them there, not only violated Section 240 of the Revised Administrative Code but "also
partook of malpractice of law and falsification.
12
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

PALMA VS. OMELIO


A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223. August 30, 2017.

TOPIC Code of Judicial Conduct


DOCTRINE
A judge should not use his authority to make a mockery of marriage. As a judicial
officer, he is expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. A judge is not
only bound by oath to apply the law; he or she must also be conscientious and
thorough in doing so. Certainly, judges, by the very delicate nature of their office, should
be more circumspect in the performance of their duties. A judge should know, or ought
to know, his or her role as a solemnizing officer.

FACTS
Filipina Mercado sent an email to the pio@supremecourt.gov.ph regarding an
alleged "marriage scam" in Davao City perpetrated by MTCC Judges Omelio and Ferraris.
Mercado claimed to have personal knowledge of the illegal activities of the said judges
as she was once a "fixer." Florita Palma also sent an e-mail to the
pio@supremecourt.gov.ph complaining about the alleged dishonorable conduct of
respondents Judge Omelio and his wife, Clerk of Court Ma. Florida C. Omelio, relative to
the solemnization of the marriage of a certain "Echeverria." Judge Omelio narrated that
his neighbors, Librado G. Echevarria III and Teresita P. Mapayo, went to his office,
requesting that he solemnize the marriage of their son Julius; that since they wanted a
beach wedding, he suggested that they see Judge Murcia whose court has jurisdiction
over the Island Garden City of Samal; that the Echevarrias invited him and his wife to
dinner at their house for those who were not able to attend their son's wedding; and
that during said dinner, the Echevarrias requested him to "reenact the wedding" to which
he acceded. Judge Murcia, on the other hand, insisted that his name was never
mentioned in the complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judges Omelio and Murcia are guilty of gross misconduct

HELD: Yes. AO 125-2007 provided for the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage. Judge
Murcia affixed his signature in the Marriage Contract of Julius and Khristine without
actually solemnizing their marriage. Judge Omelio's contention that he merely re-enacted
the wedding ceremony upon request was debunked by Julius' admission that it was
actually Judge Omelio who solemnized his marriage. Besides, his defense of reenactment
would not justify his infraction. As a duly authorized solemnizing officer, Judge Omelio is
expected to know that marriage should not be tried with, and its sanctity and inviolability
should never be undermined, especially by such a lame ground as picture-taking. No less
than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." Marriage should not be
trivialized, especially by the solemnizing officers themselves. Both Judges were remiss in this
regard.

13
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

WILSON CHUA vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ


A.C. No. 9880, November 28, 2016

TOPIC
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

DOCTRINE
While the same Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of a lawyer to
have a lien over the funds and property of his client as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees. A lawyer should be meticulous in handling money entrusted to him in his professional
capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client, showing that he spent the money for
the purpose intended.

FACTS
The complainant entered into a retainership agreement with the respondent for the
latter to handle all his legal problems. For these, he gave respondent the amount of P235,127.00
for the necessary filing fees. Complainant likewise entrusted to the respondent all the pertinent
documents thereto. For the last seven years prior, he had never attended a single hearing on
any case that he had assigned to respondent, save for those involving Clarita Tan and Union
Bank and in which case he was a defendant. Respondent allegedly would advise him of
upcoming hearings only to cancel them last minute. Complainant had written respondent
several times for the return of the documents he had entrusted as well as the amount of
P235,127.00. On September 24, 2003, he terminated respondent's legal services. Exasperated by
respondent's delaying tactics, complainant moved that respondent be declared in default and
that he be allowed to present evidence ex-parte. Respondent denied complainant's charges.
He further alleged that he had been pressuring the complainant for the payment of professional
services rendered by his law firm amounting to around P1.3 Million. And because of this non-
payment or failure to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement for the payment of his
professional fees, he has withheld the filing of cases on behalf of the complainant and his
companies. He also denied receiving the amount of P235,127.00 from complainant.

ISSUE
Whether or not a lawyer has the right to hold on to a client's documents, even after the
relationship of lawyer-client has been terminated

HELD
Respondent was utterly lacking in this responsibility to his client as he unfairly kept him in
the dark, misleading him for seven years. A lawyer should be cautious in handling money
entrusted to him in his professional capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from
a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client,
showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended. Respondent miserably disregarded
the mandate of accountability expected of him. The respondent's issue on the supposed non-
payment of his fees should have prompted him to seek communication with complainant and
resolve such matter. He should not have used the same as a ground for his inaction insofar as
the cases referred to him were concerned.

14
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

PATRICK R. FABIE v. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL.


A.C. No. 10574; September 20, 2016

TOPIC
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

DOCTRINE
It bears to stress at this point that "every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and
concerns of his client. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by
the [client]. His duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his engagement as
such, and lasts until his effective release by the client. In that time, he is expected to take every
reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his client's interests may require.

FACTS
Complainant Patrick R. Fabie claimed that he is the owner of a parcel of land located in
Bo. Dela Paz, Antipolo City registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. R-1971. His sister
Jaynie May R. Fabie (Jaynie May) donated the property to him in support of his intended
application for immigration either to the United States of America or Canada. However, his plan
to immigrate did not push through hence, he engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Leonardo M. Real to facilitate the return of ownership of the said property to Jaynie May.
Complainant gave respondent the necessary documents for the purported transfer of
ownership of the property as well as the amount of 40,000.00 to answer for the expenses to be
incurred in connection therewith and for respondent's professional fees.2However, more than a
year had passed without anything being accomplished. Hence, complainant sought for the
return of the items received by respondent. Respondent returned the TCT but failed to return the
40,000 with the reason that he received the documents and the money in connection with the
settlement of the estate of complainant's father Esteban for which he was employed by the
latter's heirs.

ISSUE
Whether or not Respondent should be reprimanded?

HELD
Yes. It bears to stress at this point that "every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and
concerns of his client. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by
the client. His duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his engagement as such,
and lasts until his effective release by the client. In that time, he is expected to take every
reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his client's interests may require. The Lawyer's
Oath similarly mandates a lawyer to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion, with all good fidelity to the courts and to his clients.Clearly here, respondent
failed to competently and diligently discharge his duty when he was unable to cause the
transfer of ownership of property from complainant to Jaynie May. Despite doing nothing, he
even obstinately refused to return the P40,000.00 he received as attorney's fees. His inability to
properly discharge his duty to his client makes him answerable not just to him, but also to this
Court, to the legal profession, and to the general public.
15
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

CAMPOS JR. VS ESTEBAL


A.C. No. 10443, August 8, 2016

TOPIC
CANONS 15 & 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

DOCTRINE
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives
rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. A lawyer also owes it to
the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair.

FACTS
Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Estebal to assist each of them in securing
tourist visas to the United States (U.S.). Campos paid Atty. Estebal the sum of P150,000.00.
Complainants claimed that despite receipt of their monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or
secure for them the U.S. tourist visas that he promised. Thus, they demanded for the return of
their monies. Atty, Estebal, however, failed to return the amount despite repeated demands.
Atty. Estebal posited that complainants' demand for the return or refund of their money has no
factual or legal basis at all, especially because he had invested considerable time, talent and
energy in the processing of complainants' tourist visa applications with the U.S. Embassy.

ISSUE
W/N respondent violated pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD

YES.
“CANON 15-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.”

Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he was not candid enough to tell the
complainants their chances of getting a US visa. Instead, the respondent made the
complainants believe that they will have a good chance of getting the US visa if they will be
joined with other groups. It turned out to be false. He also violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01
because he did not account for the money he received from the complainants. It is not clear to
the complainants how much is trip amount due to the respondent.

16
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

DATU ISMAEL MALANGAS VS. ATTY. PAUL C. ZAIDE


A.C. NO. 10675; May 31, 2016

TOPIC
Fiduciary relationship & Competence and Diligence (Canon 1, 16 and 18)

DOCTRINE
The CPR demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the
moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. A lawyer must always
account for the funds given to him and return to the client any excess received. He must also
assist in the speedy disposition of justice and avoid unnecessary delays.

FACTS
Datu Ismael Malangas, the complainant, was hit by two vehicles when he was crossing
Quezon Avenue, Iligan City. He underwent major operations and was hospitalized for a long
period of time and spent more than P1.5 Million for his recovery. However, he still remained bed
ridden and crippled. He engaged the services of respondent Atty. Zaide to prosecute his claim
for damages against Alfeche and NEMA. The complaint was filed by Atty. Zaide, however, the
complainant later discovered that the case was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court(RTC) for
“failure to prosecute” due to the lawyer’s failure to attend two hearings and to submit an
opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by NEMA. Complainant asked Atty. Zaide to file a
motion for reconsideration but Atty. Zaide instead filed a withdrawal of appearance as counsel.
Complainant then accused respondent of committing acts of dishonesty. Respondent claimed
he has never received any acceptance fee and that that as a mere associate he had no
participation regarding the fees the complainant is giving to the office. An investigation was
made and Commissioner Cachapero of the IBP Commission on bar Discipline reported that
respondent was guilty of dishonesty and breach of trust and recommended his suspension for
two years. The IBP Board of Governors approved the report.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent was guilty of professional misconduct.

HELD
Yes, respondent is guilty and he has violated Canons 1, 16 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He violated Canon 16 by refusing to account for the funds given to
him. He cannot claim to have had no participation regarding the fees since the excess docket
fees given to him were meant to be advance fees for his services. It should be noted that the
CPR demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted
to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. He violated Canon 18 when deliberately failed
to file a comment on the motion to dismiss and appear in the hearings of the case. This caused
the undue delay of the case.

17
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

ARMANDO M. BALANAY vs. JUDGE JULIANA ADALIM WHITE, RTC, Branch 5, Eastern
Samar,.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443: January 11, 2016

TOPIC
A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules

DOCTRINE
It is imperative that a judge be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of
well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion
for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the rule of law. When the law is
sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be
gross ignorance of the law.

FACTS
Complainant filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a verified Affidavit-
Complaint charging respondent with gross ignorance of the law for allowing Adamas six
furloughs despite being charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 10-07, a non-bailable offense.
Worse, respondent granted Adama's motions without requiring the prosecution to comment or
giving it opportunity to be heard thereon. Complainant likewise charged respondent with serious
misconduct in precipitately dismissing Criminal Case No. 10-07 by declaring that the prosecution
had no witnesses to present when the records showed otherwise. According to the
complainant, the prosecution witnesses were not able to attend the hearing on July 22, 2010
because they were not duly notified. In fact, he and his son were willing to testify provided they
are placed under the witness protection program. Respondent denies the allegations and prays
that the complaint be dismissed and petitioner be charged with contempt

ISSUE
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and serious
misconduct?

HELD
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting ex
parte motions to allow Adama’s temporary liberty without setting the same for hearing. If
hearing is indispensable in motions for bail, more so in this case where the motions for the
temporary liberty of Adamas were filed without offering any bail or without any prayer that he
be released on recognizance. Besides, the reasons relied upon in said motions – to allow
Adamas to attend the Sangguniang Bayan sessions – had already been rebuked by this Court.
A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural rules. It is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware
of well-settled authoritative doctrines. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be gross ignorance of the law

18
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

SALABAO VS. VILLARUEL


A.C. No. 8084. August 24, 2015.

TOPIC
Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

DOCTRINE
A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice. In addition, a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes .

FACTS
Complainant filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for his deceitful or fraudulent
conduct of taking her real property situated in Taguig City. The RTC of Pasig City issued its
resolution in her favor. Respondent entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio.
Complainant complained that Respondent abused processes and disregarded her rights as
a litigant. According to Complainant, the RTC issued its resolution in her favor. In order to
delay the case, Respondent brought the case on appeal to the CA. The CA decided in
her favor but Respondent again filed an appeal before the SC. Lumberio lost and the
case became final and executory. Respondent tried to defer the execution of the decision
of the RTC by bringing to the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment. When rebuffed,
he again appealed to the SC sans a clear or new arguments other than what he had
presented before the CA. Still, Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul
the Order of the RTC before the CA which was however dismissed. Once again
Respondent filed a new complaint before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon. Respondent also
filed several Motion, Inhibition and Contempt to delay the resolution of the case. He
likewise filed an administrative case against Judge Ygaña of RTC of Taguig City.
Complainant filed this case for abuse of processes pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02
of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR. Respondent denied the accusation
and clarified that the several pleadings he had filed had centered on the legality of the
court's decision ordering the cancelation of the title of Lumberio in such ordinary
proceeding for cancelation of the title.

ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent is administratively liable for his actions

HELD: Yes, a lawyer’s primary duty is to the administration of justice in accordance with
Canon 12 of the CPR. Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win
consider that justice be done to all parties involved, and the lawyer for the losing party
should not stand in the way of the execution of a valid judgment. In this case, the
judgment in favor of complainant had become final and executory. However, respondent
proceeded to file twelve (12) motions and cases in various courts subsequent to the Entry
of Judgment. From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear
that respondent's intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment. It is quite
clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court
processes.
19
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ANA MARIE ABARINTOS


A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015

TOPIC
Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty

DOCTRINE
Public servants are not intended to deny public service to the same people who come
to court to transact business, even if they arrive a few minutes after the prescribed working
hours, when there are still court personnel present who could serve them. Neither should they be
construed as to prohibit dedicated court personnel to render genuine public service beyond the
regular office hours. "Truly, public servants at times should share a part of their extra time and
skills in order to facilitate swift delivery of service to the public." No position demands greater
moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary.

FACTS
This administrative complaint stemmed from an anonymous letter addressed to Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona charging respondent Anna Marie Abarintos, of tampering the date of
receipt of the Petition for Review. Respondent allegedly made it appear that said pleading was
timely filed on November 4, 2010 to favor her husband's kumpadre who filed it. In the same
letter, respondent was likewise accused of taking the ATM card of her officemate, Records
Officer II Elizabeth Gilos, and withdrawing therefrom P10,000.00 without the latter's knowledge
and consent. According to respondent, the anonymous letter does not deserve the attention of
this Court and that the same has caused undue stress and pain to her father-in-law, Associate
Justice Abarintos. Thus, on February 14, 2011 she resigned from the Court of Appeals. The OCA
opined that respondent is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for
having received a pleading beyond office hours and without authority to do so. Anent the
unauthorized withdrawal, it agreed with the Investigating Justice that respondent is guilty of
grave misconduct, with the modification that the same also constitutes dishonesty.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty

HELD: No. The charge of tampering is not supported by sufficient evidence. There is no showing
that said pleading was actually filed on November 5, 2010, but that through respondent's
intervention or manipulation she changed the date and made it appear that the same was
seasonably filed on November 4, 2010. As regards respondent's alleged lack of authority, no
office order or memorandum was, however, cited or presented to establish that only the court
personnel in the Receiving Section, to the exclusion of all others, are authorized to receive
pleadings. Put differently, there is no proof that respondent, who is the head of the Judicial
Records Division, is prohibited from receiving pleadings. Since it has not been established that
respondent is forbidden to receive pleadings, she should not be administratively held liable for
doing so. Furthermore, we cannot subscribe to the recommendation of the OCA that
respondent's receipt of subject pleading several minutes after office hours raises a presumption
that she used her office to extend a favor to a litigant.

20
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JOEBERT C. GUIAN, former Clerk of Court,
Bulan, Sorsogon.
A.M. No. P-07-2293 (Resolution), July 15, 2015

TOPIC
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

DOCTRINE
Clerks of courts are custodians of the court's funds and revenues. Any delay in its
remittance, or any shortages in the amounts, shall make the clerk of court administratively liable.

FACTS
A financial audit of the books of accounts of MTC, Bulan, Sorsogon covering the period
July 28, 1993 to August 31, 2004 disclosed that: (1) some collections were not properly and
accurately recorded in the cashbooks; (2) there were shortages in the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund in the amounts of ₱48,207.10 and ₱5,l
16.00, respectively; p~ (3) the financial reports on the JDF, General/Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund (SAJF) and Fiduciary Fund (FF) were not regularly submitted to the Accounting
Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA); (4) the records control is not systematic;
(5) no legal fees forms were attached to the case records; (6) daily transactions in the FF
account were not duly recorded in the cashbooks; and, (7) documents needed to validate
withdrawals of cash bonds from the Municipal Treasurer’s Office (MTO) of Bulan were missing..
On January 29, 2007, the Court issued a Resolution adopting the recommendation of the OCA.
In addition, this Court held in abeyance any claim of Guan for separation benefits pending
resolution of the administrative matter against him. Subsequently, Guan wrote the Court a letter7
dated March 12, 2007 requesting that the monetary value of his leave credits be applied as
payment for his accountability amounting to 53,323.10.He explained that he could no longer
account for the shortages because some of the records pertaining thereto, as well as his
Judiciary and General Fund reports, could no longer be found.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is GUILTY of gross neglect of duty

HELD

Yes. Guan's accountabilities were either due to unreported or undeposited collections or


to deposited collection but with lacking documentation."Gross neglect of duty is classified as a
grave offense and punishable by dismissal even if for the first offense pursuant to Section
52(A)(2) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. While Guan
had already been dropped from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL) in A.M.
No. 06-5-171-MTC, he still remains administratively liable."Clerks of Court are the custodians of the
courts’ ‘funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises.’ They are ‘liable for any loss,
shortage, destruction or impairment’ of those entrusted to them. Any shortages in the amounts
to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance ‘constitute gross neglect of duty for which
the clerk of court shall beheld administratively liable.’

21
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

CAOILE VS MACARAEG
A.C. No. 720 (Resolution), June 17, 2015

TOPIC
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

DOCTRINE
A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to
do so.

FACTS
Francisco, and four others, engaged the services of Atty. Macaraeg to represent them in
Civil Case No. 11119. Accordingly, Atty. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal. Thrice he moved for
extension of time to file appellants' brief. In his last motion for extension,he alleged that he was
already in the process of doing the finishing touches on the brief and just needed to have it
printed. Yet, the extended period expired without Atty. Macaraeg filing any brief. Hence, upon
motion of the opposing party, the CA dismissed the appeal.The dismissal became final and
executory on December 13, 1963.Francisco averred that they were unaware of the dismissal of
their appeal until they were served with the CFI’s writ of execution and a notice of sale at public
auctionof their property in 1965. In his defense, Atty. Macaraeg denied Francisco’s accusation
that he neglected their case because he constantly reminded Francisco to give him the
amount necessary to cover the costs of the transcript and printing of the appeal brief.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent violated pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD
YES. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable” In this case, a considerable length of time had elapsed from the time Atty.
Macaraeg filed the notice of appeal on August 30, 1962 up to the time he filed the third motion
for extension of time to file brief on October 5, 1963. Despite the passage of such time, however,
Atty. Macaraeg still failed to file the brief, which resulted in the dismissal of his clients’ appeal.
Hence, failure to do so without any reasonable excuse violates the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

22
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. LANDERO,


A.C. No. 5116 (Resolution), April 13, 2015

TOPIC
Duty to assist in the Speedy and Efficient administration of Justice (Canon 12)

DOCTRINE
A lawyer’s failure to appear in pre-trial and failure to file a petition for review after
receiving payment for docket fees and being granted an extension of time constitutes
misconduct. A lawyer must serve his client diligently in ways such as appearing in pre-trial
despite intention of withdrawal from case to avoid dismissal with prejudice. He must also aid in
the speedy administration of justice and should not misstate the date in his motion.

FACTS
Landero purchased on installment the air-conditioner from Davao Import Distributors,
Inc., the complainant, to install in her beauty salon in the building owned by Du. Librando failed
to pay and closed down the salon only leaving the air-conditioner unit behind. Du refused to
release the unit to the complainant alleging that it was a lien on Librando’s unpaid rental, so
complainant engaged the services of respondent Atty. Landero against Librando and Du for the
recovery of one split-type air-conditioner before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of General
Santos City. Respondent failed to appear in pre-trial and the representatives of the company
were not informed by respondent so they did not also appear. The case was dismissed. Du was
allowed to present evidence ex-parte and eventually won the case. Complainant gave
respondent P1,900 to file a petition for review but respondent only filed a motion for extension
and still failed to file the same within the given period hence the appeal was dismissed. A
complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent. Investigating Commissioner Villanueve-
Maala recommended respondent’s suspension since it was found that he was found negligent
in the performance of his duty. It was also found that he stated in his motion for extension that he
received the decision of the RTC at a later date to make it appear that he filed his motion in
time. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent displayed unprofessional behavior and misconduct

HELD
Yes, the Court held that respondent’s deliberate failure to appear in pre-trial and failure
to file a petition for review after receiving payment for docket fees and being granted an
extension of time constitutes misconduct and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR). Under Canon 18 of the CPR, a lawyer must handle the client’s case with zeal and due
diligence. Even if respondent’s claim that his client already agreed to abandon the case, he
should have still appeared in pre-trial to formally move for withdrawal. He should have been
aware that if the dismissal was upon motion of the plaintiff, then it would have been without
prejudice, as opposed to what occurred in the case which was with prejudice due to his
absence in pre-trial. The act of respondent of misstating the date when he received the RTC
decision was found to be violative of Canon 12.
23
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

ANDRES V. NAMBI
A.C. No. 7158. March 9, 2015

TOPIC Disbarment

DOCTRINE
Well-settled is the rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, respondent judge
may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or
incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, particularly in the
adjudication of cases.

FACTS
Respondent Labor Arbiter Atty. Nambi rendered a decision in a labor case against
respondents therein, M.A. Mercado Construction and Sps. Mercado. An Alias Writ of Execution
was issued to implement the decision. Thereafter, the complainants in the labor case filed an Ex
Parte Motion for Amendment of an Alias Writ of Execution, claiming that they could hardly
collect the judgment award from the respondents because it allegedly transferred its assets to
M.A. Blocks Work, Inc. Thus they prayed that the Alias Writ of Execution be amended to include
M.A. Work, Inc. and all its incorporators/stockholders. Respondent granted the motion to amend
the alias writ of execution and accordingly an Amended Alias Writ of Execution was issued. By
way of special appearance, M.A. Blocks Work, Inc., together with three of its stockholders who
are complainants in this administrative case, filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Amended Alias
Writ of Execution, contending that the are not bound by the judgment as they were not parties
to the labor case. Upon denial of their Urgent Motion to Quash, the complainants filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Nambi on the ground of gross ignorance of
the law in issuing an Amended Alias Writ of Execution against herein complainants who are not
parties to the case. IBP adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner to suspend Atty. Nambi from the practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for gross ignorance of the law and of
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD
NO. Respondent should not be held accountable for committing an honest mistake.
Well-settled is the rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or
malice respondent judge may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct,
ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and
duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases. Further, to hold a judge administratively
accountable for every wrong decision he renders would be nothing short of harassment and
would make his position doubly unbearable. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office
untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of the
administration of justice can be infallible in his judgment. Although respondent is not liable for
gross ignorance of the law, a penalty of reprimand shall be imposed upon him for his willful
disobedience of lawful order of the court

24
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS


A.C. No. 9395 (Resolution), November 12, 2014

TOPIC
Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional ResponsibilityA lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.

DOCTRINE
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.

FACT
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She
leased from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio City where
she operated the bar. Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis &
Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty.
Sabling). This eventually resulted in the signing by the complainant, the respondent and Atty.
Sabling of a Retainer Agreement.Because complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly
rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Respondent and Pinlac went to complainant's music bar,
inventoried all the equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the
operation of the bar.Complainant likewise alleged that she filed an ejectment case against
Pinlac and Balageo and at that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her counsel as their
Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent appeared as
counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed, on behalf of the latter, and respondent
denied the allegations of the petitioner

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent represented conflicting interest

HELD
Yes. This Court held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party
who has engaged the services of his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and
suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's argument that he never took
advantage of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of its professional dealings
with the complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably aware of the
fact that complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately informed
both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law firm, cannot
represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting
interests and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have
simply advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another
lawyer.

25
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

VIRAY VS. SANICAS


A.C. No. 7337. September 29, 2014.

TOPIC Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

DOCTRINE
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a
lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from
the client. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money in his
hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the obligation to make a prompt
accounting.

FACTS
Complainant engaged the services of respondent relative to a labor case he filed
against spouses Lopez. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of complainant. An Alias Writ of
Execution was issued relative to the aforesaid decision. During the implementation of said
writ, complainant discovered that respondent had already collected the total amount of
P95,000.00 from spouses Lopez and that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez that he is
authorized to receive payments on his behalf. Complainant made several verbal demands to
respondent to remit to him the amount of P95,000.00, less his attorney's fees of P20,000.00. But
respondent did not budge. Respondent admits that he received P95,000.00 from spouses Lopez
on installments, but denies that he was not authorized to accept it. He explains that
complainant agreed to pay him additional attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total
monetary award, on top of the attorney's fees that may be awarded by the labor tribunal, and
to refund all expenses respondent incurred relative to the case. Respondent whines that this
amount (i.e. P56,000.00) is way below the promised 25% attorney's fees and refund of expenses
in the total amount of P72,275.13.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to promptly
account to his client the funds

HELD
Yes. The CPR demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with
the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. Rule 16.01 of the
Code imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 thereof mandates that a lawyer shall deliver
the funds of his client when due or upon demand. Respondent never informed the
complainant of the partial payment nor rendered an accounting thereon. It was only when
an Alias Writ of Execution was issued and being implemented when complainant
discovered the payment for the monetary awards. Worse, respondent withheld and refused
to deliver to the complainant said amount, which he merely received on behalf of his
client, even after demand. Such failure on the part of the respondent to render an
accounting and return the money after demand raises the presumption that he
converted it to his own use.

26
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON vs. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY
ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY vs. JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS SR.
G.R. No. 179914, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, June 16, 2014

TOPIC Ignorance of the Law of a Judge

DOCTRINE
In issuing the assailed Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of
Possession because PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject
property as a matter of right, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The act of Judge Venadas in
taking cognizance of the motion which is fatally defective for failing to comply with the 3-day
notice rule is a blatant disregard of their right to due process which constitutes gross ignorance
of the law.

FACTS
In 2005, Sps. Sombilon sought the help of Atty. Garay, and who happens to be the owner
of a lot adjacent to the property.Sps. Sombilon told Atty. Garay that they wanted to
reacquirethe property from PNB, but had no money to repurchase it.Thus, they were hoping that
he would agree to advance the money and, in exchange, they promised to sell him the 331-
square meter portion of the property. Atty. Garay together with spouses Sombilon went to
PNB;they were informed by the bank that the property could be purchased at the fair market
value. The following day, Atty. Garay went to the bank alone and offered to buy the property
by making a down payment of 20% of the purchase price. Upon learning that Atty. Garay
intended to purchase the entire property for himself, Sps. Sombilon offered to buy back the
property from PNB. The bank advised them to make a 10% down payment of the bank's total
claimto formalize their offer. PNB approved the purchase offer of Atty. Garay since Sps. Sombilon
failed to make the required down payment. On July 14, 2005, Judge Venadas, issued an
Orderholding the implementation of the Writ of Possession. Atty. Garay filed a Verified Complaint
against Judge Venadas, Sr., when he proceeded with the hearing of Sps. Sombilon's motion for
reconsideration despite lack of notice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Venadas committed grave abuse of authority and grave
misconduct

HELD: There are instances when the issuance of the Writ may be deferred, we find none of these
exceptions present in the instant case. Thus, there was no reason for Judge Venadas, Sr. to hold
the implementation of the Writ of Possession. He committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the assailed Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession because
PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject property as a matter of
right. Records show that Sps. Sombilon failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the
required proof of service embodied in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,
thereby rendering the motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas, Sr. still took
cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon, depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their right
to due process

27
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

FELIPE v. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL


A.C. No. 4549 (Resolution), December 2, 2013

TOPIC
Disregard of the lawful orders of this Court

DOCTRINE
Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are
expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the
court.

FACTS
In their Petition, complainants alleged that they are co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. A-95-
22906 pending before Branch 216 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City while respondent is
the counsel for the defendants therein; that respondent committed dishonesty when he stated
in the defendants Answer in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 that the parties therein are strangers to
each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-brothers and half-sisters of
complainants; and that they filed a criminal case for Perjury against the defendants in Civil Case
No. A-95-22906 docketed as Criminal Case No. 41667 pending before Branch 36 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.Complainants also alleged that respondent
introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence in Civil Case No. A-95-22906;
and that they filed another Perjury charge against the defendants in Civil Case No. A-95-22906
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, docketed as I.S. No. 95-15656-A.Next,
complainants averred that respondent knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading captioned as
Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction; that said pleading
is not in accordance with the rules of procedure; that the said filing delayed the proceedings in
Civil Case No. A-95-22906; and that they filed a Vigorous Opposition to the said pleading.
Complainants insisted that by the foregoing actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer
and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay complainants the amount of P500,000
representing the damages that they suffered. The IBP ruled that the issue of relationship should
be done in civil case not in this administrative case. Clearly, the issue of filiation must be settled in
those proceedings, and not in this administrative case.Therefore, court dismissed the petition but
reprimanded the respondent for he did not file any answer to the accusation.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent should be reprimanded?

HELD
Yes. Respondent’s unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court constitutes utter
disrespectfor the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for
lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to
stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court. As an
officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of
the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers
28
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

CABAUATAN VS VENIDA
A.C. No. 10043, November 20, 2013

TOPIC
CANON 18.3 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

DOCTRINE
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance makes the
lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to
his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.

FACTS
Complainant alleged that she was the appellant in CA-G.R. [No.] 85024 entitled Aurora
Cabauatan, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. Philippine National Bank, Defendant-Appellee. The case was
originally handled by a different lawyer but she decided to change her counsel and engaged
the services of the Respondent x x x. Complainant was then furnished by the Respondent of the
pleadings he prepared, such as "Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and
a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum. “From the order itself, it is obvious that
Respondent did not submit any pleading with the Court of Appeals. It is likewise very noticeable
that the Respondent was not among those furnished with a copy of the Entry of Judgment
hence it is crystal clear that he never submitted his Entry of Appearance with the Court of
Appeals [insofar] as the case of the Complainant is concerned. When the Complainant was
following up on the status of the case with him, Respondent assured the Complainant that he
was doing his best in dealing with the case, nevertheless, later on Complainant lost contact with
him.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent violated pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD
YES. Rule 18.03 provides that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” In this case, it is beyond
dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to handle her case which was
then on appeal before the Court of Appeals. However, respondent merely showed to
complainant the draft of the pleading "Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous
Counsel and a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum" but failed to file the same
before the appellate court. Therefore, respondent had been remiss and negligent in handling
the case of his client; he neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant and
he is liable therefor.

29
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

SPOUSES WARRINER V. DUBLIN


A.C. NO. 5239 (RESOLUTION), November 18, 2013, 721 PHIL 277-289

TOPIC
Competence and Diligence & Duty to Serve client only within the bounds of law (Canon
18 & 22)

DOCTRINE
The act of deliberately failing to file a formal offer of exhibits because of one’s belief that
the exhibits were fabricated in order that the court would refuse the same is improper since this
would violate Canon 18. The proper action was to withdraw from the case.

FACTS
Complainant spouses Warriner filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty.
Dublin for gross negligence and dereliction of duty before the Office of the Bar Confidant. It was
alleged that they availed of the services of respondent for a complaint for damages against E.B.
Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. before the RTC of Davao. Respondent allegedly asked for a 10-day
period to submit his formal offer of documentary evidence and after such period belatedly filed
the formal offer which was denied by the court and subsequently the complaint was dismissed.
Respondent requested an extension for 30 days to file his comment on the administrative
complaint, however, two years have lapsed and no comment was filed. A show because order
was made however, respondent continually ignored such directives even with the increasing
fine. The court resolved to order his arrest until he complies. After eight years from the lapse of
prescribed period, respondent claimed that he doubted the veracity of complainant’s claim
against the company and that the complainant fabricated the evidence. He claimed that he
should not be administratively liable since his belated filing was done to protect the legal
profession. The Court did not find the explanation satisfactory. The Investigating Commissioner
found respondent guilty of mishandling the case in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended his suspension for a period of six months. The IBP Board of
governors approved with modification the recommendation and added that respondent
showed his propensity to defy the orders of the court

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is guilty of mishandling the case

HELD
Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility under Canon 18 requires the respondent to
serve his client with competence and diligence. The act of deliberately failing to file a formal
offer of exhibits because of one’s belief that the exhibits were fabricated in order that the court
would refuse the same is improper. The proper action was to withdraw from the case since this is
allowed under Canon 22. It was also found out that respondent had the propensity to defy court
orders and processes considering that he filed his comment after eight years had lapsed and
when he was ordered to be arrested.

30
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores
A.C. No. 8954. November 13, 2013

TOPIC
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

DOCTRINE
The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly
administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of reason and common sense.

FACTS
Respondent Atty. Flores was counsel for defendant in a suit for damages filed before
MTC presided by complainant judge Manahan. During the Preliminary Conference respondent
filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged from the
records without prejudice to the filing of another. The preliminary conference was reset several
times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial Brief. Giving respondent a last
chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered a
waiver on his part, respondent filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely
superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance. During the preliminary
conference, respondent manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE,
however respondent again failed to appear and to submit the said promised proof of MCLE
compliance. In its stead, respondent filed a letter stating that he is no longer interested in the
case and have asked the defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him. Judge
Manahan issued an order whereby she voluntarily inhibited from hearing the case. Said Order
shows respondent’s unethical actuations which is ground for disciplinary action. Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) deemed the pronouncements of Judge Manahan as a formal administrative
Complaint against Atty. Flores. The investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give
due respect to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the MCLE requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings;
thus recommending that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law. OBC adopted the
findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Flores should be held liable for his acts

HELD
YES. Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his MCLE
compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed
intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be
circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts. Atty. Flores failed in this respect. However, considering that this is Atty. Flores’
first infraction, a penalty of suspension is not commensurate, hence it is deemed proper to only
fine the respondent.

31
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

MARIANO AGADAN ET AL. vs. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN


A.C. No. 9385, November 11, 2013

TOPIC
Notarial Law, Rule 1.01 Code of Professional Responsibility

DOCTRINE
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act
as notary’s public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and
the administrative offices in general.

FACTS
Complainants Mariano Agadan et al., filed before the IBP a Complaint against
respondent Atty. Kilaan for falsification of documents, dishonesty and deceit. They alleged that
Atty. Kilaan intercalated certain entries in the application for issuance of Certificate of Public
Convenience to operate public utility jeepney filed before the LTFRB by substituting the name of
the applicant from Gary Adasing to that of Joseph Batingwed; that Atty. Kilaan submitted false
and/or insufficient documentary requirements in support of Batingwed's application for CPC.
Respondent denied intercalating the entries in the application for CPC. He averred that once
an application has been filed, the application and all accompanying records remain with the
LTFRB and could no longer be retrieved by the applicant or his counsel; as such, it is highly
improbable for him to intercalate the entries therein. Atty. Kilaan noted that complainants filed
the instant suit in retaliation for the dismissal of their Opposition to the application for CPCs which
he filed on behalf of his other clients. Investigating Commissioner opined that respondent must
be punished for making it appear that he notarized a document, the Verification, when in truth
and in fact, the entry in his Notarial Registry shows a different document. In his Motion for
Reconsideration filed before the IBP Board of Governors, Atty. Kilaan passed on the blame to his
secretary for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register. He asserted that being a
private practitioner, he is burdened with cases thus he delegated to his secretary the job of
recording the documents which he notarized in his Notarial Register.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct

HELD
A Notary public is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in his Notarial
Register. The Court is not persuaded by respondent's explanation that he is burdened with cases
thus he was constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his Notarial Register to
his secretary. Notaries public must observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of
their duties.the respondent's failure to make the proper entry or entries in his Notarial Register of
his notarial acts, his failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts,

32
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent
evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyer's commission as a notary public.

SPOUSES SABITSANA VS. MUERTEGUI


G.R. No. 181359. August 5, 2013.

TOPIC Attorney’s fees

DOCTRINE
A lawyer has the duty to protect the client, at all hazards and costs even to
himself.Even ifthe lawyer has ceased to act as their lawyer, he still owed them his loyalty. The
end of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest in
conflict with that of the former client.

FACTS Alberto Garcia (Garcia) executed an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of


respondent Juanito Muertegui (Juanito) over a lot located at Leyte del Norte covered by
a tax declaration issued in Garcia's name. Juanito's father Domingo Muertegui, Sr.
(Domingo Sr.) and brother Domingo Jr. took actual possession of the lot and planted
thereon coconut and ipil-ipil trees. They also paid the real property taxes on the lot.
Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer, petitioner Atty. Sabitsana, through a
notarized deed of absolute sale. The sale was registered with the Register of Deeds. A
new tax declaration was issued in Atty. Sabitsana's name. Although Domingo Jr. and Sr.
paid the real estate taxes, Atty. Sabitsana also paid real property taxes. He introduced
concrete improvements on the property, which shortly thereafter were destroyed by a
typhoon. When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for registration and coverage
of the lot under the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141). Atty. Sabitsana opposed the
application, claiming that he was the true owner of the lot. Juanito filed a civil case for
quieting of title and preliminary injunction, against herein petitioners Atty. Sabitsana and
his wife, Rosario, claiming that they bought the lot in bad faith and are exercising acts
of possession and ownership over the same, which acts thus constitute a cloud over his
title.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Sabitsana was remiss in his duties as counsel to the Mertegui family
HELD: Yes. Instead of advising the Muerteguis to register their purchase as soon as possible
to forestall any legal complications he took advantage of the situation and the
information he gathered from his inquiries and investigation, he bought the very same lot
and immediately caused the registration thereof ahead of his clients.Petitioner Atty.
Sabitsana took advantage of confidential information disclosed to him by his client. He
rushed the sale and registration thereof ahead of his client. As the family lawyer, he
should not have use the information disclosed to him in confidence that would place him in
possible conflict with his duty. He may not, for his own personal interest, gamble on his
client's word, believing it at one time and disbelieving it the next.Even if Atty. Sabitsana has
ceased to act as their lawyer, he still owed them his loyalty. The end of attorney-client relation
provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest in conflict with that of the former
client.
33
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

PO2 PATRICK MEJIA GABRIEL vs. SHERIFF WILLIAM JOSE R. RAMOS


A.M. No. P-06-2256, April 10, 2013

TOPIC
Conduct of Officers of the Court

DOCTRINE
Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also "conducts
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness;
or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public
welfare." Passage of time does not legitimize illicit relationship; neither does other people's
perceived tolerance or acquiescence or indifference toward such relationship. An officer of the
court, and any employee thereof for that matter, should be above reproach.

FACTS
On August 22, 2005, Ramos destroyed personal belongings inside the house of
Consolacion Dela Cruz Favillar, the mother of his common-law-wife, Jenelita Dela Cruz and
thereafter indiscriminately fired a gun outside the said house. Thus, Ramos was charged with
Alarms and Scandals and Violation of Domicile. Complainant also claimed that Jenelita is
Ramos's mistress for 15 years already and that they have two children. Complainant opined that
the foregoing act and conduct of Ramos, who is a public officer, offends the morality and sense
of decency of the people in the locality. Anent the charge of immorality, Ramos admitted his
common-law relationship with Jenelita but denied living under scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock common decency. He argued that their relationship having spanned
15 years already and the fact that they have two children dispel any vestiges of immorality. He
asserted that these charges are harassment suits calculated to cow him to desist from pursuing
the criminal actions he filed against PO2 Gabriel and his cohorts before the Office of the
Prosecutor. Court issued a Resolution requiring Ramos to submit his updated Personal Data Sheet
and authenticated copies of his marriage certificate and birth certificates of his children. In
compliance, Ramos submitted authenticated copies of his Marriage Contract with Berlita A.
Montehermoso and the Certificate of Live Birth of their son Kim Montehermoso Ramos. He also
submitted his updated Personal Data Sheet.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct

HELD: His barefaced admission and justification of his relationship with another woman despite
his subsisting marriage to another is proof of his immoral conduct. Ramos showed his moral
indifference to the opinions of respectable members of the community by attempting to
rationalize his illicit relationship with Jenelita. However, such attempt fails as this Court agrees
that the justifications proffered are inconsequential, distorted and misplaced. The illicit
relationship between a married man and a woman not his wife will remain illicit notwithstanding
the lapse of considerable number of years they have been living together. Indeed, Ramos has
long been living an immoral life and his distorted belief that he has not been doing so puts in
question his sense of morality, or the standard of morality he lives by. An officer of the court, and
any employee thereof for that matter, should be above reproach.

34
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA vs.ATTY. MANUEL "LOLONG" M. LAZARO, ATTY. EDWIN M.


ESPEJO, ATTY. ABEL M. ALMARIO, ATTY. MICHELLE B. LAZARO, ATTY. JOSEPH C. TAN, and
JOHN DOES,
A.C. No. 9259 (Resolution), March 13, 2013

TOPIC
Inhibition of Judges

DOCTRINE
An inhibition must be for just and valid reason. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is
not enough ground to inhibit, especially when the charge is without basis. In this case,
complainant's imputation that her Complaint was decided by the magistrates of this Court with
extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and clearly unfounded.

FACTS
In her Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition, complainant argues that this
Court unfairly ignored the supporting affidavits attached to the Complaint and that this Court
should expressly declare whether it is lending credence to said affidavits or not and why.
Complainant next claims that this Court deviated from usual practice and procedure when it
proceeded to resolve the disbarment Complaint after the separate Comments of the
respondents have been filed without giving her the opportunity to file a Reply. She also faults the
Court for deciding the case without first declaring the same to have already been submitted for
resolution. To her, this constitutes denial of due process.5Lastly, complainant asserts that this
Court’s reference to her Affidavit supposedly executed on July 21, 2011 as ‘un-notarized’ was
misplaced. She also insists that the Court’s observation that the withdrawal of pending cases
should not have been limited "to the RTC case,"6 is erroneous considering that there were no
other pending cases to speak of at that time. She also maintains that the Court erroneously
gave the impression that the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Kalibo had already become
final

ISSUE
WON the justices should inhibit themselves for their alleged partiality

HELD
No. An inhibition must be for just and valid reason. The mere imputation of bias or
partiality is not enough ground to inhibit, especially when the charge is without basis. In this case,
complainant's imputation that her Complaint was decided by the magistrates of this Court with
extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and clearly unfounded.

35
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

DIONA VS BALANGUE
G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013

TOPIC
Denial of legal remedies on the part of the client due to the fault of the lawyer.

DOCTRINE
Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the client. A
recognized exception to the rule is when the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to
maintain their client’s cause and such amounted to a deprivation of their client’s property
without due process of law. In which case, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client
who suffered thereby.

FACTS
Petitioner claims that the CA erred in partially annulling the RTC’s Decision. She contends
that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be availed of only when the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the claimant. In the present case, however, respondents had all the
opportunity to question the Decision of the RTC, but because of their own inaction or
negligence they failed to avail of the remedies sanctioned by the rules. Respondents maintain
that it was through no fault of their own, but through the gross negligence of their former
counsel, Atty. Coroza, that the remedies of new trial, appeal or petition for relief from judgment
were lost. They allege that after filing a Motion to Extend Period to Answer, Atty. Coroza did not
file any pleading resulting to their being declared in default.

ISSUE
W/N the respondent loses ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies because of the fault of his lawyer.

HELD
NO. While under Section 2, Rule 47of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. In the
case at bar, respondents’ former counsel was grossly negligent in handling the case of his clients
so respondents did not lose ordinary remedies of new trial, petition for relief, etc. through their
own fault. Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the client.
A recognized exception to the rule is when the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to
maintain their client’s cause and such amounted to a deprivation of their client’s property
without due process of law. In which case, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client
who suffered thereby.

36
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

Rodica v. Lazaro
A.C. No. 9259 August 23, 2012

TOPIC
Discretion of the Court to dismiss case on disbarment

DOCTRINE
The court will out rightly dismiss a complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly
wanting in merit. It is within the Court’s discretion whether or not it is necessary fro the
complainant to file a reply and the parties need not be informed that the case is already
submitted for resolution before the Court may resolve the case.

FACTS
Complainant Rodica filed a disbarment case against respondents Atty. Manuel, Atty.
Espejo, Atty. Almario, Atty. Michelle, and Atty. Tan. The complaint was dismissed and the
complainant filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that that the court ignored the
supporting affidavits attached to the complaint It was also claimed that she was denied due
process when the Court resolved the complaint after the separate comments of the
respondents have been filed even though she was not given the opportunity to reply, as well as
when the court decided the case without declaring the same have already been submitted for
resolution.

ISSUE
Whether or not the complainant was denied due process

HELD
No, it was held that the Court will outrightlydismiss a complaint for disbarment when on its
face, it is clearly wanting in merit. In the case, the court did not outrightly dismiss the case,
rather, it conducted a judicious study of the record and determined that the presumption of
innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome. The Court need not require the
complainant to file a reply since to do so or not is within the discretion of the court. Also, the
court may resolve the case without informing the parties that the case is already submitted for
resolution

37
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

ANACTA vs. RESURRECCION


A.C. No. 9074. August 14, 2012

TOPIC
Disbarment

DOCTRINE
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member
of the bar.

FACTS
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on her behalf a petition for
annulment of marriage for which she paid a sum of money. Respondent misrepresent that he
had already filed a petition, even went to the extent of presenting to complainant a supposed
copy of petition duly filed with the court. After he was found out, he made himself scarce. He
ignored all communications sent to him by the complainant. A complaint for disbarment was
filed against Atty. Resurreccion for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice. Despite receipt
of summons, respondent disregarded the proceeding before the IBP. The Investigating
Commissioner found clear and convincing evidence that respondent was guilty of deceit and
dishonesty, thus recommending that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law
and to reimburse the pocketed amount to the complainant. IBP adopted and approved the
findings.

ISSUE
Whether or not the penalty of suspension is proper and not disbarment

HELD
YES, respondent should only be meted the penalty of suspension as properly
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. Pursuant to Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney in any of the
following circumstances: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice; 3) gross misconduct; 4) grossly immoral
conduct; 5) conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude; 6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; 7)
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or 8) corruptly or willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The supreme penalty of
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. “While we will not
hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the
evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish
the desired end.” In this case, we find suspension to be sufficient sanction against respondent

38
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN vs. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ


A.M. No. P-06-2241 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P), July 10, 2012

TOPIC Integrity of Court Processes

DOCTRINE The duty of a process server is vital to the administration of justice. A process server's
primary precisely requires utmost care on his part by ensuring that all notices assigned to him are
duly served on the parties.All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility,
competence and efficiency.

FACTS Complainant alleged that Dela Cruz submitted belated and false returns of service of
notice. In particular, she claimed that Dela Cruz received an Order relative to a Criminal Case
on December 9, 2005 but served the same to the parties only on March 23, 2006. She also
alleged that Dela Cruz submitted false returns relative to another Criminal Cases. According to
Complainant, Dela Cruz stated in his return of service in some Criminal Cases that the accused
therein was no longer residing at the given address. However, during pre-trial, this was denied
by the accused who declared in open court that they have not transferred residence. Anent in
another case, Dela Cruz likewise indicated in his return of service that therein accused is no
longer residing at his given address and that the houses thereat have already been demolished.
However, during the scheduled pre-trial, the complainant manifested that the accused who is
her neighbor still resides at his given address and that his house is still standing thereon.
According to Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin, the aforesaid acts of Dela Cruz were unbecoming,
undesirable, dishonest and even more reprehensible, undermined the integrity of the court
processes and tarnished the trustworthiness of the court employees and of the judiciary.Dela
Cruz denied the allegation.

ISSUE Whether or not Dela Cruz submitted false returns which amounts to dishonesty

HELD No, he is merely guilty of simple neglect of duty. The duty of a process server is vital to the
administration of justice. A process server's primary duty is to serve court notices which precisely
require utmost care on his part by ensuring that all notices assigned to him are duly served on
the parties. Unjustified delay in performing this task constitutes neglect of duty and warrants the
imposition of administrative sanctions. We find such an excuse unsatisfactory.Otherwise, every
government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty will always use this as a
convenient excuse to escape punishment to the great prejudice of public service.As regards
the returns filed relative to the Criminal Cases, Dela Cruz did not deliberately or intentionally
make such erroneous entries. As Dela Cruz explained, he merely relied on the persons whom he
interviewed when he went to the given addresses. We are inclined to give credence to said
explanation considering that no ill-motive, malice or corruption was imputed upon Dela Cruz. It
was never alleged, much less established, that Dela Cruz was impelled by some evil design or
corrupt motives to commit said errors or to favor any party or litigant. Hence, we find him guilty
only of simple neglect of duty in the performance of his tasks, and not of dishonesty.

39
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

BENANCILLO VS. AMILA


A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149. March 9, 2011.

TOPIC
Sections 1 and 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary

DOCTRINE
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge.

FACTS
The complainant avers that Branch 1 of RTC Tagbilaran City, acting as then Family
Court in Tagbilaran City, issued a TPO against her live-in partner, Belot. The TPO included a
directive to Belot to turn over to her personal effects, including properties in their diving
business called Underworld. Their business partners filed a motion for intervention with
respect to the said properties. Respondent judge denied the motion. The complainant
states that respondent judge constantly ruled in her favor as he consistently held that the
intervenors had no legal personality in the case. However, respondent judge refused to
enforce the TPO. The complainant claims that the respondent judge called her and her
counsel to a meeting in his chambers. They agreed to the meeting but they did not
proceed when they learned that the intervenors were joining them. Subsequent to the
meeting with the intervenors, respondent judge issued an Order which rescinded his
previous Order. According to the complainant, the respondent judge's conduct smacks of
impropriety and partiality. Respondent judge claimed that the complainant was motivated
by her insatiable greed to have exclusive control and possession pending trial of the case
of all the subject properties and that the complainant is only a live-in partner of respondent
with no specific address who was branded repeatedly by Belot as a 'prostitute' and 'only
after his money'.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge

HELD: Yes. Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges shall
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Section 6
thereof provides that judges are entitled to freedom of expression, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity
of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary. Respondent
judge acted inappropriately in calling the complainant and the intervenors to a meeting
inside his chambers. This act of respondent judge would logically create an impression to
complainant that the meeting of the judge with the intervenors had turned his views
around towards issuing a revocation of the October 2, 2007 Order. Furthermore, it is
reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays lack of
patience. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his language

40
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

RYAN S. PLAZA vs. ATTY. MARCELINA R. AMAMIO, GENOVEVA R. VASQUEZ and


FLORAMAY PATALINGHUG
A.M. No. P-08-2559, March 19, 2010

TOPIC
Purpose of Court premises

DOCTRINE
The court and its premises shall be used exclusively for court or judicial functions and not
for any other purpose. As temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must be preserved at all
times.

FACTS
On July 25, 2007, Ryan S. Plaza (Plaza), Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of
Argao, Cebu, filed a complaint against Atty. Marcelina R. Amamio; Genoveva R. Vasquez and
Floramay Patalinghug, of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Argao, for intentional violation of
Administrative Circular No. 3-92, when they allowed Sara Lee, a private company selling beauty
and fashion products, to hold a party and raffle draw inside the Argao Hall of Justice on July 14,
2007. The respondents do not deny that they allowed the holding of the Sara Lee raffle draw on
July 14, 2007 at the ground floor lobby of the Argao Hall of Justice, but only after respondents
Amamio and Vasquez had fully discussed the matter upon receipt of the letter dated June 4,
2007 of Mrs. Virginia C. Tecson, business manager of the Fuller Life Direct Selling and Personal
Collection, requesting permission to hold the raffle draw of Sara Lee at the Argao Hall of Justice.
The respondents argue that similar activities had been held before at the Argao Hall of Justice.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents violated Administrative Circular No. 3-92 bby allowing
the holding of a raffle draw in the lobby of the Argao Hall of Justice

HELD
As correctly noted by the OCA, respondent Amamio exceeded her authority in taking it
upon herself to grant the request of Sara Lee's representative, instead of referring the letter to
the Executive Judge to whom it was addressed anyway. Indeed, the holding of a raffle draw at
the Argao Hall of Justice by the staff of Sara Lee degraded the honor and dignity of the court
and exposed the premises, as well as the judicial records to danger of loss or damage. In
Administrative Circular No. 3-92, we have already reminded all judges and court personnel that
"the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and
operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use. The Court
described courts as "temples of justice" and as such, "their dignity and sanctity must, at all times,
be preserved and enhanced." The Court thus exhorted its officials and employees to strive to
inspire public respect for the justice system by, among others, not using "their offices as a
residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions." The fact the Argao Hall of
Justice had been used for similar activities does not justify the holding of the raffle draw thereat.

41
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

Thus, the Argao Hall of Justice is not meant to be used for festivities, and in fact should remain
closed to the public during such occasions.

LUMINZA DELOS REYES, VS JUDGE DANILO CRUZ


A.M. No. RTJ-08-2152. January 18, 2010

TOPIC
Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct Competence and Diligence are
prerequisites of judicial office

DOCTRINE
Courts exist to administer justice fairly and without delay. Our overriding concern is to
eradicate the impression formed in the minds of the litigants that the wheels of justice grind ever
so slowly. We have always reminded the judges to dispose of the cases within the prescribed
period of time because we do not want the truism - justice delayed is justice denied - to lose its
meaning or relevance.

FACTS
The instant administrative case stemmed from a letter-complaint filed by complainant
Luminza Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes) against respondents Judge Danilo S. Cruz (Judge Cruz) and
Clerk of Court V Godolfo R. Gundran (Clerk of Court Gundran), both of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City, Branch 152, for dereliction of duty. Specifically, Judge Cruz is charged with delay in
the disposition of LRC Case No. R-5740[1] while Clerk of Court Gundran is charged with failure to
timely transmit the records of said case. In her letter-complaint dated March 13, 2008,
complainant alleged that she is the defendant in LRC Case No. R-5740 pending before Branch
152 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. She claimed that on March 25, 2004, Judge Cruz
issued an Order giving the parties 15 days within which to file their respective memorandum
after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. The parties complied; hence, on
April 9, 2004 the case was deemed submitted for decision.However, it was only on July 30, 2007,
or more than three years since the case was submitted for resolution, that a decision in the said
case was rendered. However, despite the lapse of more than six months from the time the
appeal was filed, respondent Clerk of Court Gundran still failed to transmit the records to the
appellate court in violation of Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent is GUILTY of undue delay

HELD
Yes. We find unacceptable Judge Cruz’s justification that the delay was partly due to
heavy pressure of work. Precisely, a judge is mandated to resolve cases with dispatch. Section 5,
Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct[6] categorically exhorts all judges to perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness. In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro
City, we declared that: The burden of heavy case load cannot excuse them from doing their

42
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Judges burdened with heavy
caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to
decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty.

HALLASGO VS COA
G.R. No. 171340, SEPT 11, 2009

TOPIC
Gross Misconduct in Public Service

DOCTRINE
A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and
integrity, and is accountable to all those he or she serves.

FACTS
Petitioner was the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Damulog, Bukidnon. She
was accused before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao of unauthorized
withdrawal of monies of the public treasury amounting to malversation of public funds by
outgoing and incumbent officials of the municipality.In brief, the Affidavit-Complaint claimed
that petitioner, Badic and Luis were liable for the following acts: (1) making unrecorded
withdrawals from the municipalitys bank account totaling P360,000.00 without the required
supporting documents; and (2) failing to liquidate cash advances despite the lapse of over a
year, in the amount of P171,256.00. Later, all these allegations were proven by the audit team.
On 22 October 2002, the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao issued a Decisionfinding petitioner
guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. However, the charge against Luis was dismissed.

ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct and shall be dismissed from
service.

HELD
YES. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by
a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty. Qualified by the term gross, it
means conduct that is "out of all measure beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct
as is not to be excused. In this case, as the treasurer of the municipality, it is petitioner’s duty to
perform her responsibilities diligently, faithfully, and efficiently. A public servant is expected to
exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity, and is accountable to all those
he or she serves. It is in this spirit that we convey our deep disdain for all those whose actions
betray the trust and confidence reposed in public officers, and those who attempt to conceal
wrongdoing through misdirection and blatantly belated explanations. Therefore, petitioner is
hereby found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and is ordered DISMISSED from service

43
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2018 Centralized Bar Operations

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi